Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

The Constitution vs. The Will Of The People

If the ‘will of the people’ can randomly override the Constitution then why have a Constitution at all?

The Constitution vs. The Will Of The People

The Constitution vs. The Will Of The People

by Brent Regan

“In our democracy we must respect the will of the people” is a phrase we have all heard, but is it true? Is the democratic majority the ultimate standard of what is right? Imagine for the moment that there is a voter initiative on the ballot, call it Proposition 0, that specifies everyone in Idaho has one vote except people whose last name begins with R. This passes handily because everyone knows that a person whose last name begins with R is a retrograde raucous rapscallion and their opinions should be rebuked.

The majority has spoken in true democratic fashion and the Rs are OUT.

Not so fast” says Mr. Right “We may enjoy a democratic process but we live in a Republic where the rights of the minority are protected from the menace of the mob by our Idaho and United States Constitutions.”

Sure enough the Supreme Court concurs that the “will of the people” is limited to the bounds agreed in our Constitution. Prop 0, despite having the approval of all people whose names don’t begin R, is dead on arrival, null and void.

Now imagine there was another initiative on the same ballot, call it Proposition 1, which reads:

Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Secretary of State is directed to build an Executive Mansion.  The Secretary of State is required and authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this section as soon as practicable.

Prop 1 passes with a wide majority because the Governor needs a house, obviously. It is the right and good thing to do.

The will of the people has spoken so the Secretary of State better get to work. It should be easy because the Secretary of State is not constrained by any laws, has been granted unlimited resources and is required to take all actions necessary to build the mansion as soon as practicable, because that is what the will of the people demands.

Plans are made. The Executive Mansion will be constructed with the best materials, have 100 rooms, be appointed with the most expensive furnishings and decorated with the finest art money can buy. Labor will be conscripted and carpenters and artisans will be forced to work for free. Funds will come from whatever sources needed such as schools, roads, health services, wherever and if that is not enough, new taxes will be imposed.

The Secretary of State is REQUIRED to take ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY to build the Executive Mansion. After all it IS the will of the people.

Furthermore no environmental impact studies are needed, no safety regulations must be obeyed, and no building codes must be followed if they impede the construction because the Executive Mansion must be built as quickly as practicable in spite of any law to the contrary. It’s the will of the people, you know.

Along comes Mr. Right. Remember Mr. Right and his friends on the Supreme Court? Mr. Right’s friends remind the Secretary that the people’s power of the initiative is the same as the power of the legislature, with the same restrictions and limitations. They go on to remind the Secretary that the power of the purse and the power to tax rest solely with the legislature and cannot be assigned to the executive branch. That in a law, the legislature must set limits and standards because the ability to allow unfettered power does not exist. But the ‘will of the people’ laments the Secretary.

The truth is that the through the initiative process the people have the same powers as the legislature, including the power to pass an un-constitutional law that is struck down in the Supreme Court. All intelligent people understand this to be true.

Now imagine that you replace the words “Executive Mansion” with “Medicaid Expansion” and our imaginary Proposition 1 becomes the very real Proposition 2, the one that was just approved by ‘the will of the people’.

The poorly written Proposition 2 assigns legislative powers to the executive branch, and it fails to set limits and standards, and in doing so is in clear violation of our State and Federal Constitutions. Case law supports this conclusion

Proponents of Proposition 2 will argue that the ends justifies the means, that helping people is a noble cause  and that in this case the ‘will of the people’ is more important than that pesky Constitution.

One has to then wonder, if the ‘will of the people’ can randomly override the Constitution then why have a Constitution at all?

 

Text from Proposition 2 (emphasis added)

56-267. MEDICAID ELIGIBILITY EXPANSION.

(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law or federal waiver to the contrary, the state shall amend its state plan to expand Medicaid eligibility to include those persons under sixty-five (65) years of age whose modified adjusted gross income is one hundred thirty-three percent (133%) of the federal poverty level or below and who are not otherwise eligible for any other coverage under the state plan, in accordance with sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and 1902(e)(14) of the Social Security Act.

(2) No later than 90 days after approval of this act, the department shall submit any necessary state plan amendments to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to implement the provisions of this section. The department is required and authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the provisions of this section as soon as practicable.

 

Social Media, including Facebook, has greatly diminished distribution of our stories to our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting Main Stream Media sources. This is called ‘Shadow-banning’. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: cash.me/$RedoubtNews

 

1 Comment on The Constitution vs. The Will Of The People

  1. How can people be made to believe these demonstrable lies? The work required must consume a whole lot of blood, sweat, and tears. The goal of indoctrinating the victims into believing their chains are necessary is a goal reached by consuming everything valuable save for that one goal. Who values that goal of absolute power?

    Do you think that those who value that one goal, those who work toward that one goal, are going to announce their true colors so as to get to their goal?

    No, clearly no, those whose goal is to gain absolute power over all people must keep their victims in the dark about that goal, and to do that there must be a facade in place.

    “We may enjoy a democratic process but we live in a Republic where the rights of the minority are protected from the menace of the mob by our Idaho and United States Constitutions.”

    That claim is demonstrably false on so many levels that it – that statement – amounts to a confession of willful deception on the part of whoever first constructed that lie. Sure those who have been deceived will be momentarily forced off the path if they question their belief in the lie, but most true believes will go into attack mode the instant the light of truth begins to shine through those cracks, those holes, in that false story.

    The 1789 “Constitution” was unconstitutional, there was no power transferred voluntarily from the people as a whole to an elite group who were given the green light to replace the Articles of Confederation with a National Constitution falsely claimed to be a Federal Constitution.

    So that is a start in two ways. That message above accounts for the start down the despotic path in America and that message above starts to open the light of truth to those who insist upon remaining in that dark cave.

    A second step is to point out that the people as a whole are democratically represented in a republic through trial by the country according to the common laws of free people who have, in fact, constituted democratic republics.

    To claim that the people have consented to the crime of replacing the the American federation of republics in 1789, with a despotic nation state run by criminal slave traders, warmongers, and banking frauds is an outrageous claim made by people who confess their ignorance of the facts that matter.

    “Sure enough the Supreme Court concurs that the “will of the people” is limited to the bounds agreed in our Constitution.”

    That is patently false on many accounts: accounts that matter. A supreme court can prove its authority as a supreme court by assembling the most honest and discrete people in each county in America, to form grand juries, which are then independent investigatory agencies working for the whole people as one, and they investigate any matter that threatens the people in liberty, which includes every matter of the utmost importance, such as matters involving treason at the highest levels of a democratic republic. The people constituting a grand jury, in each county, are responsible for investigating and indicting the criminals in government office, to put those alleged criminals on trial by the country, which is trial by jury according to the common laws of free people in liberty.

    If the so-called supreme court is legislating the behavior of the people, demanding absolute obedience without question, then said entity is filled with criminals not representatives of the people whose goal is to live and let live in a democratic republic.

    So there are 2 easy steps to take for those who may want to get out of their dark cave of blind obedience to falsehood: without question.

    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

    Love it or leave it? What is it?

    “It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man’s life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue.”
    U.S. Supreme Court
    RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER, 1 U.S. 236 (1788)
    1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
    Respublica
    v.
    Shaffer
    Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
    February Sessions, 1788

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*