Navigation

Author Archive | Geoff Broughton

Who Decides: part two

By on February 13, 2011 in Uncategorized 0

In Part One, I discussed the importance of “who decides” what is constitutional, and what is not.  Conventional wisdom says that the Supreme Court has long been recognized to have that power.  If you haven’t read part one, follow this link to read it here.

Now I will give my reasons for why that power does NOT reside solely with the Court created by the Constitution.

Let us begin with the preamble to the Bill Of Rights which begins;

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added”[Emphasis added]

This suggests that there was concern about a central government abusing its powers from a number of states.  In fact many people have heard of the “Federalist Papers” which were a series of essays written to sell the public on the idea of ratifying the constitution.  Many of the Articles were written to answer specific criticisms of the Constitution, such as those raised by Robert Yates and others dubiously named “Anti Federalists”.  Gary Galles from the Mises Institute wrote an article on the Anti-Federalist Papers where he writes; Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Who Decides: part one

By on February 12, 2011 in Uncategorized 0

The Denver post reported this morning that US District Judge Roger Vinson ruled the Health Care Reform law was unconstitutional.  Read the complete article here, but here are some excerpts I want to cover.

The judge’s ruling produced an even split in federal court decisions so far on the health care law, mirroring enduring divisions among the public. Two judges had previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees. A Republican appointee in Virginia had ruled against it.

We have, it seems, turned the United States Constitution into a political football.  Where elections determine the interpretation of the constitution, and we are ruled by the whims of the electorate instead of by law.  The difference can simply be illustrated as a lynch mob vs. a jury trial.  The constitution ‘should’ protect us from power grabs from either party, including the Patriot Act and Real ID passed by Republicans, but we have allowed ourselves to be docile while we await the decision of our betters. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

in Pursuance thereof

By on January 18, 2011 in Uncategorized 0

Several states have filled bills opposing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and a few like Wyoming and Maine have included penalties for Federal Agents who attempt to enforce a law the state claims is unconstitutional.  It should not be surprising that there are those who oppose these ideas.  The Tenth Amendment has become interesting, and the debate will be fierce.  It is incumbent on those of us who favor checks and balances as a safeguard to essential liberty as cumbersome as it may be over the expediency of a totalitarian system to be able to articulate the message, and calmly refute all the screams of the ‘status quo’ who are shocked and angry that this debate has been opened up again.

NPR posted on its website an editorial by Christopher Weaver against these proposed laws.  The opinion piece really had no substance and is not really even worth checking out which is why I am not providing a link, but Christopher introduces an argument that I feel will be a keynote argument against these types of legislation: The Supremacy Clause.   Mr. Weaver cites an e-mail he received from Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee University law professor; “This is blatantly, flagrantly unconstitutional. Federal law is supreme to state law and states cannot punish its enforcement.”  as his proof that any such law is unfounded. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

10th Amendment Headlines

By on December 21, 2010 in Uncategorized 0

Jon Rappoport of News With Views has a story up about the proposed Texas bill that would Nullify Obamacare.  Jon is favorable to the idea summed up in this paragraph.

“If enough illegal federal laws are nullified by enough states, the emperor is going to look naked, because he is. He’s taxing people to pay for a whole host of laws that are unconstitutional. He keeps saying he needs more money, and it’s obvious this is a lie. What he really needs is less power. What he really needs is honest adherence to the Constitution. He gave all that up a long time ago.”

 

Chris Woodard of One News Now has a story about Tenth Amendment Legislation being introduced in the Senate by Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi).  Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Colorado Uniform Enumerated Powers Act

By on October 11, 2010 in Delegated Powers 4

I hear a lot of people in the tea Party movement talk about how the Federal Government has ignored the Constitution, and we need to get back to that Constitution as the Supreme Governing Document of our nation.  We at the Tenth Amendment Center have developed some model legislation, here is one example.

To require the federal government to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS

The legislature of the State of Colorado finds that,

1. The People of the Several States by virtue of their mutual compact created the federal government, as documented in the United States Constitution;

2. The People of the Several States set forth in the Constitution those powers which the several States delegated to the federal government;

3. The legislative powers which the the People of the Several States delegated to the federal government are set forth in the Constitution of the United States;

4. By virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution set forth in the Bill of Rights, the People of the Several States reserved to themselves, and to the People, all powers which were neither specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution nor expressly prohibited to the States therein; Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

The Case Against Case Law

By on May 19, 2010 in Constitution, Judiciary, Law 1

Today when you hear the term Constitutional Scholar or Constitutional Expert you get the image of someone who has studied the Constitution and perhaps the Ratification Debates as well as the federalist papers. Someone who has studied the philosophers whose opinions were crucial to how our nation was to be governed like Blackstone, Cicero and Montesquieu and understands the context the Constitution was written in.

You would be wrong, Constitutional Law as it is today is really Case Law and it has very little to do with what the text says and everything to do with reinventing that text to make it say what it needs to say to allow the expansion of the central government through the practice of precedents. This comes from a philosophy called “Legal Realism”, where the law is whatever the Judges say it is.

Our opponents say; How can we expect a document written two hundred years ago by back woods farmers, who rode in horse drawn buggies, to govern our society today? Besides, they owned slaves and did not allow women to vote, is that what you think we should go back to? All of you tea partiers with your pocket constitutions are out of line when you question the Federal Government because original intent is no longer important in Constitutional Case law. Our society has progressed, and our understanding of the Constitution must progress with it. It is a “living” document that must evolve with the times.

But we agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” who has said those that would give us a “living” constitution are really giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us from the encroachments of Government power. Furthermore, a Government without “strict” limits is tyranny. Here is a warning from Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 talking about the how the powers of the Federal Government were to be defined:

“That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

Case Law has set up a system where the final word on the power of the Federal Government is left to the Federal Government. Instead of a Government of “We the People”, we have a central government that tells us how to live because we are not smart enough to do this for ourselves. Has the time come where we start to take back our Country from the political class, and reclaim the ideals of Popular Sovereignty so we can pass that freedom to our Children? I hope so.

cross-posted from the Colorado Tenth Amendment Center

Continue Reading

Health Care Freedom in Colorado?

By on May 4, 2010 in Activism, Interviews 2

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Last Thursday morning, Amy Oliver who is a talk show host on am 1310 KFKA was gracious enough to have me on to talk about the Constitution, the Health care mandate, and the Health Freedom Rally that was held in Greeley on Friday night. The rally was well attended and the speakers did a great job. I will try to get excerpts of the Rally on line in the next week. But for now, here is the interview.

cross-posted from the Colorado Tenth Amendment Center

Continue Reading

Weld County, CO Health Freedom Rally

By on April 25, 2010 in Activism, Announcements 0

“All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing” That is a paraphrased quote from Edmund Burke which says that it is not enough to recognize when something is wrong, but you have to do something to stop it.  The evil in this case is the idea that there is nothing beyond the reach of the federal legislature if they can mandate that every citizen in this country be required to purchase a service under penalty of law.  It is important that the good people resist this idea with all the enthusiasm and vigor they can muster, before precedent is allowed to take hold, and the Federal Legislature become emboldened to pass even more laws governing our activities.

This is the inspiration for the “Weld County Health Freedom Rally” taking place April 30th at the Destiny Christian Center located at 6250 West 10th Street, Unit 4 Greeley, Colorado.  Doors will open at 6pm, and the speakers will start at 7pm.  The theme will be Freedom through Federalism, and how a decentralized form of Government is the best protection against tyranny.  We will also be circulating a petition effort being done by the Independence Institute, and looking for volunteers for that effort.  Read the petition here.  To contact the Independence Institute directly click here. 

If you are in the area, please make plans to attend this important meeting, further, please consider a small donation to the Colorado Tenth Amendment Center to help cover the cost of this effort, and for the fight for freedom that continues.

Continue Reading

Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God

By on April 20, 2010 in Constitution, Founding Principles 0

Understanding the Constitution part II As a Constitutional reawakening takes place across the nation renewing the debate of it’s meaning and intent, it is important that we try to understand not only the document, but the ideas behind it, so we can make better sense of the arguments on both sides.    

 Did you know that what we think of as our “Constitutional Rights” are really our “Natural Rights” some of which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights?   From the preamble to the Bill of Rights you find:   

 Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution. 

 In other-words the people who ratified the Constitution did not trust the Federal Government, and wanted written assurances that they were not replacing a despotic government in England for one on their own continent.  Some examples of these rights: 

 The rights to; self government, self defense, own property, freedom of expression, peacefully assemble, enter into contracts, enjoy the fruits of one’s labour.  

 These are but a few of the rights Jefferson was talking about when he mentioned “unalienable rights” in the Declaration of Independence, and the beliefs that sparked the American Revolution, and they reflect the feelings of those who ratified the Constitution.  They remain unchanged by advancements in technology or the increased pace of society.  As you look at both sides of the debate, look at the distribution of power behind each of the arguments, and you will know which side is just, and which side just wants more power.  I will close with one of my favorite quotes: 

 “Do not separate text from historical background.  If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.” James Madison 

 Something to think about the next time you hear about our “living constitution” that evolves as society evolves.   

Continue Reading

Colorado is the first state to vote down FFA

By on February 16, 2010 in Firearms Freedom Act 2

I got an e-mail from Michael Boldin on Friday with the news that Colorado’s Fire Arms Freedom  Act was killed in committee, with a link to this article.  Something struck me as odd, when I read it.  The article lists the bills sponsor, Senator Schultheis, and has quotes from gun control advocate Tom Mauser who lost his son Danial in the Columbine shootings and quotes from Democratic lawmakers.  Why share the names of Schultheis and Mauser, and keep the names of the Democrats a mystery?

Democrats called the bill “unconstitutional.”“It’s also not one of the most pressing issues facing the state right now,” Senate Democrats said in a statement e-mailed to the Denver Daily News. “We are focused on getting the economy back on track and getting people back to work.”

I cannot say I am surprised, the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee is the “kill” committee where a bill the controlling party does not want to come to a floor vote will go to die.  According to Senator Schultheis, Democrat Senators; Betty Boyd, Rollie Heath andBob Bacon, showed no interest in the hearing.  As if they had made their minds up before the hearing began, with their primary question being ”how are we going to control guns?”   I wonder if it was one of these legislators who said the bill was “unconstitutional”, and where in the Constitution it prohibits a state from passing such a law.  I sent a message to the Daily Denver and asked them to provide the name of the person the quote was attributed to, and I will update this post if I get a response.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Continue Reading