Most articles that seek to demonize the Tenth Amendment movement are so rife with logical and intellectual fallacies that even responding to them is a waste of time. However, in the case of Dan Casey, blogger for the Roanoke Times, an exception must be made.

For starters, Casey is writing in my (and Thomas Jefferson’s) home state of Virginia, and his piece, “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy” actually links to the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center, which I helped to found.

But, more importantly, in his article, Casey attempts to smear the brilliant men who wrote the U.S. Constitution by claiming the document doesn’t mean what they explicitly said it meant.

As James Madison might have said, there is a host of proofs that Dan Casey is dead wrong.

Like so many others before him, Casey leads his attack with a flaccid attempt to discredit the “Tenthers” (as he pejoratively calls them) by linking constitutionalism with support for slavery.

Of course, this completely obscures actions by Tenthers of an earlier era, who used the 10th Amendment as the prime justification for the “States Rights” argument that itself was a smokescreen for the real cause of the Civil War — the South’s insistence on preserving slavery.

Behold straw man number one: The Tenth Amendment is code for racism. Casey is either ignorant of the fact that many Northern states used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for undermining slavery long before 1861, through their refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts, or he has chosen to ignore that inconvenient part of history. 

Either way, it doesn’t matter. Historical accuracy is not Casey’s goal. He merely intends to color his readers’ perception of Tenthers by linking them, however spuriously, with Southern slaveholders. To acknowledge the truth about the history of states’ rights in the North might disrupt his narrative of unquestioning obsequiousness to centralized power.

Casey continues:

But apart from aligning themselves with slaveholders, there’s another more fundamental flaw in the whole modern Tenther argument. In a nutshell, it’s this: Their interpretation is based on a single sentence in the Constitution, rather than on the document as a whole.

In fact, the larger document directly contradicts the Tenthers’ argument.  That’s right — words the founding fathers quite deliberately wrote into the Constitution clearly and effectively rebut the Tenthers’ faulty reasoning.

It’s hard to imagine where Casey got this impression, considering that James Madison himself described the document he helped to write by saying

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.

Thomas Jefferson also knew the Tenth Amendment was more than just “a single sentence.” He called it the Constitution’s foundation: 

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.

It really cannot be any clearer than that. The self-serving opinions of Dan Casey and myriad federal judges notwithstanding, if the people and the states didn’t explicitly surrender a power in the Constitution, then they still retain it. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is another story.

But if federal power is limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution, Casey asks, why do we need a Bill of Rights at all?

The problem for the Tenthers here is that the First Amendment has nothing to do with what Congress can do. It’s all about what Congress can’t do.

And this is where the Tenthers’ entire argument falls apart. Because under Tenther-logic, unless the Constitution permitted the feds to establish religion, or abridge freedom of speech and so on, then the feds would automatically be prohibited from doing it.

Obviously, the founding fathers themselves did not believe that, or they never would have felt the need to write the First Amendment in the first place.

Here Casey has a point, although not the one he thinks. He is right, the feds are automatically prohibited from doing any of the things he lists, just as they are prohibited from requiring every American to buy health insurance, based on the fact that those powers are not delegated under Article 1 Section 8.  

But, more importantly, many of the founders themselves argued against the Bill of Rights for the same reason as Casey: It should not be necessary. 

Alexander Hamilton said

…bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. …For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? 

If there is any argument to be made against the Tenth Amendment, it is Hamilton, not Casey, who has made it.

The Bill of Rights should never have been needed. Every one of the first 10 Amendments is essentially legally redundant based on the text of the Constitution itself.

But, over time, activist judges and complicit politicians have turned the entire document on its head, until the only rights left to the people are those explicitly granted, while the only powers not yet claimed by government are those explicitly prohibited.

Yet Casey calls Tenthers, who only want the Constitution’s clear language enforced, ”intellectual boobs who can’t be bothered to think for themselves.” Apparently, thinking for oneself means ignoring the purpose of our founding documents, and gratefully acquiescing to federal tyranny.

Those of us who demand liberty are feared and ridiculed by weak minded men like Dan Casey who consider themselves intelligent, but are really nothing more than errand boys for the State.

As Samuel Adams once said

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

(or I don’t care how they do things in Massachusetts).

Ask someone what is the most important amendment to the constitution.  If he were a liberal, he would likely answer “the right to free speech”, the 1st.   If he were a conservative, he would likely answer “the right to keep and bear arms”, the 2nd.

Although all amendments are important (or at least those found in the Bill of Rights), I have another suggestion.  For those who fear the encroachment of an ever-expanding national government, might I recommend the 10th? 

Now I know that no one really talks about the tenth anymore, but here it is:

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

Any questions?  I shouldn’t really think so.  It is simple and straightforward.

But the problem lies in the fact that few these days tend to uphold the amendment.  For example, as written in one of my articles below, consider the Department of Education created in 1979.

Now don’t get me wrong, education is important, but the federal government has absolutely no authority when it comes to education as stated by the United States Constitution.  Now if I’m in error, let me know.  Prove it to me.  If it can be done clearly and without a lot of “promote the general welfare” jargon then I will gladly retract this statement.

How about the arts?  I’m sure you know that we have a National Endowment for the Arts.  Is it constitutional?  Promoting the arts is constitutional, but how so?  In Article One, Section 8, it is written as pertaining to the powers of Congress, “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.”

That is the constitutional limits of the promotion of the arts.  According to the NEA website found at http://www.nea.gov/about/index.html, they write, “The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.

Established by Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government, the Endowment is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts, bringing great art to all 50 states, including rural areas, inner cities, and military bases.”  Well, isn’t that nice…art to one and all?

Agree or disagree with the ideals NEA, which need I remind you has brought us such national treasures as the “Piss Christ” and “The Perfect Moment”, but the simple fact remains that the agency is horribly unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Are there more departments, agencies, and laws out there that exceed the authority of the federal government out there?  I would wager that one could fill a textbook with examples.  If you care to add your own to this article, feel free to comment.

Ah, but let us now get to the second part, “The Joy of Federalism or I Don’t Care How They Do Things in Massachusetts.”  Federalism, of course, is the principle of states giving up some portion of their authority to a greater or larger government to achieve specific aims, such as a common defense, creating patents, declaring war, raising armies and so forth.

For all of the specific powers granted to the federal government by the states, I direct you to the Constitution. Although the federal government does not have any power to fund, promote, or mettle in education or the arts, states and, of course, citizens do.

Assuming that it is allowable under their state constitutions and laws, any state can and ought to be involved in these areas should the citizens of the respective states so desire.  Say that the commonwealth of Massachusetts (I select Massachusetts here because I believe many of their traditions, laws, and beliefs are antithetical to our Virginia) wants to offer free education to all of its citizens from grade school to post-graduate.

Believe it or not, I say, let them.

Will the tax burden of the average citizen skyrocket dramatically?  Without a doubt.  But that is the true joy of federalism.  What Massachusetts citizens want, as long as they obey the Constitution and their own laws, they should get.

Another example is mandatory health insurance.  In 2006 the state became the first to require health insurance of its citizens (passed by wacky Gov. “Massachusetts Mitt”).  Is it a horrid idea?  Certainly.  But they have that right to be the “laboratory of Democracy” a phrase used by Robert La Follette.  When other states see Massachusetts’ successes (or, in this case, failures) they will likely either adopt or reject their policies accordingly.

We apply the same principle to other countries, so why not other states.  Now there are caveats to this principle, of course.  If a state seeks to injure, undermine, or destroy, a citizen or another state, or the laws of that state, then certainly the federal government has a constitutional requirement to defend the injured party and ideally preventing the offense in the first place.

But let us turn back to liberal Massachusetts.  As stated, with a handful of exceptions, I don’t care how they do things in Massachusetts.  If they succeed, business and citizens will attempt to flock there, but if they fail the opposite will happen.

Heck, I’ll take that idea one further.

I don’t care how they do things in France, or Singapore, or Saudi Arabia.  As we respect the ability of others to govern themselves, so too should they honor our right.  Although many willingly choose to flounder under statism, we must jealously guard our own backyard.

If they, or anyone else, attempt to bring their socialist ideas to Virginia or our national government, we should fight them tooth and nail to defend our state, our country, our values, our culture, and our way of life.  If I wanted to live in a state like Massachusetts, I would move to Massachusetts.  Thanks, but you don’t have to bring it to me.

So what is the take home message from this tirade?  Slowly but surely the powers of the federal government have grown at the expense of the states and of ourselves, the citizens.  Whose fault is it?

Without a doubt, it is the unelected and “living Constitution” courts.  It is our weak-kneed or unscrupulous politicians who trade principles for patronage.

But, my friends, it is also ours, for we have remained either ignorant or silent.  I tell you that unless and until we have an informed public who demands that their legislators stand up for a limited and narrow federal government as the Constitution proscribes, the 10th Amendment will lay neglected and the ideal of federalism will wither until the states either become irrelevant or are dissolved.

Let us work to ensure that this dark day never comes.

What is the importance of the war in Iraq  relative to other current issues?  This is a question I am often asked, especially as Americans continue to become increasingly aware that something is very wrong with the economy.   The difficulty with the way the question is often asked relates to the perception that we are somehow able to divide such issues, or to isolate the cost of war into arbitrarily defined areas such as national security or international relations.

War is an all-encompassing governmental activity.  The impact of war on our ability to defend ourselves from future attack, and upon America ‘s standing in the world, is only a mere fraction of the total overall effect that war has on our nation and the policies of its government.

The cost of this particular war is enormous, and therefore its of great importance.  There is no single issue that is more important at this particular time.   The war has, of course, made us less safe as a nation and damaged our credibility with allies and hostile nations alike.  Moreover, years of growing deficits have been spurred on by the high price tag of war, and the decision to pay that price primarily by supplemental spending rather than traditional “on-budget” accounting.

War takes what would otherwise be productive economic capacity and transfers both that capacity, and the wealth it would generate in normal, peaceful, times into far less economically viable activities.  It also impacts budget priorities in ways that are detrimental to our nation.  I have often pointed to the fact that we are building bridges in Iraq while they are collapsing in the United States.

All war, but most particularly war funded by monetary inflation, bleeds a country in multiple ways.  Obviously, many of the young people who are in the military literally give their blood, and sometimes their lives, fighting in wars of this type.  Meanwhile, those who do not fight the war, but fund it, are forced to pay both the immediate costs, as well as seeing their long term purchasing power erode, as the twin pillars of debt and inflation are foisted upon the backs of current taxpayers and future generations.

Neither conspiracy nor coincidence explains steep increases in the price of gas as the war drags on.  No, this is simply a reality of the inflationary policies that, among other things, make this war possible.

As people are continually asked to choose whether our nation’s teetering economy or the failed foreign policy of the past several decades is most important as we look forward, it is well for those of us who understand that these two issues are closely linked, to continue to explain this fact to our fellow citizens.

To fix the problem requires a proper diagnosis.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

Watching Keith [Olbermann] just now, I heard him mention Antonin “Nino” Scalia’s dissenting opinion from today’s ruling in regards habeas corpus rights for detainees.

The lowlight of Justice Scalia’s opinion was the paragraph:

“The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

While others will surely spend countless hours and buckets of ink and pixels debating the merits or madness of the second sentence, I’ve a bone to pick with the first.

Scalia has, over the years, demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court. His devotion to the concept of “originalism” selectively ignores the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, key components of the document as “originally” ratified. The codicil to the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore, in which the nation’s ultimate appeals court, where all legal precedent is finally decided, declares that the judgment in that case is not, in fact, legal precedent.

I have come to expect little in the way of Constitutional wisdom from Justice Scalia.

But he is not alone in the delusion he propounds in the first sentence of today’s killer graf. Nearly every candidate, commentator and speechifier will, at convenient times, refer to the President of the United States as “the nation’s commander-in-chief” or “our commander-in-chief.”

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution begins:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

This is a very specific delineation. When broad powers are claimed for the President, many rightly so, in his role as “commander-in-chief,” these broad powers do not automatically apply to those persons not in the armed forces of the United States. Where they exist at all, they apply to the men and women of the uniformed services of the Army and Navy, the state Guards and other armed services.

The president not only is impotent to hold me without allowing me to demand the charges against me, he is impotent to search or seize my person, goods and papers without a warrant showing probable cause. He is enjoined from quartering his armed troops on my property.

In point of fact, the president of the United States cannot do a damned thing to me that the Constitution does not specifically allow him to do. And this limitation to his powers, embodied in the purposefully broad Tenth Amendment, holds because I am not a member of the armed forces.

In short, the president is not my commander-in-chief. Odds are, he is not yours, either. He is not Antonin Scalia’s commander in chief, not Hillary Clinton’s nor Chris Matthews’.

For us, the citizens of and visitors to the United States, he is the Chief Executive, pledged to take care that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. He is not our commander. He is our servant.

I hope I’ve not made too much of a much here, but this anointing of the Chief Executive with unlimited powers over all citizens, like some ancient Imperator can’t be reversed solely by Court decisions. It must be dismantled in the minds of us, the citizens.

And refusing to accept the rule of a commander when you don’t wear the uniform is a reasonable place to start.

Oil prices are on the minds of many Americans as gas hits $4 a gallon, and continues to surge.  How high can prices go?  How can we solve these problems?  What, or who, is to blame?

Part of the answer lies in understanding bubbles and monetary inflation, but especially the Federal Reserve System.  The Federal Reserve is charged with controlling inflation through interest rate manipulation, however, many fail to realize that creating money, and therefore inflation, is really its only tool.  When the Federal Reserve inflates the dollar as drastically as it has in the past few decades, the first users of the newly created money go in search of investments for their dollars.  They must invest this money quickly and aggressively before it loses value. 

This causes certain sectors to expand beyond what would naturally occur in the free market.  Eventually the sector overheats and the bubble bursts.  Overinvestment in dotcoms eventually led to a collapse of the NASDAQ.  Next we had the housing bubble, and now we are seeing the price of oil being bid up in the creation of another new bubble.  Investors are now looking to commodities like oil, for stability and growth as they pull capital out of real estate.  This increased demand for investment vehicles related to oil contributes to driving up the price of the actual product.

If the Fed continues with its bubble blowing policies of the past, the new commodities bubble will continue to grow, gas prices will continue to go up, as the value of your dollars go down.  We will see an overinvestment in these commodities as solutions are desperately sought for a supply shortage, which is only part of the problem.

Make no mistake, though, this is not the free market at work.  Government manipulations have added levels of complication and unintended consequences to the marketplace.

This is not the time for members of Congress to take political potshots at each other, or to imagine that the free market is somehow to blame.  This is the time to understand and fix problems.  That begins with making sure the decision makers have a firm grasp on the causes of the problems and possible effects of their decisions.  This is absolutely crucial if we want to get it right this time.  That is why I am in the process of calling for hearings on Capitol Hill on how the falling value of the dollar affects energy prices.

Governments need to get out of the way and let the people get back to work so that we can get our economy back on stable footing.  Our destructive regulatory environment, confiscatory tax policies, and managed, rather than free trade have chased many businesses overseas.

The bottom line is average Americans are being seriously hurt by these flawed policies, and they are not getting good information about the true dynamics at work.  The important thing now is to get the diagnosis absolutely correct so we can administer the appropriate treatment and move on to a healthier economic future. To do this it is absolutely necessary to address the subjects of central banking and fiat money.

Recently Congress sent the latest Farm Bill to the president. The bill features brand new federal programs, expansion of existing subsidies, more food stamps and more foreign food aid. This bill hits the taxpayer hard, while at the same time ensuring food prices will remain elevated. The president vetoed the bill, citing concerns over its costs and subsidies for the wealthy in a time of high food prices and record farm income. Nevertheless, this over-reaching, government-expanding Farm Bill will soon be law.

The truth is most farmers simply want honest pay for honest work. However, if the government is providing competing farms with advantages, and one wants to remain a farmer, one must seek a proportional advantage from government. It is a difficult position for the farmer. Some are better at qualifying for taxpayers’ largesse than others as evidenced by the fact that more than 60% of the subsidies go to just 10% of recipients, edging out the small family farm. This entire system is unfair and demoralizing. It disproportionately benefits big agribusiness at the expense of struggling family farms.

Third world countries also lose with these continued government manipulations. Agricultural subsidies lead to overproduction, which leads to foreign food aid as a form of dumping. By “dumping” government-created agricultural surpluses, agrarian economies are artificially kept in a constant state of economic depression. The would-be third world farmer cannot compete with “free” grain, thus he and his countrymen remain perpetual beggars rather than competitive producers. Also, by keeping food prices high, we keep more of our own citizens dependent on government food stamps, instead of paying fair market prices for food.

Free trade helps farmers and consumers much more than this convoluted system of subsidies, surpluses and central planning. Newly opened markets would create increased demand for what we produce. There is absolutely no reason we trade with China , yet not with Cuba . With energy and transportation prices as high as they are, opening up trade with a country as close as Cuba just makes sense. The recent power shift from Fidel Castro to his brother Raul, and the somewhat positive steps he has taken, provides an opportunity to lift the embargo.

Removing unreasonable, confiscatory tax policies would also make good farm policy. We need to permanently repeal the estate tax, which would again take a devastating 55% cut of family farms upon death of an owner. This tax will force the sale of many family farms, and further huge corporate agriculture.

Those who believe federal farm programs benefit independent farmers, should take note that after 70 years of this type of government intervention, small farms continue to struggle while large corporate farms control an ever-increasing share of the agricultural market. Subsidies for agribusiness should be stopped and the free market should be allowed to work. With commodity and food prices on the rise, Congress had an opportunity to scale down government controls and taxpayer funding of agriculture. Instead, despite the warning sent by an 18% approval rating, Congress stubbornly opted for more of the same.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

Here’s an excerpt:

We choose to defend liberty because, in a sense, we have very little choice. It’s a matter of right and wrong. It’s a fundamental struggle. Looking at our world, we can see why.

We favor economic freedom because the alternative is to favor a slow enslavement. The state’s attacks on free enterprise lead to stagnation, impoverishment, inflation and wealth destruction on a horrific scale. It has brought this economy to this most precarious point we’re facing right now. It’s becoming more expensive to buy food. Health care is a mess. The unfunded liabilities in the entitlement state are going to cripple this country unless something fundamental changes. Subsidized easy credit has created a bubble and now the laws of gravity are kicking in.

The socialist, regulatory corporate state that has been fastened onto the economy for more than 100 years has come to the point now where Social Security is a bigger program than almost any government on earth. Eminent domain has taken on life in a particularly insidious way. This isn’t sustainable. It’s dividing people. It’s causing social conflict. It’s killing our country.

We defend personal liberties because the same principles apply. They used to say we were utopian about the drug war and victimless crimes, but what kind of real world have their policies created? The United States has the largest prison population on earth. We have more peaceful people in prison than almost any other nation has criminals in prison. This is supposed to be law enforcement but these prisons are totalitarian hells of lawlessness. People are raped, beaten and treated like slaves on an unspeakable scale. Half a million people are behind bars for drugs alone – and surely this is a human rights issue that should concern anyone wanting a civil society.

Read more here

A good first step in support of liberty is adherence to the US Constitution.  Following the forgotten 10th Amendment will reign in the federal government to a level where liberty can truly live.

This week, as the American economy continued to suffer the effects of big government, the House attempted to pass two multibillion dollar “emergency” spending bills, one for continued spending on the war in Iraq , and one increasing spending on domestic and international welfare programs.  The plan was to pass these two bills and then send them to the president as one package.

Even though the House failed to pass the war spending bill, opponents of the war should not be fooled into believing this vote signals a long term change in policy.  At the end of the day, those favoring continued military occupation of Iraq  will receive every penny they are requesting and more as long as they agree to dramatically increase domestic and international welfare spending as well.

The continued War in Iraq and the constant state of emergency has allowed Congress to use these so-called “emergency” bills as a vehicle to dramatically increase spending across the board–including spending that does not meet even the most generous definition of emergency.

For example, the spending proposals currently being considered by Congress provide $210 million to the Census Bureau and $4 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  $4.6 billion is requested for the closing of military bases, but not any of the more than 700 bases overseas – but bases here at home!

Another $387 million would go to various international organizations and $850 million more just in international food aid – all this when food prices are skyrocketing here and American families are having a hard time making ends meet.  Because this spending will be part of “emergency” measures, it will not count against debt ceilings, or any spending limits set by Congressional budget resolutions, and does not have to be offset in any way.

Explosive growth of government is just another tragedy of this war.  The “bipartisan” compromises made in Washington are at the expense of the taxpayer, not in the interest of fiscal responsibility, or peace.  The taxpayer loses and government grows.

The bottom line is that our dollar is falling, the economy is in rough shape, and government spending is wildly out of control.  Congress argues over relatively minor details, instead of dramatically changing our flawed foreign policy.  We need to bring our troops home, not only from Iraq and Afghanistan , but from South Korea , Germany , and the other 138 countries where we have troops stationed.

Our foreign policy of interventionism is not only offensive to others, inviting further terrorist attacks, but it is ruining our economy as we tax, borrow and print the money to pay the bills of our empire.  The economy and ultimately the American people suffer because Washington is refusing to adopt more sensible and constitutional policies.

Squabbling between those who favor increased welfare and those who favor increased warfare has giving the American people a temporary reprieve from having to bear the burden of yet another dramatic increase in government this week.

However, as early as next week a compromise could be reached that expands both government warfare and welfare. As congressional approval ratings drop to 18% according to a recent Gallup poll, the American people are telegraphing that Congress is taking the country in the wrong direction.

Our government must stop bankrupting the country so that we can get back on track to a peaceful, prosperous future.

More memos recently have surfaced that were written early in the Bush administration by John C. Yoo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — the man who gave us the administration’s horrifyingly narrow definition of torture. As difficult as it is to believe, the recently released memos are even scarier than the original torture memo.

Yoo boldly asserts that the president’s power during wartime is nearly unlimited. For example, he argues that Congress has no right to pass laws governing the interrogations of enemy combatants and the commander-in-chief can ignore such laws if passed, and can, without constraint, seize oceangoing ships.

The memos also argue that military operations in the United States against terrorists are not subject to the Fourth Amendment requirement for search warrants or the Fifth Amendment requirement for due process.

This broad interpretation of executive power and the president’s commander-in-chief role would make the nation’s founders jump out of their graves. Purposefully, the Constitutional Convention enumerated the large number of Congress’s powers in Article I, and gave most powers related to defense and foreign affairs to the people’s branch.

In particular, the war power was given to Congress. The chief executive, whose powers were enumerated in the much more brief Article II, was given the commander-in-chief role, but this was intended narrowly, only as commander of U.S. troops on the battlefield.

Instead of declaring war, which has fallen out of fashion, the Congress, after 9/11, passed a resolution authorizing the president to go after al-Qaida overseas but deliberately omitted domestic activities from that authorization.

Democrats and Republicans alike declared that they were not endorsing a broad expansion of the president’s authority as commander-in-chief.

An important example from the nation’s infancy shows how narrowly the founders regarded the president’s role as commander-in-chief. During the Quasi-War with France in the last years of the 1700s, Congress authorized President John Adams to seize armed ships sailing to French ports. Adams exceeded the congressional authorization by ordering the seizure of vessels sailing to or from French ports. The Supreme Court, in the case Little v. Barreme, ruled that Adams had exceeded the authority Congress had delegated to him. So much for Bush’s supposed intrinsic authority to seize all oceangoing ships without congressional authorization.

In 1952, President Truman, the first imperial president, seized the steel mills under his alleged “inherent power” as commander in chief — supposedly to prevent paralysis of the national economy and using the rationale that soldiers in the Korean War needed weapons and ammunition.

By a wide margin, in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court struck down Truman’s executive order to seize the mills because it had no statutory or constitutional basis. Essentially, the court ruled that the president may be commander-in-chief of the armed forces but not the country.

Yoo’s assertion that Congress has no right to pass laws that impinge on the president’s claim to a broad interpretation of his role as commander-in-chief violates the core of the constitutional system of checks and balances, and for which the United States regularly criticizes despots in foreign countries.

Finally, the Fourth Amendment (requiring warrants for any search) and the Fifth Amendment (the right to due legal process) contain no exceptions for wartime. In fact, in a republic — where the rule of law should be king — crises and wartime are exactly when people’s rights are most likely to be endangered and when safeguards are especially needed.

Even more tragic and dangerous than the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan have been President Bush’s usurping of power from the other two branches of government and the creation of the “hyperimperial” presidency.

Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books, The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.

© 2008 – Ivan Eland – All Rights Reserved

The House passed two bills attempting to rehabilitate the housing and mortgage market this week.  There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of criticism and blame for the bad decisions, and rightly so.

Lenders and banks do share much of the blame for the overheated market.  Lending standards were relaxed, or even abandoned altogether, creating an exaggerated pool of homebuyers that led to ballooning home prices that many, especially real estate investors, expected to continue forever.  Now that the bubble has burst, the losses are staggering.

However, many in Washington fail to realize it was government intervention that brought on the current economic malaise in the first place.  The Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates created the loose, easy credit that ignited a voracious appetite in the banks for borrowers.  People made these lending and buying decisions based on market conditions that were wildly manipulated by government.

But part of sound financial management should be recognizing untenable or falsified economic conditions and adjusting risk accordingly.  Many banks failed to do that and are now looking to taxpayers to pick up the pieces.  This is wrong-headed and unfair, but Congress is attempting to do it anyway.

These housing bills address the crisis in exactly the wrong way, by seeking to hide the problem with more disastrous government bail-outs and interventions.  One measure, HR 5830 the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Housing Stabilization and Homeowner Retention Act would allow the FHA to guarantee as much as $300 billion worth of refinanced home loans for those facing threat of foreclosure.

HR 5818 the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, would provide $15 billion in loans and grants to localities to purchase and renovate foreclosed homes with the object of then selling or renting out those homes.  Thankfully, President Bush has vowed to veto both of these bills.  It is neither morally right nor fiscally wise to socialize private losses in this way.

The solution is for government to stop micromanaging the economy and let the market adjust, as painful as that will be for some.  We should not force taxpayers, including renters and more frugal homeowners, to switch places with the speculators and take on those same risks that bankrupted them.  It is a terrible idea to spread the financial crisis any wider or deeper than it already is, and to prolong the agony years into the future.

Socializing the losses now will only create more unintended consequences that will give new excuses for further government interventions in the future. This is how government grows – by claiming to correct the mistakes it earlier created, all the while constantly shaking down the taxpayer.  The market needs a chance to correct itself, and Congress needs to avoid making the situation worse by pretending to ride to the rescue.