The sound of thundering elephant feet first began to resonate right here in the Bluegrass State.

Republican Rand Paul easily beat Democrat Jack Conway by an 11 point margin in the Kentucky U.S. Senate race. The early 7 p.m. call for Paul was merely the beginning of a pachyderm stampede.

Republicans picked up 61 seats in the U.S. House, and they could end up with as many as a 66 seats by the time its all said and done. Democrats will still control the Senate, but the GOP made gains there too, snapping up at least six seats. It was the biggest single election power shift in 70 years.

Here in Kentucky, Republicans rode the wave, gaining seats in both the Kentucky State House and Senate. The GOP took control of seven new House seats and strengthened its Senate majority with a two, perhaps three seat pickup.

While Republicans trumpet their victory, they would do well to ground themselves in an important reality. This election was not a ringing endorsement of the GOP. It was instead a repudiation of progressive ideology. It was a backlash against bailouts, deficits and federal health care mandates. It was a protest against rapidly expanding government power. The newest Kentucky Senator seems to understand the message sent by American voters on Tuesday.

“It’s a message that I will carry with me on day one. It’s a message of fiscal sanity. It’s a message of limited Constitutional government and balanced budgets,” Paul said.

The hue in our nation’s capitol shifted from dark blue to purple on Tuesday. This Republican tsunami, as some have called it, will certainly change the political landscape in Washington D.C. But if Republicans don’t bring about some fundamental changes, this new crop of representatives will likely enjoy short careers. Senator elect Marco Rubio from Florida articulated the reality for Republicans perfectly.

“And we make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance. A second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.”

The question remains. Will the GOP squander this second chance? Will GOP leaders do any better adhering to constitutional principles than their Democratic brethren? Are the American people suddenly safe from government overreach now that Republicans will have some say in Washington?

I fear not.

Many Republicans talk a good game when it comes to limiting government, and protecting defending the Constitution. But their track record doesn’t quite live up to their rhetoric. If history teaches us anything, it reveals that federal power tends to expand unabated regardless of the party in charge in D.C.

We the people simply can’t rely on Washington to solve our problems. Asking the federal government to reign in its own power is akin to asking a lion to quit hunting, or the fish to quit swimming. It goes against its very nature.

The people must hold the feds accountable. The Constitution is a compact between the people of the United States and their federal government. The mechanism we have to protect our freedom and liberty is through the States. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Liberty loving Americans can certainly celebrate the outcome of these midterm elections. But we will not ultimately win the war to restore the proper balance of power between the State and federal governments in Washington D.C. That battle must be waged in Frankfort and Tallahassee. In Austin and Sacramento. In every state capitol across the fruited plain.

Originally Published November 7, 2002 at WorldNetDaily

John Adams: “The favorites of parties, although they have always some virtues, have always many imperfections. Many of the ablest tongues and pens have, in every age, been employed in the foolish, deluded, and pernicious flattery of one set of partisans, and in furious, prostitute invectives against another; but such kinds of oratory never had any charms for me; and if I must do one or the other, I would quarrel with both parties and with every individual of each, before I would subjugate my understanding, or prostitute my tongue or pen to either.”

As a result of Tuesday’s elections, we can expect the growth in government to continue unabated – and probably to accelerate.

We can be reasonably sure that the new Congress will pass a flood of bills that intrude government ever-more-deeply into our lives, as well as make government more costly (and even more inefficient).

How can I be so sure?

Because the winners in the congressional races are virtually all advocates of big government. The winning incumbents have never bothered to introduce a single bill to reduce government in any significant way, while they have been reliable supporters of all sorts of new big-government schemes.

The few new congressmen and senators come from the same mold. In their campaigns, they told us about their grand plans to “fix” the nation’s schools, get government involved in prescription drugs, and use your money to take care of anyone who says he needs it.

Big government, big government, big government.

Mea culpa

And now I must offer a confession.

I wrote this article Monday evening, before the elections.

And yet, I stand by every word of it.

It doesn’t matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats won control of the Senate. Government will get bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, and less efficient.

It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans won control of the House. Government will get bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, and less efficient.

Nothing has changed in the past 75 years.

• We elect a Republican Congress – and government gets bigger.
• We elect a Democratic Congress – and government gets bigger.
• We elect a Republican president – and government gets bigger.
• We elect a Democratic president – and government gets bigger.
• Congress passes a “tax cut” – and government gets bigger.
• Congress makes “tough budget cuts” – and government gets bigger.

Despite what they tell you, there really is no significant difference between the two major parties. They are both devoted to power, to big government, and to rewarding those with the most political influence.

Your culpa

If you voted for a Democrat or a Republican, you didn’t waste your vote.

You used it to congratulate your candidate for all his big-spending schemes. So you can take part of the credit for the coming increases in government.

You may have thought you were voting to limit the damage – to prevent the “greater of two evils” from being elected. But that isn’t the way your vote will be interpreted.

Your candidate will look at his victory and say, in effect, “The public has endorsed my plan to ‘fix’ government schools with a new government program. The voters have said they like my ideas to involve government in prescription drugs. The people have spoken, and they have endorsed every vote I’ve made in Congress and/or every new government program I outlined in my campaign.”

Oh sure, your candidate may have said that government is too big or too intrusive. But that doesn’t mean he’ll do anything to stop it.

Republicans complain loudly about Democratic spending programs – and then vote for them.

Democrats complain loudly about invasions of civil liberties and a reckless foreign policy – and then vote for them.

And your vote has told them that you endorse what they’re doing. Whatever you thought your motivation was, nothing says ‘I love big government’ like your vote for someone who is supporting big government in Congress.

In other words, when you vote for the “lesser of two evils,” you shouldn’t be shocked when what you get is evil.

No, a vote for a Republican or Democrat isn’t a wasted vote. It’s a self-destructive vote – a vote for the very things you’ve spent the past two years complaining about.

No culpa

If you voted Libertarian, you at least know you didn’t endorse big government. Since Libertarian vote totals usually aren’t announced on election night, you may not have been able to make any kind of “statement.”

But at least you don’t have to blame yourself for endorsing big government.

The future

It may seem that you have to vote for the lesser of evils among the major-party candidates.

But since government grew just as rapidly with Ronald Reagan as president as with Bill Clinton in the White House, and since the Republican Congress expanded government at the same speed as the Democratic Congress, it’s obvious that your vote doesn’t change anything.

There is no lesser of evils between the two major parties.

Your vote achieves only one thing: It tells the people you voted for that you love big government – that there’s no program they can support that’s so bad that you won’t vote for them anymore.

Your vote provided a big boost for big government.

Is that what you wanted?

Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation.  See his website.

How hard is it to position yourself to the right of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi?

This is all the House Republicans did recently when they released their “Pledge to America” at a Virginia hardware store on September 23.

Mimicking their 1994 “Contract with America,” this new Republican proposal sets forth their legislative agenda should the American people see fit to give the Republican Party a majority in the House of Representatives in the upcoming election.

Promises, promises.

Do Republicans think we’re stupid? Do they think we’ve forgotten the eight-year presidency of Republican George W. Bush? Do they think we’ve forgotten that Republicans had an absolute majority in both houses of Congress for over four years of the Bush administration? Do they think we’ve forgotten that the Republican Party controlled the Congress during the last six years of Clinton’s presidency?

The empty promises, grandiose claims, vain assurances, and blatant lies in the Republican “Pledge to America” mean that it’s not worth the paper and toner it would take to print out a copy. Republicans are clearly trying to capitalize on voter discontent with the Democratic Party, garner the support of the Tea Party movement, and sucker Americans into voting them back into power.

Promises, promises.

Before even examining the text of the “Pledge to America,” I would like to point out two major practical problems. First, like the “Contract with America,” this is a House Republican document. And like what happened with the “Contract with American,” there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will pass legislation proposed by the House – assuming that Republicans even regain control of the Senate. The second problem is, like what happened with the “Contract with America,” we have a Democratic president with veto power. So, even if the Pledge is a good thing (it isn’t), and even if the Republicans are sincere (they aren’t), there is no guarantee that Republicans will accomplish anything even if they do win back control of the House. And as it was pointed back out in 2000: “The combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” Is there any doubt that things will turn out any different this time?

But what about the text of the Pledge itself? Well, the preface is a lie. The foreword is a lie. All five of the plans introduced are a lie. All six chapters are a lie. All forty-five pages are a lie. Even the cover is a lie.

Surely, Mr. Vance, you are exaggerating. You are being too hard on the Republicans. You are making baseless accusations. You couldn’t possibly have carefully read the Republican’s Pledge.

Is that so? We need to look no further than the cover. It says that the “Pledge to America” is “a new governing agenda built on the priorities or our nation, the principles we stand for and America’s founding values.” Among other things, America’s founding values certainly include liberty and limited government. Is this Pledge or any other Republican agenda built on these things?

Jacob Hornberger, the founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has described American society when it was based on the “founding values” of liberty and limited government:

Let’s talk about the economic system that existed in the United States from the inception of the nation to the latter part of the 19th century. The principles are simple to enumerate: No income taxation (except during the Civil War), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, economic regulations, licensure laws, drug laws, immigration controls, or coercive transfer programs, such as farm subsidies and education grants.

There was no federal department of labor, agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, or homeland security. There was no SEC, DEA, FEMA, OSHA, or EPA.

There was no Federal Reserve System and no paper money or legal-tender laws (except during the Civil War). People used gold and silver coins as money.

There were no foreign military bases and no involvement in foreign wars. The size of the military was small.

Now, I ask you a simple question: Does that way of life resemble even in the remotest way the way of life under which Americans live today? Of course it doesn’t, because the way of life under which we live today is precisely opposite to that under which our American ancestors lived. Today’s Americans do live under all those programs, departments, and agencies, and principles that were absent during the first 125 years or so of American history.

Oh, the “Pledge to America” talks about Republican plans to “advance policies that promote greater liberty” and about how their plan “stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government,” but then the Republicans propose, not to cease funding any of the abovementioned programs, agencies, and policies, but – are you ready – “to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.” My, what an ambitious plan to promote liberty and limited government!

In the preface to the Pledge, the Republicans have the audacity to complain about “an unchecked executive” as if the presidency of George W. Bush never occurred. They pledge to “honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers,” and in particular “the Tenth Amendment.” I’ve got to hand it to the Republicans. They know the right words to use to sucker conservative advocates of the government strictly following the Constitution to vote for them. Of course, if Republicans really believed in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, they would introduce legislation to eliminate 95 percent of what the federal government does.

The foreword to the Pledge introduces the five Republican plans:

• A plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive
• A plan to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government
• A plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care
• A plan to reform Congress and restore trust
• A plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad

One thing in particular in the foreword that stands out is the Republicans claim that they want to “protect our entitlement programs for seniors and future generations.” This shows without a doubt that Republicans don’t have the slightest intention of honoring the Constitution, following the Tenth Amendment, stopping “out-of-control spending,” and reducing “the size of government.”

I want to focus in particular on the first and last of the Republican plans in the “Pledge to America.” I will, however, not neglect the lies in plans two, three, and four.

The Republican plan “to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive” sounds good on the surface. It blasts Keynesian economics, Obama’s stimulus, tax increases, federal regulations, job-killing policies, and small business mandates while promising to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America more competitive by permanently stopping all job-killing tax hikes, giving small businesses a tax deduction, reining in the red tape factory in Washington, DC, and repealing job-killing small business mandates. Don’t be deceived: Even Republicans sometimes look good when compared with Democrats. However, alongside the standards of liberty, limited government, and strict constitutionalism, Republican economic policies are not much better than those of Democrats. This Republican plan mentions how a Republican Congress enacted the child tax credit in the 1990s. This is a good thing, as are all tax credits. However, why is this tax credit progressive; that is, why does this tax credit begin to phase out above a certain income level and end completely at another? And even worse, if the amount of the tax credit exceeds the tax liability, the unused portion is refundable in the form of an “additional child tax credit.” This means it is an income transfer program, as is the Republican-instituted earned income tax credit.

Another troubling thing about the Republican economic plan is its attitude toward business regulation:

Small businesses must have certainly that the rules won’t change every few months so they can get back on their feet.

Excessive federal regulation is a de facto tax on employers and consumers that stifles job creation, hampers innovation and postpones investment in the economy.

The Republicans seem to be saying that as long as federal regulations are relatively constant and not excessive then they are okay. In fact, they give their threshold as $100 million: “To provide stability, we will require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 million or more.” But if Republicans really wanted to “honor the Constitution,” then they would require congressional approval of any new federal regulation that has an annual cost to our economy of $100 or more not $100 million or more.

The last section of this economic plan mentions a “job-killing small business mandate.” Since when are Republicans against these? Is there a greater “job-killing small business mandate” thanthe minimum wage? Did not even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell say a few years ago that “raising the minimum wage” was a good idea? Outside of Ron Paul, would a Republican member of Congress ever publicly question the concept of a federal minimum wage? What it all comes down to is this: Democratic mandates are bad; Republican mandates (or Democratic mandates they accept) are good.

The promise in plan 2 “to stop out-of control spending and reduce the size of government” is laughingly pathetic when you realize that the national debt increased under the Republicans from $5,727,776,738,304.64 at the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001 to $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the last day of Bush’s second term in 2009. Republicans speak negatively in this plan about “the bailouts of businesses and entities that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior.” Yet, this is the same Republican Party that helped the Democratic Party pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the first bailout bill).

The Republican plan “to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care” is only being proposed because it is a Democratic takeover of health care and not a Republican one, as I have written about here and will write more about in the future. I would like to point out, however, that the proposal to “establish a government-wide prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion and subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion” is a little overdue. What were all the pro-life Republicans in the House doing when the Republican Party had an absolute majority in the House and Senate for over four years under a Republican president? They were funding Planned Parenthood, that’s what.

Get the New Book Today!

The promise in plan 4 to “reform Congress and restore trust” is more smoke and mirrors. The Republicans lament that “for too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government.” Their solution is to “require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.” The real truth is that Congress has sought to circumvent the Constitution almost since the day it took effect in 1789. Citing specific constitutional authority for a bill is an empty gesture. Just as Nancy Pelosicited the Constitution’s “commerce clause” in defense of the health care bill so Republicans will cite the phrase “to provide for the common defense” in the Constitution’s preamble to justify funding drone attacks in Pakistan.

The Republican plan “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” is the most objectionable part of the “Pledge to America.” It can be summarized as: xenophobia, war, empire: vote Republican. It consists of one lie after another followed by one bad policy after another. It promises to keep terrorists out of America by keeping foreigners locked up in Guantanamo – as if there were any connection between the two. What this really means, of course, is that Republicans are in favor of the U.S. military picking up anyone anywhere in the world and holding them indefinitely without charge or trial – or until they are killed and their deaths reported as suicides.

This plan “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” is sure to create more terrorists, further erode civil liberties in the name of national security and fighting the war on drugs, line the pockets of the military-industrial and security-industrial complexes, further blacken the name of the United States throughout the world, provoke a war with Iran, further bankrupt the treasury, senselessly cause more U.S. troops to die in vain, and unjustly kill more foreigners.

What is tragically ironic is that a liberal group earlier this year placed an ad in the New York Review of Books condemning Obama’s actions “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” as in some respects “worse than Bush”:

First, because Obama has claimed the right to assassinate American citizens whom he suspects of “terrorism,” merely on the grounds of his own suspicion or that of the CIA, something Bush never claimed publicly. Second, Obama says that the government can detain you indefinitely, even if you have been exonerated in a trial, and he has publicly floated the idea of “preventive detention.” Third, the Obama administration, in expanding the use of unmanned drone attacks, argues that the U.S. has the authority under international law to use extrajudicial killing in sovereign countries with which it is not at war.

Such measures by Bush were widely considered by liberals and progressives to be outrages and were roundly, and correctly, protested. But those acts which may have been construed (wishfully or not) as anomalies under the Bush regime have now been consecrated into “standard operating procedure” by Obama, who claims, as did Bush, executive privilege and state secrecy in defending the crime of aggressive war.

The most wretched lie in this fifth Republican plan is the statement that “the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015.” This is political fearmongering at its worse that is designed to sucker Americans into voting Republican and justify funding of provocative boondoggles like missile defense. U.S. foreign policy is already aggressive, reckless, and belligerent enough without the Republican plan “to keep our nation secure at home and abroad” making it even more so.

Promises, promises – that’s all the Republican Party is good for. Promises to cut spending. Promises to cut the deficit. Promises to cut the debt. Promises to reduce federal regulations. Promises to reduce the size of government. Promises to reduce the scope of government. Promises to do better than the Democrats. Promises to follow the Constitution.

But not only does the Republican Party never deliver, it can always be counted on to increase spending, increase the deficit, increase the debt, expand federal regulations, expand the size of government, expand the scope of government, do worse than the Democrats, and make a mockery of the Constitution.

The Republican “Pledge to America” is not, as Bob Barr says, a “good and sound document.” It is political propaganda, pure and simple, from a party desperate to regain power.

Promises, pledges, lies: vote Republican.

Never, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason, trust in, rely on, or put any hope in Republican promises. As night follows day, disappointment, vexation, and anger are sure to follow.

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State and The Revolution that Wasn’t. His newest book is Rethinking the Good War. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Martha Dean, the Republican nominee for attorney general in Connecticut, repeated her support for state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws in Monday night’s debate.  She opened up my book Nullification and quoted from Jonathan Trumbull, the nineteenth-century Connecticut governor who declared: “Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task — it is their right — it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.”

I won’t leave you in suspense regarding the reaction of her opponent, George Jepsen.  Nullification, he said, is an outdated concept that led to the Civil War and “has no place in our discussion today…. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbitrator with what is constitutional and not constitutional. It’s not for the states to decide.”

One benefit of being a commissar is that you need never debate truly important matters.  These can simply be portrayed as “extreme,” “outdated,” and having “no place in our discussion.”  That’s a lot easier than openly pleading ignorance.

Since I wrote a whole book laying out the evidence against this conventional, unexamined claim, I won’t go into that here except to draw an analogy, courtesy of my friend Lou Fernandez.  If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself?  Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place?  Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.

As for nullification causing the Civil War, that’s pretty rich.  What, pray tell, would the South have had to nullify under the unamended Constitution?  Now I suppose there is one way in which nullification led to the southern secession (which is not the same thing as saying it led to the war), but it will surprise George Jepsen.  South Carolina’s ordinance of nullification complains that the North is doing too much nullifying, and that the South is sick of it.  In particular, the North was interfering with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  The Wisconsin Supreme Court got so uppity that it stood up to George Jepsen’s heroes, the U.S. Supreme Court, and declared the Act unconstitutional (the Constitution’s fugitive-slave clause notwithstanding).  So I suppose in that sense nullification may have helped provoke the southern secession, but I doubt that’s what Jepsen meant by his remark.

Nullification was used throughout American history on behalf of free speech and free trade, and against unconstitutional searches and seizures, military conscription, and the fugitive slave acts.  Jepsen doesn’t mention this.  No one ever does.  We must stick to the narrative: the states are stupid and backward, the federal government is a progressive force, and anyone skeptical of this version of events belongs on a watch list.

Jepsen does mention the use of nullification rhetoric in Arkansas to block school desegregation, the implication being that Jeffersonian decentralism is forever discredited because states have behaved in ways most Americans find grotesque.  They are states, after all, so we should not be shocked when their behavior offends us.  But this is apples and oranges.  This outcome was possible only at a time when blacks had difficulty exercising voting rights, a situation that no longer obtains.  Things have changed since Birmingham 1963 in other ways as well.  The demographic trends of the past three decades make that clear enough, as blacks have moved in substantial numbers to the South, the only section of the country where a majority of blacks polled say they are treated fairly.  It is an injustice to the people of the South, as well as an exercise in emotional hypochondria, to believe the states are on the verge of restoring segregation if only given the chance.  I mean, really.

By exactly the same reasoning, incidentally, any crime by any national government anywhere would immediately justify a world government.  Anyone living under that world government who then favored decentralization would be solemnly lectured about all the awful things that had happened under such a system in the past.

Moreover, the argument is not that the federal government is bad but the state governments are infallible.  The state governments are rotten, too (which is why we may as well put them to some good use by employing them on behalf of resistance to the federal government).  We are asking under what conditions liberty is more likely to flourish: with a multiplicity of competing jurisdictions, or one giant jurisdiction?  There is a strong argument to be made that it was precisely the decentralization of power in Europe that made possible the development of liberty there.

This argument — why, an institutional structure was once put to objectionable purposes, so it may never be appealed to again –  is never used against the institution of the state itself, particularly the megastates of the nationalistic twentieth century.  I rather doubt Jepsen would say, “Centralized governments gave us hundreds of millions of deaths, thanks to total war, genocide, and totalitarian revolutions.  In the U.S. we can point to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and a horrendously murderous military-industrial-congressional complex, among other enormities.  Our federal government is so remote from the people that it has managed to rack up debts (included unfunded liabilities) well in excess of $100 trillion.  This is a joke.  In light of this record, what intellectual and moral pygmy would urge nationalism, that outdated doctrine that led to World War II, as the solution to our problems?”

The most humane system, thinks George Jepsen, is one in which 300 million people are ruled from one city, and in which that one city gets to decide for itself whether it’s staying limited to its original charter.  This is the unexamined premise that informs our entire political spectrum.

Good for Martha Dean.  We need a lot more discussion of ideas that “have no place” in the regime’s world.

Originally published at TomWoods.com

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of ten books, including the just-released Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, and the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Visit his website and blog, follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his YouTube Channel.

It’s another revolutionary season in American politics, with voters preparing to do everything they can within the structure of the law to throw out the bad guys and the bad system they represent. The focus is on this amorphous thing called the Tea Party, which embodies a huge range of political impulses from libertarian to authoritarian, united under the common belief that everything is going wrong in Washington, with a common goal of upending the status quo.

Candidates that the Republican Party doesn’t like are making big inroads into the party structure and, quite possibly, the election itself. That is fun to watch. The wind at their backs is the spectacular — but wholly predictable — failure of the Obama administration’s economic witchcraft. Trillions and trillions created and spent and yet the suffering endures.

The healthcare bill is also a source of American public anger. People are not deceived into believing that whatever reforms we are getting are going to fix the problems of the current system; they will make them worse. As it is, the freedom remaining in the system is the only reason that the system serves us at all. Take that away and you take away a lifeline.

The revolt, then, is in high gear. It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last. The governed have long been very unhappy about the government, and they periodically wake up and seek to change it. It’s been some 16 years since the last go-around of such revolutionary sentiment. It is arguably stronger today than it was back in 1994.

The good aspects of this have nothing to do with political outcomes, despite what people believe. The political environment focuses the mind on important issues like freedom, economics, culture, power and its uses, and the role of the state. As they debate with their neighbors, follow election coverage, listen to the candidates, and watch the process, people learn and study and, most importantly, think and rethink.

If you begin with a skeptical attitude toward the government, watching and thinking can lead to a radicalization and ultimate embrace of a consistent opposition to government involvement. This is why election season always ends up creating a huge flood of new libertarians who buy books, feel the inspiration to get active (perhaps for the first time), and dedicate themselves to reducing the power of the state in whatever way they can.

If American politics can be said to contribute anything to American culture, it is this educational aspect that stands out. The elections focus the mind and lead people to a new consciousness. Ideally, that consciousness would dawn without politicians and elections and all the apparatus of the season. And yet people are busy in normal times, dealing with regular life; it is the very urgency of the election that gives rise to the concern in the first place.

You might as well know right now, however, that the Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will certainly betray the party of liberty. There are several reasons for this, but the fundamental one is intellectual. The Tea Party does not have a coherent view of liberty. Its activists tend to be good on specific economic issues like taxes, spending, stimulus, and healthcare. They worry about government intervention in these areas and can talk a good game.

But just as with old-time conservatives, there are many issues on which the Tea Party tends toward inconsistency. The military and the issue of war is a major one. Many have bought into the line that the greatest threat this country faces domestically is the influx of adherents of Islam; in international politics, they tend to favor belligerence toward any regime that is not a captive of US political control.

On immigration, the Tea Party ethos favors national IDs and draconian impositions on businesses rather than market solutions like cutting welfare. On social and cultural issues, they can be as confused as the Christian Right, believing that it is the job of government to right all wrongs and punish sin.

This doesn’t describe them all. A poll taken last spring divides the activists into two camps: Palin and Paul. Both groups are mad as heck at the mainstream Republican Party, but only the Paul camp has broadened that anger to the government generally.

Such are the philosophical problems. Just as telling are the structural problems in politics that lead all political candidates toward the center as a matter of maximizing votes. It’s always the same. They count on their base to show up and vote for them, however reluctantly. It’s the voters in the middle who get their attention. This is why all candidates tend to water down their positions after the primaries — that, and to get funding from the corporatists allied with both parties.

The larger problem occurs once they take office. Here is where the serious problems begin. They are leaned on by their new colleagues, the party elites, related financial interests, the press, and the entire system of which they are now part. Are they going to make themselves enemies of that system, or are they going to work within the system in order to achieve reform, and not just for one term but more terms down the line? Doing a good job means being part of the structure; doing a bad job means being an enemy of the very system that they now serve.

Which choice do they make? The same choice that everyone else in office makes (Ron Paul being the lone exception in all of human history). It is for this reason that newly seated “revolutionary” politicians will betray those who put them in power. It happens like clockwork, same as day turns to night.

Some good can still come out of the results, if only because former ideologues can serve as some resistance to really bad policy. The new Congress that was seated after the 1994 election certainly curbed the ambitions of the Clinton administration for a time. But avoiding greater evil is not the same as doing good. We can state with confidence, all else being equal, that even the best electoral outcome will not lead to actual cuts in the power of government over our lives.

That doesn’t mean that all is for naught. What will change the prospects for freedom in this country is a growing and society-wide awareness of the issue of freedom and the role of the state in wrecking that freedom, and the civilization to which it gives rise.

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Several years ago, a plan was hatched to circumvent the electoral system designed by the Founders for electing the President and Vice President of these United States.  The plan, if adopted, will infuse a national popular vote into the system without amending the Constitution.  This article will examine the electoral system and the plan to circumvent it.

The Federal Convention

During the debates in the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787, James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, said in reference to the manner in which the executive (president) was to be selected:

“This subject has greatly divided the House, and will also divide the people out of doors.  It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide.”

Adoption of the electoral process came late in the Convention, which had previously adopted, on four occasions, provisions for election of the executive by Congress and had twice defeated proposals for direct election by the people.

Selection of the executive by Congress was rejected because it was feared there would be collusion between a presidential candidate and Congress.  Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the Convention from Massachusetts expressed this objection as follows:

“There would be a constant intrigue kept up for the appointment.  The Legislature & the candidates would bargain and play into one another’s hands, votes would be given by the former under promises or expectations from the latter, of recompensing them by services to members of the Legislature or to their friends.”

Direct election by the people was rejected for two reasons.  First, was the belief that the people were uninformed of the character of the candidates and liable to deception.  John Mercer of Maryland said:

“The Constitution is objectionable in many points, but in none more than the present.  The people can not know & judge of the characters of Candidates.  The worse possible choice will be made.”

The other reason the Founders rejected direct election by the people was the fear that the larger States would control the presidency.  Connecticut delegate Oliver Ellsworth stated:

“The objection drawn from the different sizes of the States to be unanswerable.  The Citizens of the largest States would invariably prefer the Candidate within the State; and the largest States would invariably have the man.”

As a result of these objections, the Convention adopted an electoral system that interposed a representative called an elector.  The electors were to be men of superior discernment, virtue and information who would select the president and vice president according to their own will and without reference to the immediate wishes of the people.  Their only obligation was to select, in their judgment, the most qualified candidates.

The Electoral College System

The electoral process is set forth in Article II, Section I, Clauses 2-4 of the Constitution for the United States of America.  Clause 3 has been superseded by the 12th Amendment as ratified by the several States in 1804.  Provisions of the 12th Amendment have been superseded by the 20th Amendment as ratified by the States in 1933.  (See also Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.)

When the American people cast their vote in a presidential election they are actually voting for individual within their State called an elector.  The electors are representatives just like the members of Congress.  Unlike members of Congress who are elected for a specific term of years and cast numerous votes while in office, electors perform a single function once every four years.  They are entrusted with the responsibility of voting for the President and Vice President of these United States.

The legislature of each State is authorized by Article II, Section I, Clause 2 of the Constitution to prescribe the mode for appointing its electors.

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

For several years after the adoption of the Constitution the States simply appointed their electors.  The people did not participate in the presidential election process.  The legislatures have abandoned this practice and adopted a democratic popular vote within each State and the District of Columbia as the method for determining which party’s slate of electors will be elected to vote for their State.  The District was made part of the electoral process in 1961 with the adoption of the 23rd Amendment.

The electors chosen to vote for each State are those of the political party that wins a plurality of the popular vote within the State.  For example.  If an Independent Party candidate wins the popular vote in California by one vote, then that party’s slate of electors is elected to vote for the State of California.  This is called the winner take all rule.  Since there is no constitutional provision mandating a winner take all rule, the method of allocating electoral votes is left to the discretion of each State.

Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner take all method.  In these States, two electors are chosen at-large by the statewide popular vote and the rest are selected by the popular vote in each congressional district.  This allows for a split slate of electors to be chosen in those two States.

The formula for determining the number of electors for each State is set forth in Article II, Clause 2 (See above).  Every State receives one elector for each congressional Representative and one elector for each of its two Senators.  If a State has (4) Representatives and (2) Senators, it would have (6) electoral votes.  Since each State is guaranteed at least one Representative and two Senators, the minimum number of electors for any State is 3.

Note: The 23rd Amendment restricts the District of Columbia to a number of electors equal to the least populous State in the Union.

The total number of electoral votes for the United States and the District of Columbia is 538 (435 Representatives―100 Senators―3 District of Columbia).  Based on 538 potential votes, a candidate would need a minimum of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.  Under this system, a candidate can constitutionally win the election with a decided majority of the people against him.  It is also possible for a candidate to win the election with a decided majority of the States against him.  Eleven States have a total of 271 electoral votes, 1 vote more than the minimum number necessary to win the election.  The other 39 States and the District of Columbia have 267 votes, 3 votes short of the minimum number.

Under the electoral system, the so-called national popular vote is a fictional number that does not have any bearing on the outcome of an election.  The elections in each State and the District of Columbia are the only votes that count because electors are elected on the basis of a state-by-state vote—not a national vote.  Under our federal system of government, the democratic process was designed to take place in the States.

The Electoral College is a Key Component of Our Federal System of Government and a Check on the Abuse of Power

In the North Carolina Convention debating ratification of the proposed constitution, William Davie stated that the States control the election of the president and this would be a check on the federal government:

“Is not this government a nerveless mass, a dead carcass, without the executive power?  Let your representatives be the most vicious demons that ever existed; let them plot against the liberties of America; let them conspire against its happiness,—all their machinations will not prevail if not put in execution.  By whom are their laws and projects to be executed?  By the President.  How is he created?  By electors appointed by the people under the direction of the legislature—by a union of the interest of the people and the state governments.  The state governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the executive power.”

James Wilson made the following remarks in the Pennsylvania Convention:

“The President of the United States is to be chosen by electors appointed in the different states, in such manner as the legislature shall direct.  Unless there be legislatures to appoint electors, the President cannot be chosen; the idea, therefore, of the existing government of the states, is pre-supposed in the very mode of constituting the legislative and the executive departments of the general government.  The same principle will apply to the judicial department.  The judges are to be nominated by the President, and appointed by him, with the advice and consent of the Senate.  This shows that the judges cannot exist without the President….”

The importance of the Electoral College in our federal system of government was made crystal clear by Abel Upshur in his 1868 book, The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character:

“So absolutely is the Federal Government dependent on the States for its existence at all times, that it may be absolutely dissolved, without the least violence, by the simple refusal of a part of the States to act.  If, for example, a few States, having a majority of electoral votes, should refuse to appoint electors of President and Vice-President, there would be no constitutional Executive, and the whole machinery of government would stop.”

The ability of the States to exercise this control over the federal government has been diluted by the 20th Amendment, which grants Congress the power to appoint a president until a selection is made.  However, it is clear that the Founders intended the Electoral College system to be a key component of the federal system of government because the States could use the electoral process to check the abuse of power.

The Plan to Circumvent the Electoral College System

In my opinion, the Electoral College system is under attack by the same progressive mentality that engineered the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment.  An organization is pushing a plan known as: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Plan [http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/].  Using the interstate compact provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, Clause 3), their Plan would award all of a State’s electors to the candidate who won the national popular vote irrespective of whether that candidate was on their ballot or won the State’s popular vote.  For example.  If California adopted the Plan and a candidate won the popular vote in that State by a landslide but lost the national popular vote, California would award all of its electors to the candidate rejected by its voters.

On their web-site, the folks at the National Popular Vote have this to say about the Plan:

“The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).”

“The shortcomings of the current system stem from the winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state).”

“Because of the winner-take-all rule, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.”

“Under the National Popular Vote bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes — that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). The bill would replace the current state-by-state system of awarding electoral votes with a system guaranteeing the Presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).”

The winner take all rule is not mentioned in the Constitution so the statement that it is one of the “shortcomings of the current system” is a bit misleading because it gives the casual reader the opposite impression.  You must go to other documents on their site for clarification.

Some of the proposals to amend the Constitution and replace the Electoral College with a direct popular election have a provision that requires the winning candidate to receive 40 or 50 percent of the total vote.  If no candidate meets the 40 or 50 percent threshold, there is a run-off election between the top 2 candidates.

Under the Interstate Compact Plan, a candidate simply needs to win a majority of the total votes cast.  There is no run-off provision.  Under this Plan, there is a chance that a candidate could win with as little as 15 or 20 percent of the total vote.

At the present time, 6 States possessing 73 electoral votes have enacted the plan into law.  This represents 27% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the plan.

The Attack on the Electoral College System is Based on Deception and Disinformation

The National Popular Vote claims the Electoral College system is defective and contrary to democracy because a candidate could win the mythical national popular vote but lose the electoral vote.  That is like saying the baseball team that scored more runs in the World Series should be declared the winner even though the other team won the 4 games necessary to win the 7 games series.  This assertion is simply a straw man argument because the Constitution did not establish a national system of government or a national democracy.

This plan is just another attack on the federal system of government established by the Constitution in the name of a system of government that was rejected by the individuals who wrote and adopted the Constitution.

The Constitution did not Establish a Democracy

The National Popular Vote is built on a false premise because the Constitution did not establish a democracy; it established a republican or representative form of government.  Under this system of government, the people do not exercise the powers of government directly.  They exercise it through representatives.  The presidential election process is a component of the representative system of government established by the Constitution.  In fact, the electoral system is a representative institution just like the House of Representatives and United States Senate.  Under our representative form of government, the people have no direct voice on any law proposed or passed by either branch of Congress.  In Congress, the vote rests with the representative irrespective of the national will of the American people.  The Electoral College was structured to be an extension of this principle.  Electors cast their votes for the president and vice president in the same manner as members of Congress cast their votes.  The presidential elections in each State and the District of Columbia are a vote to determine which representatives (electors) will vote for the president and vice president.  In Congress the final vote on any pending legislation rests with the representatives—not the people.  In a similar manner, the final vote for the president and vice president, as intended by the Founders, rests with the electors.

Since there are 51 separate elections in the several States and the District of Columbia, as opposed to a single national election, a candidate can win the so-called national popular vote but lose the electoral vote.  According to the National Popular Vote, this is unfair because it could thwart the will of the majority. Thus, their underlying criticism is―the national majority does not choose the president and this is contrary to democracy.

This criticism is misleading because they omitted two very important facts concerning the system of government established by the Constitution.  First, the Constitution did not consolidate the several States or their people into a single nation.  During the debates in the Federal Convention the delegates rejected the proposals to establish a national government.  Instead, they elected to retain the federal system of government that had been established by the Articles of Confederation.  Thus, the Constitution maintained the limited union between the several States; it did not dissolve this union and establish a single nation of individuals.  Second, the Founders viewed democracy, government exercised directly by the people, as one of the worst systems of government ever devised because it allows the majority to use the political process to infringe on the life, liberty and property of the minority.  As a result, they designed a republican form of government to shield the people from the adverse effects of democracy.

During the debates in the Federal Convention, Governor Edmund Randolph of Virginia introduced a resolution proposing that “a Republican Government…ought to be guarantied by the United States to each state.”  During the debates that followed, Alexander Hamilton stated:

“We are now forming a republican government.  Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.”

The word republican, as used above and in the writings of the Founders is synonymous with the word representative.

Luther Martin, Attorney General of Maryland, made the following observation during the debates in the Federal Convention:

“This general government, I believe, is first upon earth which gives checks against democracies….”

One of those checks was the Electoral College system, which interposed a representative into the election process called an elector.  The electors, as stated previously, are representatives just like members of Congress.

Under the federal system of government established by the Constitution, there are no national elections in which a majority of the American people vote for members of Congress.  Instead, there are separate democratic elections in each of the several States.  The Electoral College system is a mirror image of this process because the United States is a union of sovereign States; it is not a nation of individuals, as comprising a single nation.  The National Popular Vote wants to shatter this mirror and have the president elected under a national format while members of Congress will continue to be elected under a federal format.

Critics of the Electoral College always fail to acknowledge that the system balances power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.  It does that by giving each of the several States the same percentage of power in the selection of the president as it has in Congress.  For example, if a State has 8 representatives and 2 senators, it has 10 total votes in Congress.  This State would also have 10 electoral votes in a presidential election.

Contrary to the assertions made by the National Popular Vote, the Electoral College is rooted in representative government and the federal system of government established by the Constitution—not national democracy.  Their plan would infuse national democracy into a federal system of government.  It would also interject national democracy into a representative form of government.  This would turn the Constitution on its head.  The National Popular Vote has either lost sight of these two constitutional principles or is intentionally omitting them from the debate in an effort to effect a radical change in the system of government established by the Founders.

The fundamental principle of a democracy is there is nothing to restrain the will, or the votes of the majority except the majority itself.  An example of this principle is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.  The federal nature of the Electoral College system restrains the adverse effects of national democracy because 51 separate democratic elections prevents a presidential candidate from pandering to, or inciting, a majority to the American people as a ploy to win the presidency.

Note: It may come as a shock to some of the folks at The National Popular Vote but the Constitution was not ratified by a national popular vote and cannot be amended by a national popular vote.  The Constitution was ratified and can only be amended on a State-by-State vote.  Since the method for electing the president is a mirror image of ratification and amendment process, the attempt to label the Electoral College system as a defective process is disingenuous—to say the least.

Constitutional Problems with the Interstate Compact Plan

The National Popular Vote claims their Interstate Compact Plan is constitutional.  I disagree and can see several legal/constitutional problems with their plan.

First—

Interstate compacts, as stated in the book published by the National Popular Vote, “are specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution as a means by which the states may act in concert to address a problem.”

When a candidate wins the Electoral College vote and a majority of the so-called national popular vote, the system is functioning as designed.  By the same token, when a candidate wins the Electoral College vote but does not receive a majority of the so-called national popular vote, the system is functioning as designed.  Thus, there is no real problem to address through the interstate compact clause relative to the Electoral College.

The folks at the National Popular Vote are attempting to pervert the purpose of this Clause and use it to make the election of a president contingent upon a national popular vote.  In other words, they are attempting to use a clause of the Constitution to institute a method of election rejected by the Founders without resorting to the amendment process.

Second—

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution states:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State….”

The National Popular Vote claims congressional consent is not required for their Interstate Compact Plan.  Because this would certainly be challenged in court, they are working to get legislation introduced in Congress giving congressional consent to the Plan.

This could be a lose lose for their Plan.  If the Plan goes forward without consent, a court could invalidate it.  If the Plan cannot pass both Houses of Congress or is defeated by Congress, then a court could view a rejection by Congress as proof the Plan is not within the scope of the interstate compact provision.

In spite of their assertions, I believe congressional consent would be required assuming it can pass the proper subject test for an interstate compact.

Third—

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution states:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government….”

In other words, the States collectively shall guarantee to the States individually a representative form of government.  The electors of a State are elected representatives just like the legislature of that State.  Under the National Popular Vote, the representatives in the legislature are making the election of the representatives entrusted with the constitutional duty of voting for their State dependent upon the vote of the people in the other 49 States and the District of Columbia.  Thus, if the people of a State voted for the electors of candidate A but candidate B won the national popular vote, the people of that State would be disenfranchised because their vote for elected representatives would be negated through a law passed by other elected representatives.  Thus, their Plan is inconsistent with the representative form of government clause of the Constitution.

In my opinion, this is the key to defeating their use of the interstate compact provision.  One provision of the Constitution cannot be used to negate another provision.

Conclusion

In order to preserve the federal nature of the presidential election process, it may be necessary to amend the Constitution and mandate the winner take all rule in every State and the District of Columbia.  Contrary to the assertions by the National Popular Vote, the Constitution established a federal system of government—not a national one.  An amendment mandating the winner take all rule would immediately nullify the National Popular Vote Plan.

If the National Popular Vote is implemented and direct popular election is infused into the system, the process will degenerate into pure democracy with the people throwing their support to whichever candidate promised to give them the most government largess.  This would be democracy at its worst.

Cicero, an intellectual of ancient Rome, wrote that the man usually chosen as the leader in a democracy is “[s]omeone bold and unscrupulous…who curries favor with the people by giving them other men’s property.”

Get the New Book Today!

Under the National Popular Vote, without the checks and balances of the Electoral College system, it would be much easier for a president to become the type of leader Cicero warned against.

A 1994 article in the Congressional Quarterly stated:

“The Constitution did not provide authority for political parties or prohibitions against them.  Historians have pointed out that most of the Framers had only a dim understanding of the function of political parties and thus were ambivalent, if not hostile, toward parties when they laid down the foundation of the new government.

The Founders set up what they regarded as safeguards against excesses of party activity by providing an elaborate governmental system of checks and balances.  The prevailing attitude of the convention was summed up by James Madison, who wrote in The Federalist that the ‘great object’ of the new government was ‘to secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and form of popular government.’

Madison’s greatest fear was that a party would become a tyrannical majority.  This could be avoided, he believed, through the republican form of government that the proponents of the Constitution advocated.  In The Federalist Madison wrote, ‘Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserved to be more accurately developed than the tendency to break and control the violence of (party) faction.  A republic, as understood by Madison, was an elected body of wise, patriotic citizens, while a democracy was equated with mob rule.  Madison dismissed the democratic form of government as a spectacle of ‘turbulence and contention.’”

This is exactly what the Founders were trying to prevent by incorporating the Electoral College system into the Constitution as one of the safeguards to protect the people of these United States from the adverse effects of national democracy.

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.

© Nitwit Press

Utah Senator Bob Bennett did not receive the delegate votes necessary to appear on the ballot.  Instead delegates supported two new senatorial candidates, Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater, who are now campaigning to win the upcoming Republican primary.  Since the Republican State Convention, May 8^th, there have been numerous reports stating Sen. Bennett was a victim or a casualty of the anti-incumbent fever sweeping the nation.

Sometimes the reports blame Bennett’s loss on anti-government tea partiers.  Still other reports have linked delegates voting Bennett out to anti-establishment groups who simply want change.  No matter what the reason given the claims are focused on Bennett being the victim.

According to the Princeton WordNet, a “victim” is defined as an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance or a person who is tricked or swindled. 

Neither are accurate definitions for what occurred on May 8^th. 

During his 18 years as a Utah senator, Bennett would not have been voted out of office if he had been true to the Oath of Office.  Delegates voting him out want elected officials who stand by the established form of government outlined under the U.S. Constitution. 

As a reminder, the oath for a U.S. Senator is;

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. (www.senate.gov)

After all the years Utah citizens supported Sen. Bennett, had he stood as an example of someone defending the Constitution, he would have been entrusted to represent the state once again.   After carefully considering all his years in office he was not perceived as a representative who upheld his oath.  The problem for the news reporters is clear; they are not used to those taking the oath in a perfunctory manner being rejected.

People involved in the tea party or campaign for liberty are not anti-government or anti-establishment as long as the government or establishment is committed to a federalist republic.  News reports often fail to articulate this simple fact. 

Our prosperity grows when our society is governed under principles established by the Constitution.  Our prosperity is lost when our society is governed under centralized planning by two major factions and a few powerful people outside their oath.

We are entering a time in our state when more citizens are learning our heritage.  As citizens study the fundamental principles our federalist republic was established with it is becoming obvious there are many answers for today’s challenges when there are elected officials at all levels who embrace our heritage.  Those who have been use to political careers are not prepared to be held accountable to their oath.  This does not make them a victim. 

Get the Book Today!

It really is this simple moving forward.

Gary Wood is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He works with the Utah 912 States’ Rights Coalition and Hosts March of Liberty Radio every Saturday and Sunday evening at 7pm EST on Blog Talk Radio. He is a lifetime member of the VFW among other groups but more important to him is his title of grandpa. “According to Thomas Jefferson the 10th Amendment is keystone to our Constitution. We must restore the keystone so we can secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, a goal of our Founders and a goal we must still strive to achieve.”

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

A Call from “We the People” to All State Representatives

This writing is intended to speak for “We the People” as stated in the preamble of the United States Constitution, and concerns all who are now in State leadership or running for State representation in all fifty of the respective States.

I recently ran across a profound quote which was written in response to an article I wrote. Jonathan D. Linscott of Scottsdale, Arizona wrote, “You cannot expect the problem to fix the problem,” in reference to the federal government. Outside of the philosophical challenge of this statement, it begs the question: what is the problem?

Let me be clear in stating what should be transparent to all, a bloated federal government – one who imposes its will against the people while violating the very constitutional foundation it was meant to protect, a vast array of failing social programs, wasted tax dollars, and an insurmountable debt. This dollar amount is one that few can fathom albeit however skilled in scientific notation and magnitudes of ten you are. Even then the debt number has become increasingly desensitizing as it has moved from millions, to billions, to trillions.

“We the People” sit under an administration and Congress that are relentless in their efforts to enforce their will against the people of the United States. Furthermore, the final step in our pseudo-check-and- balance system is the Supreme Court, which rules with a loose interpretation of the Constitution as if our sacred document is dynamic.

Accordingly, to the demise of the States, their rulings apply to all. Regarding the unseen and unknown problems that take place behind closed doors, whoever endeavors to take on the task of exposing and defining them would need a literary agent along with a book contract to account for hundreds of pages of corruption, deceit, bribes, and lies.

Therefore, this is the “problem” defined: our forefather’s words and the brave men and women who fought for our freedom and liberty have slowly and assuredly fallen down as martyrs. Historically, they have now descended to a place best described by the words of Albert Camus:

“Martyrs, my friend, have to choose between being forgotten, mocked or used; as for being understood – never.”

Our federal government mocks their words by their actions and they desire to place them in a basement while locking the cellar door behind them – disgraceful and disrespectful at best and an abomination at worst. It appears they would have us forget their words. Why? Because all that they fought and aligned themselves with stands contrary to our current federal government’s actions, philosophy, and unceasing attraction to power.

Are the States and their representatives any better? My assumption is that some, if not many, fall into the same political traps, yet not so deeply nor to the same extremity. I believe with great hope along with many others that there are representatives at the State level who do take these matters as genuinely concerning and view it as their responsibility to protect their citizens from what we can now define as “federal lawlessness.” I commend you on your courage, will, integrity, and your strength.

Now, as Linscott said, “You cannot expect the problem to fix the problem,” referring to the federal government, so we emphatically hope that these problems will be answered at the State level. So, the answer to the perplexing philosophical statement is none other than the States, their representatives, and the people that vote them into office.

Therefore, what follows is in essence, “A Call from ‘We the People’ to All State Representatives.”

As a preface, it is a responsibility of the States to assert their rights, specifically in times such as these. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that responsibility and accountability exists among State representatives rather than open-ended, unmoving opinions based on political philosophy and liberal views of the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, an oath is taken in all States in some form of an edict to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.” In addition, it should be noted that this call for responsibility is void of any form of violence or sedition, lest the leftist accusations of “inciting violence” and “hate” come forth with great force.

Therefore, let it be said: For legislators who are weakly or mildly concerned with these problems and see your duty as a representative half heartedly, resign.

For governors who do not have the courage to stand and fight for State rights in accordance with the following words from James Madison, resign.

“We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.”
–James Madison

For State Attorneys General who do not consider it an injustice against the people and whom are too weak and too politically inept to stand up for the people in your State, walk towards the door and remember these words:

“When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Resign as your unwillingness to see the lawlessness of our federal government demonstrates your incompetence.

For all of those running for office for political gain and power and who do not possess the will to confront the federal government for the sake of your State, take your bow and leave the stage.

And lastly and most importantly, for all who do not regard the Constitution of the United States as a binding, unchanging document which limits the federal government from over reaching its bounds and entitles the States to rights under the Tenth Amendment, step aside.

State Sovereignty is of consequential value although the federal government would have you believe otherwise as they tread on the graves and words of those who came before us. Accordingly, my great anticipation is that all who read this will advance it to their respective State Governors, Legislators, Attorneys General and all who represent their State, including those who are seeking political office. Let this be a resounding call from the people to our elected State officials to stand with us no matter where you or they land in the political spectrum. Let the mantra from old ring out clearly and loudly – “Don’t tread on me,” and let us no longer retain optimism that “our problem will fix the problem.”

As the federal government grows, we inevitably shrink and our resolve rests in “We the people” as voters and a call to all State Representatives to honor their oath with fortitude, integrity, will, wisdom, and a steadfast position on the literal meaning of the United States Constitution and the Tenth Amendment as stated:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
–The United States Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Ratified 12/15/1791

Therefore, “We the People” have a simple yet powerful message: No longer can the federal government tread on the amendment stated above as they have neither the right nor the power – not on this ground nor on this day.

Shane Musgrove [send him email] is a freelance writer living in Vail and Denver, Colorado.

Here are some quick comments on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United v. FEC:

* The Court voided a federal law insofar as the law banned independent election expenses by corporations and labor unions on behalf of a candidate. Direct corporate or union contributions to a candidate’s campaign were not at issue. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion.

* The court split 5-4 on this point, with the justices of the so-called “liberal wing” dissenting. The dissent was written by Justice Stevens and joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor.

* On other hand, the Court upheld legal disclosure and disclaimer requirements as applied to corporations and unions. The court split 8-1 on this, with Justice Thomas dissenting. Justice Thomas reiterated the argument (accepted by the Court just a few years ago) that the First Amendment includes a right to anonymity, and he recited recent cases in which public officials and private groups had used campaign disclosure information to identify, harass, and injure donors with whom they disagreed.

* Both the Court and the dissent focused on whether the federal law at issue violated the First Amendment. No one addressed what I consider a more fundamental question – one the Court has never adequately examined: Is the Constitution’s grant to Congress of power to “regulate” the “Manner of holding Elections” broad enough to include this sort of campaign finance legislation at all? There is considerable Founding-Era evidence that the answer is “NO.” If that is the case, the law should have been struck down without even reaching the First Amendment question.

* Justice Stevens had an “original understanding” argument that, in my view, bordered on the frivolous. It was that the Founding Generation distrusted corporations and imposed extensive regulations on them, so the Founders would not have thought that corporations had any freedom of speech. However, the regulations in question were economic; Justice Stevens could point to no instance of a Founder suggesting that corporations were without freedom of speech. It is true that the Founders acknowledged the propriety of all sorts of economic regulations — and not just on corporations. But they singled out speech for special protection.

* The majority overruled the 1990 case of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which held that independent corporate and union expenditures on behalf of candidates could be banned. There was much discussion about stare decisis — the principle that case precedent should be respected. The majority and dissent analyzed the issue at some length, as did Chief Justice Roberts in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Alito.

* There is a special irony in the fact that the “liberal wing” of the Court voted to uphold this congressional regulation on speech. During the twentieth century, Supreme Courts with liberal majorities vastly increased the scope of the Free Speech Clause — (1) applying it against the states and in court proceedings, even though the wording of the First Amendment specifically says that it applies only to “Congress” and (2) extending “free speech” protection to such marginal activities as pornography and nude dancing. Now comes a case in which the very entity restricted by the First Amendment (Congress) tried to suppress speech at the core of the First Amendment (political speech) — but the liberal wing wanted to uphold the law.

* Montana Code Annotated Section 13-35-227 reads in part:

“Prohibited contributions from corporations. (1) A corporation may not make a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political committee that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party.

“(2) A person, candidate, or political committee may not accept or receive a corporate contribution described in subsection (1). . . .”

It seems likely that this section will have to be narrowed so it is limited to a ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates.

* Most memorable quote from the case:

“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”  — Justice Kennedy

*******
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was originally published at the Electric City Weblog, and is  reposted here with the permission of both Rob Natelson and Electric City.  Thank you.
*******

Professor Natelson teaches Constitutional Law, Legal History, Advanced Constitutional Law, Remedies, and a seminar on the First Amendment at the University of Montana School of Law. He is a recognized national expert on the framing and adoption of the United States Constitution. His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

The recent election results in Virginia and New Jersey – representing in part a strong repudiation of the threats to freedom over the past year – have energized many pro-liberty activists. It is imperative that we keep the pressure on.

But we can be sure the other side will try to trick us into damaging statements in order to discredit us, or lure us into time-wasting strategies.

So here are a few things to remember:

* Let’s keep our eye on the ball. The ultimate goal of most in the Tenth Amendment movement is to restore constitutional limits to the federal government. Our Constitution – not any peripheral or personal causes – is what we are working for.

* Swarm, swarm, swarm. The focus for the short-term has to be continue to “swarm” our elected representatives, get in their faces, and tell them over and over that more deficit spending or tax increases are simply unacceptable. So also is any major expansion of government control, particularly a takeover of heath care.

* Restoring limits on the feds. The focus long-term has to be one or more constitutional amendments to put the federal government’s house back in order and protect future generations from the kinds of assaults on our freedom we have faced over the last year. When a system breaks down, sometimes you have to patch up to set it right — just as our fathers and grandfathers adopted the 22nd Amendment to re-establish the two-term presidential tradition that Franklin Roosevelt had disregarded. That’s our situation now.

* 2010 elections. The focus medium-term is now the 2010 elections – not just for Congress, but particularly on the state level. This is because constitutional amendments to curb Congress’s powers are probably not going to come from Congress. The states will have to use the Constitution’s state-proposal procedure.

* Don’t let the bad guys marginalize you. Talk of actions such as secession suggest that we are the ones willing to destroy our constitutional system – when in fact the opposition has that dubious distinction.

* Work smart. The other side has a lot of people who work full-time in politics or who work for the government, which sometimes amounts to nearly the same thing. That’s in addition to Soros money. So we have to carefully husband our resources – devote your time and energy only to things that make sense in view of our goals.

* Don’t waste your time on stupid or impossible causes. Here are a few causes that are certain time-wasters: (1) impeaching Obama (impossible while the Dems control Congress, even assuming there are grounds to do so), (2) recalling U.S. Senators or Congressmen before their terms are up (there is no recall procedure authorized by the Constitution or federal law), and (3) secession movements (which, besides conceding the Constitution to the other side, overlooks the fact that they have the nuclear weapons).

* Again, keep your eyes on the ball – restore the Constitution. That means letters to the editor, candidate identification, working in the political party of your choice, fundraising, keeping in touch with others in the Tenth Amendment movement, and educating yourself by visiting great websites like the Tenth Amendment Center.

Rob Natelson is a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana, and runner-up in the 2000 “open primary” for Governor of Montana. His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.