On Oct. 17th, 1979 the unconstitutional Department of Education Organization Act was approved, and it is time to not only close this unconstitutional federal agency down but end federal funding to the unconstitutional National Endowment for the Arts, and the unconstitutional National Endowment for the Humanities.
Closing down these three blatantly unconstitutional federal agencies would leave in the pockets of America’s taxpayers about $68 billion per year.
How do I know these federal agencies are not only unconstitutional, and survive by devouring about $68 billion from the people’s treasury? I know it is true because a review of historical documentation, including the debates during which time our constitution was framed, confirms the fact.
Upon researching the record of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we find Delegate Charles Pickney, on August 18th, proposed a broad power “To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences”, but this proposal was rejected by the Convention in favor of a limited grant of power expressed in Article 1, Section 8, Cl.8, of the proposed constitution. The limited power, later agreed upon by ratification of our Constitution authorizes Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. And how may this be done by the terms of our Constitution? Our Constitution states explicitly ”… by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Additionally, and with respect to the above mentioned spending, Representative Page’s words, spoken on Feb.7th, 1792 elaborates on the suffering we now experience by our Constitution being subverted.
"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page (enter 194 in the small box at the top of the page)
We must also take into account that our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, was specifically adopted “. . . in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (our newly created federal government’s) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. SOURCE
And let us not forget that Madison, in Federalist 45, summarizes the division of federal and state powers as follows:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
So, by what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted power to tax and spend $68 billion per year on the institutions mentioned above who openly participate in indoctrination, propaganda, and advocate for sexual deviant behavior?
JWK
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
Closing down these three blatantly unconstitutional federal agencies would leave in the pockets of America’s taxpayers about $68 billion per year.
How do I know these federal agencies are not only unconstitutional, and survive by devouring about $68 billion from the people’s treasury? I know it is true because a review of historical documentation, including the debates during which time our constitution was framed, confirms the fact.
Upon researching the record of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we find Delegate Charles Pickney, on August 18th, proposed a broad power “To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences”, but this proposal was rejected by the Convention in favor of a limited grant of power expressed in Article 1, Section 8, Cl.8, of the proposed constitution. The limited power, later agreed upon by ratification of our Constitution authorizes Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. And how may this be done by the terms of our Constitution? Our Constitution states explicitly ”… by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Additionally, and with respect to the above mentioned spending, Representative Page’s words, spoken on Feb.7th, 1792 elaborates on the suffering we now experience by our Constitution being subverted.
"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page (enter 194 in the small box at the top of the page)
We must also take into account that our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, was specifically adopted “. . . in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (our newly created federal government’s) powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”. SOURCE
And let us not forget that Madison, in Federalist 45, summarizes the division of federal and state powers as follows:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
So, by what wording in our federal Constitution has Congress been granted power to tax and spend $68 billion per year on the institutions mentioned above who openly participate in indoctrination, propaganda, and advocate for sexual deviant behavior?
JWK
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
