by Michael Boldin
The following is based off a speech I gave at the first annual Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, GA on February 26, 2010.
How can a “crazy†Californian and a “conservative†Georgian be friends? It’s simple – through the principles of ’98. In 1798, the John Adams administration signed into law that Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or its officials. In practice, it was used to quell the freedom of speech in dissent against the sitting administration.
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson responded:
“the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Governmentâ€
But wait – that’s not all. He went on to say that all undelegated powers exercised by the federal government are “unathoritative, void and of no force.†And, that a “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.â€
NULLIFICATION?
There’s been plenty of people talking about nullification lately, but many people don’t know what it really means. I can think of no better way to define it than how my friend Derek Sheriff from the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center has done:
Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.
Nullification is something that’s already happening around the country – and Derek explains the process:
Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.
At its very core, nullification is mass civil-disobedience to the federal government with the support of the state apparatus. It’s about “We the People†exercising our rights whether the politicians or judges in Washington D.C want to give us “permission†to exercise those rights or not.
ROSCOE FILBURN
During the Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or starving, the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict production of wheat in order to raise prices.
As a farmer, Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10 acres of wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided that it was in his best interest – possibly because he had less revenue due to the production limitations – to plant another 10 or so acres. But, the “excess†wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power to regulate “interstate commerce.â€
What did the federal government do? The expected – they ordered Roscoe to destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment and you’ll really understand the evil of having too much power in too few hands. At a time when large numbers of people were starving, these thugs in government forced people to reduce production for the sake of raising prices. From this, it seems clear to me that corporate bailouts have been going on a long, long time in America.
Roscoe sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history of this country. It now had the power to control the growing and consuming of something that never left one’s back yard.
LOST LIBERTY
John Adams, who as we can see from his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts-, was no saint, did give us a great warning on the growth of government power. In 1775 he wrote, “liberty once lost, is lost forever.†He went on to explain that when the People allow government to gain power and restrict liberty, it will never voluntarily give that power back. Liberty given up to government power will never be returned to the people without a long and difficult struggle.
If we fast forward to present times, we can see this principle at work.
ANGEL RAICH
In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who has a huge cancerous tumor in her brain was told by her doctor and California law that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain associated with her cancer was acceptable.
The Feds don’t take too kindly to states passing laws in direct contravention to theirs. Marijuana, for example, is illegal on a federal level in all circumstances, and federal agencies have consistently said they don’t recognize state laws. You can probably guess what happened, right?
Federal agents destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance. Like Roscoe before her, Angel sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court once again ruled that growing and consuming a plant in one’s own back yard qualified as “interstate commerce.†And, because of that, the federal government was then authorized to control, regulate, or outright ban such activities under the threat of fine or prison.
Clarence Thomas, in his famous dissent, got it right when he wrote, “If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.â€
PARTISAN CONSTITUTIONALISTS?
The main problem we face is that much of the support for the 10th Amendment is little more than partisanship. For many years, conservatives have rightly railed against policies such as the ones that FDR used against Roscoe Filburn. But, at the same time, they’ve turned a blind eye to those same policies when used against Angel Raich and her use of marijuana. And on the other hand, liberals have done just the opposite.
The bottom line, though, is this. When you allow politicians to bend the rules of the Constitution – even for things you may support – over a long period of time, sooner or later you’re going to end up with politicians who feel that the rules don’t apply at all. And, if we’re not there right now, we’re pretty darn close.
EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME
That’s why we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand adherence to the Constitution – Every Issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses. That means that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, including:
The Department of Education, The Patriot Act, Federal Gun Laws and Regulations, National Health Care Mandates, and something that’s been going on since 1941, wars without a Congressional declaration of war from Congress.
LIBERTY
From this we can see that the Tenth Amendment is not about political parties. It’s not about political ideologies. It’s not even about political candidates. It’s about liberty. It was designed to promote your liberty by strictly limiting the powers of the federal government.
Over the past year or so, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN, or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, “What political party do you support?†Each time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government.â€
They always have virtually the same follow up question too – “what about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political background, what political party do you support?â€
“None,†I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s true.
I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.
All I am is me, and all I want is to live free.
Thank you….
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
Very good points that ultimately rest on whether the Feds would ever submit to being "corralled" back into the constitutional sand box. I posit that they will not. Maybe it's time for the states to think about a new "union of the willing" rather than salvage this sinking garbage scow of a government?
Good point there, MoT. I doubt very much if you folks (U.S. citizens) can get the evil genie of nationalism/imperialism back into the bottle of constitutional government. History shows that the U.S. Constitution was a failure right from the start. It's too bad; the American Revolution had many good ideas, but it was corrupted by the existence of slavery and the "manifest destiny" destruction of the native Indian nations and the seizure of their lands as well as two thirds of Mexico. There was too much rot and infection in the Tree of Liberty for it to thrive.
Excellent points sir.
Good points sir!
"All I am is me, and all I want is to live free."
Amen, it is long past time we get past the party. Parties are factions, special interest groups with their agenda which is fine but it has no place inside government. We must vote for those that share the sentiment you express and we must work to rid the state level legislatures of the party caucus system that infested the federal legislature at the turn of the 20th Century…giving us the 'leaders' and the 'whips' they needed to beat their pack of dogs into party (faction) line instead of allowing the Constitution to be the line of measure. Enjoyed the article a great deal, thank you and we really appreciate the resolution from the summit as well!
Great article, especially the part about "Every issue, every time." I also loved your ending comments about FREEDOM being the key!
I feel the same about insanity of political parties. They have polarized the public and allowed a sports mentality to take over the country. It's the Saints against the Colts all the time in politics. You are supposed to root for one team or the other as if the future of the country is tantamount to the outcome of a football game.
It's sad the American electorate is so mentally lazy that this b.s. works so well.
The financial crisis has gotten the attention of many people who were, frankly, asleep and I suspect that's why this web site exists and is popular. Money gets attention.
I remember when Ron Paul ran for President in 2008 and put forth his long-held and often-stated ideas for limited government and constitutional government. He was treated like a crackpot and laughed off the stage of the debates for saying obvious things like the Fed is a bad idea and unconstitutional, the wars are unconstitutional and that 'blowback' was the primary cause of 9/11.
Then front-runner, Giuliani, actually laughed and said he'd never heard of the 'blowback' theory! Really? The mayor of NY hadn't heard of the CIA's report on why 9/11 happened? Could he really be that stupid? How do you explain/excuse a comment like that? How can that joker even show his face in public? Only a moronic adherence to party allows you to overlook that kind of idiocy.
Glenn Beck, who now claims he's a Constitutionalist, had Ron Paul on his TV show when Beck was at CNN and treated him rudely and dismissively. Beck was a total jerk to Paul and NOW, on FOX, sounds like he's reading from Paul's books every day, without attribution. WTF?
Hannity has been a frequent denier of Paul's observations and constantly dismissed Paul during the 2008 campaign. Now, Hannity 'champions' the Tea Party movement which really started with Ron Paul's ideas. Hannity and Rush are both mindless party hacks and it couldn't be more obvious. Yet, they are both VERY popular. How can that be?
The polarization of party politics and the mental laziness of Americans explain all this.
In the end, as a group, we get the government we deserve. It's not fair because some of us don't agree with the masses who keep listening to and electing clowns but, sadly, life isn't fair.
I feel as if I'm on the Titanic and I am screaming for the Captain to slow down because there might be icebergs out there. I'm locked below in steerage while most of the passengers are partying, drinking, dancing or sleeping like babies…
One pleasant thought… Some people survived the sinking of the Titanic.
great analysis! i agree that Hannity and Limbaugh are idealogical Republicans, which stand in stark contrast to a Constitutional Libertarian. Beck has changed his spots even in the past year (since joining Fox). I do not know if Beck's shift is purely for entertainment and ratings, or if he truly is beginning to understand the Constitution. The only "real" Libertarian I have seen on Fox is Judge Andrew Napolitano. You are very correct in pointing out that the mainstream media, politicians, and even electorate do NOT yet accept a Constitutional Libertarian as a legitimate alternative to the Dem/Repub parties.
Well said sir.
Although I am a partisan Libertarian, I take no umbrage at Mr. Boldin’s remarks. I’d like to be there with him someday. All his points are excellent and powerful. Let’s live and learn and learn to live free.
This would require a State with the support of it people to start nullifying. Where would you find a STATE like that? If you did would more States follow or just laugh and say they have finally rounded up all the crazies in one state and call it a RESERVATION! Most people just can"t percieve the advantages of living free or understand it. My responce, "Where the heck is that state." my bags are packed….
Beautifully written Michael. I wish I could have attended in Atlanta. I agree with every dot and tittle of your article but people love"handles" and cannot seem to understand concepts without them. They need to label things and of coure the label always produces unintended results. I have labeled myself Independant for this very reason. An Independant is like a pot of boiling water with no handles. As far as I know there are some people at present who label themselves Independants but there is no National Independant party that I am aware of. I'm not sure we can get organized without a label. I would be interested in hearing yours as well as others idea's on this. There are certainly enough of us disgusted with both parties at present to replace almost every encumbant but that will take organization and a 'label" are my thoughts.
BK, there is the latest version of the National Independent American Party, the American Indpendent Party, and several state level parties associated with the title. Just as many are pressing to organize a 'real' Tea Party people have (since the 1960s) organized 'real' Independent Party organizations…thereby taking away from the independence of it all. There are actually over 50 third parties organized in the U.S. so whenever I have someone ask me to get involved in starting a third party I always wonder if we really need another party. One day, perhaps, one will come along that captures me yet, to date, there are too many parties and not enough independent thinking from what I can tell. In addition, the two gorillas in the room have sewn up the Majority/Minority fiasco through internal party caucus tradition while limiting the ability of third parties to get a hearing yet this too can change with independent efforts from the local level up.
Gary thanks for responding and I knew there are many disorganized third parties out there but because they are so disorganized they completely slipped my mind. I guess my thoughts are "there has never been a better time to make changes than now". But to make those changes is going to require real organization and I wonder if we can do that without a handle or label. If we can come together as just citizen who love the Constitution and the liberties that it represents for each of us, then all the better. The two parties will work together to keep any other party out. There is no doubt of that and the MSM makes sure of it by refusing to even give a news burb to any other party.
We do enjoy labels as humanoids, no doubt about that. When someone pushes the concept I lean on the TAC label (Tenth Amendment Center) since we have a national level with Michael and Blake as well as a growing state level organization and even county level in some states like CO. As a think tank and action oriented center of influence I think it is a good label to use while maintaining a non-partisan, everyone from every party come on board, approach. Also, when talking with candidates I can ask if they support the TAC 10-4 Pledge, etc. Thoughts?
Gary I could go with the label of being a TAC or Tenth Amender but there are already many who think we just want another Civil War and to withdraw from the Union. A misconception no doubt but its there. We are already labeled nuts and gun fanatics. Its more difficult to get a handle or put a label on someone who claims only to be an Independant. I certainly have more questions than answers in this area. As I said before the time as never been better to make changes and it can be done if we do not have many missteps. People are so distressed with our economy and what Govt. is doing (and not doing)that in order to get committed people to join us we need a very clear picture of what we stand for. Sad to say I believe it is going to take a label for that to happen. The politicans of both major parties have us so buffaloed, it reminds me of a football game between the reds and blues except while the game is going on we are ALL at the other end of the field watching the cheerleaders and have no clue how the game is going.
The notion on the Civil War is out there…read my article from Sunday;
http://utah.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/our-…
When people ask me directly what I am I tell them I am a 'Restorationist' and it really throws them since they have not heard of it. I have used it personally for nearly a year and it is catching on. I don't want change, a new America, etc. simply a restoration of our grand experiment…this leads to questions on what experiment I am talking about…etc, etc, etc. Perhaps it is time we work on labeling more as 'restorationists' especially since a restoration project usually looks really ugly as you tear away decades of bad paint and shoddy patches to strip back to the point you can truly restore to glory whatever the project is. Thoughts?
Gary I like it!! I know I am preaching to the choir but hopefully you and I are not the only people reading our discourse. All labels are basically a leaky bucket. I can start with being a Restorationist but it will not be long before I am asked what kind of Restorationist I am. Then I will go to being an Independant Restorationist and will end up doing battle with the liberal Restorationist and the conservative Restorationist. Do you see where this is going? Thoughts?
That is exactly on the money, it what we humanoids do. Some time back I wrote an article and presented some seminars on the theme 'Beware the Label' as we are so good using them in today's political discourse. We are so fortunate the founding generation developed their ideas outside of this limiting methodology. However, I am now concerned with just what type of restorationist I really am…hmmm…
You are right, But unless the states that Pass Nullification are also willing to back it up with its law enforcement it will not help much. I think this is the way to proceed, but we must be willing to back it up.
Americans State by State individual by individual must force the Political Class to live by the Constitution as written not as changed by some number of Judges opinions of updating the intent of the Founders words. The Founders said what they meant and meant what they said – if Judges or the Political Class has issues with the words, the Founders gave them a method to update or correct defects, it is called the amendment process and has been used many times.
The problem is the Founders wanted it to be very difficult to amend the Constitution and made the super majority rules which the Political Class does not think is fair. Well how about if we require any court decision regarding the limits on powers by the Federal government to be submitted to the Congress and States for ratification or the courts decision is rendered moot.
The Founders were in total agreement with the point Michael made in this article.
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton stated: “[n]othing could be more illjudged than that intolerant spirit which has at all times characterized political parties. "
Two years later, Thomas Jefferson asserted: “[i]f I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
In his farewell address of 1796, President George Washington warned the American people of the dangers of political parties. After discussing the effects of parties generally, he went on to state:
"[T]he common and continual mischiefs of the spirit or party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; (and) kindles the animosity of one part against another…"
.
President Washington was a prophet. This is exactly how the democrats and republicans maintain their control over the American people. They pit one segment of society against another with exaggerations and falsehoods designed to divide the people of these United States. After they incite and alienate the people, they offer themselves and their party as the only solution to the “so-called problem.”
Early 19th century presidents continued to condemn the existence of political parties. Twelve years before he was elected President in 1828, Andrew Jackson wrote: “[n]ow is the time to eliminate the monster called party spirit.” In 1822, President James Monroe characterized political parties as “the curse of the country.”
Nothing has changed… they still are the curse of the country!
JohnLock said "The Founders said what they meant and meant what they said " I agree wholeheartedly.
I also am non-partisan, as in no political party is my guide or ruler regarding liberty. The Constitution is our guide, the basis for all law. Amendments have created a corrupt Constitution, which we must clean up as soon as possible to end the tyranny in our country. The polluted minds of lobbied politicians have decided to disregard the people they supposedly represent.
I myself believe that all parties must be disbanded, they are the political force that divides us, not unites us. I have registered as different parties over the years, but never had any affiliation with their politics. I want to be registered as "American Citizen", not Republican or Democrat or even Independent. See Wikipedia, "List of Parties in the United States", this has gone way over the edge of sanity for our people. The only way we could ever end this lunacy is to abolish all parties, and grant equal voting rights back to the people, especially the disenfranchised. We must return to representation, so that when we elect a president, the Electoral College can not go against the will of the people.
The citizens of the United States have lost their own wisdom, and turned their ear to the television to form their opinions. The partisanship of CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. do not assist us in our fight against those who have corrupted the Constitution for their own devices. Disregard Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh, they mean less than nothing. They re in the business for a paycheck, that is all. We must listen to the people now, and know that WE are who rules this country, not the Bush family, or the Rockefellers, or any other monied corporate interest.
If we must boycott, and do without, so be it. I myself try on a daily basis not to support their dangerous hierarchy, by not spending money on frivolous things I do not need. We have become their slave consumers, we think we need their products, but we do not. I try to buy locally grown foods, and buy products made in my state. A return to local politics and local support for the people of communities will be our salvation, not globalization.
Our government has given new meaning to the word corrupt, and we the people are the only force that can end it.
Before the next ten years are out, I see a big change coming for America, be it revolution, or evolution, we will take back our country, one mind at a time.
We must b e careful of what we desire. Do we want to be like England, many parties yelling and fighting on the floor, votes of no confidence cripple governments and Socialism can not be eliminated. Italy can not keep a President in place to the end of his term sense the Fascist government of WWII. Japan's government is paralyzed and has not been able to end a twenty year economic down turn. Israel can not even form a government at times because they can not get a majority of the parties (many opinions).
France and Germany are no exception, they to have big problems. The economy of Europe is tanking worse than America but no one talks about it in DC of the Media.
Our system might have it's problems but was designed by the Founder to make passing laws difficult and securing power over the people difficult. They wanted the members of Congress to fight it out before they took actions, they wanted the people to guide the political class. Our Congress now wants the people to follow them. Go figure the Lawyers we sent to DC just do not get it do they?
Every politician and most bureaucrats are required to take a solemn oath to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution of the United States. If the states would make it a treasonous offense to deliberately violate that oath we would find a much better bunch of people in the government, ready to protect the liberties of all Americans at the risk of theirs. Depending upon the callousness and arrogance of the violation would determine the sentence. In this agnostic society we cannot afford to wait for the creator to exact his toll upon those who lie under oath, we must speed up the process through our State governments.
Our biggest obstacle to change is the fact that we expect politicans to police themselves. They will not make laws to protect us against them. It is that simple and we as a people have no power indivdually and we have no representation collectively. Just try making a "citizen's arrest" of any politican for treason (which they are ALL guilty of). We here at the TAC will write you if you will let us know where you will be locked up.
Jim I took that oath many years ago ( at least 40) when I entered the army and I feel just as obligated by it today as I did way back then. However, it has no teeth. Try using that oath as a defense if you find yourself in a situation where you need a defense for protecting yourself or our country. My point is, it has no teeth (see my post above about politicans policing themselves). If we tried to police them as citizens we would be labeled terrorist and jailed. Do you doubt that for a moment? I am not looking for disagreement with anyone but lets get the facts on the table as they are and not as they should be.
Kaptain Kanada just because we have a bunch of scummy crooks in Washington right now does not mean they will always be there. Something else you should consider, once Mexicans have turn the USA into a "Little Mexico" or worse, where do you think they are headed? Thats right amigo, they are headed right for your door to turn your beautiful country into the slim pit they turned ours into……lol
I wonder all, we try and try everything in the book, the nonviolent ways …..what would be the very last step? I believe we all know that answer. I just feel someone is above all those in DC. This Ideology is very destructive on the government mind. I can only say, if they cannot police themselves, who will and can? No one likes revolution nor that word. But after reading and studying the nature of man and those in this government for the past 100 years, I really see no alternative if the States do not directly confront the Feds with lawful threats. Otherwise we can see millions if possible march on DC to physically make the change? Its a burning thought daily in my mind. Live Free is all I want and be left alone. FREEDOM!
Greg
I agree that it doesn't look too promising.
Thomas Jefferson was a VERY smart man. He felt that we would need a revolution every 20 years or so in order to check government and restore freedom! 20 years!
Apparently, TJ was realistic enough to see that it would only take 1 generation for the people to forget how hard the colonists fought for liberty.
Sadly, this is why the 2nd amendment concept was (and is) so important. Without a gun, you have no chance against government oppression. I'm not a gun nut at all but you can sure see why intelligent, realistic people value that right so much.
At the moment, probably because of the economic climate and the extreme views of Pres. Obama and his ilk, I see some progress in mobilizing people to reduce the power of federal government and in educating people to the original concepts of our nation. Let's hope it continues!
One tactic that can be used if liberty lovers can ever get a majority in the House of Representatives is to Defund programs. Since all spending must originate, or at least pass, in the House, the funding for specific programs can simply be stripped from the authorization Bills.
Start whittling away at the bureaucracy that way, forcing lateral career moves by seniority, and pretty soon, the long knives will come out against each other. Which will give us the ammunition to further dismantle the statist bureaucracy.
Tied with Nullification on the State level, and we can create a storm which the progressive statists will be unable to withstand.
None of this can happen overnight, but we must start to act as soon as we find a way to reverse the momentum and start climbing the road to our common goal of liberty under the Constitution.
I thought interstate commerce required sales in another state—at least that is what I was told regarding my small business.
Hi, Vic
Sadly, 'interstate commerce' in the US Constitutional context isn't that simple.
First, the term 'interstate commerce' doesn't even appear in the US Constitution.
Article I, sec. 8, paragraph 3 says Congress has the power to:
"regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes."
First, notice that the sovereign entities ALL have the first letter capitalized. That's important in other contexts because it shows how the drafters and ratifiers viewed the States – as being on the same level as Nations. (Indian Tribes were and still are today seen as sovereign nations under federal law.)
So, Congress has the power to 'regulate' 'commerce' 'among the several States.'
Again, the words 'interstate commerce' do not appear.
To a normal English speaking person of the late 1700's when this was written, the word 'regulate' meant "to adjust so as to work properly." It did NOT mean "to control."
Further, 'commerce' meant business transactions. Finally, 'among the States' meant exactly what it said – transactions occurring between two or more (hence the word 'among' rather than 'between') STATES – not PEOPLE! Read that again. It means transactions where the entities are STATES. NOT transactions where one or more of the entities are people.
The drafters knew how to use the word 'people' when they wanted to and they make a clear distinction throughout the document between various entities consistently. So, when they want to refer to the people, they use that word. Since they didn't use the word 'people' in the section in question, it does not apply to the people.
This is true because the federal government is one of LIMITED POWERS and only has the powers given to it by the people as memorialized in the US Constitution. Nowhere does the document give Congress the power to control transactions between citizens – whether they live in different states or not.
But, to give you an idea how screwed up Constitution Law is, you won't believe the holding in Wickard v. Filburn. Look it up on the web and read it if you want to be amazed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
In that case, Filburn grew and consumed his own wheat on his own property for use as chicken feed. He didn't sell it to anyone. Congress had passed a law that limited how much wheat could be grown and Filburn grew too much so, of course, the Feds fined him. He sued.
So, obviously, he won, right? That's clearly NOT interstate commerce, right? I mean, there's no interstate transaction AT ALL and there is not even any commerce going on since there wasn't even a transaction. If that's what you thought, you'd be wrong. I'm not kidding.
The US Supreme Court said in this case that Congress has the power to regulate transactions that have ANY impact, even a theoretical or negative impact, on interstate commerce. So, with that unlimited idea, they held, according to the Wiki summary of the case:
"because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."
It's truly hard to believe how far afield the court is willing to go to justify federal power. And, that was in 1942!
With this ruling, Congress can regulate ANYTHING! That's why Pelosi laughed when someone asked her how national health care can be constitutionally regulated. They believe they can regulate ANYTHING! It's like global warming – you can't even argue about it.
So, this abuse of the Constitution has been going on for a long time.
You can't fart without it having some possible impact on interstate commerce. Thus, Congress can "regulate" farting. You name it, this opinion effectively says Congress can control it.
I hope everyone reading this can see how fricking ridiculous this ruling is! It's just one morean example why
"THAT GOVERNMENT IS BEST WHICH GOVERNS LEAST"
Glad for the Summit. BUT I hope the “consensus” was “NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION” AT ANY LEVEL.
The “Three Point Outline” still remains.
REVERSE & REPEAL
1. REVERSE 1963 – Supreme Court Decision at the request of the ATHEIST O’Hare, that took Prayer and Bible reading out of the Public School in America
2. REPEAL 1964 – Civil Rights legislation – We have a Bill of Rights.
3. REPEAL 1965 – Federal Revenue Sharing – these are the “TEETH” that control the MONEY LAUNDERING RACKET. State and Local level governments are “SLAVES” to this.
Break these “THREE” and we will be well on our way to “Constitutional Restoration.”
Make Social Security “VOLUNTARY”. Pay back with interest everybody who wants a settlement. Government must stay good to those who were “FORCED” and now, are collecting. This is NOT “Entitlement program to those who have been “FORCED” to PAY for it.
Anyone who thinks this is not a “FORCED” System has not tried to “buy or sell” without the SS#.
SETTLEMENTS to those who have been “FORCED” and then it becomes a “VOLUNTARY” program.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
The idea that the Federal government is limited as either the Constitution itself reads in plain English or as was sold to us in the federalist papers is a cruel fraud.
There could hardly be any government that is less limited. Our constitution has either failed completely or it has been overthrown. to be quite honest it doesn't really matter which, either way it doesn't still exist to protect our rights…
We either assert and defend those rights by means which the Federal Employees cannot ignore or we give up on the idea of constitutional government and liberty all together. There is simply no other practical options when you really get down to it. We either have a Free Constitution of Civil government protecting our liberty as sold to us, or we don't.
Thought you might enjoy this interesting
prayer given in Kansas at
the opening session of their Senate. It seems
prayer still upsets some
people.. When Minister Joe Wright was asked to open
the new session of the Kansas Senate, everyone was expecting the usual generalities, but this is
what they heard:
Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask
your forgiveness and to seek your direction and
guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those
who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we
have done.
We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed
our values.
We have exploited the poor and called it
the lottery.
We have rewarded laziness and called it
welfare..
We have killed our unborn and called it
choice.
We have shot abortionists and called it
justifiable.
We have neglected to discipline our
children and called it building self esteem….
We have abused power and called it
politics.
We have coveted our neighbor's possessions
and called it ambition.
We have polluted the air with profanity and
pornography and called it freedom of expression.
We have ridiculed the time-honored values
of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.
Search us, Oh, God, and know our hearts
today; cleanse us from every sin and set us free.
Amen!
The response was immediate. A number of
legislators walked out during the prayer in
protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian
Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than
5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls
responding negatively. The church is now receiving
international requests for copies of this prayer
from India , Africa and Korea .
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on
his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,'and
received a larger response to this program than any
other he has ever aired…
With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep
over our nation and wholeheartedly become our
desire so that we again can be called 'one nation
under God.'
If possible, please pass this prayer on to
your friends…. 'If you don't stand for something,
you will fall for everything.'
Think about this: If you forward this
prayer to everyone on your
e-mail list, in less than 30 days it would be
heard by the world.
How many people in your address book will
not receive this prayer…..do you have the guts to pass it on?
GO Kansas!
Semper Fidelis
Whomever wrote this?May God bless and keep your soul.
Chuck
In all of the “wranglings” on Constitutional interpretation, here is the best guide:
1. The Letter of the law – that which is “written,:
2. The spirit of the law- that which you can “glean” from History of the times and the “other” writings of the Founders.
Clean hands and a pure heart will keep you from error.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
The real problem here is the world of journalism. Except for FOX (which is dismissed w/contempt), it the control of print, radio, and television journalism by those who think of themselves as 'social engineers'. Unless and until we can get a multibillionaire to buy one or more networks, and/or the worst of the papers and magazines (Time magazine, Newseek, or the Washington Post, we are fighting an uphill battle. They control what too many people hear and see, and people are too naive to realize they are being played.
For now, though, I think we need to see states regularly and constantly pass state nullification bills EVERY TIME the Federal Government exercises a power that was not delegated to it in the Constitution. Despite the eight decade rape of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause, state nullification is an effective tool IF USED CONSTANTLY. Virginia, where I reside, has already signalled that it may nullify and Health Care bill, as has Florida and other states. This needs to be done by as many states as possible, as often as possible, since, short of secession, it is the best way to recovering our roots that I can see. I do see secession as very viable alternatives for Hawaii, Alaska, Texas, and Montana, all of which have the werewithal (resources, etc) to 'stand alone'. Also, I do not see the likelihood of violence over the matter in the modern world; after all, a number of Southern States had peacefully seceded under Buchanan before Lincold forced the War of Northern Aggression which started the era of "Imperial Federal Government' in which we now find ourselves.
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2010/03/nul…
Excellent piece.
Where I live- in Washington State- the culture seems to be more about political parties and labels- not issues.
You can't get through the comments section in any one newspaper article without seeing the name calling, stereotyping and predictable red state/blue state side taking.
Any liberty lovers in Western WA? (Olympic Peninsula)
Alex