I agree with the article. The fundamental problem with the 17th Amendment is
this: because U.S. senators no longer work for, or represent their state
governments, states have lost any meaningful voice or political influence over
the national government. The Framers understood this, which is precisely why
their original intent was for the Senate to protect the sovereignty of the
states against this very kind of encroachment. The document the Founders
provided is much different than the one our government is now operating under.
Restoration of constitutional principles as envisioned in the original document
is the solution.
I enjoyed the words of Utah's Senator Orrin Hatch: "Brilliant as the
Founders were, they could not fully envision our day. "Strict
construction" suggests looking backward to their time and basing new law on
society as it was then. But society will never be as it was then...the
Constitution is America's North Star - a fixed beacon by which our nation
can always navigate safely, as generations of mariners have done on the open
seas. We need to understand the original intent of the Founding Fathers, and
factor in unique changes two centuries later."I made a goal to
read and study and understand the American Constitution this year. It has been
a privilege to do so and I hope God will guide our hearts and hands to use its
principles to bless us all.
The original form of the Constitution of the United States was based upon
intensive study of government forms to derive a system designed to sustain and
protect basic human rights. The genius of it was to locate government decision
making to the largest degree possible, close to those involved in the
consequences of the government action. The concerns that some perceive to be
flaws in the original Constitution were deliberate limitations on centralized
power in matters known by the founders to be best considered, argued and decided
at local levels in the towns, cities, and states. Citizens in the individual
communities were to decide the issues in the manner that most suited their
unique locale and populations. The usurpation of these decisions into the
distant and insensitive federal government has caused the abuses of individual
liberty through hyper-regulation, financial burdens and the destruction of the
unity and distinctive moral character and culture of communities. We do need to
reaffirm the value of self-governed people and declare their independence of big
government manipulations. We need new amendments to overturn the ill-considered
amendments that removed power from the people and placed it in petty,
bureaucracies and bureaucrats. Yes restore!
One area of constitutional restitution would be the prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment. Privately managed prisons may be saving us in taxes, but
look at the daily life inside there. Reforming? Not likely. Cruel and
unusual, very likely.
Dump rake: your posting about the Constitution not being taught in schools, in
and by itself, is so inaccurate that I had to answer. It is taught n high
schools. As a high school teacher of American History I can tell you it is
taught. 12th graders must take a semester class of American Government in which
the Constitution is taught. A State of Utah graduation requirement. Please
before anyone else makes a posting like this have your facts correct.
In my experience the agreements and disagreements posted here are over different
perspectives of the same history. It's very difficult to find masses of
people in the U.S. that have the same understanding of the history of the
Constitution. It concerns and disappoints me to hear the self-righteous
attitudes of some on here, who think because of their education, they, and only
those with similar education, are the only ones qualified to discuss the matter.
While everyone should be welcome to the conversation, the education provided
students in today's universities on the subject of the Constitution (with
any depth, this usually revolves around case law from 1900 on), is just simply
corrupt, and does not necessarily qualify you on the subject. An in-depth study
of the Founders' intent for the Constitution, by their own words (not a
Harvard, Yale, Columbia Progressive) reveals a very different story than what is
being taught in our schools. I've spent thousands of hours studying this
subject from the Founders' view, and from modern views - Mr. Jackson's
assessment is absolutely correct. I believe if we all sat down and shared
information long enough, we would eventually agree.
I'm glad to see an article advocating the Constitution the Founding Fathers
gave us. I agree with William Gladstone when he said, "The American
Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at
a given time by the brain and purpose of man."
This is an excellent article! JOHN C.C. from payson - We can and should
"restore" the constitution by repealing ammendmants that have destroyed
the rights of the states and the protection for the people that it used to
provide. Repeal the 16th and 17th ammendmants!
Thank you Al for your insightful article. This is obviously a product of
in-depth study of the US Constitution from the viewpoint of our Founding
Fathers. History has a way of repeating itself because people refuse to learn
from the past. At a time when our nation is in rapid decline, we would be wise
to learn from our Founders who faced tyranny, believed in God, and sought His
inspiration in creating the best form of government known to man. The Constitution is an inspired document. The Bill of Rights provides a great
example of amendments used to clarify the meaning of the Constitution. However,
amendments that were added in the late 1800s and 1900s were created by less
inspired men and altered the protective chains of the Constitution to open the
door for tyranny. The original Constitution provided for a strong government at
a local, state, and federal level but protected us from BIG government where all
power resides in a single authority. At this time, when our liberty is at stake,
we would all be better off if we studied the Founding Fathers and the incredible
Constitution they provided for us.
The problem is this: the U.S. Constitution is no longer taught--anywhere. It is
not taught in elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, or
college--it is gone from the classroom. It has been replaced by Black Studies,
ESL, and a myriad of silly, social engineering nonsense. The constitution is not
respected because it is not taught, nobody knows the first thing about it
anymore. And worse, we have a president who disdains the constitution, who does
not like it because it limits his power. Exactly! And we have a supreme court
infected with justices who have such a bizarre understanding of the constitution
that they seriously, now, consider legal opinions from other countries when
ruling upon cases in the United States. And we've allowed the United
Nations to replace the constitution as the dominate discussion point on most
every topic. The UN is so lost in a wasteland of contradictions, it's
embarrassing. Correcting this will require the complete replacement of our
educational system, top to bottom.
The ignorance hear is mind boggling. Words have meaning. The constitution is
what is is and if you don't know the meaning of the words, you have
partisanship bickering over issues that are already answered in this document.
If you don't understand words, or don't believe in it, then write a
new one, get rid of it, but don't say that you believe in it, then espouse
ideas that have nothing to do with it. That is arrogance and pride. Ignorance
of the consitution and its meanings is no excuse. It was written for a anyone
with a limited reading ability to understand. It doesn't need to be
quibbled about, rewritten, or complained about. It is the best charter for
freedom the world has ever known. Protect, defend it, and read it. Let the
pundits, the corrupt politicans, and arrogant manipulators tell us what they
think it means or want it to mean. It is simple. Just follow it and quit
I don't know of any other way to put it. I have a difficult time believing
that all of those folks who are ranting about the Constitution have actually put
much time into the study of it. However, I find it easy to believe that those
same people have donated lots of effort studying other folks' commentary on
the subject. Read the Constitution and associated case law,
including Supreme Court decisions. Second-hand opinions from pseudo experts
isn't good enough, not on a subject this important.
"KDaveMoab, UTSorry Blue devil. If one is fined by one of these
Fed agencies (States have them too), you are deemed guilty unless you can prove
your innocence"That would be completely true if before you were
fined you were not notified of the issue before hand. But in most cases, if not
all, the one being fined knows well and good this is coming at them. The idea
that the government one day out of the blue and just fines you... doesn't
happen that way very often. I have had my own "misunderstandings" with
the IRS, and not one time was the issue not able to be resolved. But maybe I am just lucky....
You can't both support the Constitution and oppose its amendments. They
are the Constitution. You don't "restore" the
Constitution. You are for it the way it is written, you are against it, or you
propose another amendment.The author makes as much sense as a member
of an anti-government militia calling himself a "patriot."
There was only one brief moment when the U.S. economy constituted 50% of world
GDP. That was immediately following WWII, when most other industrial powers lay
in ruins. Our share of world GDP today is in the low 20% range, just about where
it was in 1900.
I wish the Author would tell us what his education and qualifications are in
support of his views on the Constitution.
Let's see, . . . "The Constitution they gave us resulted in only 6
percent of the world's population producing over half of the wealth of the
world in less than 100 years from its inception." Is the Constitution solely
responsible for this? Seems a little overstated."As a result [of
both houses being beholden to the people], our national debt is an astonishing
$16 trillion, we're over-regulated, over-taxed and over-burden with
problems that Washington, D.C., is incapable of fixing." No, the national
debt is $16 trillion because of unnecessary tax cuts, loose regulation on Wall
Street, and two ill-advised wars. And we're not overtaxed or overregulated.
We're actually undertaxed and underregulated in many significant ways."Problems such as . . . regulation of businesses . . . are better
solved at the state and local level." Even when they involve multinational
corporations? What a naive view of reality.Yes, "the system is
broken," but the Constitution doesn't need to be restored; it needs to
be revised to make it more relevant to the 21st century, which has issues the
Framers didn't account for because they lived in a primitive, agrarian
The Constitution needs revision to negate the effects of the Citizens United
decision. We now have the best government(s) that money can buy. Wake up
people before democracy ends, if it hasn't already.
Sorry Blue devil. If one is fined by one of these Fed agencies (States have
them too), you are deemed guilty unless you can prove your innocence. If you
don't have $100,000 or so laying around to use to fight the Fed Gov. that
is just too bad for you. You may call that "due Process, I don't.
I found 19 resolutions that the present Congress proposed for "balanced
budget amendments." Fourteen of these House and Senate resolutions were
presented by Republicans, and the Flag Desecration amendments,the
Christian amendments, the Human Life amendments, the School Prayer
amendments, the Pledge of Allegiance amendments, Equal Opportunity
to Govern [the Arnold Schwarzenegger for President] amendments, repeal the
17th amendment amendment, Federal Marriage amendment, repeal the
22nd amendment amendment, I could go on and on....The
point is this; For those who SAY they are the ones protecting the
Constitution, The Republicans are constantly trying to CHANGE the
Constitution.However -- I did support the ERA, And would
fully and happily support Sen Tom Udall's amendment proposal to overturn
Citizen's United and Corporate personhood.FYI Sen Udall is also a
Mormon...and a Democrat.
Are you arguing that we should adhere to Article IV, Section II for instance?Corporations are NOT people and MUST be regulated; otherwise we get what
we deserve from these greedy entities. We're not "over regulated".
I agree with this article. As will most of the posters to follow.I
also agree when Mr Jackson wrote - "Our problems are not Democratic or
Republican. The system is broken, and the reparation needed is the restoration
of the Constitution."And I believe that those on the left will
agree with the above statement and those one the right will place all the blame
on the Democrats.Can you say "denial"?
The original constitution was a step up, but still a very flawed document. It
had major flaws. It allowed slavery. Only male land holders could vote. One of
the ammendments that followed fixed this. Contrary to what the Al Jackson the
author of this opinion piece claims, ammendments as a whole have improved the
constitution, not degraded it.
"Today, any agency (IRS, EPA, OSHA, etc.) of the Federal Government can come
into your home or place of business to fine you, garnish your wages, shut down
your business or imprison you, and there is no one at the state level who can
stop them. "It is called due process.... and in none of these
cases your represent here is the right to due process suspended. Not at the
state level, but at a federal court level. If you break federal law, you handle
issues in federal courts. If you break a state law, it is handled in state
courts. The notion that because states can't intercede in
matters of federal law constitutes a constitutional crises makes one wonder if
the author understands constitutional law in the first place. And honestly, if
this is all getting back to whether the government has the right to tax, I think
we need to be really careful about winding back the clock to the state of
constitutional law back at the time of the founding fathers. If we were to do
that, 70 percent of Americans would loose their right to vote with the stroke of
This letter really isn't about the Constitution, or the ability of our
nation to govern ourselves under it in a way that responds to changing times and
circumstances. It's more about advocacy for the writer's political
perspective. Don't let yourself be deceived.
If more Americans had a decent education and actually were allowed to be taught
the principles in the Constitution, then a great many more in this country would
be concerned with our current government and the idea of a social government.I got news for you, it may eventually hang by a thread- but the
constitution will be upheld in the end.