If we make ourselves sheep...
...the wolves will eat us!
Think you know your stuff about U.S. Wars & Conflicts?  Click to find out!
Read what the Supreme Court thinks about Gay Rights in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Site Links

• Home Page
• The Foundations
     of Americanism

• Historic Document

     • The Declaration of

     • The U.S. Constitution
     • The Bill of Rights
     • The Amendments
• Supreme Court Cases
• Today In History
Article Archives --
     • Editorials
     • Opinion
     • In-Depth
     • Headlines
     • Court Challenges

• About Us

Site Search

     Search Tips

Read or Post Mail
by Topic

Opinion & Analysis

Ryan T. Anderson
Michael Barone
Brent Bozell
Pat Buchanan
Tucker Carlson
Mona Charen
Adriana Cohen
Ann Coulter
Veronique de Rugy
Diane Dimond
Erick Erickson
Jonah Goldberg
John C. Goodman
Victor Davis Hanson
Froma Harrop
David Harsanyi
Mollie Hemingway
Laura Hollis
Jeff Jacoby
Kay C. James
Rich Lowry
Heather Mac Donald
Michelle Malkin
Mychal Massie
Betsy McCaughey
Stephen Moore
William Murchison
Andrew P. Napolitano
Peggy Noonan
Kathleen Parker
Dennis Prager
Scott Rasmussen
Damon Root
Debra J. Saunders
Ben Shapiro
Mark Shields
Thomas Sowell
John Stossel
Jacob Sullum
Cal Thomas
Hans von Spakovsky
George Will
Walter Williams
Byron York

Visitor Mail Center
Know Your Stuff?

Fact lists about ...
U.S. Presidents
States & Territories
States Ranked
U.S. Chief Justices
U.S. Wars & Conflicts
Fed'l Debt & Spending
116th Congress

Flash Stats on ...
The Supreme Court
Tax Freedom Day

Take our
Americana Quiz

Visitor Mail Thread
The Constitution and Constructionism

There are 5 comments in this Thread
View the Relevant Historical Document
Search on this Topic

8/10/2001 -  john w k, seminole, FL writes ...
Stem Cell Research Funding and Free Enterprise
      Post to Main Thread   Reply to john w k

American Constitutional Research Service Seminole, FL 33775 727 391-1187 The answer was in your oath Mr. President John William Kurowski August, 2001 Was the President’s decision on government funded stem cell research and regulation a difficult one? Not really! All that was necessary for the President to do was to have confidence in, and abide by, the oath he took to support the Constitution of the United States. Being limited by the intent of those who framed and ratified that document, his proper choice was to return this question to the People, and ask them to express their will via Article V of the Constitution, and, either provided or refuse the necessary power to Congress to allow government funding and regulation of stem cell research. The framers and ratifiers wisely provided Article V, the amendment process___ a lawful means to effect change to accommodate changing times__ and to do so by reason and choice of the people, and not by the arbitrary acts of a national legislature or a presidential edict! This amendment process is one of the important distinguishing characteristics of our constitutional limited republic, as opposed to a representative democracy in which folks in government are free to impose their will upon the people without the peoples consent. As Hamilton states in Federalists 78: “until the people have by some solemn and authoritative act [a constitutional amendment] annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act.” [see Federalists 78, Hamilton] Those who pretend Congress has constitutional authority to fund and regulate stem cell research are far removed from historical fact. In general, the founding fathers agreed free enterprise to be the best depository in the advancement of science, and intentionally sought to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by granting a limited power to Congress to protect the work of authors and inventors by issuing patents and copyrights only! Madison's Notes on the convention of 1787 reveals that Charles Pickney, on August 18th, of the federal convention, proposed a power to be vested in Congress "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literature and the arts and sciences", but this proposal, as many other proposals, was rejected by the Convention, and the only power agreed upon by the Framers and Ratifiers relating to the advancement of science, was the limited power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, [How?] by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This prohibition against government involvement in the promotion of science is again confirmed on February 7th 1792 by Representative John Page speaking before the House of Representatives: "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.” Annals of Congress Feb 1792 Rep Page Unfortunately, judging from the President’s decision, we have learned he is not a friend of our constitutional limited republic, but a friend of those who are engaging in an ongoing subjugation of our nation by supplanting a government by the rule of man, rather than the rule of law…our constitution, which has once again been wounded and left crippled by those who took an oath to preserve and protect it. John William Kurowski American Constitutional Research Service Seminole, FL [Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]

10/30/2003 -  RY, Miami, FL writes ...
Calling for Constitution Convention
      Post to Main Thread   Reply to RY


We the people of the United States of America are petitioning the states legislatures for a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite the United States Constitution. The 21st Century brings new challenges and now summons Americans to include rights of the people in the highest law of the nation. The convention shall be set forth by the people and the citizens wherein each state shall elect 3 delegates to vote on the language drafted thereof. Your signature supports a new Constitution Convention and elects the delegates in your states.

Print Cong. District/State Your Signature


Mail Petitions to: BOLD, 6601C Willow Pointe Drive, Hsv, AL 35806

• Preamble
• Article I - The Legislative Branch
• Section 1 - The Legislature
• Section 2 - The House Changed
• Section 3 - The Senate
• Section 4 - Elections, Meetings
• Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
• Section 6 - Compensation
• Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
• Section 8 - Powers of Congress Changed
• Section 9 - Limits on Congress
• Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
• Article II - The Executive Branch
• Section 1 - The President Changed
• Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
• Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
• Section 4 - Disqualification
• Article III - The Judicial Branch
• Section 1 - Judicial Powers
• Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
• Section 3 - Treason Changed
• Article IV - The States
• Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
• Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
• Section 3 - New States
• Section 4 - Republican government Changed
• Article V - Amendment
• Article VI - The United States
• Article VII - Ratification
• Signatories
• Amendments
• Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
• Amendment 2 - Right to bear Arms
• Amendment 3 - Quartering of soldiers
• Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure Changed
• Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
• Amendment 6 - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses
• Amendment 7 - Trial by jury in civil cases Changed
• Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual punishment Changed
• Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
• Amendment 10 - States' Rights Changed
• Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits
• Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President Changed
• Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished Changed
• Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights Changed
• Amendment 15 - Race no bar to vote Changed
• Amendment 16 - Income Tax authorized
• Amendment 17 - Senators elected by popular vote
• Amendment 18 - Liquor abolished
• Amendment 19 - Women's suffrage
• Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional terms
• Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 repealed
• Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
• Amendment 23 - Presidential vote for District of Columbia Changed
• Amendment 24 - Poll taxes barred Changed
• Amendment 25 - Presidential disability and succession
• Amendment 26 - Voting age set to 18 years Changed
• Amendment 27 - Congressional pay increases

[ Link to the U. S. Constitution ]

We the people of the United States call for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite this ever changing document called the United States Constitution. We are invoking Amendment 10, and seek hold the Convention to discuss including rights in this document that put all Americans on level fields without amendments that are sometimes non enforceable in their entirety. Rewritting this document get women, blacks, hispanics and isians those rights guarantee by the forefathers this day of October, 22nd 2003 on behalf of all Americans.

Rubin Young
Secretary General

3/26/2006 -  PKT, Los Angeles, CA writes ...
Ginsburg's Global Constitution
      Post to Main Thread   Reply to PKT

It should be pointed out that James Madison said in Federalist Paper 63, "An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: the one is, that indepependlty of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desireable on various accounts that it should appear other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy. The second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed."

In other words, when the public passions are so hight tht impartiality may be impossible it is perfectly acceptable to look to the rest of the world for guidance. Strict constructionists who constantly refer to the source documents might do well to reflect on the Founding Fathers liberalism when it came to the broader issues and knowledge that the popular passions of the moment might not be in the best interests of the country.

[Editors' Note:  It needs to be noted quickly that the point of constitutional "constructionism" -- or original intent -- is to avoid bending the law to the "popular passion", unless said passion carries sufficient weight and endurance to sustain a constitutional amendment.]

2/4/2014 -  TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama
      Post to Main Thread   Reply to TM

Stop whining, and do something about it.

With over 500 in congress, how can a President get away with breaking laws, not enforcing laws and changing laws on his own?

The answer is simple - because Congress lets him, and our apathetic population keeps voting Congress back in.

So, stop whining America. You want change? Vote responsibly next time and kick out your corrupt and complicit representatives.

Most importantly, vote for a President who has experience. Not an empty suit that promises "hope and change" without ever defining what that means or what his vision actually is.

12/21/2016 -  TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
Hillary Clinton Supporters Need to Quit Whining Ab
      Post to Main Thread   Reply to TM

In fact, the Electoral College did exactly what is was designed to do - provide a fair election process for all 50 states.

Excluding California and New York, Donald Trump won by over 3 million votes. That is the type of representation that the Electoral College was designed for - so that one or two over-populous or over-cared for (read paid for) states could not run the Republic.

* * End of the Trail * *

Like to blaze a new Trail?
Punch this link  to offer a new thread with your submission.

Copyright © 1999-2021 Common Sense Americanism - All rights reserved
Localizations by DB-IP
Privacy Policy   Submitting Articles   Site Guide & Info
Home Page