Posted on

Are Millennials Inheriting The Nation Our Founding Fathers Envisioned?

dont_tread_on_me_tea_party_theridgewoodblog

November 5,2016

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, American young people, who helped make Bernie Sanders a contender if not a winner in the Democratic Party’s primary, may play a critical role in the general election.

But as they cast their ballots, millennials might want to seek direction from the Founding Fathers.

“In 2008, we hoped for the future,” says Alexander G. Markovsky, author of Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It. “In 2016, we hope for the past.”

That may be especially important for young people – some of whom will be voting in a presidential election for the first time – because they have inherited a nation that has evolved in ways the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have envisioned, Markovsky says.

He says messages the Founding Fathers might have for millennials include:

• Inequality is the locomotive of progress. Economic equality and justice sound so appealing that the true believers do not even realized that economic equality is in itself an intrinsically unjust concept. “The source of all wealth is the product of man’s God-given ability to innovate,” Markovsky says. This intellectual ability is a property of the individual and has not been given equally; therefore it wouldn’t be reasonable to expect equal results from unequal abilities. Furthermore, the Founding Fathers had envisioned America built on a foundation of economic freedom and equal opportunities and never addressed inequality in any of the documents they have created. “The Founding Fathers saw America as prosperous and wealthy country and recognized that economic equality and wealth are mutually exclusive,” Markovsky says.

• Job creation. Political debates focused on job creation are a result of lack of understanding of the free market economy.  “The purpose of capitalism is not job creation. The purpose of the capitalist economy is to create wealth. Employment and the subsequent distribution of the spoils of an economy are by-products of capitalism,” Markovsky says.

• The 17th Amendment drastically changed how we’re governed. The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is perhaps the best example of why the younger generation is inheriting is not the United States the Founding Fathers intended, Markovsky says. The House of Representatives was intended to be a “People’s House,” with representatives directly elected by the people in their respective districts. Senators were to be selected by state legislatures to represent the states and ensure their sovereignty.

The Seventeenth Amendment ratified in 1913 established the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote. This effectively took power from the states, making a mockery of the original intent of the United States Constitution and de facto nullifying the 10th Amendment, rendering it unenforceable. With the ratification of the 17th Amendment the balance of power so carefully constructed by the Founders shifted irrevocably in favor of the federal government at the expense of the states’ sovereignty. With passage of the 17th Amendment, the Senate lost not only its original intended purpose; it became redundant at best and an impediment at worst. Paraphrasing Churchill, “Never has so much been surrendered by so many to so few.”

Markovsky understands if young people are unhappy about their choices in this year’s presidential election. However, the choices of these elections should not be between the individuals and their respective vices, but between potential restoration of the Constitutional principle or further expansion of the Federal Government, subversion of the Constitution and tyranny. As Markovsky pointed out in his book, government by its very nature is an institution of tyranny, a phenomenon the Founding Fathers were well aware of and they designed our Constitution to protect citizens from governmental oppression.

Perhaps that’s something that a combination of the millennial spirit and the Founding Fathers’ vision can provide.

About Alexander G. Markovsky

Alexander G. Markovsky, author of Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It, was born in the Soviet Union and now lives in Houston, Texas. He holds degrees in economics and political science from the University of Marxism-Leninism. He is a contributor to FamilySecurityMatters.org and his work also appears on RedState.com and WorldNetDaily.com.

Posted on

Happy Constitution Day!

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

On this day in 1787, the United States Constitution was signed by 39 delegates in Philadelphia as it was sent on its way to the thirteen states for ratification. After rigorous debate in the states, this incredible document was ratified, officially creating a government that was based on the rule of law, not the rule of man. Today we celebrate this important moment in American history as a day when the revolutionary ideas of liberty and freedom, and a government by the people, overcame tyranny and oppression. Today we celebrate the Constitution.

Happy Constitution Day!

Rep. Scott Garrett

7 Things You May Not Know About the Constitutional Convention

SEPTEMBER 17, 2012 By Christopher Klein

For four months during the summer of 1787, the Constitutional Convention met “in order to form a more perfect union.” With the country’s legal framework finally drafted, the framers of the Constitution signed the document on September 17, 1787, before sending it to the states for ratification. Explore seven surprising facts about the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and their work in Philadelphia.

http://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-constitutional-convention?cmpid=Social_FBPAGE_HISTORY_20160917_584332866&linkId=28827627

Posted on

Supreme Court Justice Scalia: Constitution, Not Bill of Rights, Makes Us Free

Scalia-800x420

Kevin Mooney / @KevinMooneyDC / May 11, 2015

“This was a bad progressive idea,” said Assemblyman Michael Carroll, a Republican in Morris Plains, N.J. “The U.S. Senate was much more responsive and accountable prior to the amendment because it had to answer to the states.”

Without the 17th Amendment, said Assemblyman Jay Webber, a Republican in Parsippany, N.J., local party officials could exert influence at the national level.

“In a state like New Jersey, where the county party structure is so strong, you could expect to see influence shift to county chairs and other power brokers,” he said. “What they now do at the state level, they could have been in a position to do nationally.”

Although it might change the priorities of New Jersey’s U.S. senators, repeal of the 17th Amendment probably would not significantly change who served, according to Kim Guadagno, the state’s lieutenant governor.

“The Democrats have a significant registration advantage in the state,” she said. “I’m not sure you would see any kind of major change in who became the U.S. senators. But I am glad to see Justice Scalia focus attention on the amendment and what it meant for the country as a whole.”

Scalia said the trend toward using constitutions as lawmaking documents has increased in recent years as special interests have learned to insert “pet projects” into constitutions.

“A constitution is about setting structure; it is not about writing the preferences of special-interest groups,” he said.

In fact, he said, the less done to the Constitution, the better. During the question-and-answer session, someone asked if a constitutional convention would be in the nation’s interests.

“A constitutional convention is a horrible idea,” he said. “This is not a good century to write a constitution.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/11/supreme-court-justice-scalia-constitution-not-bill-of-rights-makes-us-free/

Posted on

New Jersey Cop: “Obama has decimated the freak’in Constitution, … so we don’t have to follow the Constitution.”

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

New Jersey Cop: “Obama has decimated the freak’in Constitution, … so we don’t have to follow the Constitution.”

A shocking video shows a New Jersey cop responding to a complaint about corruption by asserting that law enforcement officers no longer need to follow the Constitution because it has already been decimated by President Obama.

Seeking to file a complaint about the Helmetta Regional Animal Shelter, Steve Wronko visited the Helmetta Police Department to air his grievances about the shelter falling prey to nepotism and corruption as a result of Helmetta Mayor Nancy Martin appointing her son Brandon Metz to head up the facility.

“I’ve made objections about what’s going on at the shelter over there,” Wronko tells the police officer, adding, “My first and fourth amendment rights were violated, my civil rights were violated.”

“Obama just decimated the freakin’ Constitution, so I don’t give a damn. If he doesn’t follow the Constitution, we don’t have to,” responds the cop, brazenly violating the oath he swore to uphold the Constitution.

The comment is self-evidently shocking, but it also provides an insight as to how corruption from the very top reaches all the way down to the bottom, providing law enforcement with a twisted form of justification for their unconstitutional activities.

At the end of the video, other police officers arrive to kick Wronko out of the building, with the cop who doesn’t give a “damn” about constitutional rights stating, “Either you get out or you’re gonna get locked up.”

“Maybe this instance, captured on film for the whole world to see, will serve as a wake up call to those who may still be asleep,” writes Matt Agorist. “Please share this so that it can help others to see the leviathan for what it is, a gang of thieves writ large.”

The only question that remains is if police officers feel they no longer need to follow the Constitution, should Americans be expected to obey the law?

Video link here:

http://www.infowars.com/cop-if-obama-doesnt-follow-the-constitution-we-dont-have-to/

Posted on

Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

airplane

Federal judge rules U.S. no-fly list violates Constitution

BY DAN WHITCOMB

Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:58pm EDT


(Reuters) – The U.S. government’s no-fly list banning people accused of links to terrorism from commercial flights violates their constitutional rights because it gives them no meaningful way to contest that decision, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, ruling on a lawsuit filed in federal court in Oregon by 13 Muslim Americans who were branded with the no-fly status, ordered the government to come up with new procedures that allow people on the no-fly list to challenge that designation.

“The court concludes international travel is not a mere convenience or luxury in this modern world. Indeed, for many international travel is a necessary aspect of liberties sacred to members of a free society,” Brown wrote in her 65-page ruling.

“Accordingly, on this record the court concludes plaintiffs inclusion on the no-fly list constitutes a significant deprivation of their liberty interests in international travel,” Brown said.

The decision hands a major victory to the 13 plaintiffs – four of them veterans of the U.S. military – who deny they have links to terrorism and say they only learned of their no-fly status when they arrived at an airport and were blocked from boarding a flight.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-usa-noflylist-idUSKBN0EZ2EU20140624