But wait!, might secession (or the threat of secession) be our only option?

Yesterday I wrote that the secession movement is an ill-conceived movement that can accomplish nothing, if followed through to its end, but fracture of the country and civil war, followed by, if the country could survive a modern civil war at all, tyranny of the victorious part over the losers. And I offered what to me is a more sensible plan, an Article V state initiated convention for proposing amendments.

I can quote many founders and many founding documents on this, but for the time being, and since I'm a bit short on time this morning, let's consider a few excerpts from Washington's Farewell Speech:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

As I've written before, the full text of Washington's speech is well worth your time to read and reflect on often. It, along with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Monroe Doctrine, and perhaps a few others should serve as our political scriptures.

Recently as well I wrote about the supposed "exclusive" authority of the federal government over immigration, and the illegitimacy of this false doctrine. I wrote there that the basis on which this illegitimate doctrine is founded -- where Congress has "occupied the field" and intended a "complete ouster" is a dangerous and an unAmerican doctrine which effectively and for all intents and purposes makes the constitution, or any stipulation contained therein reserving to the states and to the people certain powers not explicitly granted to the national government, null and void.

I wrote in yesterday's post concerning Article V that the state initiated method for proposing amendments had miraculously managed to survive the assault on the constitution let loose in its full fury since the establishment of the fourteenth amendment. As an aside, there is some pretty solid evidence that the fourteenth amendment was not ratified by Congress according to the constitutional prescription. It shouldn't surprise any of us that the defeated southern states which opposed the amendment would have their Congresses dismissed and more favorable Congresses installed in their places by the all-powerful oppressive federal regime.

But to get on with the point of the post, and to summarize what my investigation has yielded on the subject thus far, it seems that the federal courts have once again struck down a clear constitutional provision intended by the founders as a (to use a modern expression) backup to the backup. And on what grounds have they colluded with Congress to overthrow the constitution? Well, apparently the docrine of federal preemption in all things governmental (read: tyranny and oppression!) is more deeply ingrained than I'd originally thought.

Now if you'll kindly pardon me, I think I'll get started eating my crow. (More later when I've had time to digest some of this ... crap.)

I still maintain that the secessionist movement, in and of itself, is an ill-advised movement, UNLESS it is part of a larger strategy intended to regain control of our government by peaceful constitutional means. And let's be clear about what the stakes are here -- this whole concept, as I've said so many times before, that the federal judiciary is the last word on the constitution is as illegitimate and unAmerican a concept as there ever was or ever shall be. There are times, my friends, when we must act in direct defiance of our government; when we must abjectly deny its self-proclaimed authority over all matters constitutional, and reassert our power as the ultimate and final arbiters of the constitution. Otherwise we're nothing more than slaves subject to the whims of an arbitrary government, whether we realize it or not.

What am I proposing?

Much will need to be added to my initial thoughts on this, but the following is basically what I'm proposing.

First, irregardless of what the federal courts have ruled and on what illegitimate basis they mean to collude with Congress and subject us to their oppressive arbitrary rule, I reject their arbitrary authority and rulings out of hand. The constitutional prescription for calling a convention for proposing amendments is not in the power of either Congress or the federal judiciary or the Executive branch to change or overthrow. It is the power reserved to the people through their state legislatures, by explicit constitutional decree, and to none other. I therefore declare any ruling to the contrary null and void. The first point then is this, let the federal courts rule as they will on this subject then laugh them into derision.

Second, we can use a recent example to show that the people still retain to themselves ultimate and final authority on matters constitutional, and that our federal "masters" will cower to the will of the people when and if the people assert themselves -- the killing of the Senate Amnesty Bill.

Third, we need to combine forces with groups such as the Secessionist movement to effect our ends of setting our government aright.

Fourth, we need to advocate for an Article V convention as a singular purposeful movement throughout the states under the banner of some overarching theme, i.e., the restoration of Balanced Constitutional Government. The purpose here is to show unity under a common theme and singularity of purpose. The problem thus far with effecting an Article V convention, as I see it, is that there has been no national unity of purpose; no movement among the states that could effect the requisite number (two thirds) of states needed, at any single time, to effect the convention. No; the applications of the states are, though they line up under common motives in certain cases and do meet the requisite number required, spread out over the course of time, and therefore easily dismissed by the federal Congress as just so many separate applications which, in and of themselves, and spread out over time as they are, do not meet the requisite number laid down in Article V.

The purpose in point four can be summed up this way: Get the requisite number of states on board and under a common overarching purpose in a relatively short span of time, say, five years. If the requisite number of applications are made, under a common overarching banner and within a short span of time, by the states, Congress cannot simply ignore them as they have over the course of our history. If Congress inadvisedly chooses, under these conditions, to declare that it has "exclusive" authority in proposing amendments, then the people would be actuated to take immediate action.

The four points I've drafted above are not intended in any way to exhaust those things we need to do in order to effect an Article V convention. Surely persons a lot smarter than I am and more Constitutionally astute can either add to, take away, or revise what I've written in the four points to better suit our purposes. The main point is to devise the bare bones of a plan and a strategy to save the constitution and our people. Any additional thoughts from my readers are greatly appreciated.

One last thing, I realize that there is a fear that the entirety of the federal constitution might be overthrown if such a convention were to be held. I would answer this fear in a couple of ways -- First, I personally don't believe this outcome has a chance in hell of ever happening. The People, by a solemn act of themselves as a whole, will never "scrap" the entirety of the U.S. Constitution. Too many Americans believe its principles to be sacred and inviolable. Second, as I've shown here and elsewhere, the federal government has already effected the overthrow of the constitution for all intents and purposes. As long as we permit it to believe it has all and exclusive power and authority; that it is the final arbiter, and not the people, nothing will be done to change it and federal government will continue to assert its prentended power in actuality until all, including any window of opportunity left to us to rectify the situation and rein the federal government in, will have been lost.

Read More

Federal injunction (temporarily) blocks full enactment of H.B. 1804

I learned of this new development yesterday evening when a friend and local businessman, and a staunch advocate of illegal immigration restriction, called me on my cell to inform me and to vent his outrage. This individual and I attended the March 6 immigration seminar of which I wrote on May 18 together; it was there that we both learned of the then pending lawsuit filed on behalf of the State (and federal) Chambers of Commerce which is responsible for this new development. Indeed, the speaker (whose OKC based firm filed the original lawsuit on behalf of the State Chambers of Commerce) spoke rather glowingly about his firm's legal work in opposition to the new Oklahoma law, saying, in no uncertain terms, that the law is unconstitutional because it (1) violates federal immigration law, and (2) unfairly burdens Oklahoma business owners with an undue responsibility to enforce the provisions of H.B. 1804. As to the second claim, I just rolled my eyes in utter contempt that someone would be so presumptuous as to suggest that Oklahoma business persons have no responsibility to reasonably attempt to verify the employment status of their prospective employees, particularly those who they suspect are illegal. "Fact of the business", no such provision should even be necessary in a sane society, but the necessity of the provision, i.e., the insanity of our society, is made strikingly evident by the very strength of the opposition to it. However, as the first reason was given by the speaker in terms that I thought required an explanation, I did challenge him to defend that assertion in more particularity -- "On what basis is it that Oklahoma's law violates federal immigration law?" When he asked for clarification of my question, I put it to him in these terms: "Is the basis some sort of privacy issue, or is it simply that the language in Oklahoma's provisions doesn't match up to the language in the federal law, or what?" He answered that it was the latter; that the language in the respective laws differed, but he didn't elaborate further.

Notwithstanding all of that, the federal government has now injected itself into the dispute over Oklahoma's immigration law. Sections seven and nine of the law are now declared by the federal government to be, for all intents and purposes and until further notice from on high, unconstitutional:

By RON JENKINS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 4, 6:24 PM ET

OKLAHOMA CITY - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked parts of an Oklahoma law targeting illegal immigration, saying the measures are probably unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of provisions of the law that subject employers to penalties for failing to comply with a federal employee verification system.

The decision came on a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Oklahoma Chamber and other business groups, who argued that the electronic verification system is voluntary under federal law and that employers should not be subjected to state penalties.

"Through harsh civil penalties, the Oklahoma law unfairly shifts the burden of immigration enforcement from government onto the backs of business," Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber, said in statement.

The provisions in effect since November prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services and make it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants, a provision loudly criticized by social agencies that work with the immigrant population.

The state law took effect in November 2007, but the employer provisions under attack were set to take effect July 1.

Cauthron held that the plaintiffs would probably establish that the state measure pre-empted federal law on immigration.

Attorney General Drew Edmondson defended the law.

"We will attempt to overcome this hurdle when the matter is set for hearing on the permanent injunction," he said.

Rep. Randy Terrill, a Republican who introduced the legislation, predicted the case would be appealed if the plaintiffs prevail in their quest for a permanent injunction.

No hearing date has been set. (all emphases mine)

In closing, allow me to set the record straight. The inference that Oklahoma's law conflicts with federal law in that it "requires" businesses to register with the employment verification system is simply false. As I explained in this post, only if a company voluntarily enters into contractual agreement with a government entity to provide goods or services in exchange for payment, is the company in question "required" to register with E-Verify to confirm the employment status of all new hires. No company is under any obligation whatsoever to enter into such a contract, and therefore, by Oklahoma law, no company is under any obligation whatsoever to register with the E-Verify employment verification system. In other words, it's all voluntary and the complaint is bogus, always has been. But you know how it is; there are a bunch of well-to-do government welfare cases out there who couldn't maintain their elaborate and lavish lifestyles if the goverment didn't provide them a swollen teat to suck off of. To wean them off of it is simply unthinkable. The best we can do is to occasionally slap them on the forehead and painfully exclaim "don't bite!"

Read More

Tams lands interview with Gutzman

Don't miss Mike's interview with Dr. Kevin Gutzman, author of the book Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, posted over at the AFB.

Here's a snippit:

MT: The contributors and readers of this blog are firm believers in the principles of balanced government. What are your thoughts on the prospects of balanced government as a political movement?

KG: By “balanced government,” I presume that you have in mind a situation in which each branch of the federal government is in the proper relationship to the others? I agree with the great Virginia senator and political theorist John Taylor of Caroline, who said that far more important than checks and balances — some form of separation of powers — within the federal government was the principle of division of powers — the assignment of responsibility in only a few areas to the center, with most reserved to the states — between the states and the federal government. Alas, this most significant of American governmental principles is now largely abandoned. However, one can hope for its resuscitation, and the first step toward that goal is to educate Americans at large about their real constitutional heritage. (emphasis added)

Respectfully to Dr. Gutzman, his presumption is a bit of a simplification as to what we mean by the term Balanced Government. I'll have to come back to this later when I have more time.

Dr. Gutzman also says that he thinks Constitutional amendments are an underutilized tool for the correction of defects in our governing systems earlier in the interview. I'm in complete agreement with this assessment. We've been so conditioned to believe, or so it seems, that the amendment process is a dangerous innovation on our liberties and the form of government structured to preserve and protect them, that out of fear that all will be lost, many times and most times, and at critical times when the process is most necessary, we flat refuse to use it.

I would also remind folks, once again, that Article V provides for two methods of amendment, the second of which, as both Mike and I (and others) have pointed out elsewhere, is, particularly in the situation we find ourselves now, the preferable one.

Thanks to Mike for taking the time to do the interview and sharing it with us. And thanks to Dr. Gutzman as well. Y'all go get his book.

Read More

Legislating from the Bench

Here's a story brought to us from the folks over at CitizenLink. It seems like the Maryland judiciary consists of a number of judges who believe that their opinions supersede the acts of the State legislature, and that they can overturn Maryland State law whenever they deem it to be unconstitutional.

Now, I don't know how this law was passed; whether it was passed by the legislature of the State of Mayland, or by popular referendum, or whatever; I simply do not know the internal workings of the State of Maryland. But whenever you've got a situation where the judiciary believes itself to be the final lawmaking body within a State, or the nation, for that matter, you don't need a constitutional amendment to protect the law from the legislature. What you need is a convention to redefine the boundaries of the respective powers of government, and to whom, and under what conditions, you are delegating and entrusting those powers, with punishments for the violation thereof.

Read More