On the night of April 18, 1775, the lantern’s alarm sent Revere, William Dawes and other riders on the road to spread the news. The messengers cried out the alarm, awakening every house, warning of the British column making its way towards Lexington. In the rider’s wake there erupted the peeling of church bells, the beating of drums and the roar of gun shots – all announcing the danger and calling the local militias to action.

After that first successful skirmish, our founders endured unimaginable hardships, lost battles, emotional despair, and a debilitating winter at Valley Forge, until Washington’s final victory at Yorktown. The battles of Lexington and Concord were just the beginning of America’s struggle for freedom.

November 2, 2010, was our Battle of Lexington Green, our “shot heard ‘round the world.” Will we have the courage and determination to fight on to win total victory?

The forces of Progressive Socialism will not spend much time licking their wounds. I have no doubt, nor should any of you, that they will double their efforts to take control our government and continue their assault on our Constitution. Armed with massive funding from their puppet masters, they will use misdirection and prevarication to convince the American people that the administration’s spending spree was only in response to the crisis they inherited from their perennial scapegoat, George Bush. The President’s response to his party’s electoral drubbing was to lament not having done a better job explaining his program to the people. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of a socialist takeover of General Motors, the home mortgage industry, the banking industry, the student loan program, the healthcare industry, and our nation’s energy resources by the Federal Government? Haven’t they been willing to compromise and work across the aisle for the past two years even though they held a majority in both houses of congress? If we all weren’t so dumb, we could stop clinging to our guns and our religion long enough to trust the self-anointed smartest people on earth to tell us all how to eat and live.

It’s not the message, Mr. President. It’s the agenda.

As grassroots patriots, however, we must also realize that our inside allies, the Republican members of Congress, are not all as dedicated to constitutional principles as we. Without our constant observation, many will be tempted by the party establishment to stray from the promises made to get elected. They will be co-opted by the trappings of power, threats of ostracism, and the obscene amount of lobbyist and PAC money needed for re-election.

Let me be clear to those newly elected and those re-elected members of Congress.

I will accept no compromise with the principles of limited government, individual freedom, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, and free market economy.

I will accept no compromise with those who deny the supremacy of the individual states and the people, as specified by Article I, Section 8 (the enumerated powers) and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that limit the size and scope of the Federal Government.

I will accept no compromise with those who would abuse any portion of the Constitution, specifically the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, to expand the size and power of the Federal Government beyond what was envisioned by our founders and that which is constitutionally permitted.

I will accept no compromise with those who deny that our Rights are Natural Law Rights, derived from our creator, ours by dint of our humanity and that it is the duty and obligation of all governments to protect and secure those rights, not to abridge, amend, or restrict them.

I will accept no attempt to compromise in repealing legislation, rules, and regulations that serve to enlarge the size and power of the Federal Government at the cost of fiscal responsibility, free market economic principles, and personal freedom.

I will accept no attempt to compromise in the elimination of earmarks and special exemptions from taxes and laws used to reward political contributions, to favor one group over another, and to buy votes.

I will accept no compromise in efforts to decrease the size and cost of government, to balance the budget, and to prevent the use taxpayer dollars as a bail out for corporations and states that are deemed “too big to fail”.

Congress, we are watching you.

The election of 2010 is the first battle in our revolutionary war to regain the freedoms stolen from us by oppressively intrusive federal and state governments and to restore in our nation the constitutional republic that is our heritage.

That is the lesson of Lexington, 1775. The future of our nation and our children’s freedom can only be assured by our vigilance.

Dr. Dan Eichenbaum is a practicing ophthalmologist in Murphy, North Carolina, and a founder of the Cherokee County 9-12 Project. Visit his website at http://drdansfreedomforum.com/

Copyright 2010 Dan Eichenbaum

An important decision faces We the People.

Will we continue to stand as a nation built on principle? Or will we float aimlessly in a sea of pragmatism?

The founders of this great Republic built it upon specific principles, with individual liberty as the bedrock. From their experience, they understood and feared concentrated government power.

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

So, they formed the Republic built on principles designed to protect individual liberty and private property – a system intended to strictly limit federal power. Thus, the Constitution separates powers, seeking to ensure no one person or branch holds too much sway. And it enumerates the specific powers of the federal government, leaving all other power to the states and the people. The Tenth Amendment reaffirms the intent of the framers.

But many today are more than willing to abandon these bedrock principles for the allure of pragmatism.

A conversation on recent comments by Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Louisville) regarding the scope of federal power allowed by the commerce clause reveals the temptation to abandon principles in search of easy solutions to daunting problems.

Initially, the individual I was talking to defended the government’s constitutional authority to mandate citizens buy insurance. But as I explained the framer’s intent and pointed him to clear proof articulated in their writings, he quickly realized he was losing ground on that line of argument. So he fell back to his default position, which went something like this: our health care system is a mess and we must fix it, therefore we should be willing to stretch the Constitution to accommodate these important fixes for the good of the people.

Pragmatism over principle.

I can’t argue that the U.S. health care system doesn’t have problems. But I will argue to my grave that the federal government is not the place to address those problems. It’s a matter rightly left for each individual state to address as it sees fit.

Progressives like Yarmuth and my friend see only the possible good in expansive federal government. They see solutions to problems. They see the U.S. becoming a better place. They see people getting help they need. But they fail to anticipate the great danger inherent in allowing federal power to expand beyond its intended scope.

“Because people will be required to carry minimal health insurance, the government is going to do all kinds of horrible things? I don’t agree and I don’t see it that way,” my friend said.

But those who framed the Constitution DID see it that way, and they created a system to keep government’s tendency toward tyranny in check. Gerald Ford eloquently articulated the danger nearly 200 years later.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Once we allow government expanded powers, reasoning that we do it for the common good, how do we stop it when someone decides to use that power for nefarious purposes? Because when we leave the barn door open for the horses, the pigs will surely follow.

How can we argue that the elasticity of the Constitution allows for an expanded understanding of the commerce clause, giving the feds virtually unlimited power, but then stand on the Constitution to protect an absolute right, such as free speech, the freedom to worship or the right to marry whomever we choose?

In short, we cannot.

For a Constitution that doesn’t mean what it says means nothing at all.

After a bitter and divisive election, Democrats have regained the presidency and widened their control of Congress. Now they are making the usual political victors’ calls for unity. But unfortunately, Americans’ often diametrically opposed preferences for what they want government to do guarantees disunity under our current approach to governance.

Opposing desires (you want “A” but I want “not A”) mean that no national approach or plan can form the basis of unity. Instead, only returning to our Constitution’s forgotten federalism, especially the 10th Amendment, can reconcile them with national unity.

The Constitution assigned only a few truly shared interests to the national government, reserving everything else for individuals and states, allowing citizens to vote with their feet into jurisdictions that better matched their preferences for government services and burdens. This option to leave unattractive situations for ones better suited to them was a central protection of citizens against government abuse.

Federalism reconciles unity with individual differences by allowing those with similar preferences to share policies they prefer and by giving citizens an exit option that sharply limits government’s ability to mistreat them. However, the more is decided nationally, the less effective is this reconciliation.

Where preferences diametrically opposed, national plans create conflict by imposing uniform policies on many who strongly object. They eliminate states as experimental laboratories to discover what works more effectively. They make controlling federal policy more important and battles over its control more intense. Americans’ rights and unity are both put at risk.

Government ability to mistreat citizens by imposing tax, regulatory and other burdens on them to benefit others is limited by people’s ability to move in a federal system. Far more than regional governments, the federal government can treat some very badly without driving them away, since the unattractive alternative is leaving the country. That allows federal decision-makers to take more from such people, to give more to the politically favored. This greater potential for some to promote their causes at others’ expense is why those wanting less to be taken from them favor federalism, or even better, allowing individuals to make their own choices, while those wanting more redistribution in their favor prefer national policy-making. However, government policies that harm some to benefit others cannot unify people.

Unity can only be achieved when people share similar preferences about common policies. Given different preferences, that requires leaving most decisions, where people need not make the same choices, to individuals. It also requires federalism, to reduce the harm that can be imposed on members by government policies forcibly shared in common.

But Americans have had more and more decisions dictated by government, with Washington manipulating other governments directly or indirectly. No citizen can escape the power of federal redistribution, and no lower level government is beyond influence extorted with federal funds.

American unity is achievable only by reducing arbitrary government power over us. But the erosion of federalism and its protections for both individuals and lower level governments against federal abuse has increased that arbitrary power. To rebuild our unity beyond that of one coalition in Washington united in ripping off others, we must return to the vision of federalism that was an important condition of our founding. It cannot create unity where none exists, but it will reduce our disunity, and the government abuse it triggers, by restoring individual and state choices to greater roles.

Federalizing everything, including plainly private and local choices, has not benefited or unified America. The increasing divisive battles to control what is to be imposed on everyone makes that clear. If we want more unity, we need to take the federalism of the Constitution seriously again, leaving people to make their own individual choices where they need not be in common, and lower level governments to make regionally shared choices that need not be uniform nationwide. No other nationwide policy approach can unify us, except in what Thomas Hobbes called “a war of all against all.”

Gary M. Galles [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

copyright 2008 Gary Galles

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.

The amendment has also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform, a hot topic in Congress now, can be best achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It should be readily apparent that United States Senators, once appointed by the state legislature, would have no need for campaign financing whatsoever.

The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate.

For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913.

The 17th amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states’ linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate.

It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify the power of the federal judiciary. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change.

The existing relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little or no hope of return. The resulting issue surrounding the fracas between the states and federal government is whether the states or the federal government should be exercising a particular power.

The impact of the 17th Amendment upon that issue and the states’ present ability to exercise the original power granted to them by the Framers of our Constitution is clear.

A proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, designed to repeal the 17th Amendment, follows:

AN AMENDMENT TO REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT AND RELINK THE STATES TO THE FEDERAL POLITICAL PROCESS

SECTION ONE. The Seventeenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

SECTION TWO. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, selected by the legislature of each State. Each Senator shall serve a six year term and may be reappointed. Each Senator shall have one vote.

SECTION THREE. Among the duties of each Senator is the primary duty to represent the government of their State, and in particular, their State’s Legislature, in the Senate. For the purpose of maintaining communications with its Senators, each State Legislature shall establish a liaison committee and shall specify the duties, procedures, and method of appointment of that committee. This committee shall work with its United States Senators in evaluating the impact of federal legislation on their State. All legislation proposed by Congress, and all treaties proposed, shall be submitted to each State’s liaison committee.

SECTION FOUR. Senators are subject to removal by the State Legislature. Removal of a Senator requires a majority of each House of the State Legislature.

SECTION FIVE. Congress is precluded from enacting any legislation affecting the senatorial selection process. Each State Legislature shall enact rules and procedures, consistent with this amendment, related to the selection and removal of Senators.

SECTION SIX. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

• I believe that no one — including the President — is above the law.
• I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the Guantánamo 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 person’s rights equally — 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 country’s leaders to share and act on that commitment — every day, without fail.

If you agree, click here.

Take a refreshing look at the Constitution here.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, and limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory:

• First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional establishment of a religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.

• Second Amendment: defines the right of States in keeping and maintaining militias and the right of individuals to possess firearms.

• Third Amendment: prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers during peacetime without the consent of the owners. The only existing case law regarding this amendment is a lower court decision in the case of Engblom v. Carey.^[15]

• Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a “probable cause” to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

• Fifth Amendment: forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits double jeopardy (repeated trials), except in certain very limited circumstances; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as “Taking the Fifth” or “Pleading the Fifth”). This is regarded as the “rights of the accused” amendment, otherwise known as the Miranda rights after the Supreme Court case. It also prohibits government from taking private property without “just compensation,” the basis of eminent domain in the United States.

• Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him. The Sixth Amendment has several court cases associated with it, including Powell v. Alabama, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Crawford v. Washington. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth amendment prohibition on forced self-incrimination and the sixth amendment clause on right to counsel were to be made known to all persons placed under arrest, and these clauses have become known as the Miranda rights.

• Seventh Amendment: assures trial by jury in civil cases.
• Eighth Amendment: forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
• Ninth Amendment: declares that the listing of individual rights in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; and that the other rights not specifically mentioned are retained elsewhere by the people.
• Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the States from exercising, are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  ~ From Wikipedia

Know your rights. Protect them by voting accordingly.

The problem, of course, is that most of what these candidates talk about doing is simply not authorized by the Constitution.

LaVarr Webb at the Deseret News makes the case that because of this, no matter who is elected, they’re doomed to failure:

Whoever wins, the next president is doomed to fail in many ways. The reason is that the job description for president has become impossible. Any president is set up for failure because the expectations of the job are so enormous as to be unattainable.

There’s no doubt about it.  When presidents make promises far beyond the scope of their constitutional authority, it should be quite clear that they’re only trying to win a popularity contest, and just cannot succeed at all (or even just a little) of what they promise.

LaVarr goes on to explain further:

Under the system of balanced federalism created by the founders, the job of president was doable. The role of the federal government was supreme but limited to specific duties delegated to it by the Constitution. A president could successfully fulfill the responsibilities of his office.

The states were protected from a potentially ambitious and overbearing federal government by the 10th Amendment, reserving any power not specifically delegated to the national government to the states and the people. It is part of the Bill of Rights, designed to defend the basic rights of the people. States refused to ratify the Constitution until that amendment was in place.

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.

Anyone paying even the least amount of attention to federal government can see that these principles are, as Webb puts it, “dead and gone.”

What’s the solution? Webb hits the nail on the head:

The nation’s complete capitulation in allowing and expecting the federal government to solve every problem facing society is a disaster. The solution to many of the toughest problems is the opposite of more federal intervention.

The solution is to get the gridlocked, ultra-partisan Congress and the incredibly expensive and massive federal bureaucracy out of the way and allow states and local government to keep their money at home and tackle the problems according to local circumstances.

Pretty simple.  If only the federal politicians weren’t so interested in expanding their own power at the expense of your liberty.

Recently, Forbes.com highlighted Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.  Here’s what he had to say on the issue:

“As president, one of my priorities will be restoring the 10th amendment and federalism. Decisions about issues like civil unions or right-to-die legislation should be made by the states, not the federal government. I will stop federal judges from imposing new definitions on the States. I will also return control over education to parents and local communities. Decisions about whether or not to fund vouchers, have merit pay for teachers or extend the school year should be made by parents and local school boards, not by D.C.-based bureaucrats.”

POSITIVE GRANT?

The Constitution was written under a principle called “positive grant.”  What this means is quite straightforward: The Federal Government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it by the Constitution.  In short, if the power is (positively) listed, the Federal Government is granted the authority to do it.

The Founding Fathers felt this principle was so important 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.”

Pretty simple, isn’t it?  All these political discussions we have about what is or is not Constitutional is reduced to this clear, concise principle, and most of what the Federal Government engages in these days is not authorized by the Constitution.

It’s almost universal in government that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” -  as Lord Acton once wrote.  Therefore, the politicians in all three branches of government have no incentive to follow the plain English of the Constitution – which meant as a set of rules to restrict their power.  Their goal, naturally, is to increase their own power, which is directly at odds with the 10th amendment, and the vision of the founding fathers.

It seems to me that Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate who is interested in protecting liberty, and he’s proposing doing that by following one simple rule – the 10th Amendment.