Number of times the word “power” is written directly or implied in the U.S. Constitution: 47.
Number of times the word “liberty” is written or implied in the body (sans Amendments) of the U.S. Constitution: 0
Number of times the word “rights” is written or implied in the body (sans Amendments) of the U.S. Constitution: 0
- The Constitutional Convention was assembled to take a closer look at the Articles of Confederation, it was not authorized to put together an entirely new document, giving enormous power to a central government that until that point did not exist
- The entire delegation from Rhode Island, when showing up at the Convention only to find that the statists Federalists had ignored the mission to examine the A of C, and instead had begun work on a Constitution, left the convention. Look at the signatories on the Constitution, not a single signature from Rhode Island. Also, most of the New York delegation did the same thing.
- Rather than having the Constitution ratified by a direct vote of the people it was about to take control over, or rather than having the Constitution ratified by the votes of the standing state legislatures, the 7th Article of the Constitution indicated that the Constitution would be ratified by special state constitutional conventions, whith authority outside the legislatures and the people. Of course, the Federalists I am sure had no input or influence as to who ended up being represented in those conventions.
I never signed up to be governed by this monstrosity. It is a sham that our children learn in government schools about the legitimacy of its creation, about its meekness in the face of the awesome power of government, and the careful consideration by the crafters. My children will not be so duped. But even if you did want to acquiesce to the legitimacy of the document, it has not exactly been upheld and defended for the last 221 years.
So, dear lovers of government, you seem to have three major problems in convincing future generations about the importance of the Constitution:
- It was never really about safeguarding liberty, rights and sovereignty, but about increasing power.
- Its creation was far from being legally legitimate.
- Even if you prove 1 and 2 to be wrong, whatever safeguards are in it have been systematically trashed by statist Congress and Executives and an activist Supreme Court.
The author has stated his facts incorrectly. If you read Federalist 40 you’ll read the actual RESOLUTION from Congress. You’ll see the resolution which has no force of law did not mention the Articles of Confederation but instead said “the constitution.” As shown by this article, http://www.nolanchart.com/article6449.html the convention did not violate the laws in place at this time and in fact followed them to the letter.
As to his point number 3. Please go to http://www.foavc.org and read how this can be corrected.
I would respectfully disagree with the interpretation of Federalist 40. In either case, my point remains – the Constitution was drafted in a far different spirit than the document it replaced (the A of I) and the document that supposedly inspired the authors (the D of I). It represented an accretion of federal power that has continued to this day, and I would argue that this is not a simple thing to be corrected.
[…] we look to the Constitution, a flawed document thought it is, it would seem to indicate that the reason to hold a decennial census is to make sure […]