When looking at the constitutionality of government programs, it’s not necessary to be a law student, or an “expert” of any kind.  The founding fathers wrote the Constitution in plain English – so that ordinary people would be able to understand the law…that governs the government.

First, we need to understand just what the federal government is authorized to do.  John Munchmeyer put it quite well:

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically lists or enumerates the powers of the federal government.  They include a military, federal courts, etc.  The 10th Amendment clearly says that unless a function is specifically listed in the Constitution, it is left to the states or the people.  The founders set up a system where there was competition among the states for the best ideas.

On any given topic, some states would perform well, some would pass imprudent laws, and some would stay out of it completely (which is my particular favorite option).  But there was competition, and competition breeds excellence.

Yes, you would have a couple bad apples, but these would soon reform under the pressure of that competition.  It is better than focusing all of the power in Washington and having one huge rotten apple.  The top-down, centralized government model is a failure, just like it was in the former Soviet Union.

The guiding principle under which the founders drew up the Constitution was this little thing 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.

This holds quite true for Freddie and Fannie – and for taking your money to keep these failing organizations in business.

Steve Austin chimes in as well:

I know this is going to be a shock to some, but the Federal Gov’t under the Constitution has absolutely no reason or excuse to involve itself in housing for the poor or to help people who got themselves into troubled mortgage loans.

They may have a tort, they certainly merit our concern, and perhaps the several states may wish to help them out depending of the gullibility of their citizenry and the political weakness of their legislatures, but, NO – there is no room for such as Title 8, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or any of the literally dozens of housing program piglets suckling off the sow known as the U.S. Treasury. Not in this universe.

Any leader evn talking positively about this intervention would be a stranger to the Founding Fathers.

So, while many would argue that jobs will be saved, or that it’s “essential” to the economy – it doesn’t really matter if those positions are right or wrong.

Under the system of government that the founders enshrined in the US Constitution – the very existence of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (as anything other than a purely private business) is a violation of the Constitution.

Thus, taking more of your money to pay for its failures a far more in line with something that would’ve fit far better in a government under Joe Stalin than that of Jefferson, Washington and the rest.

A quick perusal of the Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear:

That all people are created equal.

That they are endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, people form institutions known as governments – to rule over them – by their own consent.

That, when a government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

The founders eventually drew up the US Constitution to form a government that would protect these rights.  While there were some who would’ve preferred a different form of government, what they ended up with was one that was supposed to be strictly limited to specific functions only.

Why did they do this?  Well, it’s quite simple.  When just a few people can determine the rules for an entire nation, people have nowhere to run to – nowhere to escape – when bad leaders create and enforce bad laws.

Think about it.  If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today.

Jacob Hornberger at the Future of Freedom Foundation shed a little more light on this issue in a recent post:

Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their new government would become like their former government against which they had had to take up arms.

While they recognized the necessity for government – as a means to protect their rights – they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a straitjacket.

This was a serious issue to the founders – so they wrote the Constitution under what’s known as “positive grant.”  This meant that the government would have the authority to exercise only those powers which were specifically given to it in the Constitution.

Nothing more and nothing less.

This principle was so important to them that they codified it in law under the “straitjacket” of the 10th Amendment, which reads:

“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.”

Hornberger clearly recognized this principle when he writes:

Governments are called into existence by the people – and exist at their pleasure – for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.

Hopefully, people in America will someday start recognizing that the role of the Federal Government should be simple and limited – and that, while far from perfect, the founders showed great wisdom when setting up a government in such a manner.

When that day comes, we’ll surely see liberty and prosperity reign.

Those few words, from the Declaration of Independence, are as close as one might find to be the sum total of the principle of liberty. 

Your rights are yours.  They are yours by your nature, and you are entitled to exercise them. Governments exist only to protect those rights.  And that is the only reason they exist.

Your rights come from your “Creator” – whether you determine that to be God, your god, your parents, some speckles of dust, or whatever that may be.  But your rights are not – in any way whatsoever – a gift from politicians.

That’s just the point that Chuck makes recently on his “tcoverride” blog.  Here’s an excerpt:

Rights, all rights, belong to me, they are neither granted nor given, they are mine, not yours, and the gummint has absolutely no right to think they can take away or even limit those rights.

Chuck’s absolutely right – about rights, that is.  He continues:

There is simply no right guaranteed by the constitution. The constitution guarantees that the government, be it the President, Congress, or even the “Justices for Life” in the supreme court can’t encroach upon, infringe upon, or otherwise limit my rights.

Again, right on the mark.  The Constitution doesn’t give Chuck any rights, it doesn’t give you any rights.  In fact, the Constitution doesn’t apply to people at all.

The Constitution applies to the government.  Its sole purpose was to spell out what the government can do.

The key principle of the Constitution is quite simple: positive grant. Unfortunately, this is not a phrase that many of us hear in daily banter these days. But, it’s not a complicated principle at all.

What it means is this – the US federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution. Nothing more, and nothing less.

Period.  End of story.

The founders felt so strongly about this principle that they codified it in law as the 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.”

Just a casual review of the activities of the federal government would make clear that there’s very little that it does which is actually authorized by the Constitution.

For many, many years, we’ve allowed our politicians to interpret and bend the rules of the Constitution; ostensibly for good reasons. But, we have to face reality. When you allow politicians to do this over long periods, eventually you end up with leaders who feel that the law doesn’t apply at all.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

If we are to have a free society for the future, we must reign in this out-of-control federal government, and return to our Constitution.

Until then, kudos to Chuck, and everyone else still standing up for their rights…

These people are concerned about their values, their traditions, their lifestyle and their beliefs.  So, many of them are calling on the federal government to “step in” and fix this “problem.”

One thing that these people are definitely NOT concerned with, though, is the US Constitution.

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, of course, the opposite holds true.  If the federal government isn’t given a power in the Constitution, then that power is “reserved.”

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.”

The is not one single word in the Constitution about marriage – of any kind.  The Federal Government isn’t given the power to regulate, approve, deny, or anything else in regards to people’s marriage choices.

Period.

And if we someday decide that politicians in Washington D.C. should have the power to determine what is and is not a valid marriage, this country will be in even more danger than it is today.

The best “solution” this “problem” would be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

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.

According to a post at ThinkProgress.org, it didn’t kick off too well. In fact, so many commenters were hostile, that the blog was “overwhelmed”

The Transportation Security Administration is having trouble with its new blog, which launched on Wednesday. The team of bloggers tried to set a friendly tone by introducing themselves with lines such as: “Hi! My name is Ethel and I’m from Wisconsin. I like music, I love ice cream, and I adore weird facts.” But by mid-day yesterday, comments had already been turned off the original “Welcome” post after “things started to get ugly.”

Needless to say, I felt this was a good opportunity to discuss the biggest problem with the TSA – the fact that it’s not authorized by the Constitution. So, I decided to write a comment on another of the TSA’s new blog posts:

So, where in the Constitution is the TSA even authorized?

In case anyone’s wondering, it’s not.

The Constitution was written under what’s referred to as “positive grant”

This means, that the federal government is only allowed to exercise those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment makes it clear that EVERYTHING else is left to “the States, respectively, or to the people”

Thus – everything an unconstitutional agency does is in direct violation of the constitution. (and that includes using your money to run this TSA blog)

Surprisingly, the TSA moderators approved the comment.

The point, though, is what’s most important. Arguments about the TSA’s methods, management, and the like – are a distraction from the true issue – the existence of the TSA is unconstitutional in and of itself.

In an effort to defend Washington’s tough vehicle emissions standards law, Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced Washington state will join 14 other states in intervening in a California lawsuit filed earlier today.

The lawsuit filed today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to deny California’s request for a waiver to implement its greenhouse gas emissions standards.

“The state of Washington followed California’s lead in adopting standards for vehicle emissions with the understanding California’s request for a federal pre-emption waiver would be granted in a timely manner,” McKenna said. “Now after nearly two years of waiting, EPA has denied the waiver, leaving states frustrated in their ability to address climate change concerns for their residents.”

The Clean Air Act generally preempts states from adopting their own vehicle emissions standards with the exception of California because of its efforts to address long-standing air pollution problems.  The Clean Air Act allows other states to adopt California’s standards as long as those standards are identical to California’s.

California adopted landmark vehicle emissions standards in 2005 and filed its waiver request in December 2005. Since then, 16 other states, including Washington, have also adopted or are considering adopting these standards.

None of these state laws may go into effect until California obtains its waiver of preemption from the federal government.

On Dec. 19, 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson notified California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of EPA’s decision to deny the state’s waiver request.  Johnson stated he believed the problem of greenhouse gas emissions extends beyond state boundaries and calls for a national solution.  He also found that California’s standards were not needed “to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.”

Today’s lawsuit, which seeks to reverse the EPA decision, was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The states or state agencies intervening in the suit are: Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

The Constitution was written under a simple principle – positive grant.  In short, what this means is this: The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.

Everything else is “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

Period.

The Tenth Amendment Center supports McKenna’s position – the federal government has no constitutional authority, whatsoever, to prevent individual states from implementing their own regulations.

As reported by CNN:

Iran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

A declassified summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate found with “high confidence” that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to develop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

But, of course, the debate has heightened – some state that this is just more proof that action is needed, because Iran has (and could again) have the intention to build a nuclear program. On the other side, some state that this is a slam dunk – since Iran isn’t building nuclear weapons, and thus, there’s no need to get aggressive with that country’s leadership.

So who’s right?

If we look to the Constitution, and more specifically the 10th Amendment, both sides of this argument are wrong – as far as what direction American foreign policy should take, that is.

Let’s back up a bit first.

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.

So how does this apply to Iranian Nukes – or lack of them?

Well, it’s so straightforward, it’s pretty easy to miss.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the US federal government given the authority to dictate to other countries what form of offensive or defensive weapons they may possess. The Constitution clearly gives the feds the power to repel an imminent attack, but possession of a weapon, in and of itself, is not a threat of its use.

That’s why it’s so odd that there’s such a large contingent of so-called right wingers who are supporting action against Iran – supporting the disarmament of another country.

It all seems quite hypocritical. Generally, the right (or conservatives as some like to be called) supports the right of self-defense – especially as espoused by the 2nd Amendment.

While many of these people oppose criminalizing the possession of a weapon, and only support punitive measures based on how that weapon is used, they do an about face when it comes to Iran. They have no problem criminalizing the possession – rather than the use – of a weapon, and are seemingly willing to end the lives of countless thousands to enforce that “law.”

This is government power run amok – in the worst way. The disarming of Iran is just gun control taken to its natural conclusion – on a global level – where one group of armed people in a government claim the right to disarm another group of people.

“Disarming” or preventing nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian government has nothing to do with maintaining peace, has nothing to do with protecting the American people, and has nothing to do with just about anything we hear from the mainstream media.

It’s about one government disarming another to ensure its own safety, its own power, and its own empire.

In a May 2005 article, former presidential candidate Harry Browne may have put it best:

No one has answered – or until now, even asked – the obvious question: Why is it that the United States can have a nuclear arsenal far larger than that of every other country in the world combined, but that Iran can’t have even a single nuclear bomb – especially when Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear weapons?

But then, that’s the mission of TV news: to avoid asking the obvious questions.

And on top of it all, from where does the US government claim its right to determine what’s acceptable – and what’s not – as part of another country’s military arsenal?

It’s over two years later, and still no one on either side of the debate is asking these important questions.

It’s just not in their interest to do so.

It’s now 35 years after Dick Nixon started this “war” -  and we now have over 1 million – yes, 1 MILLION – non-violent people sitting behind bars.  People who are in jail not for harming other people, but for making a personal choice that the politicians in government don’t want them to make.

And you – yes, you – are paying for their room and board.

How much more can we accept invasions of our privacy, monitoring of our bank accounts, the shackling and imprisoning of everyday people? How much more can we spend?  How much more can this country endure?

These are some of the questions that Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth has set out to answer in his explosive new documentary, American Drug War:

Three and a half years in the making the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested realized his cocaine source was working for the CIA.

American Drug War “the last white hope” shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just dope fiends but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it. This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.

According to Booth, “This is not some ‘pro-drug’ stoner film, but a collection of expert testimonials from the ground troops on the front lines of the drug war, the ones who are fighting it and the ones who are living it.”

Keep in mind that every single action of the DEA (and the entire federal government) in support of the federal war on drugs is a direct violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution was written under a principle called “positive grant.”  This means that the federal government is allowed to exercise only those powers which are specifically given to it in the Constitution.

If the power is positively listed, then the feds are granted the authority to do it.

Pretty easy, right?

Not in practice, and the founders knew how tyrants would want to abuse their power.  They felt that limiting the government through positive grant was so important that they codified this principle 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.”

A simple reading of the Constitution would make it quite clear that there’s nothing that empowers the federal government to engage in the criminalization of drugs – in fact, it says nothing about drugs at all.

In fact, the only crimes that are considered federal crimes by the Constitution are – treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

Thus, the government has gone WAY outside their purview of power to engage in this increasingly costly and destructive war – this insanity needs to end.
It’s my hope that “American Drug War” will bring this to light to at least a few more people.

It’s definitely on my “must-see” list as soon as it’s released.

Read more on the war on drugs here, here, and here.

As CNN reports:

The confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general was all but assured Friday when two key Democratic senators said they will vote in favor of the nominee despite questions about his views on “waterboarding” and the president’s power to order electronic surveillance.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York announced they would support the retired federal judge from New York just hours after the chairman of the Judiciary Committee announced his opposition to the nominee.

The concern from the opposition is that Waterboarding constitutes torture, and thus, would be in violation of the Geneva Conventions – a treaty to which the US government is a signer. Unfortunately, though, no one in a position of political leadership has even brought up the 8th Amendment – and it’s prohibition on the federal government engaging in activities that constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment – but even that’s not my main concern.

It’s the 10th Amendment which should’ve been invoked repeatedly in these hearings.

Let me explain.

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 delegated to it by the Constitution.

This principle was so important to the founders that they codified it in law as the 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.”

Pretty simple, right?  You’d think so.  It’s pretty clear to me what this means – if the Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to do something, then it cannot.

Thus, here’s a few things that the 10th Amendment prohibits the feds from doing:

• Defining Waterboarding – or any other word, for that matter
• Engaging in Waterboarding.

As a matter of fact, a quick reading of the Constitution would verify that the practice of Waterboarding is never even mentioned.  So why is this an issue?

Because the politicians and the bureaucrats would like to make sure that we’re all distracted from the real issues.  They want to keep us in semantic arguments about what words mean – so as to avoid what they dread – the 10th amendment’s limitation of their powers.

This issue is just a microcosm of the problems facing us in regards to the US federal government.  It’s completely out of control – and the first step to reigning it in would be to start demanding a strict adherence to the principle of positive grant – as enshrined in the 10th Amendment.