by Kevin R.C. Gutzman
Editor’s Note: Bill of Rights Day is December 15th. But as Kevin Gutzman points out in this article, it’s not a day of celebration. Â Instead, it should be a day of mourning for the death of decentralized self-government.
In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Kennedy v. Louisiana. In that decision, the Court created a new categorical right to rape a child without receiving the death penalty.
Although the majority made mention of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment,†no one really believed that this new right had any basis in the Constitution. The Court majority claimed that its decision reflected a new societal consensus, despite the fact that six states and, as it turned out, Congress recently had adopted legislation providing capital punishment for certain child rapists. The dissenting justices said that the actual basis of the Kennedy decision was “the Court’s ‘own judgment’ regarding ‘the acceptability of the death penalty,’†but the majority opinion made clear that the Court simply differed with the people’s representatives on the question how significant rape of a child is.
In other words, the justices substituted their legislative will for that of elected legislators. Alas, there was nothing unusual about this. Kennedy v. Louisiana illustrates what has come of the Bill of Rights in our day.
The Bill of Rights should be mourned, not celebrated. It is defunct. Intended as the bulwark of the right of decentralized self-government, it now serves mainly as an excuse for the opposite: a roving judicial veto of state policies that federal judges dislike.
So, if the people of virtually every state ban flag burning or regulate abortion, provide capital punishment or support prayer in school, that does not settle the matter. Unlike 200 or 100 years ago, today the federal judiciary is apt to step in to stop state legislatures from adopting policies like this.
The people never consented to have the federal judges behave this way.
The purpose of the first ten amendments was laid out clearly by their Preamble. “Preamble?†You might ask. “What preamble?†Although the main body of the Constitution is never published without its Preamble, one could study American history for a lifetime without ever encountering the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
That Preamble says that Congress is recommending amendments to the states because a number of states in ratifying the Constitution “expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.†Since the people were afraid of the new Federal Government, that is, the Bill of Rights was being added to hedge in the powers of the Federal Government more carefully.
So, for example, the Tenth Amendment stated what Thomas Jefferson called the underlying principle of the entire Constitution: “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.†In other words, the Constitution gave the Federal Government a few enumerated powers, and those were all.
That is why the First Amendment begins by saying that, “Congress shall make no law.†Congress, not government generally. The point was to leave such questions in the hands of elected state legislators.
America’s Revolution was fought and won in the name of self-government via elections to state legislatures. King George III and Parliament insisted that those legislatures could legislate only when and as far-off officials essentially unaccountable to American colonists said they could. The Americans rejected that idea. In fact, rejecting that idea was what made Britain’s North American colonists into Americans.
No surprise, then, that six years after the Revolution ended, in the First Congress, the people insisted that the principle of local self-government — of federalism — be made explicit through the Tenth Amendment and the other nine. They wanted explicit statements that the distant new Congress could not violate Americans’ most cherished rights — rights the king and Parliament had repeatedly infringed.
This was an uncontroversial understanding of things in the Constitution’s first century and more. The Supreme Court unanimously said in 1833 and thereafter that the Bill of Rights was a limitation solely on the Federal Government.
But the 20th century saw a great change. The Progressives of the early part of the century opposed constitutional limitations on government power generally, and the New Deal of the 1930s stood for the elimination of the Tenth Amendment from constitutional law. Congress’s power is essentially unlimited today, and federal courts have come to supervise virtually all state policies — essentially on the basis of federal judges’ policy preferences.
No one today even pretends that the Bill of Rights serves its intended purpose of restraining the Federal Government. Quite the opposite. And the death of decentralized, election-based government is entirely lamentable.
Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor of History at Western Connecticut State University, is the author of Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776–1840 and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution. He is also the co-author, with Thomas E. Woods, Jr., of Who Killed the Constitution? The Federal Government vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama. His upcoming book, James Madison and the Making of America, will be published by St. Martin’s early in 2011.
Very well said.
In order to restart freedom, all have a great deal of work ahead.
New takes on this restart include voting out all incumbents. I believe that was the idea with Obama…!
In not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, this and the newbie's will require very careful scrutiny.
If, of course, we have that much time.
No legality/legislation will do any good if immediate controls are not imposed on the fed in general.
The financial interests, fed included, need to be required to turn off the printing presses and the states need to offer state level control, etc.
Unless these things happen, the conditions will get much worse all the way around.
Hidden taxes of reducing benefits and raising costs is a welcome to the health care bill…
States need funds so badly that, as an example: Florida small business owner received notice that unemployment -insurance- was to go from the $400/yr to over $6,000. He stated that was unaffordable and couldn't have employees if this were the case…
Social Security benefits will take a double hit, smaller checks and increased costs…
Almost all municipalities and states have raised all fees and fines in a lame attempt to adjust revenues.
Certain entities of the federal government are getting ready to implement a full fledged police state. Foreign troops are training on US soil as we speak…to aid our own military in maintaining civil order!
The people of this nation need to simply organize to be prepared to face these kinds of basic threats, etc. Were the same number who showed up for the Tea Parties to also form contact lists, that would be a solid start.
What goes beyond that should go according to the actions of those opposed to the constraints offered in The Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Preparations have and are being made by freedoms adversaries, are you ready to resist?
Drake -
“Certain entities of the federal government are getting ready to implement a full fledged police state. Foreign troops are training on US soil as we speak…to aid our own military in maintaining civil order!”
I’d be interested in learning more about this, do you have any links?
Links:
A train load-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-99vTdqZM
A report-
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1309.htm
Another report was of maneuvers in the Mohave Desert by similar vehicles with foreign troops on board.
The thing about this level of activism is that I wait for other sources with the same info before I post this sort of thing.
AND, the idea of ignoring posse comitatus, martial law restraints, and ignoring constitutional rights al leads me to lose any trust I've ever had in our federal systems.
I strongly suggest 'we the people' are out of time and that this requires immediate action.
Just look into the 'practice maneuvers' of our military in suburban/city areas all over the country…the attempted take over of a small town by Blackwater, etc.
Drake, thanks for the links, I meant to get back to you way sooner…! With the holidays, etc., got backed-up.
"New takes on this restart include voting out all incumbents. "
How can that be done? You make it sound as though the electoral process isn't strictly controlled by the "two" parties.
It is those behind the scenes who are the controllers, mostly. A very few have been involved in an open and direct manner, etc.
Best government money can buy just sold out our country through the banking bailouts…
Seeing as how the fed is a PRIVATE corporation…only the international owners profited…
The crime groups that are and have been in charge, still are…and their shills.
Officially supporting our enemies in our two wars used to be treason, now it is a 'business' practice! -see The Nation magazine-
The Bill of Rights is not “dead and gone”. “If the foundations be destroyed what shall the righteous do?????” My answer “Build them back.”
IMPEACHMENT to those who would violate these Glorious documents. As George Washington said about Benedict Arnold, “Treason of the blackest dye has been found.”
So we have reasonable legal remedies for these acts of Betrayal. Who is on the Lord’s side???
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Hi Ruth, consider 'nullification' as a more direct and likely more effective path to take the power back from DC's corrupted.
Especially in our county, where there's actually an ordinance (No. 45) in support of it…the only county in the country that has one, that I'm aware of…
God bless you, Ruth Ann! I was going to write just what you said–that "it's not dead and gone". It's still there but we have become apathetic and now we must pray with all our might!
Bonnye
Right, Prof. Gutzman. What would be interesting is to see if this trend away from federalism has occurred mainly through "liberals" or "conservatives." I bet we might see some interesting results.
I always found it amuzing that Washington would call Arnold a traitor when it was the rebels who were traitors…….treason to the king they swore oaths to. I am glad they were but let's tell it like it is/was…..
There’s also the view canvassed by Kenneth Roberts (among others) in his novels, based on the historical research he did, that Benedict Arnold was actuated by thinking inviting the French in was a greater betrayal, like calling on the wolf for help against the fox. And it is certainly true that the revolting Americans were very lucky that not only did the war merely end in a small scale defeat for Britain but also the other European powers then got tied up long enough for the USA to consolidate and become defensible on its own. The thing is, Britain wasn’t actually completely defeated but only on points; sure, the rebels got most of what they were after – although not Canada or the Floridas – and the Spanish got the Floridas, but the French only got a Pyrrhic Victory that crippled them financially and also destabilised them, and the Dutch were damaged so much that they ceased to be a major power. That left Britain strong enough and France weak enough not to let the latter build a new North American power base (which would have threatened Britain, which was why it resisted that). Taken altogether, the USA was very lucky not to get taken over by the French in the way Corsica was after it had fought the Genoese to a standstill, which was common knowledge at the time as it had only happened a few years before. In fact, if Britain hadn’t had a paternalistic interest, it might actually have sold its interests in some of the colonies to France and Spain the way Genoa had sold its Corsican interests to France, leaving the three of them free to restore control in different sectors without disturbing the European balance of power.
amusing, too
It can not be stressed enough that the Ninth Amendment leads into the Tenth Amendment…
The states need to put a criminal penalty for those elected officials who intentionally disregard their solemn oath yo frfrnf, ptotect and preserve the Constitution. Facing a charge of perjury or treason might make many of our elected officials learn what our their real powers are and slow them down a bit. It is time the people of the states charge these usurpurpers with criminal behavior.
The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution may be on life support but they are far from dead. As evidence of that fact I have many guns and we can have this discussion.
It should be noted that the author, Dr. Gutzman, is a radical revolutionary who himself wants to finish off the Constitution with a knife to the back using an Article V Con Con. Visit http://www.stoptheconcon.com to read up on why this is such a horrible idea and a direct threat to liberty.
It should be also be noted that our Founding Fathers were not in rebellion – King George III was in rebellion by his tryannical refusal to respect the rights of his citizens. The works of Edmund Burke on this subject are sufficient to make this point.
Robert Owens
Member, The John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org)
It is outrageous to refer to Kevin Gutzman as a "radical revolutionary who himself wants to finish off the Constitution." So you disagree with him — do you have to be a complete jerk about it? He has explained himself at great length, and so far no one has replied to him. In this post are the links to his own words on the subject: http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/a_con…
Again, you may disagree with him, but if you have read his work you know he is not an evil subverter. Why do conservatives insist on acting like this?
Tom:
Well-said.
It’s the old “my way or get the hell out” view of the world, which was quite prevalent, for example, in the massive conservative support for the Iraq war under Bush. Well, seems to be coming from both sides these days… It’s awful, really.
Personally, I’m not in favor of doing anything on a national level – and prefer resistance, issue by issue, state by state – no matter how daunting or dangerous that may seem.
It IS absurd to consider Prof Gutzman someone who wants to destroy the principles this country was founded on. In fact, I consider him one of the few (the very few, that is), intellectuals who is not only an honest historian, but a true lover of what the Constitution stands for – limiting the power of the central government in order to promote the principles of liberty. People would do well to learn from what he has to say.
And more importantly than the distraction and attack that What Kevin Gutzman has said here is spot on – the reality is that even for those who THINK they have rights, the federal government surely feels it has the power to restrict them at moments notice. Whether it’s free speech or gun ownership, you hold those “rights” not because the constitution exists, but because this overwhelming beast that we call a government in D.C. simply hasn’t come to get you yet.
If no one does anything to stop it – sooner or later, they will.
I have extensive contact with Gutzman and there is no doubt about the fact that he seeks the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution. He is thus a radical revolutionary by his own admission. If you don't believe me, ask him about his position on Article V Con Con. You will get it from the horses mouth!
Robert Owens
Robert: Then he has a funny way of showing it. The entire thrust of his scholarly work is in defense of the original Constitution. His argument is that in order to get it back, structural flaws need to be corrected. You can disagree with that strategy, but don't be a complete idiot and sectarian by smearing an obviously good man. Leave it to the Left to be hysterics.
“It should be also be noted that our Founding Fathers were not in rebellion – King George III was in rebellion by his tryannical refusal to respect the rights of his citizens. The works of Edmund Burke on this subject are sufficient to make this point.”
No – because that’s a claim about facts (of actual history) and law, not about other moral issues. So, without looking into those other things, here’s some stuff about the historical background and the legal structure
One, the King could not be in rebellion; that was settled by things like the trial of Charles I in the Civil War, and the trial of the regicides later.
Two, there weren’t any citizens anyway – the system obtaining then recognised subjects, not citizens (that is, subjects of the law, not personal subjection).
Three, it had always been settled that people had rights that varied with where they were, not with who they were, so Tom Paine (say) had no fewer voting rights in English elections when he was in the colonies than any colonist, and contrariwise, if he had stayed in England or if a colonist had gone there (as many did), either of them would have been able to vote on the same property basis as anybody else.
Four, it had for centuries been settled (English) law that the (English) parliament – not the King on his own – could legislate for other lower level possessions of the King’s (i.e., lower than kingdoms), the way Poynting’s Law established that for Ireland (which remained even after it became a kingdom).
Five, whatever Burke may or may not have written on the point, that only goes to the wisdom and the ethics of intervening in the colonies, not to the purely legal framework you are discussing here (and notice, once hostilities broke out Burke thought Britain was both wise in fighting back and entitled to do it – it was too late for conciliation to be either wise or ethical, and the law permitted it).
To my mind, the rebels were morally fully entitled to do what both the Boers and the Mormons did later in analogous situations, to withdraw. But they would not have been entitled to commit aggression against their fellow countrymen (as they did, massacring, exiling, and expropriating them without even the compensation that was agreed in the peace treaty), nor to attack the British (as they did), unless their backs had been against the wall and they had had no practical alternative that was not an even worse evil. That was the situation in Ireland later, but it was not the case in North America then; not only was withdrawal realistic (either to unsettled land or to sparsely settled land under other rulers), but also opportunities for negotiation had not been exhausted when the extremists pushed out the moderates who had been allowed to participate in the First Continental Congress (look up the Galloway Plan) – think Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Over and above that, there wasn’t even the moral high ground of reducing government; the rebels wanted even more, and were only arguing about who it should be and at what level (those who wanted a weak central government wanted to continue free and unrestrained in their positions running colonies – for instance, see what happened in Rhode Island, oppressing the locals well into the 19th century).
The idea that an amending convention would be "a knife to the back" is widely touted by the John Birch Society. In being denominated "a radical revolutionary" by members of that group, I'm in good company: they used to say that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist. Yes, they did.
Article V of the Constitution provides for amendment conventions. How, then, can I be "a radical revolutionary" for having said that such a convention is the only solution to the problem we face? George Mason sponsored Article V in the Philadelphia Convention, and the Convention then added the provision. Article V was ratified by the People when they ratified the Constitution. It is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. Only someone who thinks Eisenhower was a Communist would say that using the Constitution amounts to stabbing it in the back.
Mason's reason for pushing for an amendment convention provision was that Congress might be the problem. If Congress were the problem, he said, we would not be able to count on Congress to initiate the process of amending the Constitution to correct the problem. This is precisely the situation we now face: Congress is part of the problem. Article V is the only route to a solution.
Mr. Owens wants to redefine another common term, as well: "rebellion." Check the second definition here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebellion
No doubt, the American Revolutionaries were in rebellion. George III's behavior was unconstitutional, and the Revolutionaries rebelled against him.
Right at the outset, before the ink was dry, the Federal Government violated the First Amendment with the Sedition Act, arresting editors whose newspapers said anything against the government. The people were fed up with the Hamiltonian approach and another revolution took place in 1800 to seat Thomas Jefferson as President. If history were to repeat itself, we need another Jefferson, a libertarian like all the 19th century Democrats up to, and including Cleveland, as cited in THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS on Amazon and claysamerica.com.
"…we need another Jefferson…'
Brilliant…! I was thinking along those same lines myself recently…
There may be an easier way to do all of this. Jon Christian Ryter and I have been discussing via e-mail the missing 13th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States, and have agreed there are actually two missing 13th Amendments. Jon has elaborated on the discussion, including historical notes, in his latest article found here:
http://www.jonchristianryter.com/2009/091213.html
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."
and
"ARTICLE THIRTEEN, If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept or retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
Additional details and background on this second missing 13th Amendment here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18029501/David-M-Dodge-…
A brief inclusion of the missing 13th Amendments is included in this transcribed version of the Constitution for the United States:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23978769/Constitution-f…
The bottom line is that these two amendments already exist; one to protect the states from federal intrusion, and the second to remove a two class society as we have now whereby lawyers and government officials are above us in class, and both merely need ratification by the states. As amendments, they are both already in the amendment process pipeline.
I don't think it appropriate to say the bill of right is gone forever, or the vision lost. How do you account for the millions of people who have awakened? The 10th amendment center should not be writing its own eulogy now, it feels like you've given up.
For the record, I do not agree that the vision is gone. Yes we have a lot of work to do. But there is NOTHING ELSE but our Constitution. And I am not giving up, not even writing about giving up
DrKate, there are two major forces involved here: the runaway and lawless government currently controlled by the socialists and the shadow government, and the People. The People still believe in and hold on to the Constitution and the rule of law, but the federal and many state governments do not.
It is my perception that we as a free people have been usurped by the progressives and the socialists within and without our nation's borders. As Nancy Pelosi has said 'we are in charge now.' So, the gauntlet has been thrown down, and it is up to us the people to restore our lawful government or simply sit by and become a communist state. I prefer the previous.
Prof Oliver Woshinsky (ex-USM) has written an interesting book entitled “Explaining Politics” and in the book he describes 7 personality types found in politicians.
Obligation type (opinionated, dogmatic, moral crusade); Program type (problem solver, business-like, policy wonk); Game type (loves competing and manipulating, doesn’t care about details); Status type (wants leadership position, arrogant, rigid, loud); Conviviality type (amiable, personal, needs approval); Adulation type (needs to be loved, wants power, Eva Peron & Huey Long type); and Mission type (ideological, often communistic, true believer, all or nothing).
I’ll focus a bit on the Mission type whose all-or-nothing attitude makes them dangerous opponents and difficult allies. You must be an unquestioning follower of their movement, or they will view you with suspicion. People like these are found toward the extreme end of the ideological spectrums: communists, fascists, religious zealots. People of this personality type don’t hesitate to impose their views – with violence if need be.
I submit that BHO is this type of political figure. Hugo Chavez is also of this personality type, as is Fidel Castro. This helps explain why these guys get along with each other so well.
The Mission types are usually successful in countries where the institutions are weak, and until now, would never have succeeded in America. For the last 100 years American history, traditions, and institutions have all been weakened by repeated attacks from the progressives, the international financial community, and the large multinational corporations. They all want a weak government they can control from the shadows – never letting our nation’s citizens know for certain what is happening in their own country.
The United States is the ultimate trophy for these plunderers, and it looks like they have won this round.
The questions for us all include: Where do we draw the line, or has one already been drawn? How do we respond to this usurpation of our nation’s sovereignty by these outlaws? What do we do about those whom we have selected to represent us in government? What do we do about the utter and complete destruction of our nation?
American colonists faced a similar dilemma — an increasingly oppressive and militant government bent on crushing their liberty. The result was a gradual buildup of anti-British sentiment. The Americans endured many years suffering and oppression. Their many petitions fell on deaf ears. They variously suffered the Boston Massacre, the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, conscriptions, plundering, troop quartering, and many other abuses, some of which are catalogued in the Declaration of Independence.
Gradually, the people realized they were under a tyranny, and they felt its sting.
People concluded that armed resistance might be inevitable, and they began preparing: arming, training, setting up lines of communications, spy networks, etc.
(We just lost our power, and I'm on battery backup and must shut down my system. More later)
Absolutely & Amen!
Too many people still carry a passion for liberty and for our Constitution. From what I've been learning, very unfortunately, many of these such people are NOT in government per se. I myself have only caught this vision within the past year or so, which is why I can say that I know the vision is not dead.
We need to keep asking the question:
“Do ‘we the people’ work for the government or does the government (elected officials) work for (represent) ‘we the people’?
We need to ask it over and over LOUDLY!!!
Then we need to get involved, vote, and encourage our family and friends to vote.
Right on! Most people do not understand this concept. They want the federal government to force the states to act "fair". In the process, they advocate for the destruction of our Confederate Constitutional Republic: Federalism! Well said, Prof.!
The author was absolutely correct in his comment on the preamble to the first ten amendments! Just try and find a copy of the Constitution with this preamble in it; it is near impossible. I do wish that the author would have clearly pointed to the meaning of these "declaratory and restrictive" clauses. From everything I have studied, the meaning is quite clear and simple: NOTHING in the body of the Constitution that may contradict these amendments can survive. Simple, clear, and quite concise. We could write volumes on the blatant disregard our government has had for these "declaratory and restrictive" clauses since the first day of our new government under the Constitution.
I understand that a SCOTUS ruling in the past has made the Bill of Protections (I WILL NOT call them rights!) effective against states as well as Con-gress. I know this defeats states rights ideals and the very notion of federalism however, I can see why many do not want their state to have the right to impose "cruel and unusual punishment", establish a state religion, limit speech against the state and local government, and conduct searches without warrants, among many other governmental wrongs. The People must make the moral decision that "gubmint" has no right in our human liberty; until then, I am afraid we as a nation will continue to fight the growing police state.
P.S. Should we now call Con-gress by their REAL name Pro-gress as in progressives? They sure are not making any progress!
Merry,
The transcribed version of the Constitution contains the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23978769/Constitution-f…
Merry, maybe we should just call them law-less.
There's too much power and treasure concentrated in too few hands in DC. And as Glenn Greenwald has noted, Obama has won renewed support from both Neocons and progressives for his — yes, they're his now — war in Afghanistan. As Greenwald warns, the assaults on our liberty associated with the Bush/Cheney regime can only accelerate.
A round of applause should be directed to Prof. Gutzman for putting the preamble to the Bill of Rights on the table because it is rarely discussed.
The sole purpose of the Amendments, as stated in the preamble, was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed.
Based on the wording of the preamble, the Amendments placed constitutional prohibitions on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.”
The Amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights were structured as enumerated restraints on the powers of the federal government and an extension of the system of limited government established by the Constitution.
If we have any hope of restoring this principle we need the preamble to the Bill of Rights to become a key component of debates and discussions of the Amendments.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights: http://www.billofrights.org/
Excerpting the essential:
…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…
…misconstruction, abuse, declaratory, restrictive. All of these words are used, not just a few. Note "declaratory."
The 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.
"…prohibited by it to the States…" Hmmm. What was prohibited by the Constitution to the States?
According to Greenslade and Gutzman, and apparently Natelson, not much could be. Gutzman refers to the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in 1833. Since he neglected to mention it by name, it was Barron v. Baltimore. Barron sued Baltimore under Takings (Fifth Amendment–Baltimore, by paving, ruined harbor space of Barron, thus "taking"). Unanimous, but without the participation of Justice Baldwin. Why?
It must be stated that the Supreme Court may well have been wrong in this case. It often is, and Jefferson (for instance–and already) made no bones about despising the Supreme (or any other) Court. It appears, among other things, that this case was decided at a time of a fad about States' rights. Was the Court swayed by a fad? To insist that it could not have been deifies the Court, which is patently absurd.
It also is interesting that the 14th Amendment can be read as a refutation by the Congress of that bad decision, especially in view of the "incorporation" doctrine, which I regard as an unnecessary evil, were it not for the Marshall Court's softheaded concession to ultrastatism.
Going to TEXT, the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law…" Hark, the other 9 amendments don't limit themselves to Congress. Only the First. Why? Greenslade, et al, would probably argue that the "Congress shall not…" applies to the whole of the document. But what argument really makes this a reality? Wishcraft? The Preamble doesn't make that argument, because while it counters abuse, it also adds declaratory aspects. It mentions "declaratory" before it mentions "restrictive." Hmm.
The VISION of the United States was freedom of the PEOPLE–not of dictators because they happened to be "local," i.e., state dictators. The big picture version of the Constitution is that the Anti-Federalists, opposed to a strong federal authority, decided to make the best of it by insisting that freedom be written into the Constitution, that federalism be used to fight the inevitable advance of tyranny. A check. A balance.
The Bill of Rights was a "never again" document. It specifically addressed the abuses of the British crown. It should be–and I contend was meant to be–seen not only as a limitation on the federal government, but also as a code of minimum freedom for a state's good standing in the union.
Why Greenslade, et al, would disagree… who knows? They believe, perhaps, in localized tyranny? Jefferson sure didn't. "I Have Sworn Upon the Altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." That was Jefferson. I am with Jefferson. I believe that our Constitution, in spite of the would-be tyrants that participated, is with Jefferson.
…and what about that tree?
I feel we the citizens must do something to stop the federal government dead in its tracks, and we cannot wait unitl the 2010 elections. What is the fed all about – money and power. Money fuels power, so we need to turn off the money flow. We need a grassroots effort to have millions of people shut down the flow of money. Individuals can up their W-4 witholdings to 25 resulting in much less going to the feds for income taxes, and millions of small businesses can simply refuse to make 941 deposits (the submission of employee withholdings to the fed). If enough people and busineses would do this, the economy would grind to a halt. Then, we the people, demand that the federeal governement's authority be returned to the limited size defined under the 10th Amendment. This would be painful and people would need to weather the storm for months or more, but it would have teeth and I believe it would get real results.
No, Dave, the thing that We, the People personally COULD do is to claim their own power back by canceling the agreements that they do have with their employers via their Withholding Certificates; see 26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p)-1 and NOTICE the words therein that tell us without question that those withholdings are voluntary. Citation is in my next reply.
What part of the word “VOLUNTARY” do we Citizens NOT get?!
Try and refuse to make the 941 deposits and you'll be shut down pretty quickly. The government has the one thing no one else has (except criminals) and that's the ability to destroy you. One month we accidentally made our 941 deposit to the 940 account and vice-versa. Don't know if it was our fault, the bank's fault or the government's fault. They were able to move the funds to the correct accounts but by the time they did that, a couple of months had passed and I still had to pay penalties and interest due to the fact that the money had not been deposited "on time." I refused to pay the penalties and interest simply because I didn't feel I owed it. I was threatened with garnishment. I ended up paying because I was in a no win situation. I could have stood on my principles and they would have taken the money from my bank account anyway because they have that power.
I recon you are on the right track Dave, stop the feds dead in their tracks. But you can't shut down the money because they print it and I mean that quite literally. The money they confiscate, plunder and defraud from us they do not need (again because they print or manufacture the paper) they take it as a control mechanism. It is an endless circle, and they know it.
Stop doing everything indefinately-stop going to work for FRN"S, don't buy gas, keep the children home.STAY HOME let it all come down on it's own this way.
When have we had enough? By the way have I mentioned that I do not want evil and utterly corrupt
folk lording over me. There is one Lord and he is Jesus.
-CITE-
26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p)-1
-EXPCITE-
Title 26
CHAPTER I
SUBCHAPTER C
PART 31
Subpart E
-HEAD-
Sec. 31.3402(p)-1 Voluntary withholding agreements.
-TEXT-
(a) In general. An employee and his employer may enter into an agreement under section 3402(b) to provide for the withholding of income tax upon payments of amounts described in paragraph (b)(1)of Sec.31.3401(a)-3, made after December 31, 1970. An agreement may be entered into under this section only with respect to amounts which are includible in the gross income of the employee under section 61, and must be applicable to all such amounts paid by the employer to the employee. The amount to be withheld pursuant to an agreement under section 3402(p) shall be determined under the rules contained in section 3402 and the regulations thereunder.
(b) Form and duration of agreement.
(1)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (ii) of this subparagraph, an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) shall furnish his employer with Form W-4 (withholding exemption certificate) executed in accordance with the provisions of section 3402(f) and the regulations thereunder. The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding.
(ii) In the case of an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402(p) with his employer, if the employee performs services (in addition to those to be the subject of the agreement) the remuneration for which is subject to mandatory income tax withholding by such employer, or if the employee wishes to specify that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the employee shall furnish the employer with a request for withholding which shall be signed by the employee, and shall contain –
(a) The name, address, and social security number of the employee making the request,
(b) The name and address of the employer,
(c) A statement that the employee desires withholding of Federal income tax, and applicable, of qualified State individual income tax (see paragraph (d)(3)(i) of Sec. 301.6361-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedures and Administration)), and
(d) If the employee desires that the agreement terminate on a specific date, the date of termination of the agreement. If accepted by the employer as provided in subdivision (iii) of this subparagraph, the request shall be attached to, and constitute part of, the employee's Form W-4. An employee who furnishes his employer a request for withholding under this subdivision shall also furnish such employer with Form W-4 if such employee does not already have a Form W-4 in effect with such employer.
(iii) No request for withholding under section 3402(p) shall be effective as an agreement between an employer and an employee until the employer accepts the request by commencing to withhold from the amounts with respect to which the request was made.
(2) An agreement under section 3402 (p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may terminate the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other. Unless the employer and employee agree to an earlier termination date, the notice shall be effective with respect to the first payment of an amount in respect of which the agreement is in effect which is made on or after the first 'status determination date' (January 1, May 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year) that occurs at least 30 days after the date on which the notice is furnished. If the employee executes a new Form W-4, the request upon which an agreement under section 3402 (p) is based shall be attached to, and constitute a part of, such new Form W-4.
(86 Stat. 944, 26 U.S.C. 6364; 68A Stat. 917, 26 U.S.C. 7805); (T.D. 7096, 36 FR 5216, Mar. 18, 1971, as amended by T.D. 7577, 43; FR 59359, Dec. 20, 1978)
PLEASE, you can see and read this for yourself without the emphases online through the website for http://www.law.cornell.edu OR at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html ; important points are highlighted so that you will become aware of the meaning of these terms.
Now, writing up this recision letter to the employer is something each one would have to do for him/herself. Chances are that employers will not go along with it in one way or another and put up a fight about it.
Better to get all employers who participated in the Tea Parties or Campaign for Liberty to actually refuse to make those 941 deposits for employees' taxes that they've withheld. Good luck with that!!!!!
So we should execute 17 year old young lovers whom Jewish and Christian fanatics have dubbed child rapists because it is the will of the people.
There is no such thing as States' Rights. There are individual rights which the juris and courts help protect as (Marbury) the ultimate deciders of the law.
The judiciary SHOULD step in when the states pass unconstitutional legislation like banning abortion, legalizing forced payers in schools, having the death penalty and so on. What they should not have stepped in on was making George W.Bush president of the United States when Florida law demanded a recount and the counts in other states were also very suspicious. This Website interpretation of when the courts should not step in is very, very faulty.
I heartily agree with the previous post that the interpretation given here is seriously flawed. This is very similar to the Nullification movement. We read: "The Supreme Court unanimously said … the Bill of Rights was a limitation solely on the Federal Government … and the death of decentralized, election-based government is entirely lamentable." Oh, really? Just keep in mind that if we allow States to ban abortion and encourage prayer in schools (as conservatives consistently wish) then it will also be possible for states to ban gun ownership and to punish any protest that might offend someone as "hate speech".
Yes, that's exactly what the founders set up. Now it's not good, in my opinion, to have free speech banned, but constitutions in each state would be the place to deal with that. The founders recognized that an all-powerful central government – even one claiming to do "good" – would end up becoming a tyranny. And, as the Professor made clear in recent podcast with TAC (there's a link to it in the article), the reasoning is – you have a much better chance for liberty when dealing with a small tyrant than you do with one single universal tyrant.
The question, of course, is this – if you believe the national government should come in and save you from state governments – do you also believe a world government should come in and save you from the national government? That's really what you're arguing for, in principle.
In some respects, the 14th Amendment has been used as a club to kill the Bill of Rights, but generally we have allowed it to be killed because we were bribed by various federal governments with bread and circuses. The Bill of Rights didn't die — it was murdered, and we are all accomplices because we allowed it to happen.
Mr. Owens, I appreciate your comments. Today is the local commemoration of this glorious document, To God be the Glory.
Today is the anniversary of the Bill of Rights (see Lee Anderson’s
editorial in the Chattanooga Times/Free Press today). It is the freedom
for the Christian to preach and represent themselves in Court and was
insisted upon by Patrick Henry who said that without the Bill of Rights
we would be turned into tyranny.
Harry S Truman in his address to the Attorney General’s Conference on Law
Enforcement in Washington, DC, February 15, 1950 stated:
“The fundamental basis of this nation’s law was given to Moses on the
mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the
teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St.
Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.
“If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will
finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in
rights for anybody except the State.”
Only the Bible will grant the Bill of Rights. All other religious books
deny these to the people, keeping them only for their priestcraft. Praise
God for the Bill of Rights.
Banquet tonight in Dayton, Tennessee. “All hail the power of Jesus’
Name.”
Repentance due for the neglect of this great gift of God.
Submitted by June Griffin, Tenn. Committee for the Bill of Rights
For God and Country
____________________________________________________________
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Ruth Ann,
I believe it is absolutely true, that, as you say, only the Bible can grant the Bill if Rights. The reason they have been so effective, for so long, is that their substance is of and from God. Therein exists their wisdom and power. Apart from Him, we can do nothing.
One characteristic of being a rational being is the realization that "wishing will not make it so." The author is correct: the Bill of Rights is dead. I wish it were not dead, the author wishes it were not dead and apparently quite a few readers wish it were not dead, but wishing will not make it so. The various governments of the U.S., and especially the Federal government, are no longer bound by the law. I wish they were. They are not. Any honest and objective analysis of actions by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches shows clearly that there are NO principles of the bIll of Rights which they are willing to be bound by. Warrantless searches? Ex post facto laws? Preferential enforcement of the laws? Torture? These all violate absolute bedrocks of our legal standards and yet they occur without penalty. So what can you do about it?
(continued)
(Continued)
Impeachment? YOU do not have the authority to impeach. Only our politicians have that authority, and they WILL NOT impeach themselves. Remove dishonest Federal Judges? Again, YOU do not have the authority to do so. Vote the rascals out? YOU do not control the electoral process, and in fact, there is not even a public and verifiable counting of ballots. Any questions in elections will be settled by whom? You? NO! By the politicians or by the Judges!
Here is the problem in a very simple nutshell. The controling members of all branches of our government refuse to be bound by the law. They refuse to allow fair and open access to electoral mechanisms. They refuse to be bound by shame — or guilt — or public outrage — or by any form of words or social pressure. They refuse to even be bound by their own promises, and by speeches made before the electorate. They have determined that we will be subjects, not citizens, and they refuse to represent our interests in their execution of official duties.
What options do we have? Seriously, how can you control a government which refuses to obey either law or ethics?
Jason,
Excellent analysis.
What options do we have? Only one: RECLAIM STATE SOVEREIGNTY.
The federal government was never intended to be a national regime, bound only by its own voluntary adherence to the law; on the contrary, every state is a sovereign nation, supremely ruled by its respective People. As such, they DO have the right to nullify any federal law from being enforced in their state– or to secede from the Union entirely.
Of course which was suppressed by totalitarian censorship in 1861– and has remained suppressed every since, due to shills, fools and cowards in law, media and academia who fail to inform the People that their states are sovreign nations.
And since the People don't know about their sovereignty– they can't RE-CLAIM it.
Dr. Clyde Wilson summed it up nicely when he observed, "The Constitution is not a self-enforcing document." It ultimately depended on the sovereign States to uphold its principles. Only by reclaiming both delegated and usurped powers can we hope to restore our traditional liberties — and to do so effectively, the people of the States must have the means to defend their actions.
Recalling the State National Guards would be a meaningful first step.
This country in ungovernable. Why? Because the people are unrepairably fragmented. Their allegiance is not to the flag or the constitution anymore. It is to the "get what you can" and to the "tribe" they identify with.
Which is why there never WAS a "country" in the sense of a single nation; on the contrary, each state is a sovereign nation unto itself, and was free to leave the Union anytime it pleased.
When this fact was suppressed in 1861, it became a factional oligarchy– which was inevitable when the federal rebublic became a national empire; absolute power, corrupts absolutely: in such a regime, those in power strive to keep it, and all others strive to ATTAIN it.
Hi,
Some of the states didn't want to agree unless they could add some specific rights for individual people.Understanding of the Bill of Rights is an important part of education for responsible citizenship in the United States, as indicated by curriculum guides and standard textbooks in American history, government, and civics. Constitutional rights and liberties are emphasized in statements of goals for education in the social studies published by local school districts, state-level departments of education, and the National Assessment for Educational Progress
The Bill of Rights recognizes natural rights, as is made clear by the 9th Amendment. The Declaration of Independence also recognizes natural rights.
Natural rights are rights that no government has the right to infringe, whether it be federal, state, or local governments.
The Bill of Rights is the greatest rallying cry ever written for the People to keep and protect their rights.
If the states had respected the basic rights of the people, by, for example, abolishing slavery, abolishing Jim Crow laws, etc., the federal centralization of power pushed by Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ would never have occurred.
You're blaming the states for those dictators?
I'm afraid this is not only ludicrous, but false. Dictators don't need an excuse, to abuse power. rather always feign benevolence, but are always wolves in sheep's clothing. For example, the Lincoln-Republicans simply opposed slavery, solely in order to pander for the abolitionist vote; this was to grant them political hegemony in Congress, so as to allow Northern special-interests to continue taxing the South for private gain, forcing them to pay the majority of the federal tax-burden, as well as receiving protective tariffs and kickback-subsidies– essentially turning the entire union into an aristocratic oligarchy.
It's not for the federal government to overrule the People of any state- on the contrary, every state's People are a sovereign nation unto themselves, and have no superior.
I think Dr. Gutzman misses the forest for the trees, and fails to see that this is INEVITABLE when the states lose their sovereignty. He says "The people never consented to have the federal judges behave this way;" however they also never consented for their federal government to invade their states and conquer them through mass-murder, like in the War Between the States.
Those who pretend that absolute power can be controlled by carefully written laws, are dangerously naive.
(cont'd)
the words of the Hon. JLM Curry after that war, "a written constitution, however carefully guarded the grant and limitations, is no barrier against the usurpations of governments and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. Restrictions are contemptuously disregarded, or undermined by the gradual process of usurpation, until the instrument is of no more force, nor any more respected than an act of Congress. Constitutional scruples are hooted at, and suggested bar-tiers of want of authority are ridiculed as abstractions or the theories of political doctrinaires. The Federal judiciary, the Congress, the Executive, the Constitution, the Union, are but emanations of the sovereignty of the States, and the States are not bound by their wishes, necessities, action, except as they have agreed to be bound, and this agreement was made, not with the Union, the Federal government, their agent and creature, but with one another. Vicious legislation must be remedied by the people who suffer from the effects of it and not by those who enjoy its benefits."