The current raging debate about health care is NOT about health care, it’s NOT about health insurance, it’s NOT about how much this bill or that bill will cost, it’s NOT about a public option or co-op’s or opting out, it’s NOT about how many Americans don’t have health insurance vs. access to health care. IT IS about the Constitution, IT IS about Article 1, Section 8 and the specific enumerated powers and constraints upon the Congress, IT IS about repeated Congressional over-reaching, IT IS about the rule of law, IT IS about a republic vs. a democracy, IT IS about States’ and People’s rights, IT IS about the 10th Amendment, IT IS about a line in the sand. This is it, enough is enough. The People have decided to take a stand here and say, “No more!” Our republic may live or die on this issue. Yes, it’s that big.
Showing posts with label states rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label states rights. Show all posts
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Sunday, August 02, 2009
I Brought You Into This World...
This question of who is responsible for enforcing the Constitution upon the federal government and how to do it continues to be a vexing one. At this point the federal government basically polices itself and decides if it is obeying the Supreme Law. The Supreme Court essentially provides cover for the Congress and President to do whatever they darn well please. Let's admit it, Supreme Court appointments are political appointments. Period. So we have the fox guarding the hen house, the inmates running the asylum. Eighty percent of the time (my conservative guess) federal legislation or regulation is in direct violation of the Constitution and they tell us that the three branches have checked and are in agreement that everything is kosher. Now butt out, leave us alone. The commerce clause has become one big joke that they use to justify doing whatever in tarnation they please. (speaking of tar...and feathers) If the commerce clause is all that is necessary to justify the federal government doing anything at all, then why the very specific enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8? And why the Tenth Amendment? Does anyone, or everyone else smell a rat? In fact, the commerce clause really should only empower the federal government to regulate tariffs placed by one state on goods passing through it from one adjoining state to another so as to prevent outrageous tariffs that would be prohibitive to commerce between the various states. That's it. It does not authorize the federal government to enact such things as a federal minimum wage, Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, complete regulation of our energy industry or a socialized health care system. The answer is right there in the Tenth Amendment. The people acting through their states must stand up to the federal government and yell 'Whoa!' Governors must inform the federal government that such idiocies as nationalized federal health care will not happen in their states. Period. And governors must be prepared to use their National Guard and any other resources at their disposal to enforce their decisions, if necessary. The states may need to get together and pass further constitutional amendments to clarify the role of and reign in the federal government. Hopefully we will never need to call a constitutional convention, but that is ultimately up to the states, not the feds. The states giveth the Constitution and only the states can taketh away or replace it. The fight to save our Constitution and nation is not in Washington, D.C., but in the state capitals. Now get crackin' governors!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
What Can We Do?
What can we do?
This is the question so many ordinary citizens are asking these days as they see our Constitution being shredded and trashed. What, indeed? Our society has devolved to the nadir where far too many people believe that if they want something done then the federal government can and should do it. The idea of the federal government being constrained by the Constitution is a foreign concept to them thanks to 50 years of inadequate and sometimes intentionally misleading establishment education. Sadly, it’s a foreign concept to the current president and his administration, the federal bureaucracy, federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congress. They snicker and laugh at those of us who wave the hallowed document in their faces and yell ‘Whoa!’ We are hayseeds, tossed aside as anachronistic throwbacks to a simpler time. Don’t we know that the Constitution is a ‘living’ document that ‘evolves’ to meet the needs of the current generation? Well, truth-be-told it evolves only by the amendment process which has happened only 27 times since 1788. While Supreme Court rulings are important things, they do not amend the Constitution, formally or informally. The Supreme Court allegedly strains to properly interpret the Constitution and apply its tenets to specific cases before it. At the point the Court crosses the line from interpretation to amendment it is incumbent upon the President, Congress, the States or the People to reign it back in across the line. Such was the case with the recent Kelo decision where the Court magically changed the meaning of public to private. Congress subsequently passed a federal law to reverse the Court’s ruling in the federal land use arena. But what were five supposedly intelligent Supreme Court justices thinking? They violated the supreme federal law of the land. That I called for their impeachment and removal from the Court was viewed as silliness by many. They are charged with upholding the supreme law of the land and turn around and knowingly violate it! If that doesn’t constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, what does? If we don’t truly believe in being a nation of laws rather than men then why feign having a Constitution in the first place? If we are not going to enforce our laws why have them?
Beyond the antics of the Court, though; is the bigger issue of the Congress and President conspiring (yes, conspiring) to pass sweeping legislation and perhaps irrevocably alter the fabric of our society in ways that are not permitted by our Constitution and would never have been tolerated in saner times. Their explanation? The People want these things and they want the federal government to do them. And they are happy to oblige because it imbues the ruling regime with enormous power; which is the goal of professional politicians, whether right or left, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. We are witnessing the rise of raw democracy which is straight majority rule which is ultimately mob rule—tyranny by any other name. It is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. As Thomas Jefferson remarked, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” For this reason our federal government was established as a representative republic within a constitutional framework. Representative republic since not every citizen could conceivably participate in debate and vote on every issue before the federal government. Thus, we would elect representatives to act in that capacity on our behalf. Constitutional framework so that the federal government could only do those things which the States, having established the federal government for their collective benefit; specifically enumerate and permit. Those things and no more save a constitutional amendment. It is this constitutional framework which ostensibly protects the political minority from shenanigans of the political majority in power. The federal government is not permitted, by virtue of the States speaking through the Constitution in Article I, Section 8; to do simply anything that is decides to do, even if the People profess a desire for such. The People can effect a constitutional amendment through the Congress or the States to empower the federal government in a new desired area, or this power and authority to act falls upon the States in their separate state legislatures by virtue of the 10th Amendment. Thus the idea of the States as laboratories of change. One needs to understand the perspective that the States created the federal government to serve their collective needs, not vice versa. The federal government is lesser than and subservient to the States. The States are not creations or subdivisions of the federal government. They do not serve it. They are sovereign entities with their own constitutions and bodies of law which existed before the federal constitution and federal laws (in the case of the original thirteen). The President actually serves the States primarily, not the People at large. This is the reason for the Electoral College method of electing the President. U.S. Senators were originally selected by the State legislatures and paid by their respective States since that is who they represented. This was later changed by constitutional amendment. The People’s House, the House of Representatives is the federal body which was designed to provide representation for the People.
This is all well and good when the players, majority and minority alike agree to act honorably and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Unfortunately when one side gains a majority and decides to abandon obedience to constitutional constraints without real opposition from other complicit branches of government the situation rapidly runs tragically amok. The rights of the minority are trampled and new federal institutions gain a toe-hold which become virtually impossible to unhinge as the bloated bureaucracies underpinning them grow without bounds. Just look to Social Security, Medicare or the federal Minimum Wage. All are unconstitutional in the strict sense, yet have become so entrenched within our national psyche that just to mention reforming them is taboo, much less eliminating them. The prospect of a new federal health care system stretches the limit of constitutional credulity.
The challenge is that once the camel gets its nose under the tent it becomes virtually impossible to keep the rest of the beast out. After the first and second patently unconstitutional programs become the norm the People come to expect and tolerate more and more. The thrill of breaking the law soon wears off and the mind quickly adapts to the new set-point. Why not, everybody’s doing it? In my mind once the federal government violates one tenet of the Constitution with impunity, the document in whole has been rendered null-and-void. You cannot pick and choose which parts to obey and which to ignore. It’s an all-or-none proposition, kind of like the nonsensical idea of being a little bit pregnant. We are now adrift on the high seas in a life raft with no rudder. I believe that we left the Constitution in the early years of the 20th Century. We have been in free-fall since. Unfortunately all three branches of the federal government are guilty in this unholy alliance and enable the others by their lack of action, egged on by the ever-present bureaucracy. I believe that most of what the federal government does and spends today is in direct violation of the Constitution. If the Founders had meant for the federal government to have unfettered power they would not have written the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 or added the 10th Amendment for emphasis. I believe that they would be appalled and outraged at the sad state of affairs today. They would be incensed that We the People have forfeited so much of the liberty which they paid so dearly to obtain for us.
So, back to the original question; what can we do?
One school says to better educate the People and try to send more responsible politicians to Washington. I would argue that we have lost the education initiative and if it could be regained might take 50 years or more. Frankly, we don’t have that much time. Bad things have already become entrenched and the pace of growth of new over-arching programs is accelerating. We have been trying to send better politicians to Washington for over 200 years and the situation is only getting worse. While Presidents, Congressmen and Senators come and go, the entrenched federal bureaucracy remains lumbering on, resisting all change and reform and devouring well-meaning politicians like so much icing on the cake. The federal monster has taken on a life of its own. When the People fear their federal government (just say I.R.S. in a crowded room) more than the federal government (those people hired and paid by us to serve us—public servant?) fears the People, things are terribly amiss. Now they are talking about taxing the very air that we all exhale (carbon dioxide) and putting GPS devices in our cars to track our movements in order to tax our mileage—right! Are you kidding me?!
On the other end of the spectrum are the wackos advocating armed insurrection against the federal government. These are the militia movement types. I categorically rebuke that solution at this point in time. Yes, we fought a Revolutionary War as renegades and took up arms against each other during the Civil War. Both at great loss of life and both for admirable causes. At the time both were tragically necessary. I cannot absolutely rule out that at some future time such things could happen again in this country. People and human nature never change. But this is not the time to discuss such avenues. The situation is not that bleak and other less extreme options have not been exhausted. Just don’t let them erode or repeal our Second Amendment rights!
Another road is that of civil disobedience. Not riots or violent, disruptive events, but rather large groups of level-headed citizens refusing to obey or participate in what they deem to be obviously unconstitutional behavior, programs or laws. Such things as withholding income tax payments (expect that the People never demanded that the federal government repeal employer income tax withholding after the end of WWII). It’s rather difficult to withhold payments when you never receive the money in the first place, but businesses could refuse to withhold and send in the payments. Perhaps it would be refusing to participate in a federal health care system either as a provider, employer or patient. I am not advocating any of these activities and it would take such massive education and participation to be effective that they might not be realistically feasible at all; but they are theoretically possible. It would have to be something big enough to get the politicians attention and painful enough to force constitutionally conforming behavior in them. Cutting off their money is the biggie since money is the mother’s milk of politics. It is a major source of political power.
Some have proposed challenging the egregious federal over-reaching in the courts. The trouble with this choice is that the courts have become part of the problem. Let’s face it, judges are political appointees and have come to reflect the statist drift of the federal government over the years. The courts, including the Supreme Court have made it possible for the Congress and President to work hand-in-glove in carving out more and more power for the federal government at the expense of the People and the States. Activist judges now legislate from the bench rather than merely rule on the question of law in the case before them. This is clearly unconstitutional. Cases move slowly through the court system and far too much significance is placed on prior court rulings than on the actual text of the Constitution. Talk about the blind leading the blind!
The route I would advocate is that of a resurgence of State power over the federal government. Let us remember, we are the United STATES of America. The States created the federal government. It is a law of nature that that which is created cannot be greater than that which created it. The President serves the States and according to the 10th Amendment, all government power except for a handful of very specific items clearly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 are reserved to the States and the People. Just because the People want the federal government to do something does not mean that it legally can do that thing and certainly does not mean that it should or even could that thing. Just look at what a stellar job the feds have done with Medicare and Social Security. They are both patently bankrupt. Remember, a government that has the power to give you everything you want would also have the power to take away from you everything you have, particularly your money and your freedom and liberty. For most things needed from a government (and those should be few) people should look first to their local and state governments. The government closest to the problem and to the People is usually the one best suited to solve the problem or provide the service. Does anyone doubt that your city government can do a better job running your city bus service than the federal government could possibly do? And the best solution might be putting out contracts with private bus companies. You will have more control over that decision with your city council than with the Congress of the United States. If you don’t like the decision you will probably have much more influence with your city council representative than your Congressman. You might even run and unseat your city council representative.
So exactly what power could the States (provided we were able to educate the people and get enough state legislatures to work together for this cause) exert over the federal government? How do average citizens compel their states to act? I certainly do not foresee or advocate the calling of a Constitutional Convention, a route fraught with all sorts of pitfalls. We want to put the runaway federal genie back into the constitutional bottle, not open Pandora’s Box. The current Constitution is more than adequate, we should just follow it. It is really a very sad day when the government officials responsible for defending our borders and our Constitution and enforcing the laws of the land will not even obey the most sacred, fundamental and supreme law of our land themselves. When I read the Constitution I am struck by the fact that there aren’t any enforcement methods or penalties for disobedience written into it. I must imagine that the writers could not remotely conceive of public servants so much as thinking of disobeying any of its dictums, much less flagrantly disobeying them. They probably could not fathom such behavior. To them it would be obvious treason and probably dealt with swiftly, publicly and with overwhelming severity. I imagine they saw it as almost a sacred document to be revered and probably even somewhat feared. More a pillar of marble than one of silly-putty that today’s politicians and judges make of it. It now falls to us, the People and the States to somehow enforce the supreme law of the land upon the wayward and recalcitrant servants and guardians of that very law for straying from it. God help us. So, what can the states really do? Well, here are some thoughts:
• Secession
• Constitutional Amendments
• Refuse to accept federal money: Highway, medical, food stamps, civil projects,
etc.
• Refuse to pay federal fees, tariffs, taxes, etc.
• Evict federal offices (Courts, IRS, etc.) from state
• Withhold national guard from federal service
• Control state borders
• Reclaim federal lands as state property
• Refuse to participate in federal initiatives such as federal health care, cap &
trade, etc.
• Do not permit the enforcement of federal executive branch regulations on people,
private businesses or state/local government entities.
• Do not permit any federal inspections of anything within the state.
• Demand property tax for military bases, national parks, etc.
“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… .”
May God have mercy upon us all.
This is the question so many ordinary citizens are asking these days as they see our Constitution being shredded and trashed. What, indeed? Our society has devolved to the nadir where far too many people believe that if they want something done then the federal government can and should do it. The idea of the federal government being constrained by the Constitution is a foreign concept to them thanks to 50 years of inadequate and sometimes intentionally misleading establishment education. Sadly, it’s a foreign concept to the current president and his administration, the federal bureaucracy, federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court and the Congress. They snicker and laugh at those of us who wave the hallowed document in their faces and yell ‘Whoa!’ We are hayseeds, tossed aside as anachronistic throwbacks to a simpler time. Don’t we know that the Constitution is a ‘living’ document that ‘evolves’ to meet the needs of the current generation? Well, truth-be-told it evolves only by the amendment process which has happened only 27 times since 1788. While Supreme Court rulings are important things, they do not amend the Constitution, formally or informally. The Supreme Court allegedly strains to properly interpret the Constitution and apply its tenets to specific cases before it. At the point the Court crosses the line from interpretation to amendment it is incumbent upon the President, Congress, the States or the People to reign it back in across the line. Such was the case with the recent Kelo decision where the Court magically changed the meaning of public to private. Congress subsequently passed a federal law to reverse the Court’s ruling in the federal land use arena. But what were five supposedly intelligent Supreme Court justices thinking? They violated the supreme federal law of the land. That I called for their impeachment and removal from the Court was viewed as silliness by many. They are charged with upholding the supreme law of the land and turn around and knowingly violate it! If that doesn’t constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, what does? If we don’t truly believe in being a nation of laws rather than men then why feign having a Constitution in the first place? If we are not going to enforce our laws why have them?
Beyond the antics of the Court, though; is the bigger issue of the Congress and President conspiring (yes, conspiring) to pass sweeping legislation and perhaps irrevocably alter the fabric of our society in ways that are not permitted by our Constitution and would never have been tolerated in saner times. Their explanation? The People want these things and they want the federal government to do them. And they are happy to oblige because it imbues the ruling regime with enormous power; which is the goal of professional politicians, whether right or left, conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. We are witnessing the rise of raw democracy which is straight majority rule which is ultimately mob rule—tyranny by any other name. It is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. As Thomas Jefferson remarked, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” For this reason our federal government was established as a representative republic within a constitutional framework. Representative republic since not every citizen could conceivably participate in debate and vote on every issue before the federal government. Thus, we would elect representatives to act in that capacity on our behalf. Constitutional framework so that the federal government could only do those things which the States, having established the federal government for their collective benefit; specifically enumerate and permit. Those things and no more save a constitutional amendment. It is this constitutional framework which ostensibly protects the political minority from shenanigans of the political majority in power. The federal government is not permitted, by virtue of the States speaking through the Constitution in Article I, Section 8; to do simply anything that is decides to do, even if the People profess a desire for such. The People can effect a constitutional amendment through the Congress or the States to empower the federal government in a new desired area, or this power and authority to act falls upon the States in their separate state legislatures by virtue of the 10th Amendment. Thus the idea of the States as laboratories of change. One needs to understand the perspective that the States created the federal government to serve their collective needs, not vice versa. The federal government is lesser than and subservient to the States. The States are not creations or subdivisions of the federal government. They do not serve it. They are sovereign entities with their own constitutions and bodies of law which existed before the federal constitution and federal laws (in the case of the original thirteen). The President actually serves the States primarily, not the People at large. This is the reason for the Electoral College method of electing the President. U.S. Senators were originally selected by the State legislatures and paid by their respective States since that is who they represented. This was later changed by constitutional amendment. The People’s House, the House of Representatives is the federal body which was designed to provide representation for the People.
This is all well and good when the players, majority and minority alike agree to act honorably and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Unfortunately when one side gains a majority and decides to abandon obedience to constitutional constraints without real opposition from other complicit branches of government the situation rapidly runs tragically amok. The rights of the minority are trampled and new federal institutions gain a toe-hold which become virtually impossible to unhinge as the bloated bureaucracies underpinning them grow without bounds. Just look to Social Security, Medicare or the federal Minimum Wage. All are unconstitutional in the strict sense, yet have become so entrenched within our national psyche that just to mention reforming them is taboo, much less eliminating them. The prospect of a new federal health care system stretches the limit of constitutional credulity.
The challenge is that once the camel gets its nose under the tent it becomes virtually impossible to keep the rest of the beast out. After the first and second patently unconstitutional programs become the norm the People come to expect and tolerate more and more. The thrill of breaking the law soon wears off and the mind quickly adapts to the new set-point. Why not, everybody’s doing it? In my mind once the federal government violates one tenet of the Constitution with impunity, the document in whole has been rendered null-and-void. You cannot pick and choose which parts to obey and which to ignore. It’s an all-or-none proposition, kind of like the nonsensical idea of being a little bit pregnant. We are now adrift on the high seas in a life raft with no rudder. I believe that we left the Constitution in the early years of the 20th Century. We have been in free-fall since. Unfortunately all three branches of the federal government are guilty in this unholy alliance and enable the others by their lack of action, egged on by the ever-present bureaucracy. I believe that most of what the federal government does and spends today is in direct violation of the Constitution. If the Founders had meant for the federal government to have unfettered power they would not have written the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 or added the 10th Amendment for emphasis. I believe that they would be appalled and outraged at the sad state of affairs today. They would be incensed that We the People have forfeited so much of the liberty which they paid so dearly to obtain for us.
So, back to the original question; what can we do?
One school says to better educate the People and try to send more responsible politicians to Washington. I would argue that we have lost the education initiative and if it could be regained might take 50 years or more. Frankly, we don’t have that much time. Bad things have already become entrenched and the pace of growth of new over-arching programs is accelerating. We have been trying to send better politicians to Washington for over 200 years and the situation is only getting worse. While Presidents, Congressmen and Senators come and go, the entrenched federal bureaucracy remains lumbering on, resisting all change and reform and devouring well-meaning politicians like so much icing on the cake. The federal monster has taken on a life of its own. When the People fear their federal government (just say I.R.S. in a crowded room) more than the federal government (those people hired and paid by us to serve us—public servant?) fears the People, things are terribly amiss. Now they are talking about taxing the very air that we all exhale (carbon dioxide) and putting GPS devices in our cars to track our movements in order to tax our mileage—right! Are you kidding me?!
On the other end of the spectrum are the wackos advocating armed insurrection against the federal government. These are the militia movement types. I categorically rebuke that solution at this point in time. Yes, we fought a Revolutionary War as renegades and took up arms against each other during the Civil War. Both at great loss of life and both for admirable causes. At the time both were tragically necessary. I cannot absolutely rule out that at some future time such things could happen again in this country. People and human nature never change. But this is not the time to discuss such avenues. The situation is not that bleak and other less extreme options have not been exhausted. Just don’t let them erode or repeal our Second Amendment rights!
Another road is that of civil disobedience. Not riots or violent, disruptive events, but rather large groups of level-headed citizens refusing to obey or participate in what they deem to be obviously unconstitutional behavior, programs or laws. Such things as withholding income tax payments (expect that the People never demanded that the federal government repeal employer income tax withholding after the end of WWII). It’s rather difficult to withhold payments when you never receive the money in the first place, but businesses could refuse to withhold and send in the payments. Perhaps it would be refusing to participate in a federal health care system either as a provider, employer or patient. I am not advocating any of these activities and it would take such massive education and participation to be effective that they might not be realistically feasible at all; but they are theoretically possible. It would have to be something big enough to get the politicians attention and painful enough to force constitutionally conforming behavior in them. Cutting off their money is the biggie since money is the mother’s milk of politics. It is a major source of political power.
Some have proposed challenging the egregious federal over-reaching in the courts. The trouble with this choice is that the courts have become part of the problem. Let’s face it, judges are political appointees and have come to reflect the statist drift of the federal government over the years. The courts, including the Supreme Court have made it possible for the Congress and President to work hand-in-glove in carving out more and more power for the federal government at the expense of the People and the States. Activist judges now legislate from the bench rather than merely rule on the question of law in the case before them. This is clearly unconstitutional. Cases move slowly through the court system and far too much significance is placed on prior court rulings than on the actual text of the Constitution. Talk about the blind leading the blind!
The route I would advocate is that of a resurgence of State power over the federal government. Let us remember, we are the United STATES of America. The States created the federal government. It is a law of nature that that which is created cannot be greater than that which created it. The President serves the States and according to the 10th Amendment, all government power except for a handful of very specific items clearly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 are reserved to the States and the People. Just because the People want the federal government to do something does not mean that it legally can do that thing and certainly does not mean that it should or even could that thing. Just look at what a stellar job the feds have done with Medicare and Social Security. They are both patently bankrupt. Remember, a government that has the power to give you everything you want would also have the power to take away from you everything you have, particularly your money and your freedom and liberty. For most things needed from a government (and those should be few) people should look first to their local and state governments. The government closest to the problem and to the People is usually the one best suited to solve the problem or provide the service. Does anyone doubt that your city government can do a better job running your city bus service than the federal government could possibly do? And the best solution might be putting out contracts with private bus companies. You will have more control over that decision with your city council than with the Congress of the United States. If you don’t like the decision you will probably have much more influence with your city council representative than your Congressman. You might even run and unseat your city council representative.
So exactly what power could the States (provided we were able to educate the people and get enough state legislatures to work together for this cause) exert over the federal government? How do average citizens compel their states to act? I certainly do not foresee or advocate the calling of a Constitutional Convention, a route fraught with all sorts of pitfalls. We want to put the runaway federal genie back into the constitutional bottle, not open Pandora’s Box. The current Constitution is more than adequate, we should just follow it. It is really a very sad day when the government officials responsible for defending our borders and our Constitution and enforcing the laws of the land will not even obey the most sacred, fundamental and supreme law of our land themselves. When I read the Constitution I am struck by the fact that there aren’t any enforcement methods or penalties for disobedience written into it. I must imagine that the writers could not remotely conceive of public servants so much as thinking of disobeying any of its dictums, much less flagrantly disobeying them. They probably could not fathom such behavior. To them it would be obvious treason and probably dealt with swiftly, publicly and with overwhelming severity. I imagine they saw it as almost a sacred document to be revered and probably even somewhat feared. More a pillar of marble than one of silly-putty that today’s politicians and judges make of it. It now falls to us, the People and the States to somehow enforce the supreme law of the land upon the wayward and recalcitrant servants and guardians of that very law for straying from it. God help us. So, what can the states really do? Well, here are some thoughts:
• Secession
• Constitutional Amendments
• Refuse to accept federal money: Highway, medical, food stamps, civil projects,
etc.
• Refuse to pay federal fees, tariffs, taxes, etc.
• Evict federal offices (Courts, IRS, etc.) from state
• Withhold national guard from federal service
• Control state borders
• Reclaim federal lands as state property
• Refuse to participate in federal initiatives such as federal health care, cap &
trade, etc.
• Do not permit the enforcement of federal executive branch regulations on people,
private businesses or state/local government entities.
• Do not permit any federal inspections of anything within the state.
• Demand property tax for military bases, national parks, etc.
“…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… .”
May God have mercy upon us all.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Class is in Session
When conservatives talk about the federal judiciary and the importance of who appoints those judges I believe that we are shooting way over most people's heads. We talk about judicial activism, legislating from the bench, original intent and strict constructionists. Most folks hear our candidates talking like that and say, 'huh?' The liberals' candidates come out and talk about appointing judges who will use the law with compassion in order to help out the little guy and make things more fair for the average working stiff. Hurrah!, scream the masses. We are technically right and they win the election. Brilliant. Our discourse must be based upon an understanding that education has failed our people in the last 40 years. Most people voting today do not have a good grounding in their understanding of our history, heritage and workings of government. They just don't know how the courts work and why. They don't understand the constitution and how our freedoms, liberties and rights are established and protected and even why that is and should be so important to them. The concept of a large intrusive federal government simply does not frighten them. They see it as better able to give them more and do more for them. They don't understand why the Framers were so skittish about a strong central government and enamored with the idea of the States holding more power and authority. This is why so many people are confused about the role of the Electoral College and clamor for its abolition. I fear that far too many people believe that our rights come from the federal government. They don't realize that our founding documents clearly point out that the Founders believed that our rights come from God and the government is charged with the duty of protecting those rights. If rights come from government they can also be taken away by government. Rights conferred by God cannot be taken away by government. If government attempts to usurp our God-given rights it is then the right of the people to alter or abolish such a government. That's what the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were all about. We conservatives must assume the role of educating the American populace about these fundamental principles and functions of the federal government and courts. We must do this in an engaging fashion, meeting people on their level and explaining these things in ways that people can understand simply and apply directly to their daily lives. Only then can we make the case to the American people in elections that our candidates really do have the common man's best interests at heart. Ring the school bell!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Now is the Time for All Good Men
I have written extensively about the federal government’s drift away from its constitutional moorings over the last forty years, culminating with President Bush signing the patently unconstitutional mortgage take-over bill several weeks ago. Now the prospect of a President Obama (God forbid) yoked up with Pelosi and Reid looms large on the Republic’s horizon. Such an unholy troika would devastate what remains of our constitutional liberties and protections. He would pack the federal judiciary and Supreme Court with far-left radical activist judges who would change the legal and cultural landscape for generations for the worse. Barry has even voiced his support for a long-touted second Bill of Rights which would include a federal constitutional right to a job, a home and health care. Not to mention the backdoor disarming of the citizenry and a no-holds-barred abortion juggernaut. On top of these abominations he would gut the military, one of the few legitimate and critical federal functions thereby ceding our vital positions around the globe to those who would cut off our oil and our heads.
This anti-constitutional orientation infects all three branches of the federal government and sadly both political parties, though I would judge that there is a much greater dose of it in the Democrat party. Lord Acton was quite right when he observed that, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the federal district court in Philadelphia stated in his dismissal of Democrat Philip Berg’s suit questioning the birth certificate of Barack that we mere people have no standing to raise constitutional issues about our candidates running for President. His belief is that only the Congress has such standing. Are you kidding?! So our only recourse against constitutional infractions is to wait for Congress to bring the issue forth? They are as guilty and complicit or more of such heinous constitutional infractions as Obama. That’s tantamount to me handing a pistol to a thief breaking into my home in the dead of night and begging him to arrest himself! We the people through our states own the Constitution. We do indeed have standing. The federal government does not own and is not a party to the constitution. The states wrote it and created the federal government to serve the needs of the states and at their pleasure, not vice versa. The states are not mere governmental subdivisions of the federal government. The federal government is charged to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the states and the people through the very specific enumerated powers and restrictions within Article I, Section 8 and the various amendments. And that’s it! It is NOT carte blanche for the federal government to tax, spend, regulate and run every minute aspect of American life.
Now is the time for the people acting through their states to rise up and enforce the absolute tenets of the constitution upon the federal government. We must not be intimidated. The states can amend the constitution and call a constitutional convention. I hope it does not come to a convention. Let me say that I am not an advocate of state secession, but I do think that states should consider ways that they can reign in a rogue federal government and perhaps operate as more sovereign, independent states while remaining within the republic. States choosing not to participate in unconstitutional federal programs would become laboratories of liberty which would attract or repel people and industry based upon their success or failure. As a parting thought I pray that we do not take up arms over these issues as we did in 1775 and 1860. That course of action though is the final recourse of a people oppressed by tyranny. It is for this reason that the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights. History teaches that one of the first actions taken by a despot is to confiscate the people’s arms. What better way to protect himself from forced removal? The American people must never cede that right. Let’s look back to our very own Declaration of Independence for guidance from our Founding Fathers:
…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”…
And a few final thoughts from Thomas Jefferson, the liberal’s favorite Founding Father:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
God save the Republic!
October 29, 2008
This anti-constitutional orientation infects all three branches of the federal government and sadly both political parties, though I would judge that there is a much greater dose of it in the Democrat party. Lord Acton was quite right when he observed that, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the federal district court in Philadelphia stated in his dismissal of Democrat Philip Berg’s suit questioning the birth certificate of Barack that we mere people have no standing to raise constitutional issues about our candidates running for President. His belief is that only the Congress has such standing. Are you kidding?! So our only recourse against constitutional infractions is to wait for Congress to bring the issue forth? They are as guilty and complicit or more of such heinous constitutional infractions as Obama. That’s tantamount to me handing a pistol to a thief breaking into my home in the dead of night and begging him to arrest himself! We the people through our states own the Constitution. We do indeed have standing. The federal government does not own and is not a party to the constitution. The states wrote it and created the federal government to serve the needs of the states and at their pleasure, not vice versa. The states are not mere governmental subdivisions of the federal government. The federal government is charged to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the states and the people through the very specific enumerated powers and restrictions within Article I, Section 8 and the various amendments. And that’s it! It is NOT carte blanche for the federal government to tax, spend, regulate and run every minute aspect of American life.
Now is the time for the people acting through their states to rise up and enforce the absolute tenets of the constitution upon the federal government. We must not be intimidated. The states can amend the constitution and call a constitutional convention. I hope it does not come to a convention. Let me say that I am not an advocate of state secession, but I do think that states should consider ways that they can reign in a rogue federal government and perhaps operate as more sovereign, independent states while remaining within the republic. States choosing not to participate in unconstitutional federal programs would become laboratories of liberty which would attract or repel people and industry based upon their success or failure. As a parting thought I pray that we do not take up arms over these issues as we did in 1775 and 1860. That course of action though is the final recourse of a people oppressed by tyranny. It is for this reason that the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights. History teaches that one of the first actions taken by a despot is to confiscate the people’s arms. What better way to protect himself from forced removal? The American people must never cede that right. Let’s look back to our very own Declaration of Independence for guidance from our Founding Fathers:
…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”…
And a few final thoughts from Thomas Jefferson, the liberal’s favorite Founding Father:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
God save the Republic!
October 29, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
The Stated Case for the States
I have asked many times in this forum how the people can reign in a rogue federal government. The answer of course is that the state legislatures are the true reservoirs of that power. Consider, the states existed before the federal government, they created the federal government and their constitutions existed before they wrote the federal constitution. So why won't the states exert their power and bring the feds back within their limited boundaries? Just follow the money trail. The federal government has diverted the tax flow away from state capitols and instead to D.C. That money is then doled back out to the states as subsidies and federal projects based upon state compliance with federal mandates. Naturally, the federal bureaucratic machine extracts its pound of flesh first, thereby diminishing the return to the states. How clever. It would be much more efficient and responsive to the local needs of the people if the states took responsibility for these tax dollars and projects. The level of government closest to the people (and typically the smallest) that can deal with an issue is usually the best. Think about it, there really are very few problems that demand federal solutions. Maybe a dozen, if that many. So let those of us who yearn for a return to a small, constitutional republic ponder how we can convince the various states to flex their muscles and bring sanity back to the federal monster.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Amendment 36-Colorado
With regard to the initiative to alter the way Presidential Electors are selected in Colorado, the idea of voting on a measure to change the way an election is conducted for that very same election is patently absurd. One does not change the rules once the process is already underway.
On a more substantive note, the proposal in question would essentially eliminate the Electoral College without a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Presidents are elected by the States, not a general national plebiscite. The purpose is to maintain the integrity of our republic. Without the Electoral College process, states with lesser populations would lose their participation in selecting the President. Our nation was founded as a federation of sovereign states with a relatively weak national government. The majority of power is vested in the states. The current process ensures that all citizens of the various states have a say in selecting our national leader. Under the proposed adulteration, the President could be elected by three or four populous states. That would herald the end of States’ rights. The President is elected by the States to represent the States; hence the President of the United States of America. The People directly elect their Representatives. Thus, the House of Representatives was designed to be the Peoples’ House.
Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution charges the state legislatures with establishing the method for holding elections in their respective states for President. It does not provide for those legislatures to abdicate or delegate that specific responsibility.
This proposal is nothing more than a veiled attempt to unconstitutionally usurp the power to elect their President from the people. What these proponents cannot obtain by legal ballots, they seek to obtain by chicanery and tomfoolery. We must never allow any dangerous changes like this to take away the peoples’ right to elect the President.
We must demand from our State Representatives that they make a pre-emptive declaration by legislation that they and only they under the U. S. Constitution have the authority to designate how elections are held in Colorado and that the apportionment of electoral votes shall not change.
We’re waiting…
On a more substantive note, the proposal in question would essentially eliminate the Electoral College without a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Presidents are elected by the States, not a general national plebiscite. The purpose is to maintain the integrity of our republic. Without the Electoral College process, states with lesser populations would lose their participation in selecting the President. Our nation was founded as a federation of sovereign states with a relatively weak national government. The majority of power is vested in the states. The current process ensures that all citizens of the various states have a say in selecting our national leader. Under the proposed adulteration, the President could be elected by three or four populous states. That would herald the end of States’ rights. The President is elected by the States to represent the States; hence the President of the United States of America. The People directly elect their Representatives. Thus, the House of Representatives was designed to be the Peoples’ House.
Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution charges the state legislatures with establishing the method for holding elections in their respective states for President. It does not provide for those legislatures to abdicate or delegate that specific responsibility.
This proposal is nothing more than a veiled attempt to unconstitutionally usurp the power to elect their President from the people. What these proponents cannot obtain by legal ballots, they seek to obtain by chicanery and tomfoolery. We must never allow any dangerous changes like this to take away the peoples’ right to elect the President.
We must demand from our State Representatives that they make a pre-emptive declaration by legislation that they and only they under the U. S. Constitution have the authority to designate how elections are held in Colorado and that the apportionment of electoral votes shall not change.
We’re waiting…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
