by Jim Jess
The time has come to restore constitutional government based on the original intent of the founders of the United States of America. The republic, the system of limited government that was established in the Constitution of the United States, was abandoned long ago by many who swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
It is time for we, the people, to demand that members of Congress and our president follow the oaths they swore to keep, or be removed from office in the next election.
Restore the Constitution you say? In what manner? When, in fact, was the Constitution abandoned or ignored? In many ways at many times over many years our elected officials have violated their oaths and ignored the constitutional limits on their authority. We, the people, have not been vigilant to hold them accountable for their actions. A historical illustration will serve to make this point quite well.
Many years ago, I came across a publication from the Foundation for Economic Education, the nation’s oldest free-market organization, which studies and advances the freedom philosophy. The publication was a four-page pamphlet entitled, “Not Yours to Give,†and I still have it in my library. The pamphlet related an amazing story about Davy Crockett, who, in the 1830s was a member of Congress. It grabbed my attention then and continues to inspire me today.
As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Crockett had supported a bill appropriating $20,000 for the relief of some residents of Georgetown, in Washington, D.C., who had lost their homes in a fire. When campaigning by horseback in his Tennessee congressional district, Crockett came across a constituent who plainly told him he would not vote to re-elect Crockett because of his vote for the $20,000 appropriation. Taken aback, Crockett wanted to understand why.
The constituent, a man named Horatio Bunce, explained:
“If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”
There is more to Horatio Bunce’s eloquent argument, but this is the heart of it. Crockett was convinced of the error of his ways by Horatio Bunce and became a much better congressman because of it. Bunce believed, as did Thomas Jefferson and patriots who understand the Constitution today, that unless the Constitution has stipulated a governmental power or responsibility, neither Congress, the president nor the courts have the power to act. This was the essence of Jefferson’s argument against the formation of the Bank of the United States, what constitutional scholars have referred to as “strict constructionism.â€
Jefferson wrote regarding the formation of a national bank:
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ” all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
“The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.”
The Twelfth Amendment that Jefferson mentioned had not yet been ratified when he wrote his opinion opposing a national bank. And, because two of the proposed twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights were not ratified, the amendment Jefferson quoted became the Tenth Amendment after the necessary states ratified it. Jefferson’s wisdom is amplified today as we recognize the language of the Tenth Amendment, yet wonder why our Congress ignores the amendment.
Tenth Amendment
“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.”
The Tenth Amendment is ignored by our federal officials today because if it was followed, it would limit their power and authority. If they maintained the spirit of the Tenth Amendment, liberty would flourish and states would be freer to enact more of their own policies. The power of politicians in Washington, D.C. would be limited and their ability to spend our money on numerous unnecessary and wasteful programs would be seriously curtailed.
Our politicians in Congress exceeded their constitutional authority long ago. They have appropriated money for many purposes with no constitutional authority to do so. They have formed government corporations and agencies to dispense funds wrongly taxed from the people for causes that have no constitutional legitimacy.
They have used the people’s money for what appear to be “charitable†purposes in this nation and around the globe. (But charity refers to free-will giving by individuals, so there is no way that money taken from the taxpayers under threat of imprisonment is charity.) Congress and the president have propped up corrupt dictators and pursued numerous foreign policy intrigues around the world. They have squandered the taxpayers’ money on international organizations controlled by governments that despise liberty and seek policies contrary to our national interests.
They have provided basic sustenance for those who refuse to work. They have encouraged the destruction of families through their misguided social welfare policies. They have discouraged the proper functioning of the free enterprise system by rewarding certain producers and favored industries at the expense of competitors with less political influence. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Our government has wasted our money on numerous programs that are not supported by any sound application of constitutional principles. The founders took a limited and logical approach to what government can and should try to accomplish. Those who have desired an expansion of governmental power at the expense of our liberty, beginning at some point during the first half of the twentieth century, have been winning the day.
It is time to turn back the juggernaut of meddling, irresponsible, and bankrupting unconstitutional government and restore the vision of the framers of our Constitution. If we do not do this, we face a dark and uncertain future, one steeped in more political and governmental control of our lives and shrinking personal liberty.
This coming Independence Day let us declare our independence from wasteful, tax-burdening and oppressive unconstitutional government. Let us affirm our commitment to individual liberty and the true intent of our Constitution. Let us restore our republic.
We will only be successful if we convince our elected officials to follow this course. If they do not, we MUST resolve – in every congressional district in this nation – to replace those who refuse to restore the constitutional limits to our government with those who will. It is the duty of every citizen to do his or her part to restore our beloved republic, and it is vital that we act now to restore American liberty before it is too late to do so.
Wake up America! Now is the time to fight for your freedom!
Jim Jess has participated in politics as an activist, writer, and nonprofit organization leader for 30 years. He worked in the office of Governor Sonny Perdue and is a member of several conservative groups. Jim writes for Examiner.com and maintans the website ConstitutionalEducation.org.
Powerful writing, thanks for posting this! I'm not too sure about a "vote em out" strategy, because that seems to be what has played into what we have today. I like the idea of taking it to a state level to fight against massive government in d.c.
Well, why can't we employ a variety of strategies at once? Why can't we vote them out AND take it to the states? Of course, these efforts have to be sustained. We can't just abandon them at the moment they appear not to be working. But, of course, so long as we have "universal suffrage" in America, so long as we continue to bring in and empower millions of foreigners per year who long ago imbibed principles not congenial with republicanism, the dependent classes are going to continue to grow steadily until they finally overwhelm the independent, productive classes. And they will vote accordingly.
Terry, I agree that a variety of strategies are needed. I also don't see much hope for voting in national elections. In fact, I think much of that leads to a "lesser of two evils" approach which has given us what we have today…two parties that keep growing government power no matter who is in charge.
But, other strategies are making headway, be it laws in MT and TN for gun rights, sovereignty resolutions in many states, laws opposing real ID, opposing federal drug laws, and the like.
A long way to go, but I feel confident we'll turn this mess around……eventually.
Well, then we have government-run education indoctrinating children every year…that's a tough one to overcome…
Well, I've mentioned before at this site that I abstained in the 2008 presidential election. But I did vote in the congressional races. I think Senator Coburn is one of handful of decent representatives at the federal level, although his endorsement of McAmnesty kinda got under my skin a little bit (Okay, it got under my skin a lot). But look at the bunch of scoundrels he (Coburn) has to work with.
I love the fact that you say Independence Day and not "this coming july 4th" !
That's right, Thomkind, the 4th of July is the date on the calendar that we celebrate America's independence, or, the birthday of the nation. This tendency for Americans to refer to the event as the 4th of July, and to pass this kind of "nomenclature" down to their children is appalling to me. It should immediately be abandoned by every red-blooded, liberty-loving American. As for everyone else, well, let them call it what they will. But let the question be asked of them, "do you refer to the relatively insignificant event of your own birthday as the 15th of April," etc.?
Here is one of my rants on the subject from the calendar date July 3, 2008.
That's right, Thomkind, the 4th of July is the date on the calendar that we celebrate America's independence, or, the birthday of the nation. This tendency for Americans to refer to the event as the 4th of July, and to pass this kind of "nomenclature" down to their children is appalling to me. It should immediately be abandoned by every red-blooded, liberty-loving American. As for everyone else, well, let them call it what they will. But let the question be asked of them, "do you refer to the relatively insignificant event of your own birthday as the 15th of April," etc.?
Here is one of my rants on the subject from the calendar date July 3, 2008.
Just to show how extreme the current situation is:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286…
"Judicial usurpation." "Activist judges." "Renegade courts." These have become familiar political epithets expressing the exasperation millions of Americans feel over outrageous federal court decisions. In recent years, federal judges have been acting as super-legislators, reordering society according to their whims and unconstitutionally striking down validly enacted state laws on issues such as school prayer, immigration, abortion, the death penalty, pornography, flag burning, and the Ten Commandments. As obnoxious as many of our courts' actions have become, however, we still retain within our constitutional system the means to remedy these judicial excesses."
"But what are we to do about foreign courts that attempt to exercise the same kinds of judicial usurpation? That would never happen, right? We would never allow it! Unfortunately, we have allowed it. Or, rather, our government has allowed it in our name."
"Most Americans are completely unaware that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) established courts called tribunals to adjudicate conflicts between commercial enterprises and the national, state, and local governments of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. These NAFTA tribunals operate under the aegis of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. And they already are having a profound and subversive impact on our legal system and are set to completely erode our national sovereignty."
(…)
Another example, perhaps even frightening:
http://patrickdeneen.blogspot.com/2009/05/anti-an…
(…)
"The same issue of the Washington Post also happened to carry a story about the Obama administration's reversal of the Bush policy of "preemption." Preemption, in this case, does not refer to the "Bush Doctrine" in international affairs, but rather a quiet and largely unremarked upon policy by which the Federal government presumptively and preemptively overturned State-based laws in areas of interest to private business interests. According to one person quoted in the article, "'It's environmental law, it's drug law, it's mortgage law, it's a whole host of areas where the Bush administration was really aggressive about using regulatory action to clear state and local laws that businesses and corporations didn't like,' said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center." Federal regulation was regularly, even promiscuously used to overturn legitimate State legislation in areas where private business demanded uniformity for the sake of efficiency, profit, and economies of scale. So much for the idea that the States are the "laboratories of democracy.": "
(…)
Interesting post. The wide use by Bush of "signing statements" also concerns me. Of course, it depends on exactly what these statements said and how they were implemented as to whether they constituted circumventing the constitutional powers of Congress. If they altered the intent of the legislation, then by definition, the signing statement would be an unconstitutional overreach.
A statement is one thing – the problem is that the executive will often use the statement as a definition of how they are executing the law, or …sometimes worse, it's there to be used by the judiciary in interpreting the law in the future.
Either way, it's not really good, in my opinion.
[youtube JZ83x9rn2o4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ83x9rn2o4 youtube]
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ83x9rn2o4
Great video – Tom Woods is one of the best resources on the issue of the constitution, the 10th amendment, the history of state sovereignty – and more recently, on understanding the role of government as the cause of the economic crisis.
thanks for sharing.
I really like the Horatio Bunch argument…take a look at that as a good strategy for the inevitable conversations about government and it's role in 'taking care of those in need of charity'.
It's an argument that is rare, because it explains a tough point without seeming incompassionate.
…But you're right, the indoctrination that goes on in the public school system is a huge, huge obstacle that we must find a way of overcoming if we are ultimately to survive. Speaking of which, I just got out of a webinar conference with Dr. Alan Keyes where among the topics of conversation between us was the impropriety of the federal income tax, of the imposition of socialist security taxes, and of the increasing societal incohesion which has helped to lead us down this road of socialistic, communistic, totalitarian government. You might consider contacted Dr. Keyes. He's very knowledgable on these subjects and of the intent of the framers in the constitution, the distribution of political powers among the various branches and spheres of government, and so forth and so on. A very eloquent speaker as well.
If we are going to restore the system of government established by the constitution then we need to start with the basic principle—the Constitution is a contract or compact between the States and the federal government is the States' government (i.e., the agent of the States).
The principle that the several States alone are the parties to the compact known as the Constitution for the United States of America is found in the last article of the document:
Article VII.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present…"
The words “between the States” were added by the convention “so as to confine the operation of the government to those States ratifying it.” (Between States and by the consent of States…not a majority of the people of all the States) The delegates signed their names not as representatives of the people, as comprising one nation, but as representatives of the individual States.
Immediately following the close of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, George Washington, President of the Convention, sent a copy of the proposed constitution to Congress. The letter of transmittal, which accompanied the document, referred to the government created by the Constitution as “the general government of the Union (of States)” and “the federal government of these states.”
Shortly after his death in 1850, John C. Calhoun’s essay entitled"A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States" was published in book form. The following two excerpts are a concise definition of the federal government:
"It is federal, because it is the government of States united in a political union, in contradistinction to a government of individuals, that is, by what is usually called, a social compact. To express it more concisely, it is federal and not national because it is the government of a community of States, and not the government of a single State or Nation."
He also wrote:
"Ours is a system of governments, compounded of the separate governments of the several States composing the Union, and of one common government of all its members, called the Government of the United States."
The fundamental principle of the Constitution is that the general provisions of the document pertain to the States collectively—not the people generally. Alexander Hamilton substantiated this fact in Federalist essay #83:
"The United States, in their united or collective capacity, are the OBJECT to which all general provisions in the Constitution must necessarily be construed to refer." (emphasis not added)
Hamilton made two very important points. First, the term United States, as used in a constitutional context, refers to a union States— not to a nation of individuals. Second, all of the general provisions of the Constitution pertain to the States collectively—not the people generally.
continued in next post—
previous post continued here—
In his classic work of 1868, "The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character," Able Upshur discussed this principle:
"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it — the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution."
Upshur continued by saying:
"According to the principles of all our institutions, sovereignty does not reside in any government whatever, neither State nor federal. Government is regarded merely as the agent of those who create it, and subject in all respects to their will. In the States the sovereign power is in the people of the States respectively; and the sovereign power of the United States would, for the same reason, be in the ‘the people of the United States,’ if there were any such people, known as a single nation, and the framers of the Federal Government. We have already seen, however, that there are no such people, in a strict political sense, and that no such people had any agency in the formation of our Constitution, but that is was formed by the States, emphatically as such. It would be absurd, according to all principles received and acknowledged among us, to say that the sovereign power is in one party, and the power which is in the government is in another. The true sovereignty of the United States, therefore, is in the States, and not in the people of the United States, nor in the Federal Government. That government is but the agent through whom a portion of this sovereign power is exerted; possessing no sovereignty itself, and exerting no power, except which only as its constituents [the States] have conferred on it. In ascertaining what these powers are, it is obviously proper that we should look only to the grant from which they are derived. The agent can claim nothing for itself, and on its own account. The Constitution is a compact, and the parties to it are each State, with each and every other State. The Federal Government is not a party, but is the mere creature of the agreement between the States as parties."
The States' federal government is like the Frankenstein monster-its master…the States…either refuse or have lost the ability to control their monster and the monster is now after us!
Since the Constitution can only be amended by a vote of the States irrespective of the wishes of a majority of the American people, as comprising one nation, we had better find a way to get the States to re-gain control of their federal government or that government will destroy the States and take us with them.
Upshur also compared the nature of the federal government with that of the state governments:
"[T]here is no just analogy between the State constitutions and that of the United States. In the first place, the Constitution of the United States is not the frame of government to which there is one party. The States are parties, each stipulating and agreeing with each and all the rest.
In the second place, the Constitution of the United States is not the primary social relation of those who formed it. The State governments were already organized, and were adequate to all the purposes of their municipal concerns. The Federal Government was established only for such purposes as the State government could not answer, to wit: the common purposes of all the States.
In the third place, whatever power the States have not delegated to the Federal Government, they have reserved to themselves. … Whatever the Federal Government cannot do for all the States, each State can do for itself, subject only to the restraints of its own constitution.
In all these particulars, the Federal Government is clearly 'distinguishable from the constitutions of the State governments.' The views just presented support this obvious distinction, that in the State constitutions every power is granted that is not denied; in the Federal Constitution, every power is denied which is not granted.
The objects for which the Federal Government was established, are by no means equal in importance to those of the State constitutions. It is difficult to imagine any necessity for a Federal Government at all, except what springs from the relation of the States to foreign nations. A union among them is undoubtedly valuable for many purposes. It renders them stronger and more able to resist their enemies; it attracts to them the respect of other countries, and it gives them advantages in the formation of foreign connections; it facilitates all operations of war, commerce and of foreign diplomacy. But these objects, although highly important, are not so important as those great rights which are secured to us by the State constitutions…we rely exclusively on the State governments for the security of the great rights of life, liberty, and property….Their power pervades all ranks of society, retaining the strong, protecting the weak, succoring the poor, and lifting up the fallen and helpless. They secure to all persons an impartial administration of public justice. In all the daily business of life, we act under the guidance of the State governments. They regulate and secure our rights of property; they enforce our contracts and preside over the peace and safety of our firesides. There is nothing dear to our feelings or valuable to our social condition, for which we are not indebted to their protecting and benignant action. Take away the Federal Government altogether, and we still are free, our rights are still protected, our business is still regulated, and we still enjoy all the other advantages and blessings of established and well-organized government. But if you take away the State governments, what do you have left? A Federal Government which can neither regulate your industry, secure your property, nor protect your person!"
We have lost these principles!!!!
Posted 3 comments but they appear in reverse order. To make sense of them you have to scroll down and work up.
A constituents vote Back in the days of Horatio Bunce and Crockett actually meant something. Today's Politicians skirt their constituents by seeking the money and voting block of special interests. Had Crockett's election been funded and supported by the "Georgetown community action committee" he would have ignored Bunce.
Sadly, you might be right. The old saying – power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely – sure seems to hold true. While I think Crockett was likely one of the rare good ones like we see in Ron Paul today, it's barely a 100-1 chance that a federal politician won't be corrupted with all the power and lobbying at their fingertips.
It is not realistic to convince our political leaders to abandon their own gigantic power, we have been working at that for more than a 100 years with counter productive results.
Any man or group of men who is the definer of their own power will in effect have absolute and unlimited power. As it is because of the civil war, and many court rulebooks the Federal government has corruptly been made the excursive definer of its own powers. Federal politicians who directly weld that power benefit on net from that power. While we the people are divided and conqueror over an ever widening spectrum of life issues who's control we lost to that same government and now must debate and compete with 300 million others to have ONE of those aspects of our live run our way, inevitably at the expense of all others.
Being pro war means you have to be pro abortion, being pro abortion means you have to be anti-war. being pro-free market means you have to be anti drug, being anti drug means you have to be anti gun.
Government is at best a necessarily evil because inevitably no matter what choice it makes it will deprive a lot of people of their preference in that area. It is for that reason it was believe that government should NOT only be as limited in spectrum of rolls as possible but also be as local as possible in order to insure that that inherit minority is as small as possible.
With regard to the Federal government that limitation is known as States rights, and as it is the common problem of all the people of all the States then together we must work to restore the rights of our states so that we may restore our own rights.
Michael, just a guess, but it seems that after changing to the new posting system, IE tends to lock-up if you click on an article listed on the right side of the home page.
Jeff, thanks for the head's up. Not sure what the issue is that you're having. I've been trying to recreate this on my IE v7…and haven't been able to. If you're still having trouble, send me an email to let me know so I can try to get it worked out.
I like the new system. Stop mucking with it!
This is not 1832, Our government is filled with incompetents with control over money and thus information like never before in our history. That control comes from their ability to give out this "charity" we will not be bale to stop them thou elections because we will not be able to win elections like that reliant enough.
The only solution to this problem will have to come from outside of Washington D.C. Outside of the ring of what is really self-serving corruption that drives them to do this now.
The only power which can do that in our Union is our States, by taking that power from them by means of amendment the constitution in such a way that it is clear to even them that they cant do that period.