Comment: Not "Zero" Government, Constitutionally Limited Government.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: some of you are nuts (see in situ)

Not "Zero" Government, Constitutionally Limited Government.

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Here are some Constitutional Facts, if we obey the Constitution:

The Federal Government can Collect taxes under the Welfare Clause ONLY for "National Defense" and "National Debt".

See Quotes from the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 Below.

A "Constitutional" Import tax will easily cover that. And it takes far less regulation, as taxing a product that passes on a table requires no information of a companies business practice or papers, if a crate of ten shoes enters, the tax is paid on the 10 shoes. That's it.

*WHAT the Federal Government can collect taxes FOR "IS" LIMITED.

Welfare checks? Nyet! Comrade! Social Security Checks? No; Income Tax Regulations and IRS salaries i.e. "INTERNAL REVENUE"??? No.

Can the Federal Government even govern POLICE outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC??? No. This is FACT.

Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 answers both of these:
IN FULL: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter/

Mr. PENDLETON. Mr. Chairman, this clause does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution,

>>>>>(N)or to make "ANY REGULATION" that (EVEN)"MAY" affect the interests of the citizens of the Union at large.

But it (the sweeping i.e. supremacy clause) gives them power over the "LOCAL police of the place" (ONLY), so as to be secured from any interruption in their proceedings. Notwithstanding the violent attack upon it, I believe, sir, this is the >>>"fair construction of the clause". It gives them power of exclusive legislation in any case within THAT DISTRICT (i.e. WASHINGTON DC).

What is the meaning of this? What is it opposed to? Is it opposed to the "general powers of the federal legislature", or to those of the state legislatures? I understand it as opposed to the legislative power of that "state WHERE it shall be".

What, then, is the power? It is, that Congress shall exclusively legislate "THERE", in order to preserve {440} serve "the police" of "THE PLACE" and their "OWN" "PERSONAL" independence, that they may not be overawed or insulted, and of course to preserve them in opposition to any attempt by the state "where it shall BE" this is the "FAIR CONSTRUCTION"." (i.e. LIMIT)

Can they Arrogate NEW POWERS? No. (see below)

---

NOW Let's take prosecuting crimes:

The Federal Government CANNOT prosecute more than the 4 crimes delegated to it;

1.) Treason,
2.) Piracy/felonies on the high seas (ONLY),
3.) Law of Nations
4.) Counterfeit of the Federal Currency

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions 1798, Paragraph #2: "...and NO OTHER CRIMES WHATSOEVER..." and all "other crimes and definition of crimes" are "Solely the responsibility of the "STATES" Each within THEIR RESPECTIVE TERRITORIES"

That says it in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS!

IRS crimes? No. Drug Crimes? No.

Not Delegated? = NO AUTHORITY!

---

So if the federal government can:

a.) Make NO REGULATION that may effect the citizens of the Union at large,

b.) Cannot govern police (FBI CIA ICE FDA DEA etc. etc. etc. outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC;

c.) Only use the Welfare Clause for 2 things only National Defense and National Debt.

d.) Cannot prosecute but 4 crimes that RARELY OCCUR!

...The federal government will not need that much money!

Follow this with the fact the federal government CANNOT ARROGATE ANY NEW POWER OUTSIDE THE LIMITED DELEGATED POWERS OF THE ORIGINAL COMPACT, NOT EVEN BY ONE STEP!

Edmund Pendleton:"...I understand that clause as NOT going a "SINGLE STEP BEYOND" the "DELEGATED powers". What can it act upon? Some power given by "THIS" Constitution. If they (the federal government) should be about to pass a law in consequence of this clause, they must pursue some of the "DELEGATED powers", but can by "NO MEANS" depart from them,

(N)OR "ARROGATE" "ANY NEW" powers; for the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the clause is, to give them power to pass laws in order to give "effect" to the "DELEGATED" powers"."

The money will stay in the states and anything else, it's up to the states to deal with.

And further THIS VERY CLEAR LIMITATION:

James Madison:

"I cannot comprehend that the (Federal Government's) "power of legislating" over a "SMALL DISTRICT", which "CANNOT EXCEED" "TEN MILES SQUARE", and "MAY NOT BE MORE" than ONE MILE, will involve the dangers which he (Patrick Henry) apprehends. If there be any knowledge in my mind of the nature of man, I should think it would be the last thing that would enter into the mind of any man to grant exclusive advantages, in a "VERY CIRCUMSCRIBED DISTRICT", to the prejudice of the community at large. "

Now do you see?

Read our 4 Document "Suggested Reading".

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.