I have been pleasantly surprised by the Walt Disney Corporation’s recent foray into making decent movies, namely with the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ and ‘National Treasure’ franchises.  I would like to draw attention to a particular line of significance in the most recent release in these lines, ‘National Treasure:  Book of Secrets.’

Nicholas Cage’s character, Dr. Gates, goes about clearing his ancestor, Thomas Gates’, name in the conspiracy to assassinate President Abraham Lincoln while simultaneously discovering Cibola, the lost Aztec city of gold.  While the movie is mostly fiction, it weaves in and out of history magnificently, beginning with the assassination of President Lincoln in Washington, D.C.’s Ford Theatre.

Cage (Dr. Gates) is later pictured speaking with his partners in a scene which sparked my interest, and of which I now write.  Gates says, “Before the Civil War the States were all individual.  Before the Civil War, you said, ‘The United States are.’  After, it became, ‘The United States is.’  Lincoln made us one nation.”

I was stunned, but I maintained my composure.  I did not jab my friends in their sides, saying, “See, see – I told you so!”  They have had to listen to my constant babblings about early American history and the Constitution so much that when I asked them about this scene after the movie, they both said, “Yes, I heard that!  I almost jabbed you in the side!”

See?  Slowly I am winning my argument.  One by one by one I am turning the minds of the uninformed.  It is only a matter of time!

Now, Gates purpose in stating this line was followed up by his stated purpose of clearing his Great-Grandfather’s name in the assassination plot.  He later tells the current President, portrayed in the movie by Bruce Greenwood, that Lincoln is his favorite President, no offense intended.  Greenwood’s President (humor is employed at his birthday party when a country singer with a heavy accent sings, a la George W. Bush!) replies, “He is mine, too.”

My purpose in bringing up this point is not to discuss the “What is” of today, but the “What should be” of the Framers of the Constitution and the States who sent those Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia all those years ago in 1787.

I had heard the duality statements, ‘The United States are’ and ‘The United States is’ in junior high history class, as well as the historical context that this phrase changed after the Civil War, though I prefer to call it by its more etymologically correct term, the War Between the States, much for the same reason.

You see, the Constitution as it was written in 1787 was framed by men loyal to their States.  They did not intend on signing over great power to the new government.  In fact, they enumerated (familiar term?) the exact Powers that were being delegated to the three branches of the national, or Federal, government exactly.  The Power to determine its own Powers, or say what it can or cannot do, is, in fact, not a Power of the Federal Government.

And herein is my point.  Hollywood can make use of this very important statement, and the Fortune 500 (Disney in both cases) can make millions of dollars on its use.  And we will all go through the movies and view this movie and this line will go right through our collective ears and pass back into obscurity.

But I don’t want that!  I want for each of us to ponder these two phrases very carefully, for their meanings are a stark contrast which we must consider and choose which our nation is to follow going forward.  Are we truly ‘one,’ as the national government would have us believe?  One nation ruled by one government, supreme in its dictates, statutes and opinions?  Or as our national slogan states, are we many, united together?  E Pluribus Unum – from many, one.  If you don’t believe me, pull out your dollar bill, or if you are of slightly more modest means, any bit of change will do – it is printed or engraved on it all.

Allow me to give some examples of the problem with ‘The United States is.’  The United States of America, in fact, is grammatically and etymologically correct when referring to the whole!  However, the Powers granted to the national, Federal government have been vastly exceeded.

The Constitution is very clear as to the Powers of Congress in Article I.  My passion is not in the area of reforming the Federal Reserve Bank, but Ron Paul is absolutely accurate when he discusses the matter and mentions that it is not a Power of Congress to have set up this entity.  Banking is a State matter, as well, which is why we still have both National Banks as well as State Banks.  And while State and National Banks alike are required to adhere to Federal law including the Federal Reserve Acts, putting them under direct regulation of the Federal Reserve Bank, this is not a matter delegated to Congress to have Power over.

Neither is it a Power of Congress to enact the Social Security Act.

Neither is it a Power of Congress to delegate the authority to wage war as it did in the War Powers Act.

In another Branch in Washington, it is not a Power of the “supreme Court” (capitalization according to the Constitution) to hear matters that fall under the realm of 10th Amendment States’ Rights.  Article 3 of the Constitution delegates limited jurisdiction to the Federal Judiciary.  These areas of jurisdiction are spelled out explicitly, with no implied Powers delegated.  So when it is not delegated to the Judiciary to hear a matter between two residents of the same State (as in Jane Roe and Henry Wade), or between a citizen and the State of their residence, for the Judiciary to even allow a case such as Roe v. Wade to be filed in Federal Court is an abomination of the American Jurisprudence system.

You see, when you look at the term ‘The United States,’ you must recognize that the key noun in the term is States – plural, as in several.  And when one reads the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, it mentions, “in order to form a more perfect Union.”

But nowhere in the Constitution which establishes that Union does it grant the Power to the Union, the Federal Government, or the United States to force the collective will upon an individual State in matters which are reserved, according to the 10th Amendment, to those States.

The United States is.  But the United States also are.  And it is high time that we remember the difference between Powers delegated and Powers reserved.

David Smith is a Denton, TX resident, a self-taught expert in the Constitution, Law and the Courts, and a future Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. His hot-button issue is States’ Rights. See more of his writings at his blog, http://silvertrombone.townhall.com

In response to “The Constitution and the Right to Privacy”

The only point that I would add is that there exists a fundamental difference between the Federal Government, which these amendments limits, and the State Governments, which the 10th Amendment empowers.  Actually, ‘empowers’ is not the right term because power not delegated is ‘reserved.’  That would entail that it (supposedly) never left the States in the first place!

This means that the States have the Power to engage in the topics that the author listed with no further restrictions.  This means that every single State can handle gay marriage in a different way.  This means that every single State can have restrictions on abortion and virtually every State’s statutory law can look different than every single other State.

It just means that the Federal Government cannot have any influence in these, and other topics, because, once again, Power is not delegated!

Good post, and good points.  But don’t leave out the fundamental difference in those that the Constitution limits and those that the Constitution empowers.

David Smith is gearing up for a run at the US House of Representatives.  His hot-button issue is States’ Rights. See more of his writings at his blog, http://silvertrombone.townhall.com

Let me ask you a couple of questions.  First, which demographic segment has the best voting record?  Meaning, of any age group, which group votes more regularly than any other?

Old people, right?  Retirees, seniors…old people.  No offense intended.

So if you wanted to propose a government entitlement program and your goal was to be elected to four terms in the White House, you would want to make the beneficiaries of this newly proposed program…old people, right?

Well if your name is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that would be your proposal.

In Social Security we see the United States’ shift from the Constitution to Socialism begin by proposing that the government “pay” seniors a retirement benefit that, at the time, none had paid into!  So an entire generation of “old people” have received their benefits, have died since, and have left the rest of us shackled down with an entitlement program that is both outdated, ineffective, and all but bankrupt, while an entire generation of Americans has been shackled down with the tax burden of paying for our forbearers retirement.

Oh, and did I mention the part about unconstitutional?

Now, throwing out the ‘U’ word is kind of harsh on first reading, but consider the facts.  The Constitution guarantees individuals the unalienable right (from the Declaration of Independence) to “the pursuit of happiness,” previously known as “the pursuit of property.”  In other words, our government guarantees me the right to pursue personal wealth!

Note:  Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that I, myself, personally, will achieve personal wealth, only that I am able to pursue wealth.  Property.  Toys, if you will.

Now, if I am amongst the unfortunate few who are unable to retire because I spent all of my income on toys, partying, or my seven wives, well, then I kind of did myself in.  Imagine what life might have been like had I settled at three wives and invested the alimony that I paid the other four.  I would retire a millionaire.

Now refer to the Constitution on this matter.  No such Power of the United States to “get your back” if you don’t – or can’t! – retire because you don’t – or can’t! – save!  The first rule of Finance is “consumption forgone equals investment.”  In other words, what you don’t spend, you can save and invest!  And in general, if done intelligently, investment generally grows.

So if growing one’s personal wealth involves, 1.) Earning an Income, 2.) Saving an excess, and 3.) Investing that excess, then it begs the question – can an individual out-invest the government?  In other words, can I outpace the Social Security program’s approximately 4% rate of return by investing in my own personal IRA or 401 (k) account?

Well, I have the last two years!  I have averaged approximately 20% growth in my personal retirement plans the last two years.  For those of you who know anything about investing in the market, you know that is not only good, it is great!

Inflation creeps along at about 3 to 3.5% per year, which means that at best your Social Security “investment,” also known as taxes, actually only increase at about ½ % per year.  If salaries increased at that rate we would see Revolution in the streets.  All the while, including inflation, my personal investing is increasing at above a 15% clip very comfortably.

Then you take into account the devaluation of the dollar and the fact that I am heavily invested in foreign funds and learn that my MBA in Finance (including International Finance) is paying for itself in about three ways!

And now we start hearing from Republican candidates for President on their proposed solutions for the future of the Social Security system and they are heavy on later retirement ages, lowered benefit amounts, and hybrid personal investment accounts.

The problem boils down to this:  The Constitution does not delegate this Power to the Congress, nor to the Federal Government.  The Power to pass the ‘Social Security Act’ and set up an entirely new organization within the Federal Government is not even granted to the Congress and the Government to enact.

Did you note that?  Go back and re-read the previous paragraph.

Once again, if you know anything about our Constitution, you know that it is a limited Constitution.  That means “The United States,” meaning the national government, did not set itself up.  It did not just spring forth from the ground one day.

The United States was instituted in the Declaration of Independence, and its government’s powers were enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  Only those Powers delegated to the various branches of the federal government are given, and none of those includes the power to determine its own powers.

Our limited Constitution does not delegate the Power to pay retirement benefits, and it does not delegate the Power to delegate the Power to pay retirement benefits.  Note the distinction.  Our national government is not given the Power to determine what its Powers are.

Its Powers are explicitly enumerated, and in some cases implied as in the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” but in no way can the rational mind justify the trend towards Socialism that we began under Roosevelt and have continued all the way into the present, where elected Representatives who refuse to grant that which is not theirs to grant, namely S-CHIP, or children’s healthcare benefits, are reviled as some hideous beast for refusing to violate the Constitution.

Neither is it in the Powers of the government to engage in giving away healthcare insurance, nor is it in the Powers of the government to engage in the investments or retirement industries.  There are for-profit industries set up to provide these services, whose profits are taxed, and whose business it is to provide such services.

It is not the Power of our government to engage in business.  The concept of the “pursuit of happiness,” or property, entails that the government gets out of the way and allows individual creativity and drive be awarded by engaging in business.  Government has shown in every way at every opportunity a decided inability to engage in efficient business practices in areas that are necessary to carrying out the every day task of running the bureaucracy such as accounting, human resources, and payroll.  These tasks are even beginning to be outsourced to for-profit industry in order to streamline the government’s business practices.

Yet we expect an entity that cannot even pay its own employees efficiently to engage in for-profit areas effectively?  There is a reason its Powers are limited.  And if we want to add to those Powers, it is not left to the Federal Government, or its candidates, but to the Amendment process.

I suggest that we recall this, and quickly.

David Smith is gearing up for a run at the US House of Representatives.  His hot-button issue is States’ Rights. See more of his writings at his blog, http://silvertrombone.townhall.com

The concept of the Constitution of the United States is not to award unlimited Powers to the Federal Government or to Congress. See also the ideas expressed in Col. Crockett’s speech from my blog, “Not Yours To Give” from a few days ago. The idea is that the States were free and independent States that were ceding Power, but only what Powers were enumerated within the Constitution.

Remember the Declaration of Independence?

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

First, notice that “united States of America” is not capitalized as we know it today. Interesting to consider. You see, the idea of Virginian Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration, is that Virginia will be Independent of Great Britain and the other Colonies/States, yet united with these former Colonies, now Independent States themselves. And as “Free and Independent States,” they have Powers listed and enumerated and bolded above.

Contrast this idea of Independence of each State with current practice. Federal Judges tell States what to do. Federal bureacrats tell States what to do. Federal elected officials tell States what to do by taking Powers upon themselves in Washington which are not granted to them.

Granted. That is a key word to remember. Always consider the 10th Amendment when considering the Powers of the States, also known as States’ Rights. Possessive Plural. As in many States, each possessing Powers, or Rights, and only granting that which the Constitution awards. All other Powers are “reserved to the States, or to the people.”

From the 10th Amendment: “The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are hereby reserved to the States, or to the people.”

Now, who determines what Powers fall to the people and which are taken up by the several States? The Federal Government? The Federal Judiciary? According to logic, the Constitution holds that the States get to determine that matter. If a State takes up a matter and issues Laws, it is that State’s realm. If it does not, then it falls, logically, to the people.

That brings up the question that we will discuss today: What Powers are delegated by the Constitution from the States to the United States, also known as the Federal Government? To answer that question we must access the text of the Constitution itself.

From Article 1, which pertains to the Legislative Branch, the first Branch of government, Section 8, which enumerates the Powers of Congress:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform thtroughout the United States;

“To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeititng the Securities and current Coin of the United Statets;

“To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

“To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

“To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committted on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

“To raise and support Armies; but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years;

“To provide and maintain a Navy;

“To make Rules for the Government and Regualtion of the land and naval Forces;

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militita, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discplie prescribed by Congress;

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Now, remember, Mr. Bunce gave Col. Crockett a dressing-down, or “streaking,” over $20,000 paid by Congress to Georgetown residents displaced by a major fire. If this “charity,” as Mr. Bunce (pretty accurately!) labeled it, is not allowed by the Constitution, then how much more the billions of dollars being tossed around in campaigns to support such programs as National Socialized Healthcare Insurance and Taxpayer-funded mandatory 401 (k) retirement accounts?

You see, none of these are granted to the United States, aka the Federal Government. Logically, Social Security, or retirement planning, or even more simply stated, investing, is best left to the individual. Period! Would the States do any better than the United States has done?

Let me invest my 12% as I see fit. Let me show any individual how they can invest their 12% and retire a millionaire! Anyone! I used to work at Wal Mart as a cashier manager–$6/hour stuff. But I was investing $1,000/year in Wal Mart stock. Later, in grad school, I saw that their stock appreciated an average of 46% per year after I left employment. Had I stayed doing that same thing, I would have had $100,000 in Wal Mart stock.

Cashier manager at Wal Mart!!

Social Security recipients…can you claim the same???

Average workers…can you honestly tell me that you could not do the same???

This is only one simple example of how private individuals should be in control of their private investing, not the government. Even hourly employees can do better. And salaried professionals??? Please. Let them invest. Tax them normally. And watch tax revenues explode. And watch as the size of government retracts like a quasar into a black hole.

Same with education. We got it, thanks!

Same with insurance. I’ll pay for what I need, thanks! Don’t try to fit me into a general policy that a family of 5 or a retired couple will also fit into.

And income redistribution? I didn’t see that mentioned as a Power of Congress!! Socialism. That’s what that is called. I see the unalienable right to the “pursuit of Happiness,” but I don’t see the Power of Congress where they are “delegated” the ability to take assets or income and redistribute it.

Oh, by the way, as I type this, the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi letter about Rush Limbaugh’s “fake soldier” comment, at the moment, is at $2,000,200 on eBay. I boasted earlier today that it would top $2.5 million and it appears that is now a low figure. Talk about a Power that Congress has taken upon itself. Remember that part about “Congress shall make no Law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press?” Ha-ha! Wow.

Do you guys see what I am talking about? Congress doesn’t have the Power to wipe it’s own nose if the Constitution doesn’t specifically delegate it!

You know, this whole Rush Limbaugh thing is very funny–Mr. Limbaugh couldn’t buy this kind of publicity!

You can’t script this kind of ongoing entertainment!

And I couldn’t ask for a better illustration of what is wrong with our government in Washington, D.C. Stay tuned! I predicted $2.5 million, but it now looks like that will be surpassed while I sleep!

The Federal Government, does in fact have these Powers. You see, while the Constitution didn’t delegate it in it’s language, you and I, in our passive acquiescence, did. And it is time to take it back.

Congress, it is Not Yours To Give!!

David Smith is gearing up for a run at the US House of Representatives.  His hot-button issue is States’ Rights. See more of his writings at his blog, http://silvertrombone.townhall.com