Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 16:51 — 15.4MB)
Matthew Shea, State Representative in Washington’s 4th District discusses HJM4009 for sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, putting the federal government on notice, the alarming attempts of the federal government to take over the national guard , the fact that Congress has not followed the constitution’s requirement for a declaration of war since WWII, plans for nullification efforts in 2010, the Sheriff’s First law, how left and right can come together to support the Constitution, and more.
Mentioned in this episode:
Sign up for Rep Shea’s Newsletter
Great interview! You don’t often hear people talking about how the constitution is being violated in the way the national guard is being used. I hope you guys post more about that soon!
I wish someone would be this courageous in New Jersey!
Matt Shea is a great example of one who has a strong position on defence while also opposing unconstitutional military aggression. I feel like his example is one to learn from as a man and as a patriot.
I live in the 4th district, unfortunately here in Washington State, the representatives that support HJM 4009 are all on the eastside of the State, the Liberals control the Westside and chair most of the committees.. HJM is stuck in committee and wont likely be heard
I’m not sure I’m on board with bringing the guard home I think it is important that with regard to oversea or otherwise warfare that the National guard (Militant) is used instead of just the army, in this way the Federal Government would be obliged to keep the guard’s military capabilities relatively top notch compared to the regular army thus insuring the States(who command training and officer of the same’s loyalty) retain the means to effetely challenge the same federal structure, and defend their rights, rather then simply being walked over by a purely federal(centrally controlled) army.
I think States can refuses to deploy their guard forces overseas, but do so to the devaluation of that force to the Federal government who is the only one that would primarily be of interest in funding their military force capabilities. As a result the same government would become inclined to shift more such assets either to other states or more likely to the “federal†army which the states can’t refuse deployment on.
That shift in turn places the States in a tactically weaker position to challenge and stand up to the same federal government lacking comparable military forces and enforce it’s rights credibly.
You have to remember the Militia(National guard) is not simply a military defense force for the union against foreign foes.
In fact its more institutionally vital function is as a deterrent to the practical implementation federal tyranny, by means of holding the bulk of the U.S. land military capabilities loyal first to the states rather then any centralized authority, that would otherwise be able to use a more centrally controlled force to enslave the same people of the States.(States are disinclined to wage war on themselves at federal(central) direction, and hopefully will be disinclined to wage war on their sister states, unless they agree with the Constitutionality of the order.)
It is very important that the guard or Militia remain stronger then the National army and air force Most all of the time, because at any time that this is not the case, we are at risk of the same army being used to overthrow our republican system, in overthrowing our states and our people’s liberty.
This is something our Republic depends upon due to the nature of the inherit threat any standing army poses, and it is important that we understand, why we must maintain this balance to prevent tyranny (federal or centralized military dictatorship.)
Loyalties and force MUST be divided, and not all held under the primary command of any 1 person or groups of person!
What I’m interested in is enforcement of the Constitution. The “national guard” – Constitutionally-speaking, is the militia (it had a name change some time ago). The Constitution is crystal clear on this issue – According to Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power to pass laws for “calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
Three reasons and three reasons only.
The President is the commander-in-chief of the state militias “when called into the actual Service of the United States”. (Article II, Section 2). But that is constitutional only when called into service for constitutional reasons. As far as a war goes, without a declaration of war from Congress as required by the Constitution, the war is illegitimate and unconstitutional.
While “laws” were passed by congress authorizing a different use of the guard over the past 100 years, legislative and judicial fiat are not a proper method of changing the constitution.
A lot of people seem to have a pet issue where the Constitution should be ignored for some “important” reason. I find just as many who willingly ignore or come up with excuses to not follow the constitution on the right as I do on the left. One side is using the war powers clause for unconstitutional purposes and the other uses the commerce clause.
Either way, I oppose it.
Following the Constitution as it was written and intended – every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses – is something our republic depends upon.
Monorprise, on this issue, if you feel the guard troops should be kept overseas, you should be demanding that the Congress declare war on Iraq, or wherever you want them.
Ron Paul – even though he opposed the Iraq war – demanded that congress declare war as required by Article I, Section 8. You know what happened? He was basically laughed at. He, and the rest of the people in this country, were told outright – the process of declaring war is an “anachronism”
But, it’s still in the Constitution – and that document was never amended to remove it either.
Chairman Henry Hyde is quoted, for the record, responding to Paul’s proposal to follow the Constitution:
“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore…“
The 50-member Committee then went on to vote against the substitute amendment offered by Rep. Paul, which read simply (after the resolving clause), “That pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, a state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of Iraq and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the United States Armed Forces to carry on war against the Government of Iraq and to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion.”
Michael Boldin I do not disagree with you at all, the Constitution must be upheld regardless. I was however attempting to point out the important of a strong National Guard and the need for their usefulness in war in order for such a force to be maintained, as apposed to giving the money and resources to a more centrally controlled military.
I agree Congress should have declared war on Iraq assuming the “use of force authorization” in 2002, was not itself the Constitutional equivalent of a “declaration of warâ€.
In fact I’m not at all convinced that was not the case.
The U.S. Constitution says congress has the power to declare war, does that mean they need to explicitly use the terms “declare warâ€, or can they simply authorize the uses of military force against an enemy (War)?
It seems to me the difference between the two is comparable to the difference between a description of a person and the name of that person.
So I am not at all convinced congress did not in legal effect declare War on Iraq in 2002 provisionally with specific rules and regulations regarding the military and government actually engaging in war.
To be quite frank I would agree simply “declaring war†in the sense your thinking of formally, is some what a “anachronism†in the same way it makes little sense to warn that which you intend to attack of your coming attack.
I think the declaration of war is actually an authorization by the government for the nation to engage in war. To that end, congress clearly did declare war on Iraq in 2002 in authorizing the uses of force(the state of War) with that nation (Declaring War to exist by any other name).
So with due respect to Ron Paul I don’t think congress has to uses the legally pre-defined defined rule set they made for themselves in defining the state of war, but rather can create a new custom definition with regard to each nation in declaring war on them.
Monorprise, thanks for your perspective on this. What’s essential to note, is that “declaration of war” is as much as an anachronism to the federal government as the 10th amendment itself. Modern times and changes in judicial rulings somehow authorize changes in the constitution. But, that is not really the case.
So whether 150 year old understandings of the commerce clause are suddenly changed in the 1930′s to mean an expansion of power in the federal government, or 170 year old understanding of the war powers clause are suddenly changed in the 1950′s to mean that congress no longer has to do that, the bottom line is the same.
The fact of the matter is that the constitution is written in plain english. it says that congress shall have the power to declare war. For nearly 2 centuries, this is how it conducted itself. And, the founders wanted it that way….they wanted to separate the powers to declare and wage war from the representatives of the people and the executive. Why? Because king george had both those powers at once.
The 2002 “AUMF” was as far from a declaration of war as you can get, constitutionally-speaking. While I would certainly agree with you that the words “declare war” is not what’s needed, it’s the original understanding and intent of that clause which needs to be followed.
To repeat – the only body that can formally declare war is Congress. This means that the People’s representatives are making the decision that the country absolutely will be engaging in war. Then, the only body that can wage the war is the executive branch. Neither branch of government is authorized to transfer their delegated powers to another branch.
Transfer of power – this is just what the 2002 “authorization” was. What it did was authorize the executive branch to make the decision of whether or not war would be waged. It was an illegal and unconstitutional transfer, as the chairman of the committee said on the record – “We are saying to the President, use your judgment.”
It’s as unconstitutional and as blatant a disregard for the original meaning of the constitution as national health care. The founders would never have approved congress telling the president – “use your judgement” on war….
And all they needed to do what vote on a simple resolution stating they were “declaring war” – but they refused to do so. That is congress abdicating it’s responsibility.
So the question is the whether or not congress can make laws enabling the president to uses some of their powers based upon predefined conditions.
You say no, and I agree that is a fully respectable position which I’m 100% willing to go along with. But is it the only position? Could congress define Conditions upon which war would be declared automatically?
Or lets expand the question, could Congress make a law regarding the value of currency which could be changed dynamically based upon certain external variables? Say going interest rates?
What if we were invaded should congress have the right to make a law saying if a foreign army invades the united states we automatically declare war and enable the president to uses the Military assets of the united states to repel the invasion?
Cause you know, congress might be in their home States and thus be unable to get to Washington to hold a vote to declare war in the event of a full scale attack and/or invasion.
That’s the questions I must pose in questioning the extent of congress ability to make laws using the powers granted to them under article 1 section 8.
Are they making a law in how something must be done, or are they taking the executive action of implementing/declaring the State of war?
I don’t expect a reply Michael Boldin for I am with you on this 110% either way, theses are simply my concerns/questions.
Monorprise, I was waiting for your reply! You always bring up essential questions, and it’s really appreciated. Thank you! I will make one quick comment on this…
If there’s an invasion, a declaration of war is not required, as the president is authorized to repel invasions without it.
Declaring war is conflict without invasion. And, in the original sense, meant that Congress was the one that determined war would start. And that would mean that the president would be required to wage it. Giving the president the option whether or not, even if it’s within “parameters” does not fill this requirement. It’s a simple transfer of power from the legislative to the executive branch.
What amazes me is that even when support for invading iraq was at its highest, when Ron Paul’s short, easy-to-read proposal would have undoubtedly gotten passed easily, they still refused it. Why? In reality, they see most constitutional restrictions as anachronisms.
Thanks again for engaging on this issue, Monorprise. I’m sure we’ll come to it again in the future.
Michael, Thank you for conducting the interview with Rep. Matt Shea! Great timing with where people are in waking up in this state. It was very encouraging to hear what he had to say. I’ve asked sevearl of our state reps to sign the pledge and some that will be campaigning for 2010.
Larry, I’m on the West side of the Mountains (39th LD) and my reps are not liberals. One of them is a co-sponsor of HJM4009.
Tawnya,
My quote:
“the Liberals control the Westside and chair most of the committees”
this does not say there are not any conservatives on the west side. it simply means liberals control the west side of the state. Making them the Majority.
Hi Tawnya! I was just thinking about you as I’ve been in touch with some good patriots in WA recently.
Liberal or otherwise, the people of WA are largely principled folk and should prove to be receptive to the ideas of sovereignty.
Hi Bryce, Things are getting busy up here in the northwest. The 10th amendment issue is definitely a “We the People thingâ€. Many people have written their state representatives asking them where they stand on state sovereignty. It has been an eye opener as to if they have a representative who represents them or a non-representing representative. It’s great seeing people come together from various political parties on the common ground of the constitution and the 10th amendment specifically.