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.Details
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.Â News reports often fail to articulate this simple fact.ÂDetails
â€œWhen 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.â€Details
There is an on-going debate about the extent to the First Amendment bars congressional campaign finance limits. That debate is important, but it doesnâ€™t address a more fundamental question: What empowers Congress to regulate congressional campaign finance at all?Details
by John MacMullin, Mises.org
Nearing election time again, we are reminded that the there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures’ power to appoint (and remove) United States Senators.
As such, the core of the problem with state’s rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which abrogated the state legislatures’ right to appoint United States Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result, over time, in expanding federal control in every area.
The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.Details
by Jacob Sullum
The Republican platform unveiled last week notes in passing that “the Constitution assigns the federal government no role in local education.” Yet the same document offers opinions on all manner of local educational issues, including the virtues of phonics, the evils of sex education, the wisdom of merit pay for teachers, and the folly of social promotion.
That contradiction illustrates the hollowness of the Republican commitment to “constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions.” The Republicans (like the Democrats) respect the Constitution only when it’s convenient.Details
by Ellemay, Reaching Sunward
- I believe that no one â€” including the President â€” is above the law.
- I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the GuantÃ¡namo Bay prison and ending indefinite detention.
- I oppose warrantless spying.
- I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
- I believe that the Constitution protects every personâ€™s rights equally â€” no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
- I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
- I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our countryâ€™s leaders to share and act on that commitment â€” every day, without fail.
If you agree, click here.
Take a refreshing look at the Constitution here.Details