The Prohibition of Freedom

Why was there a constitutional amendment, the 16th, passed to establish the Income Tax? There clearly was a majority of members in congress who supported it... why bother with a constitutional amendment?

Well I suppose you could say it was tried and struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court... I wonder why that matters?

Why was there a constitutional amendment, the 19th, passed to enable women to vote? There clearly was a majority of members in congress who supported it... why bother with a constitutional amendment? There clearly was a vast majority of people in congress and in the nation, who felt it was the Right thing to do... why not just pass a law and DO it? Why bother with a constitutional amendment?

Why was there a constitutional amendment, the 18th, passed to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcohol? There clearly was a majority of members in congress who supported it... why bother with a constitutional amendment? There clearly was a vast majority of people in congress and in the nation, who felt it was the Right thing to do... it was the right thing to do to protect individuals from themselves, and to protect families... and the children! Why not just pass a law and DO it? Why bother with a constitutional amendment?

Why was there a constitutional amendment, the 21st, passed to repeal the prohibition on the manufacture and sale of alcohol? There clearly was a majority of members in congress who supported repealing the odious amendment... why did they bother with a constitutional amendment to repeal the constitutional amendment? There clearly was a vast majority of people in congress and in the nation, who felt it was the Right thing to undo the terrible wrong the previous amendment had done... it was the right thing to do to allow individuals to choose for themselves, even if it meant allowing people to make a choice which many people disliked and wished they wouldn't make. Why not just pass a law and UNDO it? Why bother with a constitutional amendment?

Why did these constitutional amendments have to be proposed to, and ratified by the states, before congress to do whatever good thing it was that they wanted to do?

The answer is, that it was understood, even into the early 20th century (and even into the 1970's with the failure of the proposed ERA amendment), that congress had no power to pass laws giving it power over concerns of the states and their citizens, which the Constitution did not clearly enumerate it as having power over in the first place.

The fact is, Nancy Pelosi & Steny Hoyer's constitutional giggles to the contrary, that the constitution is the source of congresses power, originating in the authority of the people, and delegated to it by the states. It has no authority to do what it has not been the given power to do by the constitution.

If congress didn't feel that it had the power to forcibly tell people what they could or could not manufacture and ingest - even though a 'dangerous' chemical like alcohol - without a constitutional amendment, and required another amendment, each of which was ratified by the required number of the states before it could go into effect, how in the hell does it feel it has the power to force insurance companies to only offer insurance which congress finds acceptable? How in the hell does it feel it has the power to force people to not only purchase health insurance, but that they must purchase the insurance which congress finds acceptable? Under penalty of fine and imprisonment at the hands of the IRS?!!!

If congress didn't feel it had the power to enact an income tax, and establish an agency to oversee and enforce it, without a constitutional amendment proposed and ratified by the several states, how in the hell does it feel it has the right to force upon the citizens of this nation the requirement that they purchase a healthcontrol insurance which meets congresses approval, and establishes over a hundred new agencies to oversee and enforce it?

The plain fact is that congress has no power to do any of these things which the constitution does not specifically give it the power, derived from the people, and delegated to it by the states, to do.

But it is attempting - and pardon me, but even voting on the measure, pro or con, is an expression of their arrogance and contempt - to do what it wants to do, because congress is drunk with the idea that it has the power to do whatever it feels is 'for the greater good' to do.

In other words, we no longer have a nation of laws, but of the whims of men - in other words in the view of our imperial congress and its king, "U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government" - in other words, Tyranny has come to the Unites States of America. Or in even other words, as it is stated in an excellent article forwarded to me by Yabu, "How Tyranny Came to America", the modern congress sees the Constitution as a serous threat to its form of government.

And it is. And we must remind them of where their delegated powers are delegated from - We The People, through our several states, united, in America.

The Prohibition of Freedom
One other question, just how did those in Washington D.C. come to feel that they could disregard the opinions of the states and of the people? The answer is that once the 17th amendment to the constitution, enacted as a 'campaign finance reform' and to further 'democracy', came fully into place, where the Senators were no longer bolden to the representatives of the State - and those citizens they directly represent, was fully severed by it, the United States Senate was set adrift from any concern for the interests of the real states, concerned now only with effective sound bite campaigns (and the massive fundraising those require - IOW the unintended consequence of campaign finance reform was an escalation of the need to cury financing with more favors to 'special interests'), and by extension, from any concern for the interests of its citizens.

Even more so than the 16th amendment (income tax), the 17th amendment must be repealed first - only that will again make it possible for the Constitution to be felt as a threat to the tyrannical exercise of power at the hands of the whims of men, rather than having that power be restricted to a set of enumerated powers, restraining the writing of laws in accordance with the Constitution which defines and delegates those powers to them, those defined and enumerated powers, derived from We The People.

Make no mistake, to allow anything less, is to prohibit freedom for all.