Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Rob Natelson
Effectively defending American federalism requires us to remember that federalism was not created by the states – nor was it created for state benefit.
Federalism was fashioned by the American people – for the benefit of individuals and of the people as a whole. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, possibly the most eminent defender of the Tenth Amendment to sit on the modern Supreme Court, put it this way:
The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.â€
People who reduce federalism to a matter of “state’s rights,†or who continue to argue for the long-discredited theory that our American union is merely a “compact†among states play into the hands of the centralizers.
The centralizers easily can point out that these “states-rights†positions are not only historically and legally inaccurate – but that they represent the same line once used to support slavery and segregation.
That’s why we must promote federalism for what it really is – a system that benefits people, and their lives and liberties. Here are some points to remember:
So let’s get the Tenth Amendment arguments right. Doing so greatly increases our chances of ultimate victory!
Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history. He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
So! Patrick Henry Lives, J.D.!
1)Is THIS the letter you read when you clicked on the link?
"Con Con Is a Terrible Idea", by Phyllis Schlafly, December 19, 2008.
The Networks sold "Our Dear Reader" to the American Public who still love him. You don't think they can sell whatever THEY want from a con con to the brain-dead American majority?
2)The existing Constitution grants only a few narrowly defined powers to the 3 branches of the federal government. Each branch ignores the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution.
WHY do you think any branch would respect new limitations imposed on it even if, by a miracle, you got the amendments out of a con con you want?
3) The States already have protections from the federal government built into the Constitution: The federal government's extremely limited powers & the 10th Amendment. But everybody ignores these! The States all along have had the power to say, "NO!" to the feds.
The People all along have had power to effectively repeal the 16th Amendment, as well as pretended federal "laws" which are usurpations: refuse to convict those tried for alleged violations of laws.
The Supreme Court doesn't have an Army, it must depend upon the executive branch for enforcement (Federalist No. 78, 7th para). When the Supreme Court usurps power (as it did, e.g., in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas), the States don't have to submit!
First: The U.S. Supreme Court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction in those cases. "Abortion" and "homosexuality" are not subjects on which Congress may make laws. Also, those cases didn't "arise under the Constitution". The cases didn't fall under any of the other category of cases which Art. III, § 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear. So why would States agree to submit a case to a federal court system which lacks subject matter jurisdiction? I suspect it's because they didn't know the federal courts lacked jurisdiction. Do you agree that the judgments in those cases, & judgments in other such cases, are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Lawyers don't know this because they don't know the Constitution! Ignorance! Ignorance! THAT is our enemy.
Second: Even if the federal courts had subject matter jurisdiction in a case; if the court usurps powers in its decision, why can't a State ignore it? What's the Court going to do about it? Nothing! It doesn't have any power to enforce its judgments.
We have been sold a bill of goods about what "The Rule of Law" means! We have been told it means blind obedience to whatever anybody in government says, no matter how contrary to the Constitution! But that's a Lie!
The Truth is that when any branch of the federal government usurps powers, adherence to The Rule of Law demands THAT WE ALL DISOBEY the erring branch of the federal government!
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass any laws about firearms or ammo. Any pretended "law" which Congress does pass on firearms or ammo is an usurpation and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 7th para). States don't have to cooperate with such pretended laws addressing firearms. No one has to cooperate. Juries may & should refuse to convict. Why on Earth do we think Montana, or any other State, needs the permission of the U.S. Supreme Court to pass whatever gun laws the People of Montana want?
About the "interstate commerce clause": We can easily learn what the original intent was. It was to prohibit the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on article of commerce as they traveled through the states for purposes of buying & selling (e.g., The Federalist, No. 42 (paras 11-12) & No. 22 (paras 2-4)). It took me 5 minutes to find this out. You think the judges on the supreme court can't do the same? They can; but they won't because they want to impose THEIR Wills on us. You think you can fix them with a "clarifying" amendment?
About the "general welfare clause" - we KNOW it was not intended to give Congress power to pass any law on any subject as long as it is for the "common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". Madison made this clear (Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras).
But the courts don't like "original intent" - they want to do what they want to do! Any court which embraces the proposition that "The Constitution means what we say it means"; or adheres to the evolutionary concept "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom" (Lawrence v. Texas, last para of majority opinion) isn't going to be restrained by an amendment which says they have to adhere to the "original intent"! The fact that they claim the right to sit as a continuing constitutional convention displays their lawlessness for all to see!
Dear Colleague: I think you have a better opinion of "them" than I do. I see them as lawless usurpers, who know no "law" but their own unbridled wills. You seem to see them as people who just don't understand the limits the Constitution places on their powers, and you are going to clarify it for them.
I think we have to defeat the elected ones at the polls,or recall them; get people in who will obey the Constitution; and then embark upon an intensive program of impeachments & removals from office. Federalist No. 81 (para 9) says judges can be impeached & removed for usurpations. Federalist No. 66 (para 2) says the president can be impeached & removed for encroachments. It is a Lie that they can only be impeached for "really" serious felonies. One usurpation suffices for impeachment & removal.
If we can't get enough people in who will do the above, then States need to look at secession. It is Lawful. We need to recognize that A. Lincoln acted lawlessly when he denied, by force, the rights of States to withdraw. After all, the federal government is merely "the creature" - WE ARE THE CREATORS! (Federalist No. 33, para 6).
We the people have adopted a slave mentality. We need to shake it off!
Respectfully yours,PH.
All governments, Local, State, and Federal, legislates outside the Constitution. So how much more talk and for how long a time should the People continue such talk, especially the Patriot community?
Amend the Constitution, heaven forbid! There is nothing wrong with the 1787 Constitution.
Every act of government must first be legislated into law and funded by legislation. Legislators are directly responsible for all unconstitutionality.
Unconstitutionality is an act of government authorized by legislation and Amendments. All unconstitutionality must be “repealed†and only Lawmakers can repeal it.
Article I, Section 1, only Congress is delegated the power to legislate. Accordingly the President, Supreme Court, or the People, and or any other entity cannot make federal legislation. All Bills (legislation) for raising federal revenue must start in the House; reference Article I, Section 7.
Article I, Section 2, “only†the People can use the ballot box to elect Congressmen (Legislators/Lawmakers) and do so every two years.
No Lawmaker in the entire USA can be “constitutionally†elected to do anything else but to “honor the Constitution’s Oath of Officeâ€; reference the last paragraph of Article VI.
Let’s talk about “enforcing†the Constitution’s Oath of Office on all elected Officials, after all that is the only thing the People can “forcibly†(ballot box) do to or about unconstitutionality (Fire Lawmakers by voting to not reelecting them). Incumbent Lawmakers greatest fear is not being reelected.
Allan
Here is something I wrote up as a way of reigning in the federal government. The three main sources of usurpation in the legislative and judicial branches are 1) the General Welfare Clause, 2) the Commerce Clause, and 3) the 14th amendment. An amendment substantially in this form would correct many of the usurpations of the last 100 years. The States could call for a convention to propose this sort of amendment, or, as a condition of not seceding, require that both houses of Congress approve it for ratification by the States. The likilihood of such a thing seems remote, but just a few months ago so was the idea of 35 states looking at 10th amendment resolutions.
Anyway, in the end the choice comes down to either 1) living with economic ruin and slavery under an all-powerful central government, 2) secession, or 3) amending the constitution to reign in a usurping federal government.
Amendment to the Constitution
1. Strict adherence to the letter of the law being necessary for the preservation of a written constitution, the laws and Constitution of the United States shall be enforced according to their original intent, and not otherwise. The provisions of the Bills of Rights that restrain the federal government shall not be construed to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise made applicable to the States. Citizenship under Fourteenth Amendment shall not extend to children born to persons present in the United States in violation of law. Article 1, Sec. 8 grants Congress power to make regular the free flow of commerce from State to State, but its power over interstate commerce shall otherwise be limited to the extent of its power to regulate the commerce with foreign nations. What Congress cannot legislate to foreign nations, it cannot legislate to the States. The federal government possesses only limited, enumerated powers. Congress shall not have power to Tax or Spend under the General Welfare Clause except according to its enumerated powers.
2. The States shall have power to enforce this article by legislation.
The first clause enshrines “original intent†as the only permissible interpretative principle of federal law. Without it, we have no written constitution, for it can be changed at any moment by activists judges.
The second clause undoes the doctrine of selective incorporation by which a usurping federal judiciary has wrested from the people and States many of their most precious freedoms, and prevents that the limitations placed upon Congress be turned back upon the States.
The third clause corrects the problem of “anchor babies†born to person here in violation of law.
The fourth clause corrects the expansion of federal powers under the commerce clause and returns them to their original extent, removing local incidents of firearms and a myriad of other activities from its reach.
The sixth and seventh clauses end an expansive reading of the general welfare clause and declare that Congress can only tax and spend pursuant to its specific enumerated powers.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, section two gives power to the States to nullify usurping federal action by legislation. For purposes of items falling under this amendment, the States will thus have a veto upon both Congress and the federal courts, over-riding the Supremacy clause of Article VI.
Patrick Henry Lives,
Jefferson saw nullification as the middle course between secession and unlimited submission to an out of control federal government. These 10th Amendment resolutions are not acts of nullification but they will bring about nullification in one or more States if taken to their logical conclusion.
State legislatures and executives must retain the initiative and not be pacified, bought or backed into a corner by Washington, D.C. What will the federal government do if one or more States, supported by the citizens, begin to nullify unconstitutional federal usurpations? Loud will be the cries of "treason!†I'm sure, but that will probably be it.
A Constitutional convention is the least likely event, I would say. Nullification, State secession or even part of a State seceding from the parent State or the Union altogether are all far more likely IMHO.
If secession does occur, it could be just the inevitiable result of local people just trying to preserve law and order after the dollar declines and the federal leviathan implodes.
Patrick Henry Lives,
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.â€
George Washington
Government is “force†and force is required to control it. The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2, that the People have the force of the ballot box to hire (elect) Lawmakers. The People can control who is elected to legislate (make law) and thereby can hold the elected to their Oath of Office. As a matter of fact that is the only way the People can hold the elected to their Oath – honor that Oath or get fired.
That is the Constitution’s plan; do you have a better plan to hold the elected accountably to their Oath?
Allan
Derek,
No, I haven't read Tom DiLorenzo. You are so kind!
You said, "I like Hamilton’s words before ratification much more than I like the activities he engaged in after ratification!"
So do I! A central bank is unconstitutional. Hamilton, like all of us, was flawed and held some inconsistent opinions. But on the whole, he gave posterity a great gift in The Federalist Papers.
On the issue of identifying the ultimate Sovereign, all I can do is (1) assure you that Michael Boldin [and I] are telling you the absolute Truth. It is clear from The Federalist Papers that this is how Hamilton & Madison saw it. (2) The concept that ultimate sovereignty rests in The People was extremely radical - it was a complete departure from the practice in Europe. Unfortunately, with the rise of statism in this once blessed land, The People are losing that understanding. We have been conditioned to believe that "the state" [i.e., civil government] is the sovereign.
Sometimes it takes a while for paradigm shifts to be completed in one's mind. Shift yours back to the understanding of our Framers! Do not despair! I've done it many times.PH
You say "People who reduce federalism to a matter of “state’s rights,†or who continue to argue for the long-discredited theory that our American union is merely a “compact†among states play into the hands of the centralizers."
I would like proof that the union is NOT a compact among the States. You qualify this saying "merely" to leaven the door open for the idea that ultimately it is people who are the beneficiaries of federalism, but this in no way negates the fact that the Union was a compact created by sovereign states. They may have ultimately acted by and for their citizens, but the power of the law was and is vested in the State. If a bunch of citizens arm and train a militia this is a viewed as a bunch of skin-head radicals, but if the State does it, it is a different matter entirely. The legal authority embodies in the State clothes their actions with legitimacy. So it is with the union. The union is of sovereign States. We are the UNITED STATES, not UNITED PEOPLE. Big difference.
If any thing, it is by negating the sovereignty of the States and emphasizing the protection of "people" that has been behind much of the federal governments greatest violations of the Constition. Almost invariably, it ignores the will of the people as expressed in State law to impose its own on behalf of a tiny minority. So, to say we are playing into the hands of federalizers is at best only qualifiedly true, if not wrong entirely.
Fearless!
May I ask in what year & in which State did you first register to vote? 60 years ago in Florida, only "freeholders" [that's "land owners" for those of you from Rio Lindo] could vote on ballot initiatives raising property taxes. WHEN did the States abandon the principle that voters should be informed? Your account was very moving.
And yes, Derek, If Congress & the other two branches stayed within the boundaries the Constitution places on them, it wouldn't matter who got elected! And yes, the citizens of each State elected the delegates for their State. There was no national referendum because there was no "nation". Until the 14th Amendment, citizenship was with the States (see, e.g., ART. III §2).
It really is a profoundly important point: The issue is whether ultimate sovereignty over the federal government rests with "The People" or with the States. The authors of The Federalist Papers insisted that this sovereignty rested with the People. Alexander Hamilton said, in Federalist No. 84, Para 8, that the phrase,
"We THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of American",
was "a better recognition of popular rights" than any bills of rights.[Hamilton opposed a Bill of Rights. In No. 84, 10th Para, he shows why. He was right! I'll prove it: Art. I, §8 does not give Congress authority to pass laws about firearms or ammunition. Thus, any "law" which purports to address these is an usurpation and deserves to be treated as such. Yet the debate in recent times has been whether the 2nd Amendment "allows" private citizens to bear arms or whether it "allows" only the militia to bear arms! When our "Dear Reader" replaces one of the 5 who voted for private citizens in D.C. v. Heller (US Supreme Ct.), with an "empathetic" judges, the majority will vote that the 2nd Amendment "allows" only those in national guard and military reserves to bear arms.]
And Arklight! I respectfully submit that, like many, you misunderstand the concept of "federalism". "Federal" refers to the FORM of our government: An alliance of States with close cultural and economic ties associated together in a "federation" with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AREAS. As the national government usurps more & more of the powers retained by the States or the People, THE FORM of our government becomes less & less "federal", and more & more "national".
And Alexander Hamilton! Oh my! I respectfully suggest that you malign a political genius & one of the staunchest defenders of Liberty we ever had! If you will study his writings in The Federalist Papers, I think you will come to agree. He said it too many times for me to quote them all, but here is a sample of what he wrote:
In Federalist No. 33, Hamilton cited Art. VI, cl.2, as showing that laws which are not pursuant to the Constitution are merely acts of usurpation and deserve to be treated as such (7th Para). He also said,
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.†(6th Para)
Did you get that? Hamilton said that when our â€creatureâ€, i.e., the federal government, usurps power, WE are to judge the conduct by the
standard of the Constitution, and WE are to take appropriate action to
“redress the injury done to the Constitutionâ€!
Hamilton, after all, considered THE PEOPLE to be “the natural guardians of the Constitutionâ€; and contemplated “a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.†(The Federalist, No. 16, 10th Para).
So, Arklight! The evils which you attribute to "federalism" are the result of "nationalism", not "federalism"! You have it backwards!PH
The professor asserts that, "The states did not, as some Tenth Amendment advocates would have it, create the federal government. The people did. Although the ratifying conventions met in individual states, the delegates were elected directly by the people for the sole purpose of judging the Constitution. State governments were deliberately bypassed."
I'm just a humble layman, but I must ask how it was that the State governments were bypassed. Did each and every resident of each and every State have the right to vote for the delegates who judged the Constitution in the ratifying convention in their State? I have my doubts.
If this was not the case, it seems problematic to claim that "the people" created the federal government instead of the States. Didn't each State government reserve the right to set the criteria for who could cast a vote for their State's delegates? Were non-propert holders, members of minority religious groups, women, blacks or Native American’s permitted to vote for these delegates? If each State was permitted to decide who "the people" were in their own State, that doesn't sound like the State government was bypassed at all. Would such a bypassing of State government have even been thinkable, let alone possible in any meaningful sense at that time?
The People did create, or authorized the creation of, the central government.
Rob said: “The current practice by which state politicians purport to yield citizens’ Tenth Amendment rights in exchange for federal cash is contrary to the whole spirit of the Constitution.â€
I wholeheartedly agree with Rob’s above statement.
However, I believe in a stricter interpretation of the Constitution than the usual he said she said gossip. Supreme Court decisions, he said she said, and Legislation is completely meaningless to the Constitution, or what the Constitution means or says in writing.
I do not read the Constitution as delegating the power to protect the People, Freedom, or Liberty to any governing body but as that power and Right is retained by the People themselves. What freedom is possible by depending or relying on government protection of it?
The physical USA is American’s (Citizenry/People) playground of Freedom and the federal government is delegated the power to protect that playground, settle squabbles between the States, and domestically very little else.
The People (Americans), not any government body or agency, are obligated to ensure “All†elected Officials honor their Oath of Office or else not be reelected.
Allan
Rather than be redundant,all my posts upon May,23,09 blog "Tenth Ammendment Showdown" are incorporated herein for greater clarity as to my frame of reference. Am new to computing. Haven't figured out how to use computer to create paragraphs. My apologies for the tough read.
Sounds like a relaxed comfort zone. Lets all hope future generations become knowledgeable. Let's hope they vote for our favored candidate. Let's have another round of hanging chads. Let's entrust those that tell us what we want to hear and then opt never to vote for them again when they renege on their promises. Oh,lets go round robin Republican-Democrat doe-see-dough. Lets all file charging affidavits against the bonds which underlay tortfeasers Oaths and Affirmations to hear the court sanction us for filing bogus documents. The missing link of "force" to compel could be that which most automatically, choose to disregard,dismiss,or fail to investigate. People's power to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment. States vote their rights into existence. For sake of arguendo lets say People can't vote apart from representation. What's the procedure for people to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment? Have researched and found not one single people right has been reserved as a 10th Ammendment right. Whats wrong with this picture? On point issue of relevance is that it creates new question of law. Whether Govt. brings action to Supreme Court or a People fashioned Writ of Certiari, the question can be resolved with certainty and finality. Wouldn't you want that special class of Citizen,you consider "crap " to make the attempt to test the true meaning as to why people were made part of the 10th Ammendment? Is it truly, limited only to State's rights? Countless others have broached the question but were 12B6ed for lack of standing due to 14th Ammendment recognition. The very same court recognition which hog ties Oath challenges.
Allan A Campbell, I appreciate your input, thanks.
I suppose it all depends on what Voters want government to do. Voters are lead to think they have a Democracy run by their "Will" and they vote to elect a Lawmaker depending on their side of a political issue. Do you know of a political issue Voters can resolve? I do - the Oath of Office and none other to my knowledge.
Consider only Congress is delegated the power to Legislate, that means voters cannot legislate. That also means only Congress, not voters, can repeal federal legislation - it requires legislation to repeal legislation. Consider only three fourths of the State Legislatures, or Conventions thereof, can amend the Constitution. That means Voters cannot amend the Constitution.
Dieboldt - There always was some voter fraud (it's called) and or some sort of corruption involved in all, or most, elections but it is "impossible" to rig all the ballot boxes in all, or even a majority, of the 435 voting districts across the USA in electing Congressional Lawmakers every two years. It is much easier to rig Voter's mind (brainwash) than it would be to rig the ballot box.
What do you suggest Voters do about dieboldt? I suggest ignore it and vote to elect only Lawmakers that will honor the Constitution's Oath of Office - or do not vote to elect an Incumbent that has dishonored their Oath. Maintaining this Constitutional Republic and Liberty is really that simple.
What is not so simple is getting Voters to do it; evidently Voters love their Democracy and unconstitutionality (it really isn't a Democracy but voters think it is).
Allan
Attn : Allan Hampton. My aforesaid posts relates to alternative solutions no one's considered. It's thinking outside the box. What happens if all State actions fail? What then? We're required to exhaust all non-violent remedies. Its understandable having blind faith in ballot box tallying amidst questions of Dieboldt vote machine accuracy or claims of vote fraud/engineering. We've all seen the effect of cards,letters,phone calls,e-mails,assemblies,protests,ad. nauseum. Key point is not to limit 10th Ammendment discussion/discourse to State's rights. There may come a time State power can't effect change unless it is vested with an infusion of new sovereign empowerment. If Federal Govt. suceeds in right to bully State's and People, then its only logical to take the fight internationally. Perhaps it takes another country to do for us what neither State's nor American people can do from within. Granted,its a worse case scenario, but it gets people to think outside govt. box. Can appreciate your mindset to not contaminate the current State's rights actions. All what was sought to convey is to prepare for a multiplicity of nonviolent battle fronts. People are the last line of defense. New question of law. Why can't people vote to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment? Are'nt people a seperate party within the 10th Ammendment? Why are we limited to civil right vote to representation? Its not the inalienable right to vote. State's aren't helping to inform,instruct,or provide process/procedure to likewise participate in curtailing Federal expansionism. Question of impunity is befuddling. People submit to civil authority conditioned reciprocally upon recognition of aforementioned in posts above. There is no forcing anyone. It's about laying foundation to record as a matter of public record all govt. abuses and disobedience. Object is to charachterize govt. as an organized criminal entity at international law level. Don't advocate it,but final remedy is Federal Govt. disbandment by reclaiming powers vested. The more govt. resists the more evidence against it to warrant all redress.
Allan A Campbell,
Seems to me most Americans know what government is doing is criminal (unconstitutional); government does whatever it wants to do, to hell with the Oath they all took to support the 1787 Constitution ("this Constitution").
If government Officials do not honor (obey) the Constitution's Oath then I see no other law that will compel them to obey it either.
The People I personally know blame David Koresh for the unconstitutional acts of both the federal and Texas governments at Waco - we've come a long way, baby!
Yeah, we can do this and do that but not with impunity. Need I mention Waco, and or the thousands trying this and that who are either murdered or sitting in prison?
How about all these unconstitutional fedgov wars going on around the world since 1950?
Need I mention the enslavement of every American to the tune of half of their labor's earnings?
Everything fedgov does must first be enacted into law by legislation passed by Congress and at the federal level of government only Congress can legislate.
Forget about the crap Citizen, citizen, and sovereignty because the People, or States, cannot "force" fedgov to recognize anything against fedgov's will. Do we comprehend the People's "force", force with impunity?
The only People's "force" with impunity to ensure compliance with the Oath of Office (Officials) is the ballot box. Only the People can use the ballot box to hire Lawmakers; reference Article I, Section 2, referring to the House in Congress.
Wise up and quit repeating enemy propaganda. Do you not recognize it is enemy propaganda praising unconstitutionality, such as fedgov's wars since 1950?
The People are being out witted and out voted. Get everyone registered to vote and vote the enemy puppets out of office (federal & State) in 2010.
Allan
Least threatening,least destabilizing remedy is to seperate from the 14th Ammendment federal citizenship recognition, by repopulating abandoned 10th Ammendment standing class of citizenship the Founding Fathers were. They never existed under the 14th. In law when one is "of" something one is subject to a higher authority.[i.e. citizen of the United States means citizen of the Federal govt., Constitution of the United States is subject to Congress it's maker with sovereignty shared over it by Executive and the Judicial branches]. Point being, We've all been coralled into a 14th Ammendment federal citizen conversion process making one subject to all govt. authority and jurisdiction. American born are automatically 10th Ammendment class of citizenship. Once mother applies for any govt. document the baby gets contracted out and purviewed under the 14th Ammendment. Seperation is reclaiming one's original 10th Ammendment birth right to stand as one of the dejure,bonafide non-govt. sovereign people of the 10th Ammendment. Once each county,every state has a minimum of one such Citizen they can proceed to network an unalienable right to vote process to reserve rights under the 10th Ammendment. Example of subject matter to vote upon could be: to empower civil authority at county level with the ability to directly compete against State and Federal. In exchange for recognition of original People powers [common law writs and remedies,Grand Jury presentments w/out govt. intercessor,Jury nullification power to negate bad law, and new rights like commercial liens/charging affidavits against govt. charter or bonds which underlay oaths and affirmations,etc.,], county govt. is vested with newfound sovereignty conferred upon it to be the paramount provider and protector for the common good of all citizens within the county. County govt. can issue an income tax form in lieau of the federal withholding form. Thus all who live in the county can choose to route their money thru County Treasury. County begins to mimic most all of what States and Federal offers. Ergo a fully funded SSN,health care, welfare, insurance coverage, utilities,infrastructure,modernized law enforcement,Fire dept.,Schools w/ freedom curriculum/highest paid teachers,etc.,et. al. This relieves and unburdens the States and the Federal govt and vicariously imposes limitations and constraints. 80% of income tax goes to county,10% each to State and Federal. Its only a model of what could be. What gives it teeth are 10th Ammendment standing People and the foundational right to do what their doing by reserving such right voted upon under the 10th Ammendment. Affluent Elite/Bankster problem can be remedied by 14th Ammendment seperation to reclaim 10th Ammendment standing to challenge and question all govt. debt and subject private banks of Federal Reserve to Writ of Certiari,supeona dueces tucum to produce all their books and records. Counterclaim,offsets,Federal Reserve lien power can only be attacked outside the 14th. Likewise threat of prosecution for past destabilizations and ratification of debt as assets or excessive usuary or other crimes found in discovery could dissuade them from attempting to "pull the rug out from under democracy". One could say just cause and necessity for non-govt. sovereignty is that Federal govt. can't uphold and defend the Constitution were it to succumb to final stage of bankruptcy. Govt. can't impair the obligation of contracts. Nor can it provide bankruptcy protection to individuals. In international law the creditor governs the debtor. Threat to Constitution is offer of self contracting out from under it in exchange for debt forgiveness and to become World citizen made subject to International governance. Thus only one's with power to challenge all oustsider/Fed claims against govt. and 14th Ammendment persons are the "sovereign citizens" present govt. custom and practice vilifies contemptuosly. Under 14th Amm. there's no remedy. As to Federal govt. challenge to money redirect to County, a People vote to reserve 10th Amm. right to resolve all govt. political questions with finality and closure can be interposed. Effect squarely challenges the improper ratification of the 16th Ammendment. A vote of no,accepting Alexander Philander Knox misrepresented true State votes by falsification of record wherefore 16th Ammendment did not pass and is henceforth void abinitio,nunc pro tunc,ad infinitum. Bottom line their is no unalienable power of people under the 14th Ammendment. When one discovers District of Columbia/Federal govt. is a foreign nation in respect to the States,and one is viewed in law as a federal citizen, it becomes self evident, one is being recognized as a foreigner. Foreign to the position of law and authority the Founding Fathers occupied. Recognition of sovereignty in Citizens is not limited to American Govt. Govt. round-ups imprisonment/detention/incommunicado can be countervailed by reserving rights to pre-made remedies. Once they're activated by govt. response[i.e. martial rule,denying guaranteed right to republican form of government outside the Federal democracy,govt. bad faith refusal to submit to Writ of Prohibition,Quo Warranto,Petitions for redress of greivances exhausting all remedies] vest delegated powers of recognition and Habeous Corpus unto foreign nations abroad to intercede,rescue,and act on People's behalf. Combined with pre-made Declaration of Independence's disbandment clause whereby reclaiming all powers vested unto Federal govt., major foreign nation,like Russia, can take recognition that Federal govt. lacks standing,rights, and veto power to participate in Group of Nations,or represent the People in any capacity in International forums/venues. Figuratively, this is what wounds the "Beast System". Only in America is it recognized in international law that United States sovereignty is derived from a source outside the body of govt. Federal govt. as seperatist,is seperating everyone from the real 10th Ammendment power. Consider this as a "fast track" countermeasure to undo whats been done.
I believe I'm gonna vomit. Federalism is like communism or socialism; it's only good in theory.
sorry about the double posts! Perhaps the moderator will be kind enough to delete the first of the double posts.
Esteemed "Patrick Henry Lives":
I comment again because the prospect of a con con is so frightening. You & I are squarely on the same side; the problem for our side is to determine which tactics are most likely to lead to Victory.
1. You still have not addressed the fundamental flaw in your position: All 3 branches of the federal government have been ignoring the existing Constitution for many decades. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO "CLARIFYING" AMENDMENTS? The Constitution is already clear.
2. Let's look at the "slave mentality": A person I know was addicted to cigarettes. He couldn't quit. This went on for 25 years. Being a "smoker" was who he was. But then, one day, he realized, "Why am I doing this? I don't have to do this! I'm going to stop!" He did! He stopped being a slave to cigarettes.
The States and The People have adopted a slave mentality with respect to the federal government. States have consented to the usurpations of the federal government. Federal juries have consented when they convict defendants for violations of federal "laws" which are mere usurpations. The People have consented when they comply with federal laws which are mere usurpations.
The Tenth Amendment Resolutions turn us around so we are at least facing in the right direction. These Resolutions could be stronger, but it takes people a while to shake off their slave mentality. There is nothing but ignorance, habit & a slavish mindset to stop the States & The People Themselves from INSISTING that the "creature" of The People (the federal gov't) stay within the limits The People set for them. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 33, paras 6-7 & Federalist No. 16, 10th para), Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton saw The People as "the natural guardians of the Constitution".
You asked what happens when the federal government ignores the Tenth Amendment Resolutions. My dear Colleague: WE DO NOT NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REIGN THEM IN. We just say, "No, hell, no!". Hamilton said laws which are mere usurpations deserve to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33 paras 6-7).
If a significant number of States start doing this, what is the federal government going to do about it? What can they do? The National Guard isn't going to turn their guns against us.
But we don't have much time: Our Dear Reader said during the campaign that he wanted a "Civilian National Security Force" which is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military". The brain-dead morons among him cheered these words; but we who have some intelligence and knowledge of history recall Hitler's brown-shirts & Mussolini's black-shirts. Where is the 2 Trillion dollars which has "disappeared" going?
One way or the other, we have to fix this before Our Dear Reader gets his "civilian national security force" organized & armed.PH
Esteemed "Patrick Henry Lives":
I comment still again because the prospect of a con con is so frightening. You & I are squarely on the same side; the problem for our side is to determine which tactics are most likely to lead to Victory.
1. You still have not addressed the fundamental logical flaw in your position: All 3 branches of the federal government have been ignoring the existing Constitution for many decades. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO "CLARIFYING" AMENDMENTS? The Constitution is already clear.
2. Let's look at the "slave mentality": A person I know was addicted to cigarettes. He couldn't quit. This went on for 25 years. Being a "smoker" was who he was. But then, one day, he realized, "Why am I doing this? I don't have to do this! I'm going to stop!" He did! He stopped being a slave to cigarettes.
The States and The People have adopted a slave mentality with respect to the federal government. States have consented to the usurpations of the federal government. Federal juries have consented when they convict defendants for violations of federal "laws" which are mere usurpations. The People have consented when they comply with federal laws which are mere usurpations.
The Tenth Amendment Resolutions turn us around so we are at least facing in the right direction. These Resolutions could be stronger, but it takes people a while to shake off their slave mentality. There is nothing but habit and a slavish mindset to stop the States & The People Themselves from INSISTING that the "creature" of The People (the federal gov't) stay within the limits The People set for them. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 33, paras 6-7 & Federalist No. 16, 10th para), Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton saw The People as "the natural guardians of the Constitution".
You asked what happens when the federal government ignores the Tenth Amendment Resolutions. My dear Colleague: WE DO NOT NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REIGN THEM IN. We just say, "No, hell, no!". Hamilton said laws which are mere usurpations deserve to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33 paras 6-7).
If a significant number of States start doing this, what is the federal government going to do about it? What can they do? The National Guard isn't going to turn their guns against us.
But we don't have much time: Our Dear Reader said during the campaign that he wanted a "Civilian National Security Force" which is "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military". The brain-dead morons among him cheered these words; but we who have some intelligence and knowledge of history recall Hitler's brown-shirts & Mussolini's black-shirts. Where is the 2 Trillion dollars which has "disappeared" going?
One way or the other, we have to fix this before Our Dear Reader gets his "civilian national security force" organized & armed.PH
I guess the question comes down to "what do we do after the 10th Amendment Resolutions have played out and the federal government has basically ignored them?" That is the question. What options lie before the States and people? They can 1) secede, 2) they can try to alter or amend the federal government by a Con-con. or 3) resist until the point of arms, if need require. I don't have a lot of confidence in #2 happening, but I do see it as worth pursuing before numbers 1 and 3. Personally, I favor secession. But I feel that Con-con should at least be looked, discussed, and explored before taking such a drastic step. I have not really heard too many other people asking "what next?" Yet a lot of people are quick to criticise even though offering no solutions themselves. Pardon me for trying to think and plan ahead!
So! Patrick Henry Lives, J.D.!
1)Is THIS the letter you read when you clicked on the link?
"Con Con Is a Terrible Idea", by Phyllis Schlafly, December 19, 2008.
The Networks sold "Our Dear Reader" to the American Public who still love him. You don't think they can sell whatever THEY want from a con con to the brain-dead American majority?
2)The existing Constitution grants only a few narrowly defined powers to the 3 branches of the federal government. Each branch ignores the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution.
WHY do you think any branch would respect new limitations imposed on it even if, by a miracle, you got the amendments out of a con con you want?
3) The States already have protections from the federal government built into the Constitution: The federal government's extremely limited powers & the 10th Amendment. But everybody ignores these! The States all along have had the power to say, "NO!" to the feds.
The People all along have had power to effectively repeal the 16th Amendment, as well as pretended federal "laws" which are usurpations: refuse to convict those tried for alleged violations of laws.
The Supreme Court doesn't have an Army, it must depend upon the executive branch for enforcement (Federalist No. 78, 7th para). When the Supreme Court usurps power (as it did, e.g., in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas), the States don't have to submit!
First: The U.S. Supreme Court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction in those cases. "Abortion" and "homosexuality" are not subjects on which Congress may make laws. Also, those cases didn't "arise under the Constitution". The cases didn't fall under any of the other category of cases which Art. III, § 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear. So why would States agree to submit a case to a federal court system which lacks subject matter jurisdiction? I suspect it's because they didn't know the federal courts lacked jurisdiction. Do you agree that the judgments in those cases, & judgments in other such cases, are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Lawyers don't know this because they don't know the Constitution! Ignorance! Ignorance! THAT is our enemy.
Second: Even if the federal courts had subject matter jurisdiction in a case; if the court usurps powers in its decision, why can't a State ignore it? What's the Court going to do about it? Nothing! It doesn't have any power to enforce its judgments.
We have been sold a bill of goods about what "The Rule of Law" means! We have been told it means blind obedience to whatever anybody in government says, no matter how contrary to the Constitution! But that's a Lie!
The Truth is that when any branch of the federal government usurps powers, adherence to The Rule of Law demands THAT WE ALL DISOBEY the erring branch of the federal government!
Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass any laws about firearms or ammo. Any pretended "law" which Congress does pass on firearms or ammo is an usurpation and deserves to be treated as such (Federalist No. 33, 7th para). States don't have to cooperate with such pretended laws addressing firearms. No one has to cooperate. Juries may & should refuse to convict. Why on Earth do we think Montana, or any other State, needs the permission of the U.S. Supreme Court to pass whatever gun laws the People of Montana want?
About the "interstate commerce clause": We can easily learn what the original intent was. It was to prohibit the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on article of commerce as they traveled through the states for purposes of buying & selling (e.g., The Federalist, No. 42 (paras 11-12) & No. 22 (paras 2-4)). It took me 5 minutes to find this out. You think the judges on the supreme court can't do the same? They can; but they won't because they want to impose THEIR Wills on us. You think you can fix them with a "clarifying" amendment?
About the "general welfare clause" - we KNOW it was not intended to give Congress power to pass any law on any subject as long as it is for the "common Defense and general Welfare of the United States". Madison made this clear (Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras).
But the courts don't like "original intent" - they want to do what they want to do! Any court which embraces the proposition that "The Constitution means what we say it means"; or adheres to the evolutionary concept "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom" (Lawrence v. Texas, last para of majority opinion) isn't going to be restrained by an amendment which says they have to adhere to the "original intent"! The fact that they claim the right to sit as a continuing constitutional convention displays their lawlessness for all to see!
Dear Colleague: I think you have a better opinion of "them" than I do. I see them as lawless usurpers, who know no "law" but their own unbridled wills. You seem to see them as people who just don't understand the limits the Constitution places on their powers, and you are going to clarify it for them.
I think we have to defeat the elected ones at the polls,or recall them; get people in who will obey the Constitution; and then embark upon an intensive program of impeachments & removals from office. Federalist No. 81 (para 9) says judges can be impeached & removed for usurpations. Federalist No. 66 (para 2) says the president can be impeached & removed for encroachments. It is a Lie that they can only be impeached for "really" serious felonies. One usurpation suffices for impeachment & removal.
If we can't get enough people in who will do the above, then States need to look at secession. It is Lawful. We need to recognize that A. Lincoln acted lawlessly when he denied, by force, the rights of States to withdraw. After all, the federal government is merely "the creature" - WE ARE THE CREATORS! (Federalist No. 33, para 6).
We the people have adopted a slave mentality. We need to shake it off!
Respectfully yours,PH.
Patrick, I agree that Eagle Forum wraps itself in the Constitution but does not put out proper information on correcting government unconstitutionality. Eagle Forum is playing politics.
I think your idea of an Amendment is incorrect for the reason of enforcement - you want the State government to step up to bat for you in enforcing the Law of the Constitution on federal elected officials. It is not government, at any level, that is obligated to enforce the Constitution (Oath of office) on itself or another governing body.
IMO it is the People, not government, that is obligated to enforce the Oath of Office on all elected Officials. I believe no law will enforce itself - the fox will not guard the hen house.
No new amendment needed except to repeal unconstitutional Amendments. The 1787 Constitution is just fine, it simply needs to be enforced by the People.
Allan
First, the letter you cite at Eagle Forum is inapposite. It speaks to requiring a balanced budget or giving Obama a line item veto, etc. These are useless and unnecessary. Second, the sort of Amendment I have in view WILL be effective for the very reason that it does NOT require the federal govenment to enforce it. Rather, it turns the power back to the States!
The sort of amendment I have in mind makes 1) "original intent" the only interpretative principle that can be enforced. This would require that the judiciary conform its decisions to accord with the purpose of laws and Constitution or Amendments at the time of enactment. This would end judicial activism, like selective incorporation under the 14th by which the limitations upon Congress have been turned back upon the States. 2) It would define the limits of Congressional power under the Commerce and General welfare clauses, returning them to the orginal intent of the founders. Finally, 3) it gives the States power to enforce it by legislation. In other words, it specifically over rides federal "supremacy" under Article VI for purposes of items falling under its provisions.
The way it would work is like this. A case comes before a federal appellate level court. That court decides that crosses commemorating WWII on a monument errected by veterens on state land is unconstitutional. The case is based upon selective incorporation of the 1st amendment. The state in which the monument stands can set the decision aside, inasmuch as the original intent of the 14th was not followed.
Another example: Congress passes a law making illegal local incidents of firearms. The law is based upon the Commerce clause. The State can set the leglislation aside by pointing out the limitations the amendment sets upon the commerce clause. Etc.
Obviously, the fed-gov could attempt to ignore the State power to set aside offending legislation, but whereas at present federal supremacy places all the cards in federal hands, the amendment I envision would override federal supremacy and place it in state hands. Thus, rather than the federal courts having the last say, the States would. The feds have demonstrated they cannot handle their power responsibly, so we are taking it away and returning to the states where it belonged in the first place.
My qualifications about the wisdom of a con-con? I hold a juris doctorate and am a licensed attorney. But that is irrelevent. To do nothing is to invite ruin. Short of secession, there is little or nothing else we can do. The states MUST act and resolutions accomplish little or nothing.
Patrick Henry Lives!
1. I don't know your qualifications to have formed such strong opinions on the wisdom of a con con. But a wise man keeps his mind open; and I hope you will read the comments below made by another attorney knowledgeable about the Constitution & American history.
http://www.tneagleforum.org/custpage.cfm/frm/30017/sec_id/30017
Former Chief Justice Warren Berger's letter opposing a con con is on the Eagle Forum Website.
2. You also miss the logical flaw in your argument. You say:
"...since the federal government is the offending party and can be counted on NOT to propose an amendment limiting its own power, the States must act, or else allow us to be involved in utter ruin and slavery."
Your argument is illogical because The existing Constitution ALREADY STRICTLY LIMITS the powers of the 3 branches of the federal! The powers of the 3 branches are few and defined.
SO WHY WOULD AN AMENDMENT LIMITING THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE OBEYED?
3. We are doomed if the people on our side are too proud to open up their minds,listen & LEARN. Sometimes, what we think we know is just plain wrong.PH
You're wrong. A Constitutional Convention is merely for proposing amendments. They still have to go through the ratificaiton process just like any other amendment. The only difference is that where the house and senate fail to act by proposing an amendment to the States, the State can take matters into thier own hands and call for a convention where amendments may be proposed. Here, since the federal government is the offending party and can be counted on NOT to propose an amendment limiting its own power, the States must act, or else allow us to be involved in utter ruin and slavery.
No! What REALLY got us to this point was the People who voted the statists into office (except for the elections which were stolen),& keep returning them to office. The problem isn't with "government" - it's with The People who are stupid or corrupt. We are getting the government they voted for. E.g., a District in Pennsylvania returned John Murtha to office because he brings home the pork!
Folks, the last thing we want is a Constitutional Convention ("con con")! Our present Constitution would be on the chopping block. The statists control all 3 branches of the federal government. We could NOT control a con con. A con con is like burning brush in a dry forest on a windy day!
And THINK! Congress, the Courts, and the Executive Branch ALL IGNORE OUR CONSTITUTION! Even if we got the "clarifications" to the Constitution some people say we need, why would the 3 branches comply with the "clarifications"? They would ignore them also!
I think Prof. Natelson posted an article on this web site about a con con. Perhaps Michael Boldin can find the link for you. There were some valuable discussions there.
Folks: Our present Constitution is clear. It is a magnificent jewel of political liberty. Our problems have been caused by people ignoring it.
Is there a solution? Yes. Each of you must open up your Minds & Learn the present Constitution, teach those within your spheres of influence, go out there and find candidates who will learn it and run on it, or run for office yourself. OUR SIDE has been asleep! Now we are starting to wake up. May we wake up in time. PH
While you legal scholars duke it out you forget what got us to this point.
So let me remind you. Our federal government and some state governments became disrespectful to the individual and his propety. It cares squat about what we want or believe in. We want our respect back NOW, not tomorrow or the day after.
Personally, I am not convinced that the form of government is as important to liberty as the religious temperment of the people. Anyone familiar with the history Greece and Rome can attest that republics and democracies are some of the most tumultuous and restive forms of government in history. They are marked by party strife, faction, and class antagonisms.
I believe that a Christian people will be free and prosperous regardless of the form of government under which they live, provided that government share their basic religious temperment. Our English forebears saw themselves as "freemen" even though living under a monarch. So did Biblical Isreal and countless other nations down through time.
It is not the form of government so much as that government's fear of God, undestanding that it is a servant of the people as taught by Christ, and its respect for the rule of law.
It is the erosion of Christianity in America and the West that is leading to slavery, not the form of government per se. Liberty cannot be sustained without moral courage and resolution, of which Christianity alone provides a sufficient sourse. It alone provides the one spark in the human spirit tyrants cannot extinguish or put out. A look at the globe will show that only where Christianity is vividly alive are the people really free.
Mr. Ahern you are right on the money. We are not very far from living under a King and term limits is the only thing in the way of that at present and politicans of both partys are busy trying to undo even that. What is most troublesome is that the majority accept this situation without question and even some on this board support it. No one on this board has ever lived under the true Constitution and therefore cannot miss what they have never had. Some will protest that we need a strong central govt. because we are so big with so many people but the truth is even with 350 million plus we are still a long way from the billions in China or prhaps even India. There has never been a better time for this fight as now. The media is our second strongest enemy outside of the 3 branches of govt. they an fire a politican more quickly than the voters. I give as an example Trent Lott if Ms. He was vilified in the press so badly because of a comment at Strom Thurmonds celebration that he was effectively fired from his positon as house majority leader. Our foes are many and not all so obvious.
Indeed, there are many powers usurped by the federal government, including most of the ones Richard mentions above. There are much bigger things to be worried about than the federal government stepping in to protect fundamental rights of citizens.
The only arguments I might make relate to interstate crime, interstate environmental issues (largely water table and air pollution, which generally can't be contained to a single state), and radio broadcasting which is almost always inherently interstate (though I think the allowable realm of federal regulation of radio is quite narrow given the fed's 1st Amendment constraints... mostly just electronically harmful cross-state interference).
Much of the (legal and otherwise) drug trade is also reasonably regulated by the feds, in the sense that they have the power to prohibit interstate trade in dangerous and/or fraudulent materials. Though, naturally, drugs remaining entirely inside a state are a state matter.
Of course, the states also frequently overstep and attempt to regulate or interfere with things that are inherently interstate or even international such as the internet, and resolutions praising or condemning various treaties and foreign governments.
Our Constitutional Republic
Today people look to our president to deal with the unemployment problem, agricultural woes, housing programs, atomic energy, labor-management disputes,disaster relief, welfare, medicare, Social Security, education, crime, environmental issues, energy resources, radio brodcasting,food and drug administration-none of these powers are granted to the President by the Constitution. Article 2 Section 1
The Constitution states that the powers delegated to the Federal Government are few and defined. The powers reserved to the states will extend to all objects which concern the life, liberty, and property of the people and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the states
BK: largely I agree with your position. It's the reactionaries that want to strip rights from minorities that I object to. And I know exactly what is meant by "Republican" in the Constitution.
Indeed, coopting that term was one of the greatest marketing ploys on the part of a political party in the history of humanity. But the Democrats are just as bad in their slightly different way.
You're assuming the majority has a "right" to declare to a minority that they shall not have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in the absence of harm to any non-consenting adult). They don't have this "right". Period. Indeed, only individuals have rights.
Secondly, you're wrong if you think a single individual has the power to do what you say. It's almost always going to be a single individual that has the guts to take defense of their rights to the level required to get oppressive governments to back down, but the Supreme Court has never as far as I know, given any significant weight to a right that only one person wants to exercise.
Consider these cases class action suits, if you will. Brought by 1 person on behalf of all people in similar situations. And really, in most of these cases I strongly believe that a (mostly quiet) majority in all or almost all states agrees with the decisions. The few loud reactionaries don't have any more right to have their will foisted on the majority even if they can manage to bully their representatives into pandering to them... either.
As to your specific complaints:
1) It's not always atheists that complain about references to the Christian religion being foisted upon non-Christians at their own (public) expense. According to recent polls, the minority being protected is as much as 20% of most states.
Also, it's *highly* ironic that you would choose the Pledge of Allegiance as an example here, seeing as how it's a pledge to the *U.S.* flag, the *Republic*, and *One* Nation, *Indivisible*, with *Liberty* and *Justice* for *All*. Also, I'm sure you're aware that "under God" was only added (by Congress, no less) during the anti-communist hysteria of the 50s. I suppose for the 175 years before that the country wasn't "under God".
2) In terms of specific homosexual acts, technically speaking, the states are still allowed to regulate them *if* they apply the laws equally to all people, and enforce them against heterosexual people to the same degree of rigor as against homosexual people. Anything less is anything *but* justice. Of course, they never do, which is ultimately why laws like that are violations of equality of all citizens under the law.
3) The question of abortion is a contentious one, and I'll grant the possibility that this was an overstepping by the Court. Much depends on whether unborn fetuses are citizens accorded equal protection under the law. Some say yes, others say no. The 14th Amendment says not (only *born* or naturalized citizens are). At the moment, a strong majority says "mostly no, with strong provisos after they are viable outside the womb". Actually, this is true in most states... generally what differs is the point at which that line is drawn, and the provisos that people deem reasonable.
The biggest problem I have with state abortion laws is that they effectively only prohibit poor women from having them. Women of any significant means can always fly or drive to a state where it is legal (as the Constitution explicitly says they have the right to do).
Indeed, a majoity of the people in this category are exactly the descendants of ex-slaves which you have elsewhere proclaimed are the only ones intended to be accorded equal protection by the original intent of the 14th amendment to prevent them from being effectively chattel.
If you really want to prohibit abortion you might want to do so explicitly in the Amendment you propose, because the Supremes could reasonably argue it doesn't cover that.
All governments, Local, State, and Federal, legislates outside the Constitution. So how much more talk and for how long a time should the People continue such talk, especially the Patriot community?
Amend the Constitution, heaven forbid! There is nothing wrong with the 1787 Constitution.
Every act of government must first be legislated into law and funded by legislation. Legislators are directly responsible for all unconstitutionality.
Unconstitutionality is an act of government authorized by legislation and Amendments. All unconstitutionality must be “repealed” and only Lawmakers can repeal it.
Article I, Section 1, only Congress is delegated the power to legislate. Accordingly the President, Supreme Court, or the People, and or any other entity cannot make federal legislation. All Bills (legislation) for raising federal revenue must start in the House; reference Article I, Section 7.
Article I, Section 2, “only” the People can use the ballot box to elect Congressmen (Legislators/Lawmakers) and do so every two years.
No Lawmaker in the entire USA can be “constitutionally” elected to do anything else but to “honor the Constitution’s Oath of Office”; reference the last paragraph of Article VI.
Let’s talk about “enforcing” the Constitution’s Oath of Office on all elected Officials, after all that is the only thing the People can “forcibly” (ballot box) do to or about unconstitutionality (Fire Lawmakers by voting to not reelecting them). Incumbent Lawmakers greatest fear is not being reelected.
Allan
Let me respond to Ray. Majorities trampling on the rights of minorities. If there are 30,000 people living in a community and all are pleased to have a manger scene displayed at Christmas, should ONE atheist trump their desire and cause it to be forbidden? What sense does that make? That would be a minority trampling on the rights of the majority!
That is the condition of America today. The minority is given preference over the majority so that whole communities are prostrated by isolated individuals. One atheist causes the pledge of allegiance to be expunged of an offending reference to God. One homosexual trumps the will of an entire state and de-criminalizes conduct that has been deemed immoral and injurious for 1000 years! One woman intent on aborting her baby trumps the will of whole states which protect the unborn from abortion, etc.
So, by your way, the whole nation must bow before the will of minorities and forego their most basic right of self determination. Surely, it is more reasonable that the minority accept the will of the majority. Anything else is perposterous.
Here is something I wrote up as a way of reigning in the federal government. The three main sources of usurpation in the legislative and judicial branches are 1) the General Welfare Clause, 2) the Commerce Clause, and 3) the 14th amendment. An amendment substantially in this form would correct many of the usurpations of the last 100 years. The States could call for a convention to propose this sort of amendment, or, as a condition of not seceding, require that both houses of Congress approve it for ratification by the States. The likilihood of such a thing seems remote, but just a few months ago so was the idea of 35 states looking at 10th amendment resolutions.
Anyway, in the end the choice comes down to either 1) living with economic ruin and slavery under an all-powerful central government, 2) secession, or 3) amending the constitution to reign in a usurping federal government.
Amendment to the Constitution
1. Strict adherence to the letter of the law being necessary for the preservation of a written constitution, the laws and Constitution of the United States shall be enforced according to their original intent, and not otherwise. The provisions of the Bills of Rights that restrain the federal government shall not be construed to be incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise made applicable to the States. Citizenship under Fourteenth Amendment shall not extend to children born to persons present in the United States in violation of law. Article 1, Sec. 8 grants Congress power to make regular the free flow of commerce from State to State, but its power over interstate commerce shall otherwise be limited to the extent of its power to regulate the commerce with foreign nations. What Congress cannot legislate to foreign nations, it cannot legislate to the States. The federal government possesses only limited, enumerated powers. Congress shall not have power to Tax or Spend under the General Welfare Clause except according to its enumerated powers.
2. The States shall have power to enforce this article by legislation.
The first clause enshrines “original intent” as the only permissible interpretative principle of federal law. Without it, we have no written constitution, for it can be changed at any moment by activists judges.
The second clause undoes the doctrine of selective incorporation by which a usurping federal judiciary has wrested from the people and States many of their most precious freedoms, and prevents that the limitations placed upon Congress be turned back upon the States.
The third clause corrects the problem of “anchor babies” born to person here in violation of law.
The fourth clause corrects the expansion of federal powers under the commerce clause and returns them to their original extent, removing local incidents of firearms and a myriad of other activities from its reach.
The sixth and seventh clauses end an expansive reading of the general welfare clause and declare that Congress can only tax and spend pursuant to its specific enumerated powers.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, section two gives power to the States to nullify usurping federal action by legislation. For purposes of items falling under this amendment, the States will thus have a veto upon both Congress and the federal courts, over-riding the Supremacy clause of Article VI.
Nancy Russel:
The article, 'It's the People's Right', can be found on the right hand side of the home page, 'Archive'.
No, hawks cafe doesn't deal with 10A, or 2A, but with exposing the criminals who've most recently been active against the country and its people, their methods, co-conspirators, foreign connections, etc. Just as the Constitution is a comprehensive document, the struggle to recover the republic must also be comprehensive. One of the challenges for the patriot community is the fatal divisions; some are focused entirely on 2A, some on 10A, some on 1A, with not only a lack of co-ordination of effort, but open enmity between the factions. When Charlie's in the wire, it not only doesn't matter if the guy next to you hasn't showered today, worrying about that instead of repelling the enemy is counterproductive.
Ray , respectfully, I don't believe you understand what the tenth amendment movement is about. When you see the word republican you think of the "party" when it refers to the form of govt. our founders gave us with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It means we are a nation of laws and not majority rules. If anything right now the minority in the form of the Congress and the legislature are ruling the majority.
This is not about political party but about individual rights. If you believe you still have your freedoms in the Bill of Rights then you do not know what all the Patriot Act entails and I suggest you look it up in your search engine. Your home can now be entered without cause or warrent and you can be locked away for an indefinate period of time without being charged with a crime or being allowed to face your accuser. There are many of us who disagree in specifics but the grand thing about "the rule of law" is neither minority or majority can take these rights away from anyone.
I believe if you understood what has been done to these rights under both partys you would be on the side of the Constitution. Read what President Kennedy had to say about this. He felt it his duty to warn us just before he was killed. Go to http://trueworldhistory.com and read some of the quotes and watch some of the video's to get a perspective of what has happen to our Constitution in the past several decades. The freedoms you think you still have are an illusion my friend and no particular party did this but the Federal Reserve and the Fed. Govt.
Patrick Henry Lives,
Jefferson saw nullification as the middle course between secession and unlimited submission to an out of control federal government. These 10th Amendment resolutions are not acts of nullification but they will bring about nullification in one or more States if taken to their logical conclusion.
State legislatures and executives must retain the initiative and not be pacified, bought or backed into a corner by Washington, D.C. What will the federal government do if one or more States, supported by the citizens, begin to nullify unconstitutional federal usurpations? Loud will be the cries of "treason!” I'm sure, but that will probably be it.
A Constitutional convention is the least likely event, I would say. Nullification, State secession or even part of a State seceding from the parent State or the Union altogether are all far more likely IMHO.
If secession does occur, it could be just the inevitiable result of local people just trying to preserve law and order after the dollar declines and the federal leviathan implodes.
The only thing I can say about a state that prefers succession over the Bill of Rights applying to their citizens is:
Good riddance. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. The rest of us will welcome those of your citizens who flee back to the United States.
Preservation of separation of powers is one thing. A very important thing. Majorities trampling the rights of minorities is another, entirely different thing. In fact, it is an evil that practically all of the founders decried.
Protection of State Rights
The United states shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of governemt, that meaning: a limited, representative form of government under a Constitution. Congress decided this question because it was a political and not a judicial one, and therefore not one for the courts.
As in the Federal system, the state government have three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. We are not a Democracy. Government is out of Contol.breaking the law
Patrick Henry Lives,
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
George Washington
Government is “force” and force is required to control it. The Constitution says in Article I, Section 2, that the People have the force of the ballot box to hire (elect) Lawmakers. The People can control who is elected to legislate (make law) and thereby can hold the elected to their Oath of Office. As a matter of fact that is the only way the People can hold the elected to their Oath – honor that Oath or get fired.
That is the Constitution’s plan; do you have a better plan to hold the elected accountably to their Oath?
Allan
Patrick Henry you may very well be right. It will be a court fight for sure even once states fully establish their Tenth Amendment resolutions. There will be court battles for years to come and we are not ensured of success. It will all ultimately end up un the Supreme Courts lap but they have failed us just as badly as our politicans. They have turned a blind eye to every unconstitutional law the Fed. Govt. has passed. The worse so far in my mind is the Patriot Act. We never heard a word from the court. They seem to only hear cases brought before them and leave congress strickly alone. I would like to read an essay by a knowledgable person as to the responsiblity of that court. I always thought its number one job was to monitor the legislature to keep them within bounds of their Constitutional authority. Obviously not.
10th Amendment Resolutions are swell. The more the better. But we all know that fed-gov will only relinquish power if it absolutely has to. Resolutions will not bring the relief sought. Only a willingness to secede or a Constitutional Convention proposing amendments stripping Congress of its powers (and the executive while we're at it!) will do the job.
It sounds radical to talk of secession. But it is the usurpations of a greedy, grasping, over-reaching federal government that "radicalizes" the people under its oppressive boot heel. If you can name a single other way than Convention or secession to actually take back the power from the central government, I would like to hear it. Just go ahead and post away. I'll be waiting.
And what are the courts empowered to do? The short answer is "naught!" Sure, they could opine that one of the parties is right or wrong, but that is not exactly a cure. You know the old joke about opinions.....
Succession should only be an alternative once all other legal avenues are exhausted. In my opinion, this is going to the courts at some point and should therefore be prepared for it.
You know, the more the problems sink-in, the more I wonder if secession really isn't the answer. We could certainly have treaties among the states regarding defense.
For those who worry that act(s) of secession might just bring about the next Civil War, I must ask "war by whom?" If anyone thinks Obama might declare war on the states for seceding, then, we know Obama should be distrusted as a dictator. Why would anyone vote for Obama if he threatens their quest for liberty by acts of war?
If the only reason to not want your state's rights is fear of war, then you truly fear your dictator.
Actually, Patrick Henry Lives:
It wasn't a few atheists who are responsible for the banning of the "Free Exercise of Religion" & "free religious speech" from the public square; it was a handful of judges on the U.S. Supreme Court who wanted to ban religion from the public square. It wasn't one woman who wanted to kill her unborn baby - it was judges on the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade who said that the word, "liberty", in the 14th Amendment means that the U.S. Supreme Court could declare a Texas statute outlawing abortion unconstititonal. (They also determined that unborn babies are not "persons".) It was judges on the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas which held that the word, "liberty" in the 14th Amendment also means that they may declare unconstitutional a Texas statute criminalizing sodomy. Why, it's right there in the Constitution: The 14th Amendment gives constitutional rights to kill babies & commit sodomy! Didn't you know?
How did this happen? Judges, the "creatures", abandoned the concept of strict constructionism, and replaced it with the notion that the Constitution means what THEY say it means. And the People, their "creators", were asleep............PH
The hand the federal government has played to federalize local issues of law and morals has not been the "State versus the People." It has been the individual and minorities versus the majority as embodied in State law or action.
Thus, one atheist is sufficient to get crosses banned on state/federal property; one women wants to abort and the will of the whole people/State is overturned to accomodate her; one homosexual claims it is an invasion of his right of privacy to be prosecuted for sodomy and hte will of the people/State is subverted.
Yes, the 10th Amendment is about people. But historically the "State versus the people" has not been the hand the fed's have played to centralize all power.
It is the individual versus the people/State!
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/22/its-the-peoples-right/ [...]
[...] It’s the People’s Right! [...]
[...] It’s the People’s Right! [...]
[...] It’s the People’s Right! [...]
[...] It’s the People’s Right! [...]
[...] CLICK HERE TO READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE If you enjoyed this post: [...]
[...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.†My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or state [...]
[...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.†My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or state [...]
[...] years ago, I posted an item on the Tenth Amendment Center website entitled, “It’s the People’s Right.†My point was that federalism was not created primarily for the benefit of the states or [...]