Navigation

Archive | Originalism

Wall of Separation: Myth?

By on January 19, 2012 in Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Founding Principles, History, Originalism 2

The topic of “Separation of Church and State” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the political sphere. I’m setting out in this brief commentary to provide some context on the topic, along with the position of a Constitutionalist.

Some facts:

  • The phrase is not contained in the Constitution (although the average person may think it is).
  • The phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Roger Williams (of the Danbury Baptists), where Jefferson was borrowing “a wall of Separation” which were words used by Rev. Williams.
  • The purpose and context of the letter was to assure the Danbury Baptists that the federal government would not establish a single denomination of Christianity as the national denomination.
  • The phrase/letter was not about divorcing “church and state” as it is understood or referred to today.

The biggest misunderstanding is not even the concept of the “Separation of Church and State” itself, but a misunderstanding of:

  • federalism
  • the construction of the US Constitution
  • the first 10 Amendments (i.e. the Bill of Rights)

The US Constitution documented the powers/authority delegated to the newly formed federal government (i.e. what the federal government could do). The Bill of Rights documented specifically what the federal government was not allowed to do (i.e. power/authority it didn’t have). Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Oklahoma governor puts taxpayers’ money where her mouth is

By on April 15, 2011 in Announcements, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federal Funding, Federalism, Founding Principles, Health Care, Liberty, Nullification, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 4

Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin just set an important precedent. By rejecting $54.6 million in federal money to begin implementation of ObamaCare, the governor has firmly set herself against the unconstitutional law and with the citizens of her state.

From Fox News:

To make it clear Oklahoma will develop its own plan, the state will not accept a $54.6 million federal grant for setting up a system where Oklahomans could shop for health insurance, Gov. Mary Fallin said Thursday.

Fallin said the state instead will use state and private money to form the system.

This is a step that advocates of nullification in many states have long sought. After all, it’s pretty obvious that threats of non-compliance with the feds are empty to the point of pathetic when state budgets still depend on grants of federal money (which is siphoned from their citizens to begin with).

However

Fallin’s announcement reverses her decision two months ago to accept the federal money.

Obviously the governor is bowing to some form of public pressure. In this age of  rampant and flagrant TSA molestation, it’s nice to see that pressure can still occasionally be successfully applied to public servants.

Perhaps other states whose legislatures have passed a version of the Health Care Freedom Act should consider following Oklahoma’s example.

Continue Reading

New England Nullification Tradition Marches On

By on March 10, 2011 in Announcements, Big Brother, Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Drug War, Economics, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Judiciary, Law, Liberty, Nullification, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 1

Though many living in New England today might be loathe to admit it, there is a long history of nullification being used in the region to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. This week, the town of Sedgwick, Maine voted to carry on that proud tradition by nullifying certain federal agricultural regulations.

They did so through what might be the most legitimate form of democratic expression left in America: the New England town meeting. (Which have been held in the Sedgwick town hall since 1794.)

According to one report, the residents of Sedgwick voted to enact a law that not only permits

“Sedgwick citizens…to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,”

but declares that Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

South Carolina reps see the light on Commerce Clause

By on March 7, 2011 in Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 1

Two state representatives in South Carolina are pushing back against a federal ban of incandescent light bulbs set to begin in January of 2012. There is no constitutional authority for Congress to impose such a ban on the citizens of the several states, and it’s nice that South Carolina noticed.

From NetRightDaily:

“State Representatives Sandifer and Loftis are taking the lead in protecting the rights of South Carolina consumers, who don’t want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they must use,” Bill Wilson the President of Americans for Limited Government said.

“The basic concept of the bill is to allow the citizens of South Carolina to be able to continue to buy incandescent light bulbs,” said State Representative Bill Sandifer, Chairman of the House Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee.

“It is my strong belief that the feds have overstepped the Tenth Amendment, and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes,” Sandifer added.

Their bill (H. 3735) is essentially a version of the Firearms Freedom Acts and Intrastate Commerce Acts that have been popping up all over the country. Essentially, any light bulb manufactured and sold exclusively in South Carolina would not be subject to federal regulation.

Which is already the case, but it never hurts to repeat the obvious for emphasis when dealing with a government as corrupt and insular as the one in Washington, D.C.

Continue Reading

Supreme Court gets the Constitution right, for once

By on March 3, 2011 in Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 2

In an overwhelming 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the odious Westboro Baptist Church and the First Amendment. That is, the amendment which protects ALL speech, not just politically-correct, state-approved speech.

Bravo. The nine highest-paid federal judges in the land have proved themselves capable of comprehending the plain language of the Constitution.

Why then,  we tenthers wonder, is the Supreme Court so unable to comprehend the language of other amendments like, say, the 10th?

Could it be because “granting” political protesters the right to say offensive and unpopular things in public actually increases the perceieved power and stature of the Court?

Yes, peasants, you may rabble-rouse and shout yourselves hoarse, stirring up distraction and division, but attempt to assert that there are absolute limits to the power and authority of the central government, and you will find the Constitution, to us, is really nothing more than a piece of paper.

Need we remind you of Gonzales v. Raich?

Continue Reading

VA Senate Kills Intrastate Commerce Act Without a Vote

By on February 24, 2011 in Announcements, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Elections, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Originalism, Politicians, State Sovereignty 0

Another year, another trip to the Senate Death Star for the Intrastate Commerce Act (HB1438). Without even recording a vote, the elected “representatives” on the Senate Commerce and Labor Sub-Committee #1 left Virginia residents and businesses exposed to the economic and regulatory ravages of every federal agency from the EPA to the FDA to the BATF.

When will enough be enough for Virginia voters? Statewide elections in November…

Members of the C&L Sub-Committee #1 (who should be retired to private life in 2011)

Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D) (804) 698-7535 district35@senate.virginia.gov (chairman)
Sen. John S. Edwards (D) (804) 698-7521 district21@senate.virginia.gov
Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D) (804) 698-7509 district09@senate.virginia.gov
Sen. Thomas K. Norment, Jr. (R) (804) 698-7503 district03@senate.virginia.gov
Sen. John C. Watkins, (R) (804) 698-7510 district10@senate.virginia.gov

Continue Reading

Virginia Blogger Calls Tenthers “Intellectual Boobs”

By on February 19, 2011 in Commentary, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers, The Opposition 2

Dan Casey of the Roanoke Times recently embarrassed himself with a juvenile, ad hominem attack on the Tenth Amendment movement titled “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy.”

While it’s unclear whether Casey actually expected his “arguments” to be taken seriously, it is clear that he cannot make his point through the use of logic or fact. Therefore, Casey’s piece is chock full of historical inaccuracies, mis-characterizations and outright falsehoods regarding the original intent and meaning of the Constitution.

So many, actually, that I cannot list them all here. However, I did respond point by point in a piece of my own to be published soon.

Here is a sample: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Montana lawmaker seeks to create state militia

By on February 10, 2011 in Constitution, Federalism, Government, Military, Originalism, State Sovereignty 0

In a move that will hopefully be copied nationwide over the next few years, Montana lawmakers are considering forming and training an armed volunteer force of “home guards” certified by the governor and not subject to federal oversight. These home guards would be under the direct authority of the county sherriffs and the governor during any state emergency.

According to the Billings Gazette:

Supporters said the bill is not about arming citizens but to provide additional emergency services as some other states do.

A number of states have a state defense force like a “home guard” for responding to emergencies but few states have an armed force like the bill proposes.

As you might expect, the idea of a sovereign state organizing its citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights has met with considerable shock, outrage and hyperbole from the Left. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Bush, Truman and Roosevelt: All Wrong on Executive Power

By on December 22, 2009 in Constitution, Originalism 1

What’s likely not surprising to many supporters of strict, constitutional government is that presidents from both political parties have been taking far more power into their hands than the founders and ratifiers had authorized in the Constitution.

What’s been missing, though, is a serious, academic piece of research to support the idea that Article II of the Constitution is NOT a sweeping grant of power. Until now, that is.

Leading Constitutional Expert and regular Tenth Amendment Center contributor, Rob Natelson, has a new scholarly article on this very subject which was reported on by Vision, at the University of Montana.

Here’s an excerpt:

While researching the historical facts surrounding the decision, Natelson stumbled upon documents that helped to answer a larger question: Did President Bush have the ability to set up tribunals in the first place? What is the executive power of the president of the United States? Does the first sentence of Article II of the Constitution convey a broad, undefined mass of executive power?

“I came up with a rather clear answer,” Natelson says. In an article to be published soon in the Whittier Law Review, Natelson expands on his conclusion.

“Lawyers are creatures of habit,” he says. “They tend to draft documents according to certain patterns or formulas.”

Natelson checked numerous 18th-century documents that, like Article II, granted enumerated powers. His goal was to find drafting patterns to see what interpretation of Article II fit those patterns.

Natelson found that legal documents frequently include a passage near the beginning that merely identifies the person to whom the document grants powers. Further down the document lists those powers. But insofar as he could find, the documents almost never began with a general grant of broad, unidentified authority, then address other matters before returning to enumerate specific powers.

“What this suggests is that the first sentence of Article II is not a broad grant of kingly executive authority,” he says. “The sentence merely tells the reader that the title of the chief executive will be the president of the United States – nothing more.”

In other words, Presidents Bush, Truman and Roosevelt were wrong when they asserted that Article II granted them powers other than those listed elsewhere in the Constitution.

Continue Reading