The following article is based off a speech given on 09-25-10 at the 25th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco, CA.
Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Orlando on 10-10-10 and Chattanooga on 10-23-10. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/tickets/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

I’ve often been told that when you’re giving a speech – if all you get is applause and cheers – and you never piss anyone off – you’re no better than a low-life politician, because you’re not challenging anyone’s conventional mode of thought. Hopefully, I get at least a few eyebrows raised here in my 8-9 short minutes….

So let’s start out with the easy stuff, ok? I’m a tenther. That means I believe that the federal government should exercise only those powers that we the people delegated to it in the constitution – and nothing more. For example, no Obamacare mandates, no bank bailouts, and definitely no federal gun laws – period.

Question. How many people here own a gun, or manufacture or sell guns?

And how many of you are proud felons – meaning, when the government makes rules to restrict your right to keep and bear arms, you simply ignore them because they don’t have the authority to do so?

HEMPCON

I recently went to an event called Hemp Con down in my part of the state – Los Angeles. This is a big event at the LA convention center – with loads of vendors and businesses from every angle you can think of in support of the marijuana industry. There were home security companies to help protect your weed, solar power companies to help you grow your weed, doctors giving out medical marijuana cards to virtually anyone with $80 and an hour of time. There were even delivery services – you can get your marijuana delivered to you 24 hours a day…in 30 minutes or less. The pizza companies have nothing on these guys! It was amazing if you think about it from an economic standpoint – this was capitalism, the free market – working its wonders around an industry.

What’s the point?

Virtually EVERY single one of those businesses was either directly violating federal law, or aiding someone else in doing so because marijuana is illegal, according to the feds – but not the constitution – in all situations. In 2003, Tommy Chong was arrested for merely selling pieces of glass – pipes that could be used to smoke marijuana. And today, 7 years later, we’ve got what seemed to be the WalMart of weed in Downtown Los Angeles. And guess what – no ATF or DEA thugs shut the place down. Business functioned, people did what they wanted to in freedom, and that was that.

FREEDOM TO TRAVEL

Another quick story.

In 2005, the Bush administration got the REAL ID act passed, which was – in the eyes of many – a new form of a national id card. We were warned that if this act wasn’t followed, people wouldn’t be able to travel, enter federal buildings, get on planes, and the like.

Much of my girlfriend’s family lives in Missouri, a state that’s not in compliance with the Real ID act. Her relatives do a little traveling from time to time. They get on airplanes and show their non-compliant Missouri driver’s license. No federal agents stop them and prevent them from boarding a plane.

Well, most state DL’s – including those in Missouri – don’t comply with the Real ID Act. That law is still on the books in DC – it’s never been repealed. It’s never been challenged in court either. But – due to 25 states refusing to comply with the “law” – in much of the country that Real ID act is virtually null and void.

Here in California- the state always seems to be on its knees, begging the feds for something. Well, except on marijuana. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that state medical marijuana laws were illegal. At that time there were 10 states that had such laws. Do you know how many were repealed? Zero. And today, there’s 14 states defying Washington dc, and getting away with it.

Today, we see the Firearms Freedom Act movement growing along these lines – it’s already passed in 8 states. Following that lead, 5 states have passed laws saying no to Obamacare mandates too.

THE LESSON

What’s the lesson? This is the blueprint – when enough people say no to unconstitutional laws, regulations….and mandates….and enough states pass laws to back those people up – there’s not much the federal government can do, but slowly and consistently back off. There’s no tanks rolling into Los Angeles to shut down the dispensaries, and there’s no jack-booted thugs forcing people to get new driver’s licenses in Missouri. This is far from perfect, but it can work, and it is working right now.

So here’s the final question – and the big challenge to you today.

The next time you begrudgingly follow some federal “law” that restricts your right to keep and bear arms – or the next time you hear about a gun rights case that will be decided in 2, or 4, or 6 years – with the hope that some judge will give you permission to exercise your rights, ask yourself this question:

Do you….gun rights activists….have as much courage as the pot smokers?

For the sake of liberty – I hope you do – because I believe that we the people need to exercise our rights whether they the government wants to give us “permission” to or not!

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Are the members of the 10th Amendment efforts supporting federalism or states’ rights? Should we link ourselves to John C. Calhoun and the notion of secessionism and abolishment or to restoration and original meaning as intended during the formation of our country? Do we deny the power of the federal government or simply stand against federal usurpation beyond their supreme authority under the U.S. Constitution? Is it our goal to require states to resume their power and authority afforded them in the protection of people’s rights to life, liberty, and property or to merely resist law and threaten to walk away if we are not given our way?

Last year a group of concerned citizens gathered to form a core group focused on state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Among the many agenda items was the naming of the group. Most were moved to create a name that included states’ rights. Initially my stance was against the name, historically states’ rights does not have the longevity or overall meaning encompassing our founders’ debate over the concept of federalism.

Most in the group were emotionally engaged by using the term states’ rights and I rationalized a compromise early would allow opportunity for clarification as we moved forward. It was an error on my part and it is time to correct the error as the enemies of the 10th Amendment too easily misdirect our debate away from federalism and into areas such as secession and racism.

Foundationally, states don’t have rights as a government, states have power. Power at the federal and state level is derived from the consent of the governed, the people, who do have rights our governing agreements were designed to protect. Inspired by careful historical study, years of debate, considerations, and the declarations of colonies, towns, and associations (prior to July of 1776) the fundamental rights of the people were articulated in the preamble of our 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, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or 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. (Emphasis added)

These words guided the early efforts in developing state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation. During the war and the years following its end many colonists realized the Articles of Confederation were inadequate or destructive to the ends of protecting the people under the general government. The initial confederation was simply not strong enough, though many would applaud that as a strength, due to the fear a strong federal government would eventually usurp the self-governing right of the people under their state constitutions (social compacts) subverting states’ power.

The Montesquieu concept of federalism, rejected when John Adams proposed it as a federal structure in 1776, was gaining favor as the states, under the Articles of Confederation, were moving toward a destructive end. Massachusetts’s constitution was framed under the concept and was a solid example of success. With an eye toward altering the federal agreement initially, the Constitutional Convention ( held in 1787) closed its doors so honest, heated debate could allow those assembled unfettered consideration of plans calling for the abolishing of the Articles and the creation of a new federal constitution aimed at delivering better safety and happiness for the people in all states.

Federalism was at the heart of these debates. When they concluded there were many learned, patriotic members who were convinced the constitution, sent to the states for ratifying debates and votes, went too far even if the original agreement did not go far enough.

If the great fear and prediction of these men – that the general government would entirely subvert the state governments, with a consequent loss of personal freedom – has not been realized, it will nevertheless be seen in the following pages that many of their objections were embodied in the future amendments, and the disregard of others has occasioned some of our most serious national questions. (Paul Leicester Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, 1888, p. vii) (Emphasis added)

Supporting the stronger approach for a general government were Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, John Jay, and other respected patriots. Opposing the stronger approach, out of fear federalism would be lost to nationalism, were Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and still more whose names have been lost to our modern knowledge yet men highly respected in these formative times.

Writing under the title of “An American Citizen” Tench Coxe produced four letters which were among the first to be published in support of the constitution. His letters were aimed at citizens of Philadelphia with the same purpose as the better known Federalist Papers aimed at the citizens of New York during the time the U.S. Constitution had been submitted to each state for consideration. He was a member of the Annapolis Convention as well as the Continental Congress, and had written several pamphlets focused on the finance and commerce of the United States. He believed bicameral protection would guard against the usurpation of states’ powers. Speaking of senators he wrote;

They will also feel a considerable check from the constitutional powers of the state legislatures, whose rights they will not be disposed to infringe, since they are the bodies to which they owe their existence, and are moreover to remain the immediate guardians of the people. (Letter Number II, On the safety of the people, from the restraints imposed upon the Senate, Sep. 17, 1787, Quoted from Paul Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, 1888, p.140) (Emphasis added)

Here Mr. Coxe mentions the rights of states yet his main focus is on the constitutional powers reserved to the states under the proposed federal constitution. In referencing ‘whose rights’ it is likely the rights of citizens within the state he was considering as this was the common thought of the times, people have rights while government has power, whether discussing federal or state government. His comments surrounding a call for a bill of rights were focused on his (and others) belief a federal level bill of rights was unnecessary and would create confusions of power since state constitutions were designed for the daily protection of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Listen to the explanation of this guardianship through proper implementation of the concept of separation of powers combined with checks and balances (part of the Montesquieu concept referenced above);

Besides the securities for the liberties of the people arising out of the federal government, they are guarded by their state constitutions, and by the nature of things in the separate states. The Governor or President in each commonwealth, the Councils, Senates, Assemblies, Judges, Sheriffs, Grand and Petit Juries, Officers of Militia…and many other officers of power and influence, will still be chosen within each state, without any possible interference of the federal government. The separate states will also choose all the members of the legislative and executive branches of the United States…Whether a majority of the Senate, each of whom will be chosen by the legislature of a free, sovereign and independent state, without any stipulation in favour of wealth or the contemptible distinctions of birth or rank, and who will be closely observed by the state legislatures, can destroy our liberties, controuled (sic) as they are too by the house of representatives? or whether a temporary, limited, executive officer, watched by the federal Representatives, by the Senate, by the state legislatures, by his personal enemies among the people of his own state, by the jealousy of the people of rival states, and by the whole of the people of the Union, can ever endanger our Freedom. (Ibid, p. 152-153)(Emphasis added)

Discussing the securities for people’s liberties was of fundamental meaning. The reason societies enter social compacts is for the unified protection of people’s rights against other societies that eye those rights as their own. We would not constitutionally align with each other if we were all of the virtuous nature of never interfering with one another’s life, liberty, and property. We would live, commercially interact, and socialize in the security of freedom without government. Yet we know this is not the nature of humanity. Since it is not in our nature to live as angels we must suffer to attempt governing with the least impact on our daily lives, at least that was the initial goals of our founders under the U.S. Constitution when it came to the federal or general government and its interaction with the states.

We the People of the United States,

1. in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. establish Justice,
3. insure domestic Tranquility,
4. provide for the common defence,
5. promote the general Welfare,
6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Preamble)

Opponents felt even with the safeguards Coxe saw so clearly there were too many ways the devilish side of mankind could still interfere by usurping power and subjugating states and people. Factional interference was a key concern (which we see today at the root of the breakdown in the checks and balance system initially implemented) despite the Bill of Rights opponents fought to have included. It is interesting the historical debate over federalism led, in fact, to the first two major parties (another word for faction or special interest group) and the process of elections was altered early on with the ratification of the 12th Amendment.

One opponent, George Mason, was standing against the constitution at the risk of losing his long standing friendship with many including his neighbor, George Washington. Washington and Mason worked closely in organizing the non-importation efforts during the resistance to the Townshend Acts in the 1760s, were instrumental in writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights in the 1770s, and now in the late 1780s their friendship would be strained over Mason’s insistence without a bill of rights and stronger efforts to end slavery Virginia should not ratify the proposed document. It was his pen that is credited with much of the content of Bill of Rights based largely on his Virginia Declaration of Rights, which he is given large credit for in addition to credit for much of the Constitution of Virginia. On October 7th, 1787 he sent a letter to Washington outlining his objections as he stated, “You will readily observe, that my objections are not numerous…though in my mind some of them are capital ones.” Nor could Richard Henry Lee who felt the general government controlled too much power of the purse and sword to effectively protect the state powers and citizen rights from federal usurpation.

The debate over federalism would be calmed during the first meeting of the new Congress of the United States where James Madison led an effort to review over 200 proposed amendments, forwarded 12 amendments to the states for ratification, and eventually secured 10 new amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Key to the overall success of these 10 amendments were the final two. These were considered by Thomas Jefferson and others to be the very foundation for future success of the union formed under the U.S. Constitution. These foundational amendments are;

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

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.

As the new country began to operate under the guidelines set forth many challenges would occur keeping the debate of federalism alive. The Aliens and Sedition Acts would lead to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions creating what is known today as the Principles of ’98. Jefferson’s embargo of 1807 to 1809 led New England states to band together and when the federal courts declared the embargo constitutional the Massachusetts assembly challenge the ruling. The War of 1812 would cause Connecticut and Massachusetts to refuse to send their militias as they believed the federal government acted unconstitutionally despite all three federal branches claiming their actions were constitutional.

So went the struggles of power between the federal and state governments with the inherent strength of checks and balances and the separation of powers.

According to Professor Eugene Hickok, the idea of states’ rights came much later, during the Nullification Crisis. Centered around the crisis was the issue of slavery and the improper treatment of South Carolina and other southern states at the hands of merchant concerns of the northern states. John Calhoun resigned the Vice-Presidency of the United States over a dispute with President Andrew Jackson.

The dispute centered on tariffs in amounts up to 50% on European goods. Calhoun worked on the “South Carolina Exposition and Protest” secretly while serving under John Q. Adams as vice-president. The resolution focused on the protest of South Carolina yet never passed as the assembly chose to wait for the new president, Jackson, to take office since they believed he would remove the tariffs. Hickok writes, “[b]ut it was widely distributed and read and became the conceptual and philosophical basis for the idea of nullification and “states’ rights” in the years leading up to the Civil War.” (Why States? The Challenge of Federalism, 2007, p. 44)

It is from this beginning history of state’s rights our opponents to federalism, state’s powers, and the duty of all those taking an oath to uphold our constitution like to point to. The effort is to easily paint those supporting our 10th Amendment as people who merely want to return to the days of slavery, separation, elitism, and turmoil. This is, in part, the fault of those of us involved in today’s efforts. We too easily use the label of states’ rights in defining our efforts when federalism or states’ power is more accurate and harder for our opponents to attack in an easy manner with history to back up their claims.

Members of the 10th Amendment effort support federalism. We must understand states’ don’t have rights but an obligation to use their governing power to defend their citizens’ rights whenever federal power oversteps its enumerated obligations. We are not secessionist, nor are we abolitionists but rather restorationists devoted to our original meaning and the foundational strength of the 9th and 10th Amendments combined with an acceptance of personal responsibility.

We honor the federal laws as supreme laws of the land when they are pursuant to, and in keeping with, the U.S. Constitution while we oppose all efforts for federal laws and mandates beyond their granted powers no matter what moral clothing they are dressed in. Unconstitutional law, even if clothed in good intention, is still bad law and the states are obligated to check it, and declare it as such. If an unconstitutional law is so universally good as to benefit the general welfare of all citizens in all states let the processes of Article V be invoked. Until such time we stand by the duty of states’ powers to protect us for many unconstitutional laws and mandates that began with good intentions have crippled our economy and usurped authority far beyond original meaning.

Let every member of every organization supporting state sovereignty and federalism cleanse the language so our opponents cannot easily attack the wrong target. Should they target federalism and the original meaning we can defeat them with truth. Freedom is not outdated, federal government is an agreement among the people of different sovereign states, the 10th Amendment has never been repealed, and virtue is still necessary for securing our posterity’s future rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

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

In the continually harsh public discourse over the President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right.

In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies.

So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.

What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good.

Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.

Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.

When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that’s charity.

They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare.

When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that’s not charity, that’s theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery. That’s why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History, (Nelson, 2010).

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Let’s begin at the beginning. Medical care is not a free good found in nature. Of course, no one really thinks it is. But that doesn’t keep most people from wanting to pretend otherwise, and the current institutional setting makes that possible. After a while, one forgets one is pretending. Yet medical care goes on being a collection of produced goods and services — subject to the laws of supply and demand, and requiring resources and labor that come with opportunity costs. Therein lies the problem.

Medical insurance has come to mean getting something for free. The receiver of a service need not ask how it is financed. It’s just taken care of. (Passive voice intentional.) Yes, somebody gets paid, and the money comes from somewhere. That’s okay, as long as it doesn’t come from the covered party. (What would be the point of having insurance?) Don’t bother us with such matters.

Let us believe it’s free. Let the insurer figure out the rest. But he’d better keep that coverage going. And don’t hassle us by not paying all bills eagerly and unquestioningly. That’s what he’s there for. Just reassure us that whatever services we consume will be taken care of. We don’t want to know the details. What’s that? The government is promising to cap our out-of-pocket expenses, require coverage for preexisting illness and free preventative care, and extend the same deal to absolutely everyone? And this will have no negative consequences whatever, such as limits on what we can buy or enlargement of the budget deficit or higher taxes for the middle class — but it will actually save money? Oh thank you, government!

This irresponsible mindset, which is similar to a not-very-inquisitive child’s, is what at least two generations of government intervention in health care — and the welfare state in general — have produced in the American people. Thus the welfare state retards moral and intellectual development. We expect the State — our surrogate parent — to make it all right. The demagogues we call politicians are happy to feed this attitude because it provides occasions for the expansion and exercise of raw power while seeming, like Santa Claus, to give away free goods. Of such things long political careers are made.

Something for Nothing

The healthcare “reform” juggernaut seems to be on an irresistible course. The 1,990-page (!) bill (pdf) released by the House leadership yesterday is just the latest variation on the corrupt something-for-nothing theme. The details obscure the big picture. A modest public option instead of a robust public option? Blah blah blah blah blah. The government-run insurance “alternative” was always more signal than substance.

Why do you need a government “competitor” if the government will be dictating every detail of the private insurance business under any circumstances? What motivates the public option, I submit, is sheer hatred of private, for-profit business in the medical industry. Of course, we don’t have purely private, for-profit insurance companies — every state government runs a regulated, protectionist insurance cartel. (That’s why the feds exempted the insurance industry from antitrust; it was a favor to the state regulators.)

But the public-option advocates would oppose truly free-market insurance companies. Their true preference is a government monopoly — which is why it is so funny to hear them praise “choice and competition.” That’s the last thing they want, but they know that the American people won’t accept their single-payer scheme. Anyone who really wanted choice and competition would at least support legalizing interstate insurance sales. The silence about that is deafening.

Most people get their insurance through their employer, so they won’t have the option of the public option anyway. One of the biggest sources of trouble in the healthcare system is employer-purchased insurance — it cuts the consumer out of decision-making. Yet this bill, and all the others, strengthen that perverse system. Some reform. Despite the squawking, the insurance companies love the idea of forcing people to buy their products. The corporate state thrives.

Like an uninquisitive child, most people seem willing to believe politicians when they promise to subsidize and compel the use of medical “insurance” while reducing prices without controlling choices. And while they’re at it, they’ll cut the budget deficit and boost economic growth. One shouldn’t have to be an economist to smell a scam. Exactly how is that supposed to work? They’ll get the money out of Medicare — without degrading the service — and they’ll tax millionaires, while fining employers who don’t provide insurance and those of us who don’t buy it. Since the American people aren’t rolling on the floor laughing their you-know-whats off, I can only conclude that the government’s schools have so dumbed them down that they have no trouble swallowing this patent nonsense.

A final word about the nearly 2,000-page bill. Others have said it, but it needs to be repeated. No one will be able to understand all the implications and consequences of a government attempt to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. Heck, few will read — and grasp– the bill in its entirety. (You also have to read all the statutes that are amended by the bill.) Enacting laws that no one comprehends, and that turn over yet-to-be defined powers to others, wouldn’t seem to satisfy the criteria of self-government, the consent of the governed, the rule of law, or any of the other political myths we live by.

I don’t how any theory of political obligation rooted in popular sovereignty that could regard this bill as morally binding when it becomes “law.” The process mocks the philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It insults the intelligence. It disgraces everything decent about this country.

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare.

But if we look a little further into the consequences, we can see that the workings of the community and economy are thrown wildly off balance when people accept those ideas.

First of all, other people must pay for things like healthcare. Those people have bills to pay and families to support, just as you do. If there is a “right” to healthcare, you must force the providers of those goods, or others, to serve you.

Obviously, if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middle man.

Politicians can be very good at making it sound as if healthcare will be free for everybody. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The administration doesn’t want you to think too much about how hospitals will be funded, or how you will somehow get something for nothing in the healthcare arena. We are asked to just trust the politicians.  Somehow it will all work out.

Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines.

As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients.

As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills.

As we have seen many times, the more money and power that government has, the more power it will abuse. The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available.

The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune.  Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face.

The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy.

Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare, one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars. My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that.

Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas.

[audio:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/tea-party-radio-053009.mp3]

According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution says we have a fundamental right to use contraceptives (it doesn’t), that women have a fundamental right to abort their child (it doesn’t say that either), and that we all have a fundamental right to parent our kids as we see fit (nope, not in there).

I admit to being someone who appreciates having the right to parent my child as I see fit, but I am uncomfortable with nine philosopher kings in Washington telling me that is my right.

The Constitution is full of sweeping rights for Americans, but on some issues, it is entirely silent. On those issues, the 50 states have the authority to make their own rules.

That doesn’t mean that the Constitution can’t change; it can be amended by the people, but it’s a tedious process that requires overwhelming popular consent.

When amendments fail, as they almost always do, the issue stays under the authority of the states.

There is, however, a cheap way to amend the Constitution and seize power from the states. Think of it as a Supreme Court Easy Pass, where the court just declares new constitutional rights in an opinion handed down like an edict.

For example, with the Easy Pass, the court can dream up new provisions of the Constitution that are more politically conservative (like marriage being only between a man and woman) or create rights that are more politically liberal (like the right to have a gay marriage).

Either way, in deciding an issue that’s not addressed in the Constitution (who can marry), nine aristocrats end up deciding an issue that should either be dealt with by an amendment or left in the hands of the 50 states.

Over the years, too many of our Supreme Court justices have taken it upon themselves to use the Easy Pass and decree certain rights to us that aren’t actually in the Constitution.

That is why, as our president nominates the replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, his criteria should require a person who will simply interpret the Constitution as it is written not as the judge wishes it had been written.

Where the Constitution is silent, the states can govern themselves.

Where the Constitution needs to be changed, it should be amended through the process provided in the Constitution, not through a judicial edict.

Joshua L. Rogers is an attorney in Washington, D.C.

The views in this article represent those of the author alone, and do not, in any way, reflect the views of the author’s employer.

The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to reinforce limits on the federal government.

The original Constitution contained three types of restrictions on federal power:

Type 1:     The Constitution listed things the government could not do (e.g., pass an ex post facto law).

Type 2:     The Constitution enumerated the powers the government was to have (e.g., regulate interstate commerce, but not agriculture).

Type 3:     The Constitution included specific restrictions on specific powers (e.g., Congress could appropriate money for an army, but only for a two-year period).

Some argued that Type 1 should be expanded with a Bill of Rights. But others (James Madison among them) pointed to a risk in that proposal.  Because of the legal maxim Designatio unius est exclusio alterius (the designation of one thing implies the exclusion of another), adding a Bill of Rights might encourage people to disregard the Type 2 and 3 restrictions on federal power.

When the demand for a Bill of Rights prevailed, Madison agreed to draft one – but he included what became the Ninth Amendment to make it clear that expanding Type 1 did not mean abandoning Types 2 or 3.

A key to reading the Ninth (and Tenth) Amendments properly is to know that the Founding Generation often used the words “right” and “power” interchangeably. (We more rarely do the same, as when we refer to the President’s “right” to veto a bill.)  That is how they were used here.  If you sometimes read the word “rights” in the Ninth Amendment as “powers” and “powers in the Tenth Amendment as “rights,” you can better understand their meaning.

Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment.  For example, some have argued that it reserved a mass of “natural rights” that the Courts should enforce against the federal, and even the state, governments – such as abortion, property, and contract rights.  That misunderstanding arises from failure to understand that “rights” in the Ninth Amendment means “powers.”

The Ninth Amendment was not designed to enable the Courts to create new rights – or even to recognize old ones.  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to preserve the Constitution’s other restrictions on federal power.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history.  He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.

“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO.”

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them.

Jefferson wedded the natural law to American law in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that our rights are “inalienable” and come to us from “Our Creator.” Not only does federal law recognize that, but the whole American experience recognizes the natural law as the ultimate source of our freedoms and as a restraint on the government. Thus, the traditional panoply of American rights is ours by birthright and cannot be interfered with by an act of Congress or order of the president, but only after due process.

Two of those rights are speech and contract. A law enacted by Congress punishing speech (such as the Patriot Act provision that declares to be felonious speaking about the receipt of certain search warrants) is no law at all, since the law itself violates the natural right to speak freely, which is expressly protected in the Constitution. The Framers fully understood this as they wrote in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no laws … abridging the freedom of speech.” I have italicized the word the to make my point. The framers accepted the natural law premise that freedoms come with and from our humanity. The freedom of speech obviously preexisted the constitutional amendment insulating it from government abridgement, and the Framers’ use of the article the reflects their unmistakable acceptance of that truism.

Similarly, a law changing the terms of a private contract is no law since it violates the natural right to make binding agreements. The Framers knew that as well. The Constitution specifically forbids the states and, by requiring due process and expressly forbidding taking property without just compensation, the federal government, from “impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” This, too, is a personal natural right that pre-existed the constitutional clauses that bar the government from interfering with it.

The Constitution sets forth just 17 discrete delegated powers on matters like currency, interstate commerce, the post office, the judiciary, and national defense. The Constitution also interposed two precise brakes on all federal powers: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments together state that the powers not enumerated in the Constitution as given to the federal government are retained by the people and the States.

The whole purpose of the Constitution is, was, and has been to define the government, to impose restraints on the government, and to guarantee personal freedoms. It specifically diffused power between the States and the central government and, within the federal government itself, it separated powers among the three branches.

It is elementary to state that the Constitution mandates that Congress writes the laws and decides how to spend tax dollars, the president enforces the laws as Congress has written them, and the courts interpret the laws as they have been written and enforced to assure their compliance with the Supreme Law of the Land.

As elemental as this sounds, it is hardly recognizable today. After 230 years, we have come to a point where a president declines to enforce laws he has himself signed, directs his Treasury Secretary to make laws interfering with private contracts, and signs executive orders that invade privacy, restrict speech, and appropriate property. Today, we have a Congress that delegates to the president its power to spend taxpayer dollars and money borrowed in the taxpayers’ names, has written laws regulating the air you breath, the water you drink, the words you speak, and relieving the persons with whom you have contracted or to whom you have loaned money from complying with their agreements. And our courts from time to time have raised taxes, run prisons, re-cast the boundaries of school districts, and declined to right obvious constitutional wrongs committed by the other branches.

The oath to uphold the Constitution that everyone in government takes, though solemnly delivered and publicly sworn to, like an oath to tell the truth in Court, is simply not taken seriously. Notwithstanding the plain language of specific grants and general restraints, notwithstanding a careful compromise between the Hamiltonians who wanted all power to be in the federal government and the Jeffersonians who wanted all power in the States, and notwithstanding our inalienable rights from our Creator, the federal government today simply recognizes no limits on its power.

But the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. We will have chaos if those in whose hands we repose it for safekeeping intentionally violate it with impunity. A government that violates its supreme law becomes arbitrary, and arbitrary rule becomes authoritarian, and authoritarian rule will trample our freedoms. Just six weeks into its four-year term, the Obama administration and its allies in Congress, just like the Bush administration and its allies, have acted like they never heard of the Constitution. They have attempted to control salaries of private banks, change the terms of private mortgages, enter the marketplace by nationalizing banks and the world’s largest insurer, and investing taxpayer dollars in companies whose products consumers reject and investors eschew. This is theft of liberty and theft of taxpayer property.

Is freedom a reality or a myth? Are the rights guaranteed in the Constitution real or just a pretense? Isn’t the whole purpose of government in a free society to uphold rights rather than interfere with them? If the answers to these questions are no longer obvious, it is because we have a central government whose only self-acknowledged limitation is whatever it can get away with.

Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], who was on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His newest book is Dred Scott’s Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America, (Nelson, 2009) His previous books are A Nation of Sheep, The Constitution in Exile and Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws.

Copyright © 2009 Andrew P. Napolitano

“Every school child in America should be required to read the Bible.”

At that point, I stopped clapping for Patrick Buchanan, who was speaking in Kansas City during his failed 2000 presidential bid. The government shouldn’t force people to read books, even the Bible.

There is some truth to the liberal insult that conservatives want to create a Christian theocracy. Social conservatives tend to overemphasize religion when talking about social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

People who support limited government are turned off by the Republican Party because of the religious overtones. They don’t want a government run by preachers.

Religious right preachers sound silly when they proclaim that natural disasters are a result of God’s wrath over abortion and gay marriage. A more sound explanation for opposition rests in the distinctly Western idea of federalism.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, New York, California, Colorado and Hawaii had legalized specific abortion procedures. The plaintiff, Norma McCorvey, sued to have an abortion in Texas, a state that did not allow the procedure.

Abortion is not an inalienable right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment requires that this issue be solved by state governments.

The U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law, not create it. By legalizing abortion across the country, the court overstepped its boundaries by taking on the role of the legislative branch.

This dangerous precedent of judicial fiat has spilled over into state supreme courts. The Massachusetts Supreme Court forced the Massachusetts legislature to recognize gay marriages in 2004.

Not to be outdone, the California Supreme Court invented the right for Californians in 2008, despite a previous statewide vote defining marriage only between one man and one woman. California voters overturned the court in November by approving a state constitutional amendment barring future gay marriages in the state.

That won’t be enough to stop the runaway California judiciary. The same court is reviewing case law to find any reason to once again overturn the will of the people.

The Founding Fathers did not create a system of government that gives judges the right to trump the will of the majority. A vote of the people should be worth more than the printed ballot paper.

The biggest worry isn’t the one percent of Americans who voted for Buchanan who want a Christian theocracy. It’s the vast array of leftwing politicians, activists and donors who want to create a judicial monarchy.

The purpose of law is to protect the rights of individuals against the excesses of the state. An oppressive judicial system punishes individuals by taking away their freedoms, starting with the right to vote.

Sensible people across the political spectrum can support a return to federalism by allowing citizens in each state the right to determine social issues. Some states will legalize marijuana and prostitution while others will ban abortion and gay marriage.

Those who don’t like the laws can move to a different state. That’s a much better system than one where the laws for the entire country are re-written after every judicial selection.

Ryan Cooper lives in Springfield. He can be reached at ryankcooper@gmail.com.