Tag Archives | Founding Principles

Wall of Separation: Myth?

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

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 →

Comments { 2 }

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

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.

Comments { 1 }

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

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 →

Comments { 2 }

VA Intrastate Commerce Act up for key vote tomorrow

By on February 14, 2011 in Activism, Announcements, Commentary, Constitution, Federalism, Firearms Freedom Act, Founding Principles, Government, Nullification, Politicians, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty

Last year in Virginia, activists scored a big victory for the Tenth Amendment with the passage of HB10, the Health Care Freedom Act, but they also suffered a significant defeat. The Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), which forbid the federal government from enforcing its gun regulations on weapons and ammunition made and sold exclusively in Virginia, passed the House of Delegates in 2010 only to be killed in the Senate’s notorious ”Death Star” sub-committee.

The siginifcance of the FFA was of course not just about firearms freedom. It was also about the precedent such a law would have set for returning the federal government to its constitutional role, and restoring some measure of state sovereignty. Unfortunately, by killing the bill, a tiny minority of Virginia Senators left the entire commonwealth open to federal attack on issues that go well beyond gun control, up to and <a href="http://www.tent Continue Reading →

Comments { 0 }

The Spirit and Intent of our Constitution

By on August 9, 2010 in Constitution

“The adoption of the Constitution will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it.” ~  George Washington

Adherence to the spirit and intent of our Constitution was so important to our Founding Fathers that one of the first acts of the First Congress in 1789 was to pass the verbiage for the Oath of Affirmation of office in compliance with Article VI of our Constitution.

George Washington was administered the Oath of Affirmation of office, as prescribed by Artlcle II, Section I, on April 29, 1789, to which he added: “So help me God.”  He then made a few brief remarks: Continue Reading →

Comments { 2 }

Nullification in a Nutshell

By on February 19, 2010 in Constitution, Nullification

nutshellThe “Principles of 98,” as they came to be known, are rarely discussed in modern history lectures even though these are integral to understanding how our federal Constitution was intended to function. These are the principles of state interposition or nullification that assert that if the federal government fails to check itself through one of its three branches, then it would be up to the states to rein in the feds.

The main basis for the theory is that the states created the national government when they joined the compact and not the other way around. The states therefore retained the power to judge for themselves the constitutionality of federal laws and reserved the right to refuse to enforce them if they went beyond their constitutionally delegated powers. As a matter of fact, nullification was used even before the implementation of the Constitution when the Colonists nullified laws made by the British Monarchy. The concept of a state nullifying a federal law simply means that a state refuses to comply with the law or permit its enforcement within state boundaries.

The man widely regarded as the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, described just how a federal system would work in his essay Federalist No. 51. Madison, encouraging his fellow countrymen to ratify the newly drafted Constitution, described a system of horizontal as well as vertical checks and balances between the federal and state governments — a system known as federalism. “Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

Madison, joined by Thomas Jefferson, would later go on to expand upon this in the famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. The federal government had recently passed the blatantly unconstitutional and shameful Alien and Sedition Acts to silence and intimidate political enemies. Those despicable acts were instituted by advocates of unwritten constitutional power and a more robust central government. Both Jefferson and Madison argued that the states constitutionally had the right to refuse not only to comply with such unconstitutional actions of the federal government, but also to actively prevent the feds from enforcing them within their state boundaries.

These visionaries and their resolutions gave a voice to a peaceful revolution of constitutional principles that would govern this great nation for years to come. Many states have in fact utilized state nullification to check the federal government throughout the history of our Republic. From the Fugitive Slave Act to unpopular tariffs, states did indeed nullify federal laws they found to be unconstitutional.

Nullification has started to be mentioned in the news, as states have once more started to utilize the practice to resist federal overreaching. Many states have either passed or proposed legislation or amendments to their state constitutions that nullify federal laws in the areas of firearms, medical marijuana, and healthcare, to name just a few.

Cross-Posted from The New American

Comments { 1 }

Jefferson, the Fed, and the Tenth Amendment

By on February 10, 2010 in Constitution, Federal Reserve

end-the-fed-signIn one of the many arguments Thomas Jefferson had with Alexander Hamilton in the first administration of the newly found republic, under President George Washington, Jefferson used these words to describe why Hamilton’s plan for a federal bank under private management was a bad and unconstitutional idea:

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground”: that “all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.”…

Jefferson went on to argue: “The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States by the Constitution. They are not among the powers specially enumerated…” “If such latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or another.” Simply stated; Ignore the enumerated powers and there are no enumerated powers, the sky is the limit to expanded federal government.

This is the foundation of the “implied powers” argument used throughout history to ignore the true intent of the constitution.

How prophetic Jefferson was, and how we see over the years the federal government’s quest for power has given us a government that Hamilton always wanted, a government of an elite class of men with the power over the common man. My words, not his; his sentiment, not mine.

Jefferson fought desperately to stop what today is the Federal Reserve System. If Jefferson were alive today he would want to end the fed. Giving up the federal treasury to be run by “independent and private” interests in his eyes was a recipe for disaster. And the disaster is now upon us.

Jefferson accused Hamilton of “excluding popular understanding and inquiry.” He argued the system of banking and credit devised by Hamilton was so confusing no man including the “president or congress should be able to understand it, or control it.” Which he believed gave Hamilton a scheme to enrich himself and his cohorts within the system Hamilton devised.

These arguments between the two founders were the foundation of a two party system. Not the one we have today but it put people in two “camps”; federalists and republicans with a small r. The Republican Party of yesterday is in modern times what became the Democratic Party. The federalists were the big central government supporters that had the rich, wealthy, and British sympathizers behind it.

How times change but one thing remains true; the principles of our constitution are the key to our recovery and a prosperous future. If we listen and learn about our history and great men like Thomas Jefferson we can consider the paths ahead by using the great understanding that he had of government, to build our future.

He loved the constitution and it was he and Madison that promised the Bill of Rights to encourage the states to ratify our Constitution. It is time to revisit our constitution and our Tenth Amendment in particular. That is, if we want a prosperous future and one that restrains the federal government from intruding on out state and individual rights.

Comments { 2 }

The Upcoming Tenth Amendment Summit

By on February 6, 2010 in Announcements, State Sovereignty

tenth-amendment-summitFor the first time in perhaps generations, the people of the states are demonstrating their disgust with the actions, policies, principles, and philosophies of the federal government. People who have attempted to change Washington, D.C., by playing by “their rules” have reached an end to that game of charades. To many, it has become all too clear that controlling the federal government through the three branches of the federal government alone is insufficient.

In Federalist Paper 48, James Madison warned:

Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?… The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands. (Emphasis added.)

What is a sufficient guard? The Founding Fathers actually incorporated myriad guards into the new federal system of government: They not only crafted a system of checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government — equipping each branch with means to check encroachments by another branch — they also perserved states rights, opting for a “compound republic” as opposed to a “single repubic” as Madison explained in Federalist Paper 51:

In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Many Americans who want to return the federal government to its constitutional moors are redisovering the truth that the states are not provinces or political subdivisions of the federal government but are themselves republics and possess sovereignty as acknowledged and confirmed by the Tenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution: “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.” Put simply, the states can reassert their sovereignty to rein in a runaway federal government!

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Comments { 3 }

Video: Keystone to Our Restoration

By on January 29, 2010 in Constitution, Federalism
Comments { 1 }

Judge Napolitano on the States and the Constitution

By on January 22, 2010 in Constitution, Federalism

Judge Andrew Napolitano has released a five part series providing a well-done Constitutional overview. Part 5 in particular deals with the rights and role of the states. It is well worth watching and sharing with others.

Editor’s Note: part 4, The Courts and the Constitution, is below

Comments { 3 }