Introduction

Most discussions of the Tenth Amendment center around using the state legislature to enforce it when the Supreme Court fails to do so.  In that situation, the state legislature declares a law null and void within the state’s borders.  In this posting, we’ll focus on another historic enforcement mechanism.  The Ninth Amendment says,

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (emphasis mine)

And the Tenth Amendment says,

“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.” (emphasis mine)

So in this post we will look at another remedy which is available to the second beneficiary of Tenth Amendment protection, the people.  The remedy is plain old civil disobedience.

Early America gives us at least two examples of successful efforts at resisting the federal government through civil disobedience.  One well known example is the underground railroad, where many individuals and families conspired against the Federal Fugitive Slave Acts in order to help escaped slaves find their way to freedom in the north.  A second example, which we will examine in more detail today is the whiskey rebellion, in which Pennsylvania played a prominent role.

The ‘Official’ Story Line

The standard version of the whiskey rebellion story, the one which I believed until I started reading on the topic this week, goes something like this….  In 1791, the Congress passed a whiskey tax.  In 1792, four back-woods counties in western Pennsylvania, unable to cooperate and accept the new reality that they were subservient to federal authority, resisted the tax and initiated a violent response which had to be put down by the federal government.  So, in 1794, President Washington dispatched 13,000 troops, put down the resistance then arrested (and pardoned) the ring-leaders.  With the rebellion quashed, federal supremacy lived happily ever after.

It only takes a few minutes of web surfing, however, to discover that this story line has some factual problems.

Not Just Pennsylvania

One problem we encounter with the official story line is that the whiskey rebellion was actually not limited to Pennsylvania.  It was a wide-spread resistance effort.  The National Park Service says,

“The Whiskey Rebellion took place throughout the western frontier.  There was not one state south of New York whose western counties did not protest the new excise with some sort of violence.”

And Murray Rothbard writes,

“President Washington and Secretary Hamilton chose to make a fuss about Western Pennsylvania precisely because in that region there was a cadre of wealthy officials who were willing to collect taxes.  Such a cadre did not even exist in the other areas of the American frontier; there was no fuss or violence against tax collectors in Kentucky and the rest of the back-country because there was no one willing to be a tax collector.”

In short, it seems that President Washington made an example of western Pennsylvania because the rest of the western frontier had successfully nullified the whiskey tax.

Tax Repealed

Another problem with the standard whiskey tax story comes when we learn that the tax was repealed only 11 years after its inception.  On this point, Rothbard writes,

Rather than the whiskey tax rebellion being localized and swiftly put down, the true story turns out to be very different.  The entire American back-country was gripped by a non-violent, civil disobedient refusal to pay the hated tax on whiskey.  No local juries could be found to convict tax delinquents.  The Whiskey Rebellion was actually widespread and successful, for it eventually forced the federal government to repeal the excise tax.

Even wikipedia, no bastion of classical liberal thought, says,

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws.  The whiskey excise remained difficult to collect, however.  The events contributed to the formation of political parties in the United States, a process already underway.  The whiskey tax was repealed after Thomas Jefferson’s Republican Party, which opposed Hamilton’s Federalist Party, came to power in 1800. (my emphasis)

Repeal Overseen by a Whiskey Rebel

Another possible problem with the standard story, or at least an interesting aspect of the story, comes in the form of a man named Albert Gallatin.  In 1794, Gallatin’s name appeared on a list of whiskey rebels.  The National Park Service tells us,

Unfortunately for Gallatin, the government officials did not differentiate between the moderates and the radicals who took part in these meetings. Participation brought guilt as far as those in the government were concerned.  In 1794 the militia called by Washington marched to dispel the rebels in western Pennsylvania.  They also brought a list of names of participants that certain members of the Presidential staff wanted arrested.  This list included Brackenridge and Gallatin.

Is it coincidental that Gallatin, accused of being a whiskey rebel, was the man who became Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury in 1801 and oversaw the 1802 repeal of the whiskey tax?  According to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,

Elected to Congress after the rebellion, Gallatin worked for a more exact accounting of the Federal government’s finances, leading President Thomas Jefferson to appoint him Secretary of the Treasury, a post he also held under President James Madison.  In 1802, Gallatin oversaw the ending of all direct, internal Federal taxes, including the distilled spirits tax.

Conclusion

It appears that the whiskey tax was a Constitutional tax, and I don’t advocate civil disobedience against laws which are Constitutional and just.  However, the whiskey rebellion still offers a tactical lesson for us when confronted with an unconstitutional or unjust law.  It confirms the lesson that we have learned from other events such as the Civil Rights movement, India’s fight for Independence from Great Britain, and the Underground Railroad.  When confronted with an unjust or unconstitutional law, civil disobedience can be an effective counter-tactic.

In the case of the whiskey rebellion, civil disobedience was effectively combined with jury nullification and with a refusal to enforce by officials in several states.  These activities made the tax ineffective while it was in force and impacted the 1800 elections in a way that led to the repeal of the unpopular tax.

An example of an appropriate place for civil disobedience in today’s Tenth Amendment activities might come in the form of the intrusive and unconstitutional questions of the 2010 Census.

Steve Palmer is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

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

The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to reinforce limits on the federal government.

The original Constitution contained three types of restrictions on federal power:

Type 1:     The Constitution listed things the government could not do (e.g., pass an ex post facto law).

Type 2:     The Constitution enumerated the powers the government was to have (e.g., regulate interstate commerce, but not agriculture).

Type 3:     The Constitution included specific restrictions on specific powers (e.g., Congress could appropriate money for an army, but only for a two-year period).

Some argued that Type 1 should be expanded with a Bill of Rights. But others (James Madison among them) pointed to a risk in that proposal.  Because of the legal maxim Designatio unius est exclusio alterius (the designation of one thing implies the exclusion of another), adding a Bill of Rights might encourage people to disregard the Type 2 and 3 restrictions on federal power.

When the demand for a Bill of Rights prevailed, Madison agreed to draft one – but he included what became the Ninth Amendment to make it clear that expanding Type 1 did not mean abandoning Types 2 or 3.

A key to reading the Ninth (and Tenth) Amendments properly is to know that the Founding Generation often used the words “right” and “power” interchangeably. (We more rarely do the same, as when we refer to the President’s “right” to veto a bill.)  That is how they were used here.  If you sometimes read the word “rights” in the Ninth Amendment as “powers” and “powers in the Tenth Amendment as “rights,” you can better understand their meaning.

Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment.  For example, some have argued that it reserved a mass of “natural rights” that the Courts should enforce against the federal, and even the state, governments – such as abortion, property, and contract rights.  That misunderstanding arises from failure to understand that “rights” in the Ninth Amendment means “powers.”

The Ninth Amendment was not designed to enable the Courts to create new rights – or even to recognize old ones.  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to preserve the Constitution’s other restrictions on federal power.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history.  He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.

Here’s the full text:

TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; and

Whereas, some states when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised”; and

Whereas, these recommended changes were incorporated as the Ninth Amendment, where the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and as the Tenth Amendment, where 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; and

Whereas, the several states of the Untied States of America, through the Constitution and the amendments thereto, constituted a general government for special purposes and delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary right to their own self government. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the General Assembly of South Carolina, based on the above principles and provisions, hereby declares by this resolution, that any act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States, or Judicial Order by the federal courts which assumes a power not delegated to the government of the United States of America by the Constitution and which serves to diminish the liberty of any of the several states or their citizens shall abridge the Constitution. The General Assembly further declares that acts which would cause such an abridgment include, but are not limited to:

(1)    establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the states comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that state;

(2)    requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law;

(3)    requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of eighteen other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law;

(4)    surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government;

(5)    any act regarding religion, further limitations on freedom of political speech, or further limitations on freedom of the press; and

(6)    further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition.

Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the South Carolina Congressional Delegation.

There is a new bill circulating in Montana’s legislature which has significant implications on several fronts in the battle for liberty, most notably that of States Rights, and the right to bear arms.  The bill can be read here, and is not a long read (freedom is much easier to describe than tyranny), but to whet your interest here are a few snippets.

The 10th amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889. The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

The ninth amendment to the United States constitution guarantees to the people rights not granted in the constitution and reserves to the people of Montana certain rights as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889.

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.

And that all leads to:

A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce …. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana …

I love it!  Way to thumb your noses at the tyrants, Montana!  Thank you to the bill’s primary sponsor, Joel Boniek, for the courage and foresight in crafting and submitting this bill.

One thing I wonder – the repeated reference to “the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.”  It makes perfect sense, and I think it strengthens Montana’s case.  But doesn’t this logically lead to different “compacts” and possibly different rights, for each State, in accordance with the common understanding of the role of the Federal Government at the times of their respective acceptances into statehood?  What do you think?

Any chance of it being upheld in the inevitable court challenge?

(Hat Tip to Brian Warbiany.)

If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all. – Jacob Hornberger.

Every four years, voters in the United States are given a choice between two major party candidates in the Presidential election.  We are often told that either of these candidates are the “mainstream” candidates and if you want your vote to count, you need to choose between either one of the two major party candidates who have a “chance” at “winning”.

However, for true supporters of limited government and personal liberty, this is often a choice made in vain.  If you truly believe in a limited, decentralized government which protects both economic and personal liberties and rights, during most elections there isn’t a major party candidate that will generally fit your values.  You have a choice between the Democratic Party, of which too many members wish to violate your economic rights and liberties, and the Republican Party, of which too many members wish to violate your personal rights and liberties.  This is not a judgment of individuals in either party.  Most individual members are doing what they think is right.  This is a judgment on those than run the major parties.

To illustrate my own philosophy of government, I’ve often used an analogy of a road trip.  The route and destination are analogous to the choices you make in life and the level of freedom you possess.

Too many big government Democrats want to drive your car for you.  They feel that if they know the route better, it’s in your own interest to just sit in the back and let them drive the car for you — they will be able to plan the best route and will be able to get to the destination according to the way they think is best.  It doesn’t matter if you feel that a different route may be better, because they know how to get there better than you do.

Unfortunately for the American people, some Republicans have deviated from the principles that the party was founded upon, limited government and personal responsibility.  Therefore, there is also a part of the Republican Party, a segment of big government Republicans that also want to choose the route and destination for you.  Rather than driving the vehicle for you, they will let you sit in the drivers seat and give you the illusion that you are making free choices when in reality the government is in the passenger seat next to you with it’s own set of omnipotent pedals and a steering wheel that they can use to override any choice they deem as unacceptable.  Like the omnipotent Drivers Ed teacher than can take control of the vehicle at any moment, big government Republicans want you to have the illusion that you are making your own choices but in reality are only holding up a smokescreen.  If they don’t like your choice, they can (and will) quickly override you.  The only difference between big government Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans want to give you an illusion that you will be able to choose your destination, when in fact the level of control is the same.  Pro-corporate bailout Republicans fit into this category, and it hurts good Republicans like Jeff Flake and Ron Paul.

Those who advocate limited government offer a different path.  Grover Norquist wrote that, “The Leave Us Alone Coalition [Norquist's name for limited government advocates] is not antigovernment.  It simply wants properly limited government that plays a role in protecting the life, liberty and property of citizens.”

The proper role of government is not to shepherd you to the “correct” decision, government’s role is to protect your rights so that you may make your own choices, whether popular or not, good or bad.  Therefore, in the context of the above analogy, to an advocate for limited government, the government is not in your car at all.  No judgments can be made on either your route or destination because government is not a participant in the road trip.  Instead, government is the mechanic, keeping your car running so that you can make your own decisions while driving.

The proper role of government is not to make sure people make good decisions.  There is no role for personal morals in government.  The real purpose of government is to maintain minimum social order for people to live their lives by their own morals through their own choices. The key word in that sentence is minimum.  For too long, authoritarians have used the guise of “social order” to induce massive control and individual rights violations.  To protect minimum social order, government exists to protect nothing more than individual rights, with individual rights being defined broadly enough to include the right to do anything until you restrict the freedom of someone else to do what they please — the classic example being that you have the right to swing your fists through the air, but the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of another person’s nose.  This self-correcting view of rights is the only way to ensure freedom.  Some may even question whether government is the proper avenue for the protection of rights.  Throughout history, it is rare to find an institution that has as evil a record on protecting rights as government does.  However, while government may be a bad mechanism for protecting rights, it’s probably least bad way we have, and certainly the only demonstrable way.  Barry Goldwater illustrated this point when he stated in his classic Conscience of a Conservative, “All too often we have put men in office who have suggested spending a little more on this, a little more on that, who have proposed a new welfare program, who have thought of another variety of ’security.’  We have taken the bait, preferring to put off to another day the recapture of freedom and the restoration of our constitutional system.  We have gone the way of many a democratic society that has lost its freedom by persuading itself that if ‘the people’ rule, all is well.”

However, the deference to government power is moving us from the individualistic “Father knows best” mentality to our current way, a “government knows best” mentality where Barack Obama and his band of merry travelers will dictate economic planning from above because they know best.  This is the same type of argument that Justice Holmes gives in allowing the power of government to dictate what’s best in the 1927 decision Buck v. Bell in which Holmes reasoned that government could dictate solutions to social problems.  By reasoning that it was within the power of government to forcibly sterilize the “feeble minded and socially inadequate,”  Holmes’ reasons for why the government could sterilize women against their will and the reasons behind the entire platform of Barack Obama’s Presidential campaign are identical:  government knows best, and government will attempt to solve social problems.  If there is one lesson to take from history, it’s that deference to government knowledge and planning is dangerous and responsible for most of the suffering in the world.

However, under no objective analysis have the Republicans done any better.  Too many Republicans have given in to the demands of big government is an effort to hold on to power.  The Republican Party is not in the gutter because they have been too laissez-faire.  The Republican Party is in the gutter because the status quo of the GOP has thrown the principles of limited government into the trash. Discretionary domestic spending under George W. Bush rose at a higher rate than it did under Bill Clinton.  The legacy of George W. Bush will be as the Great Spender and the Great Regulator.  If you are proud of the record of the GOP in the last eight years, you are not an advocate for limited government.  If you are proud of the record of the GOP in the last eight years, you are a supporter of big government.

The main problem for this stems from the fact that when presented with a big government Republican, advocates for limited government are often pressured to support the big government Republican in the name of ‘victory.’  Unfortunately, I see no ‘victory’ in creeping socialism, despite whether there is an R or a D next to the name.  Republicans who supported candidates like John McCain and other politicians who voted for the bailout seem to welcome socialism, as long as there is an R next to the candidate’s name.  Instead of standing up for the principles of limited government, these Republican socialists have tossed aside what’s right and many have become no better than Democrats.

Under President Bush, this Republican administration has left a legacy of big government.  Among the legacies of the Bush administration

• When President Bush took office, the national debt was approximately $5 trillion dollars.  As he leaves office, the national debt is currently over $10 trillion dollars.  President Bush has doubled the national debt in eight years.
• President Bush has made it his policy that the federal government should micromanage who should and who shouldn’t get married.  The federal government must approve of your relationship before you can wed.
• President Bush spearheaded the federalization of education in 2001.  President Bush has decided that unelected bureaucrats in Washington should control your child’s education, not parents and teachers.

This is only a select portion of the harm that runaway government power under George W. Bush has threatened our nation and way of life.  Big government was slipped in by Republicans because no one was minding the store.  Many of the largest budget items weren’t even included in budgets, because they were so outrageous that they wouldn’t survive budget negotiations.  They could be added later with a sense of urgency because of “emergency” purposes.  According to Grover Norquist:

“The Bush administration has perfected the strategy of pretending to send up a budget and then showing up later with ‘emergency’ spending requests to pay for such ‘unexpected’ costs as pay and equipment for the hundred thousand American troops in Iraq that have been there for years, but somehow the guys at OMB forgot this when they wrote their budget”

The fiscal policies of the Bush administration while running interference on budget supplementals would make Senator Goldwater roll over in his grave.  In the end, there is really no difference between the “Compassionate Conservatism” of President Bush and the Great Society socialism of President Johnson.  Both are big spending, big government social programs designed to treat the “symptoms” of poverty and not the actual “disease” of poverty.

Henry Hazlitt understood these problems when he wrote the free market classic Economics in One Lesson.  The central thesis of the book is that economic planning by government will always attempt to benefit one group (whichever group is lobbying for a policy enactment) at the expense of all other groups, and will always help in the short term while being harmful in the long run.  Therefore, he states that, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”  When government tries to meet the need of whatever group has power or money at any given time, the results are almost universally bad.  Hazlitt states,

“Each one of us, in brief, has a multiple economic personality.  Each one of us is producer, taxpayer, consumer.  The policies he advocates depend upon the particular aspect under which he thinks of himself at the moment.  For he is sometimes Dr. Jekyll and sometimes Mr. Hyde.  As a producer he wants inflation (thinking chiefly of his own services or product); as a consumer he wants price ceilings (thinking chiefly of what he has to pay for the products of others).  As a consumer he may advocate or acquiesce in subsidies; as a taxpayer he will resent paying them.  Each person is likely to thinking that he can so manage the political forces that he can benefit from a rise for his own product (while his raw material costs are legally held down) and at the same time benefit as a consumer from price control.  But the overwhelming majority will be deceiving themselves.  For not only must there be at least as much loss as gain from this political manipulation of prices; there must be a great deal more loss than gain, because price fixing discourages and disrupts employment and production”

Because we have many different roles in our economy, any policies which are enacted for your benefit as one role will harm you in your other roles.  The only way to keep everything is free market capitalism.  Enterprise capitalism is the only way to ensure justice among all the roles within a diverse economy, strictly because it avoids the problems of central economic planning expressed so eloquently by Hazlitt above.

This all leads back to the fact that the powers that be in both the Democratic and Republican Parties have ignored two of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights:  the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The Ninth Amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In layman’s terms, this means that just because some rights are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, naming those rights should not be taken to mean that rights that are not mentioned are not protected.  Put simply, the list of rights in the Constitution is not exhaustive or complete; there are other rights held by the people which are not named, because it would be impossible to name every single right retained by the people.  Leading Ninth Amendment scholar and law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center (and native of my home town/graduate of my high school alma mater) Randy Barnett has this to say about the Ninth Amendment and the protection of rights, from his book Restoring the Lost Constitution:  The Presumption of Liberty (p. 58)

…natural rights define a private domain within which persons may do as they please, provided their conduct does not encroach upon the rightful domain of others.  As long as their actions remain within this rightful domain, other persons — including persons calling themselves government officials — should not interfere without a compelling justification.  Because people have a right to do whatever they please within the boundaries defined by natural rights, this means that the rights retained by the people are limited only by their imagination and could never be completely specified or enumerated.

There is no better paragraph on the meaning and bounds of natural rights of which I am aware.  The Ninth Amendment is not a source of any specific rights per se, it’s a guideline that ensures that just because a right isn’t mention doesn’t mean it isn’t held by the people.

Next up is the Tenth Amendment.  It states:

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.

This is probably the most ignored part of the entire Constitution.  The meaning has been lost to many currently in power, yet is so simple:  the federal government only has the power it is specifically given in the Constitution.  Unless the Constitution gives the federal government the power to do something, it doesn’t have that power.  This system was set up by the founders precisely to give autonomy to the state and local governments, with minimal power to the federal government.  The federal government serves an important purpose, and that’s why powers are delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  However, the power that was delegated to the federal government was minimal.  Current politicians have chosen to completely ignore this amendment, and give a completely illiterate reading of the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments work hand in hand.  The ninth amendment gives an expansive view of individual rights, and the tenth amendment institutes a strong limitation on the powers of the federal government.  It seems that too many Republicans want to ignore the expansive view of natural rights in the ninth amendment and Democrats want to ignore the strict limits on the power of the federal government of the tenth amendment.

The most principled person in Washington understands this problem.  Back in 1998, Ron Paul wrote,

“But rather than abide by our constitutional limits, Congress recently passed two pieces of legislation – neither containing a shred of constitutional authority – which, of course, were “non-controversial” despite moving us further from the notion of a limited government. One piece of legislation pledged that the Congress will “pass legislation that provides the weapons and tools necessary to protect our children and our communities from the dangers of drug addiction and violence.” Setting aside for the moment the practicality of federal prohibition laws, an experiment which failed miserably with alcohol in the 1920s, the threshold question must be: “under what authority do we act?” Whether any governmental entity should be protecting individuals from themselves and their own stupidity is certainly debatable; whether the federal government is constitutionally empowered to do so is not. Being stupid or brilliant to one’s sole disadvantage or advantage, respectively, is exactly what liberty is all about.”

Unfortunately, not enough people have read the Constitution.

It is for these reasons that I call on advocates for limited government to pledge to support the World’s Smallest Political Platform.  It reads that we “support reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose.”

There are good organizations out there that believe in limited government.  Some good ones to support are (There are many, many more good limited government organizations.  This is just an example):
Heartland Institute
Americans for Tax Reform
Illinois Policy Institute
Cato Institute
Republican Liberty Caucus

I leave you with a quote from Mr. Republican himself, Robert Taft.  If we had more Robert Tafts in the Republican Party, we’d be much better off.

I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world; liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it ought to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to do the same thing. – Robert Taft

Jeff Wartman [send him email] is an activist for limited and local government in Will County, Illinois.  He is fighting to restore the principles of limited government, liberty and competitiveness to the people.  Visit his website at http://jeffwartman.com.

The “Enumerated Powers Act” would force Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes. When we last reported to you in late July this bill had 52 co-sponsors in the House, and had just been introduced in the Senate by Tom Coburn, gaining a whopping 22 co-sponsors almost immediately.

Progress has slowed since then, but there is another new co-sponsor in the House. Representative Pete Sessions of Texas came on board on July 23, 2008, just a couple of days after we last contacted Congress about this bill. Maybe some of you made the difference with Mr. Sessions, so let’s keep pushing . . .

* If your Rep. or one or more of your Senators is a co-sponsor, please thank them (we’ve provided a list of co-sponsors below my signature).
* If one or more of your elected representatives is not on the list, ask them to please become a co-sponsor

You can send your message at DownsizeDC.org here.

NINTH AMENDMENT: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

TENTH AMENDMENT: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here are the co-sponsors in the Senate . . .

Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] – 6/19/2008
Sen Barrasso, John [WY] – 6/19/2008
Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] – 6/19/2008
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] – 6/19/2008
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] – 6/19/2008
Sen Cornyn, John [TX] – 6/19/2008
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] – 6/19/2008
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] – 6/19/2008
Sen Dole, Elizabeth [NC] – 6/19/2008
Sen Ensign, John [NV] – 6/19/2008
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] – 6/19/2008
Sen Graham, Lindsey [SC] – 6/19/2008
Sen Grassley, Chuck [IA] – 6/19/2008
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] – 6/19/2008
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] – 6/19/2008
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] – 6/19/2008
Sen McCain, John [AZ] – 6/19/2008
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] – 6/19/2008
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH] – 6/19/2008
Sen Thune, John [SD] – 6/19/2008
Sen Vitter, David [LA] – 6/19/2008
Sen Wicker, Roger F. [MS] – 6/19/2008

Here are the co-sponsors in the House . . .

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 3/6/2007
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] – 12/5/2007
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 3/6/2007
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 3/5/2008
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 3/6/2007
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] – 4/24/2007
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 2/13/2008
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 6/9/2008
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 3/6/2007
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] – 2/25/2008
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 3/6/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] – 3/5/2008
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] – 3/27/2007
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] – 3/5/2008
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] – 3/7/2007
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] – 4/24/2007
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] – 3/6/2007
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] – 3/6/2007
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/14/2007
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] – 3/6/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 3/6/2007
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] – 3/6/2007
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 9/7/2007
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] – 8/1/2007
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] – 12/12/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] – 3/6/2007
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] – 12/4/2007
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] – 12/4/2007
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] – 3/31/2008
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 12/12/2007
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] – 3/6/2007
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] – 12/12/2007
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] – 3/6/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] – 3/6/2007
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 3/6/2007
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] – 12/12/2007
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 3/6/2007
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] – 3/6/2007
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 10/25/2007
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] – 3/12/2007
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] – 3/5/2008
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] – 6/3/2008
Rep Sali, Bill [ID-1] – 12/5/2007
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] – 5/15/2008
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] – 7/23/2008
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] – 4/23/2008
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] – 4/9/2008
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 5/23/2007
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] – 4/24/2008
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI-7] – 3/9/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] – 4/4/2008
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] – 5/1/2007
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 3/6/2007

We’re all asked (well…told, actually) that we need to do this each and every day.

The federal government tells us what to do more often that we even pay attention to.  We’re told that we need to give them money, we need to submit to patdowns at airports, we need to allow them to read our emails, and on and on and on.

Remember, we’re not asked.  We’re not asked if we want them to do these things and we’re not asked to comply.  We’re told.  And if we don’t comply, they’ll start pulling out the guns pretty quickly.

But doesn’t this make us second-class citizens?

It sure does, because there’s an entire class of citizens – a few hundred people out there – that claim the right of kings.  What’s that?  Well, they don’t have to obey the rules.  How’s that for living in a land of “equal justice?”

Just in case you haven’t guessed who these nefarious characters are yet – it’s our own elected “officials.”

The Constitution is the set of rules that they ignore – with complete impunity.  We have to remember that the Constitution doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t apply to me, it doesn’t apply to Americans, or foreigners, or anyone at all.  The Constitution applies to the government.  It’s a set of rules…rules which the politicians are supposed to follow.

The Constitution was written under what’s called “positive grant.” What this means is quite simple. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are positively granted to it by the Constitution. If a power is specifically listed in the Constitution, the federal government can do it. And, vice versa.

This principle was so important to the founding fathers that they codified it in law as the 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Simple, right? Well, you’d think so, but it’s in the nature of government – and politicians – to ignore any rules that limit their power. And that’s why we see both the 10th Amendment, and the entire Constitution, becoming more and more irrelevant in political discussions in Washington D.C.

In short, the 10th Amendment specifically limits the federal government to just those powers and functions named in the Constitution. And the 9th Amendment makes it clear that the people also have many other rights the government must respect, extending far beyond those actually named in the Bill of Rights:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

A quick glance at most federal legislation would make virtually any honest person see that almost everything the federal government does is in direct violation of the Constitution.

If Congress would actually stick to the 10th Amendment and only exercise those enumerated powers, the federal government would be vastly smaller, and far more decentralized.

And you’d be more prosperous and free.

That’s why we strongly support new legislation to get the politicians back to the principles of the 10th Amendment.  From DownsizeDC.org:

Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) has a plan to change all this. He has introduced “The Enumerated Powers Act” (EPA) – HR 1359 [You can read the entire bill on our Background page]. EPA would require every law passed by Congress to reference the specific clause(s) of the U.S. Constitution that grant the authority for that law.

What difference will it make if we require them to “cite chapter and verse” from the Constitution to show where it gives them the authority to pass a law, create or maintain a program, or lay a tax?

* Well, it might slow them down.
* It might mean that they reconsider a proposal instead of introducing it.

And that’s a pretty good start.

If you think Congress should have to quote “chapter and verse” from the Constitution before it creates a new law or program, please ask Congress to pass the “Enumerated Powers Act.”

Take action today at DownsizeDC.org

NINTH AMENDMENT: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

TENTH AMENDMENT: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The “Enumerated Powers Act” would force Congress to cite its Constitutional authority for every law it passes.

The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which enumerate the authority granted to the United States Congress.

Congress may exercise only those powers that are stated in the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.

From John Shadegg:

For too long, the federal government has operated without constitutional restraint. In doing so, it has created ineffective and costly programs, massive deficits year after year, and a national debt totaling nearly $7 trillion. The Enumerated Powers Act will help slow the flood of unconstitutional legislation and force Congress to reexamine the proper role of the federal government.

If you think Congress should have to quote “chapter and verse” from the Constitution before it creates a new law or program, please ask Congress to pass the “Enumerated Powers Act.”

Take action today at DownsizeDC.org