The answer is local, not national. Who we elect to state and local offices over the next ten to twenty years is far more important that what goes on over by the Potomac. Whether people want to believe it or not, the federal government can not, and will not, reverse its behavior.Details
“A republic, if you can keep it!”
A little over 200 years later, we are still struggling to keep it. And we are losing the battle to those that want a top down authoritarian central government with limited rights for We the People.
As human beings, rights and freedoms are our birthright, and nowhere else on earth has that been truer than in these United States. However, what is given at birth must be defended with blood, toil and treasure. Countless generations that came before us did just that, battling against all those who through force of arms or stealth would take them from us so that they could grow powerful at our expense.
Down through history, many have chosen to live as serfs, subjects or slaves, because all that was required of them was their willingness to live on their knees and be happy with a paltry share of this world’s abundance. They could simply submit to those that would decide for them what they could and could not do.
Submission is easy; resistance is hard. Submission requires nothing of us, while resistance requires everything.Details
Three fallacies articulated by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in his article The Court and Constitutional Interpretation, and promoted by the judges, lawyers and others who desire a national government with unlimited powers at the expense of the states and the people are quoted below.
I’ll address each judicial fallacy in turn starting with -
“The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.” (Emphasis added)
Judicial independence implies freedom from interference or control by either the legislative or the executive branch of the federal government. However, nothing could be further that the truth – constitutionally if not in reality. The powers of the Supreme Court and the lesser courts may be enumerated in the Constitution, but makeup, number and members are determined by the legislative branch with nominations coming from the executive.Details
Congress, the president and the courts will never fix America’s problems – the problems they have created.
To think they will is a waste of time.
So what can be done if the government violates the very Constitution that defines it? What protections are available for the people?
The people of the states, the creators of the federal government,who agreed to its existence through the Constitution, are fully empowered to decide not to comply with any act outside the scope of federal authority.
Thomas Jefferson rejected judicial review as the final authority because he never trusted the courts. He never saw the wisdom of placing so much power in the hands of a few judges. Instead, he articulated the most effective option – nullification, “the Rightful Remedy.” Jefferson believed it was up to the people of the states, the parties who ratified the Constitution, to stand up to the government when it exceeds its constitutional bounds.Details
In 1798 with the ink on the Constitution barely dry, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed which featured provisions that made speaking ill of the government a crime.
And what was the answer to this unconstitutional “law”?
Kentucky, led by Thomas Jefferson, and Virginia, led by James Madison, helped pass nullification resolutions in opposition of the unconstitutional legislation. Fast forward five decades and multiple northern states took a stand to nullify the pro-slavery fugitive slave laws, federal legislation that required the return of runaway slaves. More recently state legislatures led a nullification movement against the REAL ID act that now includes over half of the states in the Union.
There are numerous other examples in our history, but let’s move little closer to the present.Details
Plain and simple, Washington D.C. is never going to fix Washington D.C.
Not next week.
Not even after November 2014.
If you’re going to depend on a political campaign to get (R)’s or (D)’s elected to fix this problem, then you’re destined to be disappointed – and enslaved. The simple fact is that everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike, now believes that they work for a benign, but totalitarian government. They are determined to use their power “for good,” as they define it, but they’re not about to give up their power under any circumstances.
Hell, it took the House an entire year just to bring contempt charges against Attorney General Holder for his stonewalling in “Operation Fast and Furious”. And we know that the Senate will do nothing, even with all of the new revelations concerning the IRS, NSA wiretapping, Benghazi and on and on. It’s all a masquerade. Do we really want to count on these people to protect our Liberty? The idea of a limited government with enumerated powers is not even on their radar.
We burned two entire years waiting for the Supreme Court to save us from Obamacare only to have them betray our trust. How long will we wait for Congress to betray us this time around?Details
What do we do when the federal government exercises powers it does not rightly possess, or when it violates basic rights protected by the Constitution?
Most Americans have been trained to turn to Washington D.C., pinning their hopes on the next election, or on a favorable Supreme Court ruling to check federal power. But when you really think about it, this fails the logic test. We are asking the federal government to interpret and limit its own power! This is kind of like letting a Duke University player referee a game between the Blue Devils and the Tar Heels. Probably wouldn’t turn out too well for the boys in Carolina Blue!
The founders of the United States fought a bloody war to free themselves from a king who believed he had absolute authority to dictate anything he pleased. It seems more than a little unlikely that these same men would create a new system in the image of the old. In fact, they adamantly opposed it. Therefore, some mechanism must exist to stop the federal government from grabbing power it was not intended to have.
Ink on paper cannot not enforce itself.
The states hold that enforcement power.Details
At a gathering of TEA Party and Liberty groups leaders this past weekend I repeatedly heard them refer to our constitutional rights in questions put forth to a candidate running for political office. At any other setting, I would have corrected them, but I felt it was not my place to correct them since it wasn’t my event and I was a guest.
I was wrong; I should have.
We DO NOT have constitutional rights; we don’t even have constitutionally protected rights.
We have inalienable rights, or if you prefer – unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, unassailable, incontrovertible, undisputable, indisputable, undeniable, natural or as prefer to call them God given rights.
These rights existed before the Constitution and they existed even before government.Details
Reading Steve Benen’s article Nullification must never be on the table, I was left trying to decide: is Steve an idiot or a liar?
I’ll let you decide.
“Not to put too fine a point on this, but there’s nothing to discuss — state lawmakers can’t pick and choose which federal laws they’ll honor,” or so says Steve.
Well I guess it’s settled then. “There’s nothing to discuss.” Nullification is a no no!
What — you don’t buy his argument?
Well, neither do I.
When I saw his article, I was drawn to the picture of Abraham Lincoln standing in front of a Union Army tent with the caption “The last time we had a debate over nullification.”
Intrigued I read on. “For context, it’s worth remembering that there was a rather spirited debate in the mid-19th century over whether states could choose to ignore federal laws. The debate was resolved by a little something called the U.S. Civil War — those who argued in support of nullification lost.”
At that point, I alternated between laughter and complete disbelief. How could anyone make such a ridiculous statement? Steve should know those who argued in support of nullification WON!
A history lesson for Steve from the “South Carolina’s Declaration of Causes” — “The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.”Details
Reading Steve Benen’s article Nullification must never be on the table, I was left trying to decide is Steve an idiot or a liar.
I’ll let you decide.
“Not to put too fine a point on this, but there’s nothing to discuss — state lawmakers can’t pick and choose which federal laws they’ll honor” or so says Steve.
Well I guess it’s settled then, “there’s nothing to discuss.” Nullification is a no no.
What — you don’t buy his argument?
Well, neither do I.
On seeing his article, I was drawn to the picture of Abraham Lincoln standing in front of a Union Army tent with the caption “The last time we had a debate over nullification.”Details