In Pursuance Thereof

The federal government’s power grab over states’ rights continues unabated as evidenced by United States v. Pleau, this time in the State of Rhode Island. For the federal government or the people of the State of RI, there is no question of Jason Pleau’s guilt in the 2010 murder of gas station manager, David Main; nor does there appear to be any question that his act was premeditated. Pleau plead guilty and was sentenced in Rhode Island to life in prison without parole to avoid a federal writ called “habeas corpus ad prosequendum” which was obtained by U.S. Attorney Peter Neronha.

Rhode Island’s governor Lincoln Chafee refused the request under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA) to release the prisoner for a federal trial because of the governor’s stated opposition to capital punishment. On May 7, 2012  the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, upheld the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum where: 1) given the Supremacy Clause, the states have always lacked the authority to dishonor a writ of ad prosequendum issued by a federal court, and compliance is not merely a matter of cooperation that the governor may withhold; and 2) under United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340 (1978), if a state has never had the authority to refuse the writ, the IADA does not provide it. But have they? Have the states “never had the authority” as the  First Circuit Court of Appeals claims above in referencing U.S. v. Mauro?

The answer to that question can be found in our Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause themselves, which the feds are citing. First, the Supremacy Clause, which states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Citizens who are well versed in the contents of our founding documents know that a key phrase in the Supremacy Clause is the phrase, “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”

A constitutional law is one that is made in pursuance of the Constitution. A law which is not made in pursuance of the Constitution is not, in fact, a law; but is ‘null, void, and of no effect’. Such a law also violates the Tenth Amendment which states, “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.” In 1798, referring to the federal government, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” [emphasis added]


Liberty: A two-way street

It occurred to me today that we treat liberty pretty much the same way we do money. We all want to get rich, but we sure as heck don’t want the other guy rolling in the bucks. In fact, we resent our rich neighbors and will often go out of our way to stymie their fortune seeking if possible.

Here in America, we all talk a lot about freedom and liberty. But when somebody starts exercising theirs in a manner that rubs us the wrong way, Katie bar the door – that stuff is dangerous and we must put a stop to it!

Recently, a church scraped together some cash and rented a billboard along a major road in Lexington, Ky. It expressed their opinion on homosexuality along with their views on abortion.

Yup. It was pretty offensive.

So, a local “fairness” group used tax records to track down the owner of the billboard. Turns out it was CSX Railroad, using CBS Advertising to lease out the advertising space. Well, with the advocacy group putting a little pressure on CSX, the company yanked the billboard.


Where Are North Carolina’s Political Patriots and Statesman?

Big centralized government statists not only reside in DC, but many reside right here in North Carolina. They justify any unconstitutional actions by the federal government with a clause from the Constitution, with one of their favorites being the “Supremacy Clause”. But cherry picking a clause out of the Constitution does not make their actions Constitutional or “supreme.”

When DC politicians do it, at least you know they are just out to further their own power, and probably just “feathering their own nest”. But what is the excuse for our state legislature and governor, their actions reduce their and by extension our state’s power and sovereignty? Is their failure to act from a lack of education in regards to the U.S. Constitution and their role as protectors of the States citizen’s liberties? Or are they really just lower level centralized government statists waiting for their chance to move up the food chain so they too can drink form the waters of the Potomac?

The recent and most egregious example is the PPACA, or as it is more affectionately nicknamed “Obamacare”. But as bad as the Act is, the statements by our own Attorney General of North Carolina, Roy Cooper in February 2011, are even worse. He issued a statement attacking North Carolina House Bill No. 2 — a bill to exempt the people of North Carolina Obamacare — because it violated the “Supremacy Clause” of the Constitution.