The US Constitution; making theft and murder ‘legal’ since 1787

How many innocent people does someone need to kill to be a murderer?

Go ahead, get it out of your system now. The inevitable complaining, the anger, and the hostility you may feel if you’re one of those constitution worshippers out there who might happen to read this. I understand, really I do. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but honestly, it’s for your own good. It’s best to let that emotional response you’ve been programmed to have out. If you can’t get past that illogical anger you’re never going to learn the truth.

In 1787, on September the 17th to be precise, 39 specific men, men with names, gathered in a room in Pennsylvania to sign a document as witnesses. This document they signed boldly declared that ‘We the people’ had consented to and authorized the creation of a new government for the lands which had been colonized and settled over the preceding 300 years or so. I won’t delve into the semantics of which specific people this ‘We’ really was or how this amorphous ‘We’ somehow had the authority to dictate to those people who weren’t part of that ‘We’ were to be governed. For this article, I’ll simply stick to fact that among the things that the constitution did do was to legalize theft and murder for a special group of people. You see, this new government claimed for itself supreme authority in the areas which its enumerated powers specified, and among those enumerated is the one which is my inspiration for this essay; The US Constitution: Article 1, Section 8.

Commonly referred to as the Commerce Clause, article 1 section 8 declares that “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises…”. While such a statement may seem innocuous to those who may not be inclined to think about it further, within this statement is the presumed and declared authority to steal and kill. If you don’t think so or happen to believe that that wasn’t the way it was intended, I guess you haven’t read up on the Whiskey Rebellion.

You see, the 39 men who signed the US Constitution created the law which made it legal for the government which they also created to declare how much of what was not theirs they were going to take, and from whom. With multiple strokes of the quill that laid down that ink on those four bits of hemp parchment, those particular and specific 39 men wrote into existence that a new master was to be served, the master which they created and controlled. And woe be unto those who oppose this new master.

At the conclusion of the Whiskey Rebellion, there were only a few amongst those who rebelled who lost their lives. Even if there were but one person who died though, the effect of the law, as written in Article 1, Section 8, would not be diminished in any way. The Whiskey Rebellion, which some of you may have read in history or my prior post, was the federal government’s most notable early exercise of authority under article 1, section 8. And that exercise of authority led to the death of at least one someone who was simply trying to keep what was his.

By 1791, just about four short years after its self declaration of power and authority, the federal government had already proven it was prepared to kill to steal what it claimed as its own, and naturally they also declared themselves legally correct in doing so. You constitutionalists want to return the government to that? You don’t need to; they’re still doing it today.