by Ray Bilger
The basic idea of the Founding Fathers was to get government as close to the people as possible. In other words, a small federal government, with strong local and state governments. Thomas Jefferson said, “When all government shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will… become as oppressive as the government from which we separated [ourselves, the government of England].â€
Do you think that a bloated federal bureaucracy might be at the root of the problems we are facing today in our American Republic? Our nation’s Founders never dreamed that the federal government would become the octopus that it is, with its tentacles reaching into every facet of our lives. Is there a solution? Yes, and it’s already happening now!
Our nation’s Founders and Framers (of the Constitution) saw that with a small federal government, our Congress might not see a need to meet at all in any given year. This is why our Constitution states (Art. I, Sec. 4, Cl. 2) that, “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year… on the first Monday in December [later changed to Jan. 3 by the 20th Amendment].†Congress was never intended to be in session all year long!
And Congress is only authorized “to exercise exclusive legislation… over such district (not exceeding ten miles square)…(Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17).†Ten miles square is not the same as ten square miles. Ten miles square is ten miles by ten miles, or 100 square miles, which is the exact size of the District of Columbia, and that is the only place, repeat, the only place that Congress has jurisdiction over, except military bases, etc., within the States.
Congress was never authorized to make laws and legislation for the States with respect to gun ownership, school curriculums, the rights of the people, federal drug laws, or any of a whole slew of other insidious laws and legislation now in place.
We The People run this country, and Our Constitution is quite clear about all of this. That is exactly why Our Tenth Amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â€
What is happening today to correct this problem is that the people are becoming informed about all of the above and are requesting (or demanding) that their State legislatures put a stop to the federal encroachment. On Feb. 2, 2009, the New Hampshire state legislature took an unbelievably bold step by introducing a Resolution declaring that certain actions by the federal government are totally void, and warning that certain future acts, if taken by the federal government, will be viewed as a “Breach of Peace†against the States.
Remember, it was our federal Congress that gave us the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which took the power and control of our money system away from the Congress and the Treasury, and illegally and unconstitutionally gave it to a foreign corporation, headed by greedy foreign international bankers, called the Federal Reserve, which is not, repeat, is not a part of the federal government and is no more federal than Federal Express. The Federal Reserve runs the biggest confidence game (con game) in the history of the world, and it is now attempting to collapse America before the States can save it. (This is the final step in achieving a One World Government.)
New Hampshire is not alone, however. In an article from www.infowars.com , titled “Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty,†we read, “Although Fox News and CNN are not telling you about it, a growing number of states are declaring sovereignty. Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.â€
People see the federal government today as an entity beholden only to itself, with a blatant disregard for the expressed interests of the majority of citizens. The vote in Congress in October of 2008 to bailout the banks illustrates the point exactly. Just before the Senate vote on the $700 billion dollar bailout (of the very banks that created the financial dilemma, headed by the Federal Reserve), Sen. Diane Feinstein asked for 3 minutes to speak. She said she had received 91,000 faxes, emails, and phone calls from Californians, and that 85,000 of those were totally opposed to any bailout whatsoever. Then she said the people don’t understand the situation, and she voted for it anyway. And remember, both McCain and Obama interrupted their campaigns to fly back to Washington to vote for the bailout.
If there is any hope for America, it lies with We The People taking back our country from the crooks and criminals in Wash., D.C. who are running our country into the ground. Instead, we need to make America SOAR into the stars. It almost seems like a miracle that the people are having their state legislatures divorce themselves from the totally corrupt policies of the federal government.
There is a new hope for America, with a great light at the end of the tunnel, and it involves the states and the people working together, as the Founders intended, to make the America of all our dreams.
Ray Bilger [send him email] is a freelance writer and investigative journalist. Mr Bilger’s articles are first published at The Loop Newspaper in Tehachapi, CA.










While you can only fight one battle at a time repealing the 17th amendment will go a long way in reviving the 10th amendment.
Every state that passes a sovereignty resolution should work to pass a Constitutional Amendment to term limit the Congressmen in D.C. just as the President is term limited and for the same reason, to limit their power. Periodically flushing out D.C will go a long way to restoring the 10th to its proper place.
Mike,
There are two year term limits imposed on Congressmen by the Constitution since 1787; reference Article I, Section 2.
All 435 Congressmen are hired or rehired by the Voters of the 435 voting districts across America every two years.
Allan
Allan,
There are no limits on the number of terms a congressman can serve, period. There is a limit on the number of terms the President can serve and it is set by Constitutional Amendment, the 22nd.
What you have stated is no different than the word games politicians play in D.C.
Politicians go to D.C. and rewrite the rules to keep themselves in office and to make it more and more difficult for a challenger to defeat them. In my district, the Democrats do not run a candidate because it is not cost effective. When a candidate runs unopposed he becomes less responsive to We The People. He then starts voting for asinine bills such as the Stimulus Package.
Look at how low Congress as a whole’s approval rating is. But when people are asked about their individual Congressman, the approval rating is much higher. So what happens is they all stay, no matter how bad they are.
Allan, if you truly believe that Congressman should not have term limits imposed on them by We The People, then you should start campaigning for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment for you believe elections should be the only “term limits” on elected officials hired by We The People.
I believe that We The People should be able to tell those who work for us how long they can work for us. It was done to the President and it should be done to Congress and any other elected official who forgets he works for We The People.
Mike,
Read it again, clearly Representatives are hired (elected) every two years “by the People†and there is nothing binding Voters to “reelect†incumbents.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, …
Allan
Allan,
I guess you do not understand what term limits are. Re-electing someone is not term limits. The President has term limits imposed on him. I understand that Congressmen can be re-elected or not. What you fail to understand, willfully I suspect, is that is not term limits.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
Talk to ya later, Horse, er I mean Allan.
Mike,
Are you arguing that Article, I, Section, 2 is not term limited to two years for Congressmen? All Congressmen that are not reelected in two years are out of a job, therefore, isn’t their terms limited to two years? Can they continue in office if not reelected?
Allan
Allan,
So I guess when Pres. Clinton failed in his attempt for a third term and was voted out of office that was term limits. No wait, he was constitutionally unable to run for a third term. The term “term limits” does not apply to the length of time an elected official serves between elections but rather to the number of times he may stand for and be elected to a particular office.
Since you feel that elections are sufficient to act as “term-limits”, then please answer a few simple questions. Why are not elections not a sufficient “term limit” for the Office of the President? Why can’t the American people elect President Obama to six or seven terms if they wish, just as Congressmen serve six or seven terms? Why is the 22nd Amendment ok for the President but not for Congressmen?
If you can’t or won’t answer these questions, then it is pointless to continue a conversation where two people cannot even agree on what the term “term-limits” means (or even the meaning of the word is is).
Mike,
The People do not “directly†elect a President but the People do “directly†elect Lawmakers. And the President is not a King for he cannot make any law; Article I, Section 1. As far as I and the Constitution are concerned the President is limited to one term. What law says Voters must reelect a President?
Yes, Amendment 22 limited the Presidents term in office but do you think Congress would honor an Amendment to limit its terms when Congress does not honor the Constitution? Do you think Congress would, or is obligated to, enforce a law or Amendment against itself? Our major problem with government is it does not obey the Law of the Constitution.
I think you misunderstand who is obligated to enforce the Constitution – it ain’t government but yours truly, the Citizenry. And the only “constitutional power of force†the Citizenry has available to use against government is the Ballot Box with which to “directly†hire (elect) Lawmakers and do so every two years for Congressmen.
Allan
I think a better “constitutional power of force” would be to call on the principles of nullification. The Constitution was formed as a “contract” between the federal government and the sovereign people, acting through their states. When either party violates a contract – that contract is then null and void.
It’s good to see so many states calling on the federal government to cease and desist from their unconstitutional activities. The past 200 years or so of elections should give us plenty of proof that relying on the ballot box to keep a government in check is not only foolhardy, but dangerous.
Michael – I think it is a terrible mistake to blame the ballot box for corrupting government –actually the ballot box is blameless; the problem is the misuse of the ballot box by the Citizenry (voters). The Citizenry is also misusing the Jury Boxes.
Allan
Allen – there was nothing in my statement, whatsoever, that put blame for corrupting government on “the ballot box”
My opinion remains the same – counting on elections to bring the government in line has failed for a long, long, long time. I think that expecting some magical turn around in the future is a bad strategy. I’d be interested in seeing some research or an article that correlated voting with a reducing in the power of the federal government. I doubt that’s possible, because we have plenty of election, and the government ignores the constitution and grows in power every year.
That’s why I see reliance on voting to protect our liberty as a failed strategy.
Michael,
You said “relying on the ballot box to keep a government in check is not only foolhardy, but dangerous.â€
I agree relying on the ballot box is foolhardy and dangerous but only when used NOT in accordance of the constitutional purpose.
According to the Constitution an elected Official can be elected to do only one thing, take and honor the Constitution’s oath of Office; reference the last paragraph of Article VI. It would be a misuse by the Voter to use the ballot box to vote for an elected Official to do anything else. If affect such a voter would be changing the Constitution and voters cannot change the constitution; reference Article V (only agreement of three fourths of the State Legislatures, or Conventions thereof, can amend the Constitution.)
Yes, voting (both ballot and jury boxes) has failed, miserably. But, again, it is not the fault of the boxes for the failure but failure is the fault of the User, Voter.
I have serious doubts whether our constitutional republic and personal liberty can ever be resuscitated but I can see no other way than the way, method, the Founders gave us. All other ways and ideas on restoring and maintaining the Land of the Free and home of the Brave have failed too and failed throughout history.
Do you really think there is a better idea than the Constitution to Rule a government of a country of a free people where the People are the undisputed big Boss on who gets hired to make legislation every two years and have the obligation to dispense justice to accused fellow citizens and the power, as Juror, to nullify government legislation?
I agree completely with the Founders.
Allan
John Adams may have said it best with:
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
[...] conclusion of my last article read, “If there is any hope for America, it lies with We The People taking back our country from [...]