Navigation

Tag Archives | thomas jefferson

The Rightful Remedy

By on September 28, 2010 in Nullification, State Sovereignty, Video 1

On Saturday, Sept. 25, Kentucky 10th Amendment Center chapter coordinator Mike Maharrey spoke at a freedom rally on the steps of the state capitol building in Frankfort. He discussed the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, emphasizing that states pushing back against overreaching federal power is not some radical or extremist idea, but the very remedy the founders intended for unconstitutional acts.

“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.” – Thomas Jefferson

Continue Reading

Nullification – What is that?

By on September 3, 2010 in Nullification 0

Thomas Jefferson, who most of us would call a creditable source, called Nullification the “rightful remedy” to the uncontrollable quest for government power.

In an oration in 1772, John Adams declared that, “Liberty, under every conceivable form of government is always in danger.” 26 years later, he personified that very danger when he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticizing the president and others in the federal government a crime. Adams showed us that government is the greatest threat to liberty because it always tends toward the destruction of the individual’s natural rights.

In 1798 Thomas Jefferson along with James Madison, another creditable source, penned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Actc, which they felt violated the 1st Amendment rights of free speech and was therefore unconstitutional.  This was the first time that the term “Nullification” was used in political discourse.

Jefferson went on to say that any law that was unconstitutional, was in fact, no law at all! Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

The Jeffersonian Position

By on August 9, 2010 in State Sovereignty 1

From Thomas Jefferson: Writings (Library of America, 1984), pp. 1056–1057 is a January 26, 1799 letter from Jefferson to Edbridge Gerry (inventor of “gerrymandering”) explaining his political philosophy:

“I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, & not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchising its features by the forms of its administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle. I am for preserving to the States the powers not yielded by them to the Union, & to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers; and I am not for transferring all the powers of the States to the general government, & all those of that government to the Executive branch. I am for a government rigorously frugal & simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers & salaries merely to make partisans, & for increasing, by every device, the public debt, on the principle of its being a public blessing [as Hamilton called it]. I am for relying, for internal defense, on our militia solely, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment, nor for a navy, which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens, & sink us under them. I am for free commerce with all nations; political connections with none; & little or no diplomatic establishment . . . I am for freedom of religion . . . for freedom of the press, & against all violations of the constitution to silence by force & not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their [political] agents . . .

. . . These, my friend, are my principles; they are unquestionably the principles of the great body of our fellow citizens . . .”

They are also almost diametrically opposed to the principles of Hamilton, the intellectual leader of the opposing Federalist Party, which Jefferson defeated in the presidential election in the next year.

cross-posted from the LewRockwell.com blog

Continue Reading

Jefferson on Judges

By on February 10, 2010 in Constitution, Judiciary 2

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

Continue Reading

Jefferson, the Fed, and the Tenth Amendment

By on February 10, 2010 in Constitution, Federal Reserve 2

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.

Continue Reading

Constitutionalists vs Conservatives

By on September 16, 2009 in Media, Republocrats, Tenthers 5

Critics who mock us as “tenthers” because we share views identical with Thomas Jefferson repeatedly make a fatal error. They believe that we are the same as the beltway, neoconservative, GOP-loyal rightwing.

For instance, check out Alan Colmes attempt at “tenther-bashing.” His big finisher? Under our analysis, George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind is unconstitutional. Well, duh. Of course it is!

America’s most prominent constitutionalist, Ron Paul, has been critical of the federal government’s involvement in education for decades. There are serious differences between mainstream conservatives and constitutionalists on some of the most important issues of the day – namely war and the powers of the President.

Many mainstream conservatives believe in an imperial presidency embued with king-like powers which would make even the Hamiltonian monarchists of the Founding blush. They also consistently advocate for an agressive foreign policy of Empire-building completely contradictory to the vision of our Founders.

Perhaps if liberals like Alan Colmes understood this, they might take a second look at what it is “tenthers,” or more accurately “constitutionalists,” are actually saying.

Continue Reading