Endless Power and the Death of Freedom

  • Share on Tumblr

by Dr. Harold Pease

The nature of all governments is to grow, absorbing decision-making power unto themselves. It happened with the British Parliament and it is now happening with our imperial Congress. The reason the Enumeration Clause is one sentence of 18 paragraphs is that the Founders did not want a piece to be separated and enlarged distorting the whole. So it is with the Commerce Clause.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said it best:

“Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution—try to discern as best we can what the framers intended, or make it up.” On making it up he added: “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.”(Wall Street Journal Opinion, Oct. 20, 2008)

Under the original interpretation, commerce among the several states did not begin until goods commenced their final movement from their state of origin to that of their destination. Through faulty interpretation, gradually this grant was applied to commerce that did not even cross state boundaries.

In the 1942 case, Wickard v Fillburn, commerce was applied to a farmer who did not even move his wheat off his farm or even sell it, under the logic that consuming his own wheat affected interstate commerce. Had he not grown it he would have had to purchase wheat, which would have affected the price thereof. This distortion created a precedent that flawed every other Supreme Court decision with regard to commerce since then – and reversed the Founders’ definition by 180 degrees.

Recently, in response to the Court overruling California’s state law legalizing medical marijuana, the honorable Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

So why won’t even this flawed reasoning work for National Healthcare as those Constitutionally-ignorant insist? Because this would be the first time a penalty is imposed upon an individual for not engaging in commerce. Even the Congressional Budget Office penned in 1994 when National Healthcare was last proposed, “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

If the government can force this “commerce” – it can force any commerce, say electric cars or even the purchase of tomatoes.

reclaiming-american-revolutionSuch a broad interpretation of the commerce clause virtually destroys the 10th amendment to the Constitution. With power hungry governments, each flaw legitimizes yet a more serious one, destroying federalism and our ability to ever get our freedom back. If national healthcare is allowed to stand it will be the one decision wherein future generations can specifically date the end of not just health freedom…but all freedom.

The word “commerce” has wrongly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover “every species of movement of persons or things, whether for profit or not; every species of communications, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise.” Put simply, every person that moves.

No government can be trusted with that kind of power.

Dr. Harold Pease has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College in California. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

,

12 comments
Michael Boldin
Michael Boldin

Not much to add there, Monorprise - thanks for adding your perspective!

Monorprise
Monorprise

In so much that the power of government effects commerce guess what else effects interstate commercial?

That's right your vote! I would argue that it would be madness if we are to assume that the power to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to control all that which might "effect" interstate commerce weather it be an act of commercials or not does not inherently include the very same power to vote, in state, local, and even Federal elections as all 3 of them government invariably effect interstate commerce as well.

As they unshackle or Federal government ever more and more from the chains of our constitution they inevitably find evermore and more dangerous things the same government is then allowed to do with their now more free hand.

Are we to now to uses the same court and their “good” if nu-consented(no ratification) to “judgment” to further rewrite our Constitution as to carve out a nearly infinite list of also unwritten exception to the “new rule” they have just created in-order in to solve the hornets nest of new threats to our liberty their arrogant act of constitutional disregard has brought upon us? If so just how long is this “new constitution” going to be?

Furthermore who gave you the power to take our rights from us with out the Article 5 amendment process of acquiring the consent of at least 3/4ths of our states?

Either our constitution is fatally flawed in that it effectively grants the Federal government a blank check of power and none of its provision really mean much of anything, or the court's “broad interpretation”. Is an arrogant act akin to the overthrow of our Constitution and the tyrannical usurpation of our rights.

Choose what you wish to believe, but do so quickly because each “problem” has a very different set of solutions which we must begin working on. We have either been robed of our most essential right of self-determination thou fear, fraud or mistake as John Adams put it in the “Rights of the Colonists, 1772” :
“If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”

Or the Federal government in collaboration with their own appointed Federal Courts have stolen our rights from us by effecting the practical destruction of our once free Constitution of civil government.

In either case we have a serous problem, but both cases have a different set of solutions. The question that must eventually be answered is which is the case is it?

John and Dagny Galt
John and Dagny Galt

Just wanted to thank Dr. Pease for the autographed copy of Tom Baugh's book Starving The Monkeys!

JBfromTennessee
JBfromTennessee

From guest's comment a couple of days ago, "...the main problem is that so many people today do not CARE what the original meaning of the US Constitution was."

Unfortunately, too many citizens of our country are seemingly eaten up with complacency at a time in which knowledge and being informed are paramount. Being complacent in times such as these is acutely dangerous. Too many feel it's the fed's job to take care of them, while the informed of us know all too well that isn't the case; although, that's exactly what the federal government would have you believe. If we allow them to, (c)ongress will continue to use the Constitution against us, with things like the Commerce Clause, to capitalize on the notion that they are the ultimate nannies. When (c)ongress is seen in that light many will simply roll over, get complacent (there's that word again), and allow (c)ongress to take whatever power they deem necessary. That's why we have to continually inform our citizenry of the truth and fight back. NULLIFY, NULLIFY, NULLIFY!!!

tinyvoice
tinyvoice

I don't believe anyone should be forced to buy health care. But I think that many on the conservative end of things really take for granted that somehow only certain people should be to be able to get health care. I'm neither conservative nor liberal. I cannot stand either Dems or Repugs. But it is nonsense to believe that we live our lives as isolated islands. We are all part of a web, connected, whether people think so or not. When a family owned business pays its employee minimum wage (only because they are "forced" to by government) I not only question the governmental intention but also this family. It is immoral to pay min wage (which is really slave labor) then bitch about the guy or gal going and getting food aid from the government.

I'm so sick of both sides on these issues. there is no balance and no logical reasoning behind any of it. The constitution was originally written for white male land owners. In modern tech society that is class rigid with the majority of middle class being upheld by the poverty of those working at min t barely living wages, it is immoral to speak of denying people like me the ability to see a doctor, which at this point would save my life very simply.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

I am in agreement. However, that is not a problem related to the states' rights issue. This is about tax policy, globalization and other related issues. The wealth distribution in this country is out of whack.

mreal
mreal

Very nice article, greatly described. Nice read about this.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

The Doc's definitely got it right! BTW, in answer to his question, "Why doesn't this reasoning work for us?" (being Clarence Thomas' reasoning in the marijuana case), this is because Thomas' statement was in the dissent. It was the losing argument..... unfortunately.

Shane Musgrove
Shane Musgrove

Great quote by Clarence Thomas... Not sure much more needs to be said about that.

Guest
Guest

As the author points out, the main problem is that so many people today do not CARE what the original meaning of the US Constitution was. They are apparently content to be a nation ruled by the current mob in power rather than a nation ruled by the principles set down at the founding.

For those who see the value in the rule of law, I agree and lament that the word 'commerce' has been interpreted so as to completely lose its original meaning and, as a result, to almost completely destroy the core idea of a LIMITED federal government. Wickard v. Filburn is the poster child for this problem.

As for the "movement of people", some who claim to support the principles underlying the 10th amendment have posted articles/comments here that attempt to justify an expansion of the definition of the word 'commerce' to include the movement of people. One can only guess at the motivation for that conclusion...

I recently posted on this web site a link to Samuel Johnson's 1780's era "A Dictionary of the English Language"
http://www.archive.org/details/dictionaryofengl01...

wherein one can look up the word "commerce" and see how it was defined in the 1780's when the US Constitution was drafted. The word 'people' does not appear there nor does the concept of the movement of people. The concept is of THINGS (not people) being EXCHANGED as in BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. This is not surprising to anyone familiar with English inasmuch as that is how the word is still defined today.

For me, however, the first point of frustration has been to get people to see that we are better off with a fixed Constitution rather than one that changes with the whim of the day. That's why we HAVE a written constitution and that's why the drafters/ratifiers intent should control in case of ambiguity. Even this seemingly-obvious fact is resisted at the highest levels INCLUDING the US Supreme Court!

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ron Paul. Ron Paul said: Endless Power and the Death of Freedom http://bit.ly/c7c8sm #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]

  2. [...] Endless Power and the Death of Freedom [...]

  3. [...] Endless Power and the Death of Freedom [...]