Late one evening, a DEA agent shows up on at the doorstep of a farmhouse in south central Kentucky. He pounds on the door impatiently, waits about 15 seconds and pounds again. Growing more agitated, he shakes the screen door, turns in a circle and then gives the door a couple more good, hard raps.

Finally, a grizzled old farmer opens the door and peers into twilight.

“Sorry to keep ya waitin’. Was just fixin’ to eat some supper. How kin I hep, ya?”

The agent stands tall and straight and  in his  most official voice declares, “I’m Agent Murdoch, DEA. I’m here to inspect your fields to make sure there are no illegal drugs growing on this property,” He pauses a moment with an air of gravity.  “I’m not asking permission. Just letting you know.”

The old farmer steps out onto the porch as the rickety screen door clatters closed behind him. He hitches up his coveralls and peers quizzically at the agent, absentmindedly brushing a fly away from his forehead.

“I reckon that’ll be jist fine,” he says. “But I’ll just warn ya – ya don’t want to go into the west field over yonder,” he said, pointing to an old rusty gate silhouetted in the setting sun.

The agent bristles, reaches into his suit coat pocket and whips out a badge.

“You see this old-timer? It says DEA. That means I can go anyplace I damn well please. And  I can do anything I damn well please. I have the authority. Do you understand me?”

The old farmer, simply shrugs and cocks one busy, old eyebrow.

“Suit yeer-self, son.”

The agent quickly strides across a dusty driveway and makes his way through the creaky gate, heading  into the west field. The farmer follows and leans nonchalantly against a fence post next to the gate, gnawing on a toothpick.

The fed makes it about half way across the field when Roscoe, a massive red bull, suddenly charges out of a treeline near the back of the field. The agent, screams in horror and turns, hightailing it toward the gate. But it quickly becomes clear he’ll never make it. The 2,000 pound animal quickly closes the gap between itself and the agent.

Moments before a certain goring, the farmer cups his hands around his mouth and yells, “Show him yer badge! Show him yer badge!”

***
I respect authority.

But when an individual or institution takes its authority beyond prescribed limits, it’s clear in my mind that we have the right to resist.

Most people in the United States seem to hold the federal government in awe. It goes beyond respect into what I would call an unwarranted reverence. Yes, we should respect legitimate authority. But when the feds exercise power not granted by the Constitution, citizens have a right and duty to stand against it. We’re not talking rebellion against legitimate authority. We are talking about standing firm against unwarranted, unconstitutional and illegal acts.

And we can stand against it – through our state governments.

James Madison understood the power of the states and the people, and he envisioned it a check on overreaching federal power. When the states band together and stand against unconstitutional overreach, they become a rampaging bull. And no federal badge can stop it.

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. – James Madison, Federalist 46

In and of itself, the federal government possesses no power.

Zero.

Zilch.

Nada.

Most Americans will read my opening statement with raised eyebrows. Some will immediately dismiss it with a shrug, figuring the author some kind of nutcase. Others will simply shake their head in disbelief, or perhaps blow it off  with an eye-roll.

In fact, most Americans view Washington D.C. as the font of all power. The final arbiter. The last word.

But the attitude held by the majority of Americans toward the federal government rests upon a gross misunderstanding of the nature of political power.

In truth, the federal government possess no power. At least none that it wasn’t granted by you and me.

You see, we the people ultimately possess all authority.

It was on that principle that our founding fathers rebelled against the rule of the British Crown, and it was upon that foundation that the United States was built.

Fundamental to the thinking of our founders was the idea that all human beings exist as autonomous moral agents. The Creator endows each of us with a free will, and He never forces his will upon humankind. Thus, no human being has the right to force her or his will on another person.

The writings of John Locke, an English philosopher and theologian, greatly influenced the founding generation. He explained it this way.

To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst the other without subordination or subjection; unless the Lord and Master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

But in order to live together and prosper, people must cooperate. Human beings possess an innate desire to seek out the fellowship of others. This drives us to group together in political societies. It follows that some form of government becomes necessary, and that requires individuals submit to authority and create a mechanism to protect life, property and individual liberty.

Consent is the key to understanding the scope of governmental power. Each individual in a political society consents, of his own free will, to be governed. Citizens remove themselves from the state of nature (perfect freedom) and willingly submit to the authority of government.

Thomas Jefferson summed up these ideas in two sentences of the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

The Constitution of the United States is simply a legal document granting limited, enumerated power to a federal government. But ultimately, the power rests with the people. Without the grant, the government has no power. In fact, it ceases to exist. We willingly cede a small bit of our perfect liberty to a general government – in much the same way one person grants another the legal authority to handle their affairs through a power of attorney.

The wording of the preamble makes this clear. Constitutional scholar Robert Natelson points out that the framers followed a common practice in royal charters, identifying the grantor using large majestic letters.

We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And power we the people grant, we the people can take away. The Declaration of Independence continues:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Get the New Book Today!

Too many Americans place government in the ultimate place of authority, assuming it decides what we may or may not do. Too many Americans treat government as an almost omnipotent entity. Too many Americans turn and face Washington D.C. with awed reverence.

The veneration is misplaced.

In truth, we – the American people – reserve the bulk of power to ourselves.

The federal government  was intended to exist and operate bound by the Constitution, a grant of limited authority, constraining federal power to specific spheres, limiting it to specific functions, and defining its scope and role.

And as the grantor of all power and authority, we the people must insist that the federal government stay within its properly defined powers and role.

I have many fond memories of time spent with my grandfather. Some of the earliest are of me watching him watch professional wrestling. My grandfather’s one vice was professional wrestling, and boy did he get into it. He would laugh and slap his knee when the bad guys got slapped around by the good guys. He expressed suspicious optimism when a villain switched sides, and “knew it all along” when a good guy made an alliance with the bad. Today, I can only laugh at professional wrestling: choreographed combat, outrageous speeches, and staged news conferences. It’s really a brilliant form of entertainment, playing on the emotions of fans by exploiting their desire to identify with someone they see as good, while opposing someone they view as bad. In the ring, heroes and villains pretend (convincingly) to dislike one another and everything they’re about, but in reality, after the match is over, they’re slapping each other on the back and sharing a beer. But in public, significant effort is exerted in preserving the illusion – good guys share a locker room apart from the bad guys, but ride to the arena on the same tour bus.

Observing our two party system in the United States, it strikes me that it’s much like professional wrestling – choreographed combat. Most political observers can quickly identify the fringe members of each party, those who could potentially go either way – the players who, with the safety of reelection passed, switch parties to an outcry of “I knew it all along!” And what about the bipartisan alliances, when we hope our good guy is positively influencing the bad guy, but fear the consequences of the alliance. And when our party of choice soundly defeats the opposition, we hoot and holler, confident that, finally, our guys get the spotlight for a while. And certainly we know that it’s only for a while, because it’s all really just a choreographed show, exploiting our desire to identify with something. And at the end of it all, they’re sharing the same tour bus.

I recently re-read some of the writings of John Stuart Mill. In his Chapters on Socialism, published in 1879, he discussed the emerging philosophies of socialism and communism, reporting, rather than editorializing, about the debate between competing political ideologies. As I read Chapters, I felt as though I was listening to a modern day discussion that still rages on between American liberals and conservatives. Owners v. Workers. Capital v. Labor. Have v. Have-not. As I thought about what I was reading, it struck me that this debate has been going on for over 100 years, but with plenty of evidence on either side. Through the Twentieth Century, free(er) markets have outperformed and outlasted centrally planned socialist economies. From the complete failures of Soviet and Chinese systems, to the emerging failures in Western Europe, it seems clear that a centrally planned economy based on the absolute redistribution of wealth will fail. And, to the extent that a mixed economy like those of Germany, France, Greece, and Great Britain is able to fumble along for some time, the buck must stop somewhere, usually on a steep cliff overlooking complete economic and political collapse.

Even in the United States, a mixed economy for sure, but still the freest market in the world, we’re faced with serious consequences resulting from our own attempts at central planning and wealth redistribution. So why are we still having this debate? Why does the middle class, the largest piece of the electorate, vacillate between conservatism and liberalism? The answer lies, perhaps, in our professional wrestling analogy.

Political and economic writers throughout history have recognized that any government, once in power, will tend to grow in power and authority until it is replaced or placed in check. Human nature, as recognized by Thomas Hobbes, tends to seek power, authority, and recognition. Once gained, power will increase through the ambition and self-interest of those in power. This realization is why the Revolutionary generation founded the United States (and every member state) with a written constitution – with hope (rather than true belief) that a written constitution could better limit the inevitable tendency in government to increase its own power and control. This constitution was written with the Lockean philosophy that the only legitimate function of government was to protect individual liberty from encroachment. Unfortunately for Locke’s ideal, government itself, as a human institution, will also be driven by ambition and self-interest leading it to itself encroach upon the very liberty it was designed to protect.

In the United States today, few have experienced life in a tyrannical, totalitarian, or violently anarchical state. For over two hundred years we have held peaceful elections, enjoyed relative economic stability and growth, and sat as the most influential military and economic power in the world. Under such conditions, it is difficult (impossible for some) to even imagine how liberty could die in America. But it can die, and with each passing decade through the Twentieth Century until today, the federal government has grown in size, scope and power with a corresponding decrease in the real and potential liberty of American citizens. Those who disagree with this assertion, believing that the size of government bears no relation to liberty, are simply wrong, for every power that government can exercise over an individual is consequently a power that the individual cannot exercise over himself. And the power to govern oneself is liberty.

That government, as an institution, acts self-interestedly by increasing in power, size, and influence presents a more accurate view of the class warfare discussed in Mill’s Chapters on Socialism. Our debates in politics often revolve around convincing the middle class electorate of who their enemies in society are. Democrats would have the middle and lower classes believe that their enemy is the capitalist and the wealthy who build their wealth and power through the labor and ingenuity of the middle class – thus, socialist and liberal policy promises to level the playing field and make sure that everyone gets what’s due to them through egalitarianism and wealth redistribution. Republicans would have the upper and middle classes believe that their enemy is the poor who take advantage of socialist, liberal, and Democrat policies that favor wealth redistribution and unfairly tax the labor and ingenuity of the middle class. While there’s a kernel of truth in the argument of each side, the reality is that these aren’t two polar opposites vying for votes – it’s more along the line of choreographed political theater that plays on the emotions of American voters.

A more accurate view of class warfare is to see American society in two segments: a governing class and everyone else. The governing class consists not just of politicians, but a massive federal bureaucracy that in self-interest seeks to grow in size, power, and influence. Regardless of individual political affiliations, the people who make up the government class, out of their own self interest, will stop at nothing to maintain the existence from which they derive income, lifestyle, and influence. Democrats present voters with a shadowy bogeyman portrayed as the insidious rich man who gets richer off the back of the middle class while Republicans present their own bogeyman in the person of the welfare recipient and his socialist paymaster who taxes the working to pay the lazy. In actuality it’s more like the heroes and villains of professional wrestling, who play their part in the big show put on for those watching. For the wrestlers, it’s to hide the fact that they’re all just paid actors who follow the script. For the government, it’s to control the debate and keep voters fighting about symptoms rather than focusing on the real problem – that there is a government class, producing nothing of social or economic value, that subsists on the taxes taken from the upper, middle, and lower classes, that can contribute social and economic value.

Get the New Book Today!

By controlling the debate, this government class keeps voters focused on the results of bad government instead of the cause of bad government. In the midterm election, Republicans convinced voters that they were the new good guys – the Democrats had their chance. Two years into a Democrat administration was long enough to know that they couldn’t solve the ills of society. Strangely, voters apparently forgot that Republicans were bad guys just two years ago when Barack Obama convinced them that hope, belief, and warm, fuzzy feelings could change America for the better. So, we replaced the Republican that believed government could solve all problems with the Democrat who believes government can solve all problems.

In professional wrestling, if the good guys won all the time, nobody would stay interested. When the bad guys get a little bit ahead, it creates dramatic suspense by anticipating the good-guy comeback that everyone knows is coming. Regardless of how one views Republicans and Democrats, as either good or bad, when the other party wins, the suspense in anticipation of revenge keeps the audience interested, and distracted.

Government is the problem. Actually, the problem is that nobody realizes that government is the problem because they’re too focused on the problems created by government.

Voting for candidates from the two major parties will never solve the problem. As members of the governing class, they will only act in their own self-interest, which is to preserve the government class by convincing voters that somehow government can clean up the problems of government. But government can’t solve the problems created by government, because I can’t recall one government that ever voted itself out of existence.

Roger Prather [send him email] is the Communications Coordinator for the Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center

If I were to ask, “What is Freedom?”, each of us would probably come up with a personal definition.  Our founding fathers would probably have defined Freedom as the absence of external coercion.  You notice that I said “external” coercion.  Our founders understood that moral character and righteousness were essential elements of self-governance.  While crafting a document that guaranteed the absence of external coercion, they demanded of themselves and expected of us the “internal coercion” that comes from a personal moral compass, a conscience.  The Constitution removed the external coercion that is necessarily part of an oppressive government.  The Constitutional Republic it defined can only endure over time if the citizens are governed by an internal morality that demands honesty, character, and charity in their interactions among themselves.

Without question, the disintegration of the moral basis for government is responsible for the progressive and relentless loss of our individual Liberties.  We are ruled, not governed, by a gang of interchangeable thieves and liars who sacrifice principle for political expediency and run for office for personal gain.  Our federal government disregards the Constitution, sacrifices individual liberties, and ignores citizens who demonstrate peacefully for a redress of grievances.

Now, we gather in groups and go to meetings to complain about legislation that steals our liberty and to condemn the greed and corruption that infests the halls of government.  We march in Washington to protest a federal bureaucracy in which faceless, unelected pencil pushers create and fund rules, regulations, and entitlement programs whose purpose is to buy the votes necessary to keep the incumbents in power.

Where were we when the intellectual elitists and their power-hungry progressive friends used subterfuge and lies to circumvent the principles of the Constitution in order to undermine the dignity and sanctity of the individual?  Where were we when they enacted legislation that permits our government to steal private property from one citizen and give it to another based on the deception called social justice?  And where were we when they turned “We the People” into the collective “We” instead of individual free citizens of a great nation?

In 1808, John Adams said, “When public virtue is gone, when the national spirit is fled . . the republic is lost in essence, though it may still exist in form.”

Sadly, our nation as it exists today, is a flimsy shroud that barely conceals the moral emptiness inside.  We can no longer claim to be the Constitutional Republic that our founders gave to us and that generations of proud Americans fought to protect.

While we closed our minds in a state of ignorance, men motivated by greed and a lust for power commandeered the ship of state.  While we satisfied our personal cravings for luxury and ease, the moral certainties of right and wrong became relative and elastic.  And while our current leaders reject the undeniable truth of American excellence, the spirit and sovereignty of our nation is purposely being eroded to achieve their global agenda.

The Constitution, my fellow citizens, has not failed us.

Rather it is we who have failed the Constitution.

I am very worried about the future of our nation.  I am worried that our children will not have the opportunity to prosper that we all had.

I am afraid that on some day like today twenty years from now, a man just like me will stand in front of a group like you and say, “And there arose in America a generation that knew not freedom.”

Is that slow descent from freedom to slavery acceptable to any of you?

That is why we must rekindle both in ourselves and in others a passion for the Constitution and the individual freedom that it guarantees to each of us.

That, my fellow patriots, is what I demand of you.

If our nation is to survive, each of you must become a missionary for the Constitution and for Liberty.  Tell the story of our nation to your family and to your neighbors.  Most importantly, teach your children and grandchildren about the greatness of America.  Talk to them about the Constitution and the men and women who sacrificed everything so that we can live in freedom.

Hold them in your arms and say to them, “This is the Constitution that Thomas Jefferson gave to me so that each citizen of our great nation can live in Freedom.  This is the Constitution that George Washington gave to me after I spent the winter with him in Valley Forge, after I crossed the icy Delaware River on Christmas eve and defeated General Cornwallis at Yorktown to win our freedom from tyranny and oppression.”

The price of our failure will be paid for by the slavery of future generations.

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Debra Medina will be joining us as a featured speaker at Nullify Now! on 09-04-10 in Ft Worth, Texas.  There are just a few tickets left – Click here for more information and to reserve tickets now – or call 888-71-TICKETS

*******

The ties between England and what would become the United States of America were severed, as Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, put it, in large part due to the perversion and mal-administration of the British government.[i] Two hundred years later, Americans are manifesting similar levels of frustration with government and inflammatory terms like secession are being used by politicians ever anxious to grab the media spotlight and secure their re-election.  But what have they done exactly to correct the “perversion and mal-administration” of the government?

Our founders, astute students of history, well understood as St. Augustine had described, Libido Dominandi, the lust to dominate. They knew that if permitted, the federal government would transgress the limits of the constitution, and, as Thomas Jefferson remarked, “[annihilate] the state governments and erect upon their ruins a general consolidated government.”[ii]

Mr. Jefferson wrote in 1799, “lest [our] silence be construed into an acquiescence…the states…being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of [the federal government’s] infraction; and “That a nullification, by those sovereignties [states] of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument [the Constituion] is the rightful remedy.[iii]

Mr. Jefferson understood that a stronger response than mere petitions and protests would be necessary but he sought ever to preserve the union and thus viewed secession only as a last resort.

He understood that the states must stand in defense of the liberty of the people.  He knew the federal government would seek to annihilate the states and dominate all American life.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., in his recent best-seller, Nullification, references state representative John Breckinridge’s comments to the Kentucky legislature of 1799, “the people at the state level ought to make a legislative declaration that, being unconstitutional, they [federal actions] are therefore void and of no effect.”  With regard to unconstitutional federal actions, Breckinridge hoped “Congress might repeal them, or that decent judges might refuse to act upon them” but in the interim recognized the states obligation to “nullify those acts and to protect their citizens from their operation.”

What stops us from following in Mr. Jefferson’s footsteps and declaring Obamacare and Cap and Trade Initiatives, “palpable violations of the said constitution” and “consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal?”  In that vein, the Texas legislature has the “right and is duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of evil, and for maintaining our authorities, rights and liberties” declaring this federal action unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect in the sovereign state of Texas![iv] Failing to do so, we, as Congressman Edward Livingston of New York declared in 1798 “deserve the chains which these measures are forging” for us.[v]

Debra Medina got involved in politics in the 1990s and became Wharton County GOP chairwoman in 2004. She was a high-level volunteer for Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign, and served as Interim State Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty. At the 2008 Republican Party of Texas state convention in Houston, she lost her bid for state GOP vice chairwoman. In 2008, she decided to run for governor. Visit her new organization at WeTexans.com

[i] The Debate on the Constitution, Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle Over Ratification, Part One: September 1787 to February 1788, 22, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, N.Y., 1993.

[ii] The Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, Elliot, Jonathan Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Volume IV, 544-545, Lippincott (1907).

[iii] ibid

[iv] Ibid

[v] Woods, Thomas E. Jr., Nullification, How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21^st Century. P. 53 Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2010.

“All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”, Lord Acton

We can rephrase Acton’s observation and apply it to today’s world by saying that the more power we grant to our elected officials, the more corrupt they will be.

In 1994, the republican candidates for the House of Representatives used their “Contract With America” as a campaign tool.  In this “contract”, along with other things, prospective representatives promised to implement these reforms on their first day in office.

• FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
• SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
• THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
• FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
• FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
• SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
• SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
• EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Do any of those promises even begin to resemble today’s reality?  In a 2000 issue of Forbes Magazine, Edward H. Crane, President of The Cato Institute declared that the Contract with America had failed.  Saying,

Consider: Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton’s requests by more than $30 billion.  The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department of Education now brags in response to Clinton’s 2000 State of the Union Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education. (emphasis added)

The republicans who ran on a limited government platform became the new generation of spenders and central planners.  In both 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush campaign featured promises to reform Social Security by allowing citizens to own their own retirement savings. Saying things like,

We want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money & put it in safe investments so that $1 trillion grows to $3 trillion. The money stays within the system.

and,

If we don’t trust younger workers to manage some of their own money, it’s going to be impossible to bridge the gap without causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions.

So how is your privatized retirement savings account performing?  Instead of privatizing social security, President Bush and the republican congress gave us medicare expansion, the Patriot Act, TARP and a GM bailout (among other things).

From 2006 through 2008, Barack H. Obama provided limited government rhetoric of a different sort.  He promised to close the detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay within a year and to be out of Iraq in 16 months.  Then Senator Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid also railed against the Patriot Act, saying,

Senator Obama, 2007:

“This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law.  When National Security Letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive or wide-ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove that the search is necessary.”

Representative Pelosi, 2005:

“This is a massive invasion of the privacy of the American people, not just some idle threat.  The Washington Post reported last month that the FBI hands out more than 30,000 national security letters per year, a reported hundred-fold increase over historic norms.  How did this happen?”

Senator Reid, 2005:

“Now, what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas, but not in this instance.  It’s in some federal data bank. That’s what the Patriot Act is doing to the American people. And we have to make sure that big brother doesn’t take over this country.”

Now, 18 months after the people of this country have entrusted these officials to act upon those words, there is still no visible horizon in Iraq; we’re still holding detainees in Guantanamo Bay; and the democrat house, senate and president not only didn’t repeal the Patriot Act, but they renewed it!  Beyond the Patriot Act, the executive branch of government has also claimed the authority to assassinate American Citizens with no involvement from the legislative or judicial branches.  Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence, testified that,

“We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community, if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

Where, oh where have our passionate defenders of civil rights gone?

In his Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774), Thomas Jefferson wrote,

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

Have we seen “a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers”?  I know my answer.

What has gone wrong?  In Federalist 51, James Madison wrote,

But the great security against a gradual concentration of those several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional and personal motives to resist the encroachments of the others.  The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of the attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.  The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.  But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary.  If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.  In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.  A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions… (emphasis added)

We have written about incentives here.  Unfortunately, today the incentives are wrong.  The Seventeenth Amendment has misaligned the interests of our Senators and our state legislators have forgotten their role as one of Madison’s “auxiliary precautions”.  A century of consolidation later, our government has become so powerful that it corrupts nearly everyone who arrives there.  Further, we the people have forgotten our own role as the primary control on government.

As the e-mails, blog posts and articles counting down the days to the November elections appear, 100 days, 99 days, 98 days, …., it is important to be consider that November is not the solution to our problems.  Remember Lord Acton,

“All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The solution to our problem is not to find the right people and send them to Washington.  By all means, vote the bums out, but if that is the end of it, the new crop of bums (from both parties) will forget their limited government rhetoric just as surely as their predecessors did.  We have a continued role to play as an informed and active citizenry.   We must remind our state officials of their duty to protect the Tenth Amendment.  We must remain informed about our local, state and national governance, acting when necessary to protect the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  We should focus, especially, on our state and local representatives, since decentralization of power serves their interests and ambitions.

Here in Pennsylvania, we should be encouraging our elected officials to support the following legislation, regardless of who wins in November,

• Tenth Amendment Sovereignty Resolution, declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and demanding that the federal government cease & decist from Unconstitutional actions;
• Nullify the Federal Health Care Takeover (such as the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, Health Care Freedom Amendment or the Federal Health Care Nullification Act.);
• Firearms Freedom Act, exempting firearms built, sold and used exclusively within the state from federal regulation;
• Real ID NonCompliance, stating that Pennsylvania will not participate in the invasive federal RealID legislation.

If we are going to set Pennsylvania free, November is the beginning, not the end.

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

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

Obama, the great centralizer, recently stated that he was looking for the right ass to kick. With this now famous statement he hoped to divert public attention from the failures of centralized power and begin to set a public mood against the oil industry and for expanded regulation and taxation. Other recent federal actions and statements make it painfully obvious that the federal government has zero interest in backing any plan to clean up the gulf in a timely manner.

While the crisis demands a federal response to help with stopping the leak and cleaning up the gulf, the ultimate goal of this administration is centralization of power. The following responses to the gulf crisis are effective methods in use today by Obama’s government to further this goal:

• Present false arguments for centralized power; ignoring the disastrous role regulation played in creating the crisis
• Attack and blackmail BP, and thus the oil industry as a whole, for a crisis created by faulty regulation that forced bad decisions
• Further the crisis by refusing to help clean up the disaster and hindering state and private action
• Leverage the emotional and financial impact on states and individuals to create a misguided street-level demand to pass the climate bill, giving more power to the feds

Yes, the ass Obama wants to kick is state sovereignty and individual freedom; so that his administration can centralize power.

“Centralize of Else!”

Make no mistake the climate bill is about control of the oil industry, individual state economies and your individual freedom with regards to energy use and employment. A year ago, the “science” of global warming was the “crisis” that would be used to require action and passage of a climate bill. Fortunately, the validity of global warming as a “science” was fatally compromised because the prominent scientists of the field were proven to have manipulated the data that formed the foundation of the practice. Hoping to turn the page and centralize, Obama is attempting to redirect righteous anger over the gulf crisis and turn it into something it is not, a climate crisis.

In his Oval office speech regarding the leak, Obama’s stated intention was to pass a climate bill. Apparently, the gulf crisis is just the excuse needed to centralize power by passing a bill that will rage across the economy; killing jobs and bankrupting states. There is undeniable proof of inevitable failure in the results of other countries. Spain, a “green” economy trailblazer, is only one step behind Greece as a bankrupt EU member and the great-sounding “green” economy has cursed the country with only one new “green” job created for every two “real” jobs lost.

Another call for centralization occurred when Obama attempted to ridicule proponents of the Constitution. He taunted:

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,”

The “folks” are right. There is a simple answer here for anyone with even the most basic understanding of the Constitution should understand; first, the federal government has certain enumerated responsibilities that the “folks” have a right to demand attention to; and second, for every other responsibility the “folks” are duty-bound to force the federal government to back off. The feds have usurped the responsibility of taking care of disasters such as the Gulf crisis. Since the Feds are not thrilled with the responsibility but still like taking in cash from states and individuals to fund organizations like FEMA and the EPA, perhaps the problem is the centralization of power itself.

Obama continued:

“Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

Again, the “folks” are right. As in the federal response to the gulf crisis, the greedy desire to centralize power trumps the need to cleanup and repair the gulf. Historically, this trail of power abuse is clear.  The Obama government always chooses consolidated power over individual freedom or the actual needs of the people; whether it’s health care, internet, the automotive industry, the financial industry, the economy, and worst of all the foundation of our liberties, the Constitution. A quick review of this list indicates that most industries are directly and negatively affected by “this guy” and his anti-American policies; and respect for our Constitution simply does not exist.

Is our country better off  with power centralized in DC? Let’s consider a few of the failures of centralization in the Gulf crisis.

Centralization enables Harmful Legislation

At the heart of this crisis is the collaboration of government and corporate power. In many ways, this collboration resulted in a situation where the means of production were privately owned by BP; but significant aspects of the business were controlled by misguided government regulation.

This problem goes back to legislation signed into law by President Clinton, but passed by a Republican congress. The legislation limited the liabilities of any disaster related to drilling to $75 million while giving the power to determine drill sites to the federal government. For the oil industry, this was an incredible deal as it gave them freedom to drill anywhere knowing that the maximum liability would be limited. It was a great deal for the federal government because they could satisfy environmentalist pressure to keep oil wells far from American shores. It was a horrible deal for “we the people” and states because drilling in deep water significantly increases risk and any resulting damage would ultimately be at taxpayer expense (minus $75 million).

Centralization results in Conflict of Interest

The conflict of interest between states and the federal government is embodied in the battle between Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal and Obama. Initially, the federal government failed to take any action that might limit the damage or clean up the massive amounts of oil pooling in the gulf. As a response to this inaction, Jindal entered a request to protect the coast using booms. These requests were ignored.  Recently, state initiated action launched ships configured to extract oil from the water. Rapidly, the Coast Guard demanded that these ships “cease and desist” cleanup efforts based on a drummed up technicality involving life jacket regulation.

Over the course of the crisis, the federal response has shifted from apathy for state needs to outright obstruction of any state attempts to clean up. There are two very real results from an emaciated gulf coast. First, it will drive an emotional response from the public that might be diverted to help with the passage of the climate change bill. Second, the economies of Gulf States will suffer immeasurably.

Knowing this, why would the federal government feel the need to impede cleanup efforts? The only logical conclusion, given the silence from the White House on this matter, is that the President is more interested in selling Climate Change and further centralization power than helping with cleanup. Likely, the damage to state economies represents a “win” for the federal government too, since this region is typically less inclined to choose servitude to a central authority over freedom.

Centralization destroys Constitutional Government

You cannot have a largely federal government and maintain the chains on the government needed to protect liberty and freedom. As government gets larger, freedom and liberty of the individual by necessity shrink. As a more power is centralized, the voice of distant individuals becomes less and less influential until the people themselves have no voice, only forced duties.

The gulf incident includes numerous conflicts with constitutional government, none as clear as the federal government’s outright theft of a private company’s private property without due process of law. The Fifth Amendment specifically states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.^” The Office of the President clearly coerced BP to set aside a $20 billion slush fund for use by the federal government. Now, I am not arguing that BP should be without liabilities; I am not arguing that the force of law should not be used to acquire compensation for victims; I am however, strongly arguing that the Constitutional restraints on executive power be upheld.

Once set, unconstitutional precedents are used over and over, that is why they should always be denied even during crisis, I’d say especially during crisis because the emotional response is too strong. Consider the abuse of this new precedent when disaster strikes on a lesser scale causing property damage. Would it be legal for the President to force the company to set up a $100 million slush fund without due process? Who sets the amount? Would the amount be the same for a windmill or solar panel manufacturer as it would be for an oil company? Would a failure in Texas result in the same penalty as a failure in Illinois?

The answer to these questions would depend entirely on who held executive power. In other words, this becomes a system that is ruled by men, not laws.

Kicking the Ass of States and Individuals

When a government’s motive is consistently at odds with the people’s needs and the government is willing to enact harmful legislation and defy the constitutional limits of power then liberty and freedom of the general population is threatened. The gulf crisis is a strong example of the willingness of centralized government to use fabricated powers and propaganda to destroy lives in the relentless pursuit of power.

It could not be clearer; your ass is the one that Obama seeks to kick. So what can be done?

Decentralization of power is necessary to maintain government that can be forced to maintain a motive more in-line with citizen’s needs. Decentralization based on our Constitution means that power specifically not enumerated by the Constitution must be liberated and placed back in the hands of the state governments and the people. After 100 years of ignoring this division of power, we are faced with a daunting task; but our country cannot continue to be the land of the free without decentralization.

There are many tools that can be used to decentralize; from fighting legislation at the federal level; to using state level governments to nullify laws that states deem unconstitutional; to outright secession. The first option has been an absolute failure for a long period of time. Federal representatives have been unable and unwilling to respect these enumerated power and we have seen the central government grow in massive leaps and bounds.

Instead of looking to Washington DC, we must focus on what our state governments can do. This leaves us with nullification and secession as the choices to maintain freedom. If you are still not convinced that centralization of power is a bad thing, look to your history books; it always fails and it almost always fails very badly.

Brian Roberts [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center

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

Pres. Harry Truman made the phrase, “the buck stops here” famous.  Pres. Obama has embraced a similar stance with his often used

Buck Stops Here sign on Truman's Desk

“the buck stops with me” line.  Every president between Truman and Obama have told the people the POTUS (President of the United States) is where the buck stops when it comes to many situations such as natural disasters, man created disasters, economic challenges, environmental concerns, and more.

According to the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum the phrase was embraced by Truman when he received a sign for his desk.  The library website shares the following story;

The sign “The Buck Stops Here” that was on President Truman’s desk in his White House office was made in the Federal Reformatory at El Reno, Oklahoma. Fred M. Canfil, then United States Marshal for the Western District of Missouri and a friend of Mr. Truman, saw a similar sign while visiting the Reformatory and asked the Warden if a sign like it could be made for President Truman. The sign was made and mailed to the President on October 2, 1945. (“The Buck Stops Here” Desk Sign)

Coming out of World War II Americans were ready to embrace this message.  From the time of Teddy Roosevelt’s Bully Pulpit we have been taught our POTUS is the center of government for the people.  “By the postwar era, Washington’s humble term “chief magistrate” could no longer adequately describe an office that in power and responsibility had expanded far beyond Hamiltonian hopes or Jeffersonian fears.” (Healy, The Cult of the Presidency, 2008, p. 79)

History shows presidential power increased through usurpation during times of war.  Both Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt knew many of their decisions were beyond their constitutional authority.  The framers of the U.S. Constitution placed most of the power in the Legislative Branch while far less power was conferred upon the Executive Branch.  Perhaps they embraced the ides of

John Locke

executive prerogative during emergencies as supported by John Locke.

But since a rational creature cannot be supposed, when free, to put himself in subjection of another, for his own harm; (though where he finds a good and wise ruler, he may not perhaps think it either necessary or useful to set precise bounds to his power in all things)  prerogative can be nothing, but the Peoples permitting their Rulers, to do several things of their own free choice, where the law was silent, and sometimes too against the direct Letter of the Law for the publick good; and their acquiesing in it when so done… (Locke, Two Tretise on Government, London, 1821, p. 332)

Truman began a precedent of sending troops into harm’s way without requesting Congress to declare war by sending troops to the Korean Peninsula.  On the heels of this usurpation Americans were faced with a threat of attack during the Cold War.  Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all helped the Executive Branch gain more power.  By 1973 the power of the presidency had grown to a point Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote a book entitled The Imperial Presidency.  With the advent of Watergate and the resignation of Pres. Richard Nixon many felt the usurped powers were no longer going to be allowed.  Congressional authority briefly came back into vogue.  People lost hope there was one man they could turn to and rely on to solve their daily needs.  Constitutional checks and balances were nearly restored when it came to the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.

We then experienced the Iran hostage crisis and the rise of Ronald Reagan’s appeal to patriotism.  International crisis has always been a key ingredient for Americans accepting an abuse of presidential power.  A charismatic leader combined with an external threat equaled a resurgence of the Imperial President.  “What began as emergency powers temporarily confided to presidents soon hardened into authority claimed by presidents as constitutionally inherent in the presidential office; thus the Imperial Presidency…The rise of the Imperial Presidency ran against the original intent of the Constitution.”  (Schlesinger, The Imperial Presidency, 2004, p. x)

The original intent was to distribute power with the Legislative Branch, the people’s branch, having responsibility for war,appropriations, the regulation of commerce, and more based on the limited powers agreed upon by the several states.  States were to retain power over daily concerns for life, liberty, and property based on the agreements between the citizens of each state and their governing officials under their state constitutions.

Today there are many crises both internationally as well as nationally.  The growth of usurped power through appointment of czars, executive orders and signing statements shows a systemic challenge growing between the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Constitution.  Modern imperialism began in the latter days of the Clinton administration, elevated to new levels with Bush, Cheney and the War on Terror, and is rising to even greater heights under the Obama Administration.

As Gene Healy writes, “If the public expects the president to deal with all national problems, physical or spiritual, then the president will seek – or seize – the power necessary to handle that responsibility.  We’re right to fear the growth of presidential power.  But the Imperial Presidency is the price of making the office the focus of our national hopes and dreams.” (Healy, 2009, p. 3)

This belief by the people will become the path progressives will accept for the final destruction of constitutional order in our country.  Today we the people are so accepting of the notion it is the president’s job to handle all areas from the economy to health care; from natural and manmade disasters to the defense of democracy around the world we do so without notice.  Conservatives are as willing to turn to the president as liberals are.  A self-governing society cannot sustain liberty if it willfully, unconsciously gives away personal responsibility to a single person or the few people a president says society should trust.

The buck cannot continue to stop with the president if we the people are to maintain freedom under a federalist republic.  As long as we embrace the notion we are a representative democracy and our federal government, especially our president, should do more for us than our state, local, or personal government we are doomed to repeat histories’ lesson.  Representative democracy gives way to despotic rule and does so often to the applause of the many despite the fears and resistance of a few.  To restore federalism the buck stops at the lowest level possible.  In many instances that will mean the buck stops with you and me.  It is time for us to decide; where should the buck stop?

Gary Wood is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He works with the Utah 912 States’ Rights Coalition and Hosts March of Liberty Radio every Saturday and Sunday evening at 7pm EST on Blog Talk Radio. He is a lifetime member of the VFW among other groups but more important to him is his title of grandpa. “According to Thomas Jefferson the 10th Amendment is keystone to our Constitution. We must restore the keystone so we can secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, a goal of our Founders and a goal we must still strive to achieve.”

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

The following is based off a speech given at the Citrus County, FL tea party on April 17, 2010

The 10th Amendment, also known as the “states rights” amendment says very simply, “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.” Very simple words…and these simple words mean just this: If it’s not in the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the US government is not empowered to legislate it.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that authorizes the New Deal, the Great Society, or nationalized health care or any other fiscal or civil dishonesty that is being perpetrated upon the people.

When the revisionist historians talk about the all-encompassing power of the United States, there should be two flags that go up immediately: First, we should remember that after the revolution, the states were as free and independent from each other as they were from the British. And those men that gave us that independence were not about to give it away to a government that would impose its will upon them in all matters. Second, at the first constitutional convention, there was a proposal called the Virginia Plan which would have given the federal government the power to veto the actions of state legislatures. It was soundly defeated. I ask you, does that sound like a historical basis to give the United States Government free and total reign over the states? Absolutely not!

Historically-speaking, all-encompassing power to the federal government has never been in our nation’s DNA.

Our opponents seek to assign hatred to our words. They seek to discredit our attempts to return the states to their proper check and balance position on federal power. But neither history nor current events legitimizes this. The truth is that the demand for state sovereignty was expressed emphatically in both northern and southern state conventions.

On February 6, 1788 Massachusetts, the 6th state to ratify the proposed constitution, was the first state to formally request amendments to the document. And their requests went in part, first “that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid constitution are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised.”

Rhode Island insisted at its ratification convention that the United States shall “guarantee to each its sovereignty, freedom, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States.”

In Virginia, they demanded the “powers granted under the constitution being derived from the people of the United States be resumed by them whensoever these same powers shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them at their will.” [emphasis added]

That power remains with who? You, and at your will!

Have we become so comfortable with the illusion of freedom that we will ignore the intolerable act of 16,000 additional armed federal agents enforcing punishment on us for not buying health insurance? Will we rely on their systems, their courts and bureaucrats, to protect our rights?

Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has sided with its co-partners in the federal government more times than it has the states. Relying on the Supreme Court to be an impartial player in intergovernmental disputes is like relying on your ex’s Mother to be your mediator in your divorce settlement. The supreme court has been missing in action for generations – and congress and the executive are only too happy about this.

A better option is nullification. The correct term for nullification is actually state interposition. When the central government legislates outside of its enumerated powers, the state government is obliged to interpose, to place itself in between, its citizens and that unlawful legislation to protect the rights of those citizens.

The concept was first thought of as the states’ right of self-defense. The idea of states’ rights and the defense of same are as old as our revolution and they are not the sole franchise of any one geographical region. The adherence to states rights and state sovereignty threatens no one except those enemies of individualism and liberty.

In writing the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, voide and of no force.” They are illegitimate, and they should not be obeyed!

Andrew Nappi [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Florida Tenth Amendment Center.

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

The nature of all governments is to grow, absorbing decision-making power unto themselves. It happened with the British Parliament and it is now happening with our imperial Congress. The reason the Enumeration Clause is one sentence of 18 paragraphs is that the Founders did not want a piece to be separated and enlarged distorting the whole. So it is with the Commerce Clause.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said it best:

“Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution—try to discern as best we can what the framers intended, or make it up.” On making it up he added: “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.”(Wall Street Journal Opinion, Oct. 20, 2008)

Under the original interpretation, commerce among the several states did not begin until goods commenced their final movement from their state of origin to that of their destination. Through faulty interpretation, gradually this grant was applied to commerce that did not even cross state boundaries.

In the 1942 case, Wickard v Fillburn, commerce was applied to a farmer who did not even move his wheat off his farm or even sell it, under the logic that consuming his own wheat affected interstate commerce. Had he not grown it he would have had to purchase wheat, which would have affected the price thereof. This distortion created a precedent that flawed every other Supreme Court decision with regard to commerce since then – and reversed the Founders’ definition by 180 degrees.

Recently, in response to the Court overruling California’s state law legalizing medical marijuana, the honorable Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:

“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”

So why won’t even this flawed reasoning work for National Healthcare as those Constitutionally-ignorant insist? Because this would be the first time a penalty is imposed upon an individual for not engaging in commerce. Even the Congressional Budget Office penned in 1994 when National Healthcare was last proposed, “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

If the government can force this “commerce” – it can force any commerce, say electric cars or even the purchase of tomatoes.

Such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause virtually destroys the 10th amendment to the Constitution. With power hungry governments, each flaw legitimizes yet a more serious one, destroying federalism and our ability to ever get our freedom back. If national healthcare is allowed to stand it will be the one decision wherein future generations can specifically date the end of not just health freedom…but all freedom.

The word “commerce” has wrongly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover “every species of movement of persons or things, whether for profit or not; every species of communications, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise.” Put simply, every person that moves.

No government can be trusted with that kind of power.

Dr. Harold Pease has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College in California. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.