Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
What are the different views about government interference in America today? How can you account for these differences?
This is a history speech and I'm really confused about this question. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
- PuffinLv 76 years agoFavorite Answer
To account for the different views about the role of government, you have to go back to two supreme court decisions. One is Marbury v. Madison and the other is Mc Culloch v. Maryland.
Marbury v. Madison was a trap set by the Federalists, and Mc Culloch v. Maryland sprung that trap.
If you will look at the written constitution, you will see that the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. The very first words of the Constitution are that ALL legislative power was to rest in the hands of the legislature and none in any other branch. The specific powers were outlined in Article One, and they were very few - most dealing with military and establishing post office and roads for the purpose of delivering mail (meaning horse paths cut through the woods) and establishing patent laws. That was it - primarily - except treaties.
You will recall that the earliest Americans HATED judicial review. It was the very first reason given for severing ties between the colonies and Britain - as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The king refused assent to the people's laws and instituted his own laws in their place. That's judicial review. That's what the court does today.
How did it get such massive power when this country was founded on the notion that the courts were BELOW to legislature and had NO legislative power? Answer: It gave itself that power when it initiated a bloodless coup d'etat.
In Mc Culloch v. Maryland, the court declared that at the moment of ratification, the written Constitution was no longer our governing doctrine because at that moment the nation became a sovereign. No person or branch of government can limit the powers of a sovereign government for any reason.
the case was framed around the 10th Amendment that says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means that government cannot have any power not given to it.
The court declared that the 10th amendment means that government shall have EVERY power unless specifically denied it by the document, but even then it can retain unenumerated powers by using necessary powers, (eliminating the phrase necessary and proper - meaning constitutional), implied powers, and other powers as need for them should require -- this, of course, with the stipulated decree that necessary means useful, prohibited means allowed, and implied means enumerated.
The court said that the people may not amendment the constitution, and if an amendment is passed, it should be considered a suggestion - not a law. It said that the only reason that the Bill of Rights included the 10th amendment is because the creators of that document were afraid that the Constitution wouldn't be ratified without it, and because certain elements had excited the passions of the people.
It reframed our government from a Constitutional Republic to a common law government, but where England has a monarch who is head of the Church of England - deciding on issues of morality, the court GAVE ITSELF that power. The court SHARES THE THRONE in a feudal governmental model that has made us all into serfs. Under the court are the legislative and executive branches who are free to do whatever they want so long as the courts approve AND THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.
Now - all the rules are gone. It's rather like playing football, but the court - having decided what it wants - chooses sides and moves the goal post in the middle of a play - making it possible for it's preferred side to win.
When you pay a game with no set rules because no one knows whether the referree(court) will allow or disallow a law, you have havoc. You have some people delighting in the lawlessness because it allows them to take advantage. You have others who want a fixed set of rules in place so that we have a sense of safety and freedom in our lives.
Most of your elected representatives are graduates of law school. Not a single one of them is unfamiliar with Marbury v. Madison or Mc Culloch v. Maryland. When THEY say the words - the constitution - they refer to the UNWRITTEN constitution that common law is. They KNOW THAT you are THINKING that they speak of the WRITTEN constitution - but they keep their mouths shut because being in office is so profitable - in many ways.
This lying by the government to its people - and teaching you lies in mandatory public schooling - is part of what is keeping the differences growing. BEcause of those lies about the nature of our government, you have sides fighting against one another - but neither cares who wins so long as the WRITTEN Constitution never again becomes the law of the land - as the constitution itself says it is to be.
If you can add diagrams or need more detail, let me know. I'm writing a book and this topic is part of it. It's probably far more information than you want or need, but it can be condensed a lot. It's well researched.
Government WANTS us divided. It wants us fearing one another. It's good for getting people elected. It's good for lining pockets with money
For a step-by-step process of throwing away our most treasured documents (because some parts will be a very moving part of a speech - you can go to http://tosavetheworld.org/Chapters.html and scroll down to chapter 3H. Click on the link to open a PDF version of that chapter