On the methods, purposes and legitimacy of corrective Constitutional Amendments

Constitutional Scholar, Professor Rob Natelson, has written an interesting article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center concerning State initiated amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

By the way, the italicized descriptive I used in the previous sentence I sort of coined several years back when I discovered the procedure while reading the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Natelson's descriptive is a bit different than my own, whereas it is denominated in his article the state-application-and-convention method -- a minor piece of trivia that only matters if someone is interested in searching the archives of this blog for my own posts on the topic of State initiated amendment proposals. Anyway,...

Below is a relevant excerpt from Natelson's article.

Mr. Natelson writes:

The Founders created the state-application-and-convention process primarily as a way to rectify federal abuses of power. The Founders recognized that clarifying and corrective amendments might become necessary even when the proper reading of the document seemed clear. The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Amendments all are examples of clarifying and corrective amendments.

Precisely! And I think it may be time for another known as the 28th. Which is Fourteen multiplied by two. Hmm. ;-)

Read More

We live in a world of constitutional illiterates

Over the last couple of months I've read several editorials by several different newspaper authors decrying Arizona's disregard for a "fundamental constitutional principle" in making their own immigration law.

What is the fundamental constitutional principle commonly cited by all of these writers? That "federal law trumps State law" of course. Yeah, and "immigration is a federal issue" too. Right.

One editorial writer, Mike Jones of the Tulsa World, cites Article VI, supremacy clause, and dogmatically asserts that this provision means that federal law trumps State law without condition or circumstance, thus obliterating the meaning of the provision. Another editorialist declares that Arizona's law must not stand because it violates the constitution by usurping federal power. Hmm., let's investigate the matter for ourselves:

First, Article VI, supremacy clause declares that federal laws made in pursuance of the constitution are supreme to State and local laws. Can we agree on that?

Second, the tenth amendment declares that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States, etc. Can we agree on that?

Third, Article I, Section 8 delegates to the federal Congress authority to make an uniform rule of naturalization. Surely we can agree on that.

Fourth, since naturalization is not immigration and vice versa (we can agree on that, can't we?), and since, therefore, the constitution neither delegates authority over immigration to the federal government, nor prohibits it to the States (uh oh, this one is liable to stick in someone's crawl), and since only federal laws made pursuant to the constitution are declared by the constitution to be supreme over State and local laws,

And,...

since Arizona's law in no way infringes upon the federal government's power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

Therefore, I can only conclude that not only is Arizona's immigration law completely constitutional, but that since it IS made in pursuance of the constitution as written, unlike federal immigration law, that Arizona's immigration law trumps federal immigration law, per Article VI, Supremacy clause and the Tenth Amendment.

Good day!

Read More

Should I take back what I said the other day about Social Cons?

Below is posted the content of an email I sent to Lawrence Auster just a few moments ago:

Is someone reading VFR?

Look at the email below from Tim Wildmon of AFA, particularly the first bolded sentence. Keep in mind that AFA and Dr. Dobson's groups (Focus on the Family and its political arm CitizenLink) are closely aligned, and, I think (actually I know, but I can't go dig up evidence of this right now), are in regular communication with one another.

Are we seeing some progress here amongst the Social Cons? I can't agree with the idea conveyed further in the email stating that we must attack abortion funding in the bill as a separate issue from the entire bill itself. In case the bill passes. This is all but conceding defeat. No! We must attack the bill as a whole as a clear violation of the constitution, because that's the only basis on which it can be defeated, with or without abortion funding, with or without healthcare for illegal aliens, with or without so-called 'death panels', with or without healthcare rationing, with or without criminalization for non-compliance. Etc.

But are we seeing some progress?

The AFA Action Alert email is posted in its entirety below.

Stop the Washington takeover of our health care system
Urgent: Contact your senators today!
November 17, 2009

Dear Terry,

The Senate may vote as early as Thursday to move on its version of the government takeover of health care.

At the president's urging, Democrats are expected to use a parliamentary maneuver which will enable them to strip the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment from the House bill and push through a bill that will involve the use of your taxpayer dollars and mine to pay for abortions.

It must be clear that we oppose the Democratic health care legislation under consideration with or without protections for unborn human life. The Democrats' plan will increase the cost of health care, require rationing of care to seniors, create 111 new bureaucracies, and increase the already bloated federal deficit by a staggering amount.

But we also must make our voices heard any time and every time human life is at stake. Should a health care bill unfortunately reach the president's desk, we must do everything in our power to see that it does not use taxpayer funds to kill unborn children. Conservative estimates are that taxpayer funding of abortion under the government takeover will increase the number of abortions by one-third.

Take Action

E-mail your senators today and urge them firmly but politely to oppose the Washington takeover of our health care system with or without protections for unborn human life. Please also tell them to keep the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment in the health care bill that will keep the government from funding abortion, should the bill pass. (bolded text in original email)

I'm pleased to see that Mr. Wildmon and AFA have taken the position above of opposition to the 'healthcare' bill whether it contains abortion funding or not. Hopefully they can influence Dr. Dobson's groups to do the same. But the bottom line for me is this, if this monstrous government take-over of healthcare in America is successfully passed and signed into law, we are left with very few peaceful means (State level nullification laws, for instance) to prevent the wholesale desruction of life, liberty, and property which we have heretofore declared to be our unalienable individual rights as human beings and as Americans, subject to and protected by a written inviolable constitution.

I ask again in the words of Patrick Henry: Is life so dear; is peace so sweet???

Read More

Social Cons aiding and abetting Congress and the President in destroying America?

Sad to say, but yes, it's true. Evidently unbeknownst to themselves. Indeed, they somehow think they're thwarting the genocidal designs of the federal government by taking issue with the abortion funding in the 'healthcare' bill.

Chiu Chunling's initial comment to the previous entry reminded me of the email notification I received on Nov. 9 from CitizenLink directing subscribers to a 'victory' piece written by CitizenLink editor Kim Trobee. As I indicated in my reply to Chiu's comments, I had intended to do a short write-up about it but it had slipped my mind. Anyway, better late than never I suppose. Here are the last few sentences from the Trobee article:

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

Better still, try these sentences on for size:

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Huh?! Educate thyself! Or otherwise get the hell out of the business of attempting to do that which you're ill-equipped and ill-prepared to do in the first place.

This kind of thing is precisely the reason the pro-life lobby is generally looked down on and distrusted by the larger, more well rounded conservative community. And rightfully so in my opinion. They're so obsessed with abortion that they're otherwise rendered ill-equipped and ineffective in protecting the God-given rights of all Americans, including the rights of the unborn. What in heaven's name do they think they're accomplishing with all of this misdirected and ultimately wasted effort? I guess they gotta do something to occupy their time. But is it really necessary for them to engage in counterproductive, counterinuitive behavior as a matter of occupying that time? I suppose so. But I can't see any good reason to just let it go unchallenged.

And "Neutrality"! Someone ought to remove that concept from the American vocabulary. It's about as illegitimate a concept as that associated with the term "amorality." "Neutral," "amoral" -- am I seeing a similarity here? But I digress...

Evidently they can't see that they cannot ultimately win this fight on these grounds. The problem with 'government healthcare' is, well, government healthcare. Not abortion funding, not services provided for illegal aliens, not 'death panels,' etc. Those are all problems, sure, but they're not THE problem. Nor do they combine to form THE problem.

The federal constitution provides no avenue by which the federal Congress may simply effect a hostile take-over of the healthcare industry, such as it is, in America. The only way it can legitimately be done is via the provisions of Article V and a legal transfer of that authority from the states and the People to the central government. Or, to paraphrase General Washington, "by a solemn and authentic act of the whole American People," anything short of which leaves the existing constitution as it always has been, "sacredly obligatory on all." End of story. (BTW, when was it exactly that Washington's Farewell Speech was removed from our political scriptures in America? I must have missed the memo on that.)

But here we have a lobbying group, supposedly "conservative," supposedly "pro-life" which has resigned itself to the idea that the central government is somehow authorized to run roughshod over the constitution at its will and pleasure (not their area of expertise, don't ya know), an idea which defies both its supposed conservatism and its pro-life claims. So instead of attacking the root of the problem as they should if they're going to attack it at all, they go after single provisions in the bill, incidental to THE problem. In this case abortion funding.

The problem here, as we see, is that they're willing to tacitly go along with the blatantly unconstitutional healthcare 'reform' package and the unconstitutional means Congress is using to effect it, so long as the feds make the empty promise, in return for their support (which they claim is a "neutral" position), that no abortion funding will be attached to the bill. That's being "neutral," eh? Could have fooled me. And when (not "if") the feds eventually add abortion funding back into the bill, before or after it becomes "law" -- it matters not -- what will the pro-life lobby do then? Ah, there'll be a bunch of handwringing; a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth issuing forth from these people. That is, until the new wears off or they otherwise tire of it and move on to begging their federal masters not to add additional provisions for the funding of late-term and partial-birth abortions. All the while remaining "neutral" on government-run healthcare, appealing, of course, to their lack of expertise on the subject of the whole enchilada.

Such are the actions of abject slaves, and/or, of would-be totalitarians, not of freemen. And I should like to know how any slave, or group of slaves (granting the pro-life lobby the benefit of the doubt here, only because I don't believe their intentions to be evil), can ever accomplish the goal of protecting the lives and liberties of the relatively strong and healthy among us, to say nothing of the most vulnerable in our society? Ans: They can't. Period.

Is life so dear or peace so sweet? Forbid it Almighty God!

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

The CitizenLink article is posted in its entirety beneath the fold.

11-9-09

* Print This Article
* Forward to a Friend


Pro-Life Amendment to Health-Care Reform Passes in House


by Kim Trobee, editor

Representatives vote to prohibit federal funding of abortion.

An amendment prohibiting government funding of abortion in the House version of health-care reform passed on Saturday by a vote of 240-194.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment was the culmination of an effort by Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to insert language similar to the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment restricts abortion coverage under Medicaid.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said the coalition of pro-life lawmakers remained determined.

"We felt strongly about it," he said. "We were not going to vote or even let (health care) come to the floor for a vote with language that would fund abortions."

Many Democrats had maintained their plan would not include funding for abortions, but closer inspection revealed it would do just that.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, said Democrat leaders spent months "misrepresenting" the plan.

"The bipartisan House vote is a sharp blow to the White House's pro-abortion smuggling operation," he said. "But, we know that the White House and pro-abortion congressional Democratic leaders will keep trying to enact government funding of abortion and will keep trying to conceal their true intentions, so there is a long battle ahead."

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said there were numerous troubling aspects of the bill in addition to the life concerns.

"Many of those fall outside our area of expertise," she said. "That's why Focus on the Family Action remained neutral on passage of the overall bill and focused our efforts on the important abortion funding issue."

Now, attention turns to the Senate, where lawmakers soon will consider their version of health-care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said his bill will "look markedly different" from the House offering.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said pro-lifers must continue to contact their lawmakers.

"We will remain vigilant and shift our efforts to the Senate," she said, "to ensure that these same pro-life protections are added to the Senate bill."

One final note: I don't doubt the sincerity or the 'good intentions' of the pro-life lobby in trying to protect the lives of the unborn by lobbying Congress to remove provisions from the 'healthcare bill' aimed at destroying life and the advancement of the 'culture of death.' The same may be said of those who concern themselves exclusively with the provisions granting services to illegal aliens, and so forth and so on. The point is simply that the efforts and resources of these various groups are horribly misused and misguided. Their interests and that of their followers (not to mention that of the unborn) would be a lot better served if they would direct them to the recommendation and advocacy of the passage of State level nullification laws and otherwise ignore the central government and its unconstitutional actions on health care and a variety of other issues. But we seem to be particularly adept at pursuing such misguided, miscalculated adventures in America. It isn't like the pro-lifers are the only ones doing it.

P.S. Is it just me, or does this whole hopelessly ineffective movement seem to be headed up by emotionally driven ... women? Que the attack dogs.

Read More

Overturning Roe

This entry is purely intended as a reminder to readers that the abortion discussion at Loyal to Liberty continues with the addition of two new lengthy comments (double posted under the thread) by Chiu Chunling.

On one side of the question we have Dr. Keyes who disparages the states' rights argument because it allows for the continuation of the legal practice of abortion in America. On the other side we have Chiu Chunling who denies the validity of the federal argument because it ... allows for the continuation of the federally mandated legal practice of abortion in America. (I hope my summation of the argument is factually correct.)

This is such an important and thought provoking discussion, and given that it has moved several posts down the page both at Loyal to Liberty and with my reference to it here, that I'm going to do that which I normally wouldn't do, which is to say I'm going to jump through a couple of unnecessary hoops in order to embed, in the following words -- a direct link to the entry in question.

End of initial entry.

Read More

Continental Congress 2009

I thought readers would probably find this interesting, particularly if you're supportive of the TEA Party movement, the Tenth Amendment movement and so forth and so on. Per the usual with such videos posted on YouTube, there are related videos that you might also want to check out. Additionally here is the Continental Congress 2009 website where you may read more about this idea, the procedures for voting for delegates from your state, and etc. I leave it to you to find your way around the site.

I'm sure I'll be discussing this in a future entry soon. So stay tuned. In the meantime feel free to share anything you have to offer on the matter in the comment section of this entry.

Read More

"Race war," "Civil war" -- how to equate the two

Chiu Chunling once wrote, in response to a black racist commenter at Loyal to Liberty that "if you don't want a race war, then don't start one.

I think the same principle applies with regard to civil war and the war of ideas which instigates it. As I wrote this morning at the Tenth Amendment Center,

Terry Morris Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:45 am

Congress is doing a fine job of working out details of the healthcare bill, what???

I’ll tell you what, when Congess (or any other government entity) can show me where it (or any other government entity) has any legitimate business whatsoever involving itself in healthcare, then I’ll agree or disagree with the assertion that Congress is doing a fine job of it. As it is, the only ‘fine job’ Congress is doing is the job of overthrowing the principles of the constitution. Which too many people recognize to allow to go off without a hitch.

In other words, if Congress does not want a civil war, then it’s best advised not to start one. End of story.

Of course, I'm not at all convinced that the current Congress does not want a civil war, and am persuaded that it, somewhat like so-called "thrill-seekers" may actually think it wants one. If that's the case, then its members seem oblivious to the fact that their side cannot possibly win such a war. This ain't 1860 after all. But whatever. Most so-called "thrill seekers" do actually recognize that they're very likely to end up on the 'winning' side of things despite the danger inherent to their pursuits. Otherwise they wouldn't do it, or otherwise devise ways of making their pursuits, well, less dangerous. But what about the current Congress? Perhaps they're kind of, sort of, in-a-way something like Grizzly Man (who was violently eaten by one of the objects of his affection). Who knows.

Read More

Tenth Amendment Governor

Randy Brogdon announces his candidacy for the governorship of Oklahoma. World Net Daily has the story.

Read More

The (real) Spirit of '87

In a nice article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center, Timothy Baldwin (son of Chuck Baldwin) writes the following,

[T]o suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line. It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation. If you accept Corwin’s proposition of “getting back to the constitution”, you might as well throw the tenth amendment in the dump, along with the freedom it protects.

which concepts are of intense interest to me, witnessed by the fact that I've written about them numerous times at this blog including at least one entry in which I suggested (tongue in cheek, of course) that we make this false and dangerous doctrine of federal authority always trumping state authority official amending it into the constitution and settling the issue once and for all time. Indeed, we could simply scrap the entirety of the U.S. Constitution and replace it with this simple doctrine, for as I've also said before, to scrap the 9th and 10th amendments is the same thing, for all intents and purposes, as scrapping the entirety of the constitution.

In a comment directed at Mr. Baldwin's above statements, I wrote the following:

To suggest that state sovereignty always give way to the national power is to completely do away with the line.

Precisely correct! It is, in point of fact, a contradiction in terms the suggestion that state sovereignty can in any way exist alongside an all powerful central authority to which the states must always yield. One of the fundamental laws of logic is the law of non-contradiction (A cannot be non-A), which such a concept palpably violates and is therefore of no legitimate authority whatsoever, which is to say that rational people are in no way bound to observe it nor anyone who propagates such blatantly false illogical conceptions.

It is in fact to destroy even the natural law of self-preservation.

Well, the law itself cannot be destroyed. It can, however, be undermined to the extent that for all intents and purposes (governmentally speaking) it is non existent. And that’s what it invariably comes down to, now isn’t it. Indeed, the law of self-preservation applies as well to the national government as it does to the states and to the people. In asserting unlimited arbitrary power over them, the national government, in point of fact, is destroying itself and the reason for its existence. And we all know what the Declaration says about that — “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [the preservation of the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it…”

In the end, and as I think Mr. Baldwin intimates further down the article, it all comes down to a clash of worldviews (doesn't it always?). Worldview A holds that there are certain inviolable principles perpetually at work in the physical universe and, acknowledging that these principles and laws exist, seeks to operate within the boundaries therein prescribed insofar as they can be dileneated, while Worldview B rejects the idea that these principles and laws really exist as anything more than the false conceptions and inventions of [lesser-evolved] minds led astray. Worldview B seeks, therefore, to ignore them, everything being to such people "relative" except, of course, the idea that "everything is relative" which is not relative but a fixed and immutable law of the universe. Setting aside the contradiction here, is this the one and only fixed and immutable law of the universe, this idea that everything is relative? I don't know, it gets a bit confusing given that such people also palpably contradict themselves in dogmatically asserting that "we can't legislate morality" while at the very same moment, and in fact in the very issue itself, pushing intensely for the ... well, ahem ... the legislation of morality.

Anyway, do read the article in full. Baldwin helpfully lists at least twelve instances in which the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution contain the same principles. Not that it really serves our purposes since the constitution establishes an all-powerful central authority designed to eventually suck all other state and local authority into its ever-growing, ever more violently destructive vortex.

Them founding fathers, they was a shifty bunch, wasn't they!

Read More

See you there next year

Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend this year's march-on-Washington TEA rally, nor was I able to attend our local TEA rally held in conjunction due to another pre-scheduled obligation. Indeed, I wasn't even able to watch the historic event on television, but I did get a call from Dad on my cell while en route to our event who said to me "this is big, big!"

Our friend, Rick Darby, files this report from the frontlines. I particularly liked the message on the sign a woman carried filed in Rick's report:

One woman bore a sign that said, "Don't make me come back here next year."

I won't lie to you and say that I ever had more than a passing notion to be in attendance at this year's Washington TEA Rally, but I will say this -- I'm setting aside time right now to be in attendance at the next one. Indeed, I know a lot of people who know a lot of people who know a lot of people, and so on. And while I'm not nearly the 'community organizer' that it seems Hussein was in his prime, I think I can help put together a fairly sizeable bus tour for next year's event should it come to that, which I'm fairly certain it will. And there's no time like the present to get started on it.

Anyway, thanks to Rick for taking the time and effort, and shouldering the expense of traveling to Washington for this historic event. And thanks, Rick, for filing your report. Catch ya on the flipside.

Read More

Time to initiate another letter writing campaign (initial draft)

Esteemed Sirs,

By changing the language in the amendment proposal such as you've done, you're essentially acknowledging that the federal government possesses unlimited power over the states and the people thereof, and that all federal law supercedes state law, contrary to the ninth and tenth Amendments, U.S. Constitution, and in accordance with the doctrine of the enemy. What is more, given that the language in the amendment was changed upon receipt of a slightly veiled threat from the U.S. Attorney General, you give the lasting impression that you have no heart for the fight, and that the good citizens of Oklahoma bear the same deficiency, which is to say a severe lack of spine. How then, esteemed Sirs, can any other state currently, or in future, embroiled in the sovereignty movement trust that this uniquely conservative, God fearing, liberty-loving state will be with them in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, till death do us part?

My suggested reaction?: "Bring it on!"

Your servant,...

Read More

"Our new King George"

Tenth Amendment Center commenter DWalla created this poster for displayal at a TEA rally in his area. Of course, Hussein Obama would be more appropriately portrayed as a King of Saudi Arabia than in the garb of an 18th century British Monarch. But the poster makes a pretty good political point nonetheless. And I've asked DWalla whether he can make one to go with that represents our leftist Congress as the New British Parliament. But then again, that wouldn't really be representative of what they actually are either.

Read More

Key answers critics and naysayers

The Tenth Amendment Center's newly inaugurated weekly podcast show has already featured such notables as Gary Marbut of Montana gun rights fame, and constitutional scholar and historian, Prof. Rob Natelson. Both interviews were well conducted and very informative, as I've mentioned in previous entries.

This week's guest on the show is Ok. Republican Rep. from district 90 (lucky dogs!) Charles Key, who is considered by some to be the founder of the modern tenth amendment resolution movement, among other notable achievements which we won't get into here. Indeed, though Mr. Key doesn't seem much inclined to toot his own horn, and he, accordingly, doesn't mention it in the interview, I'm pretty sure that he actually introduced a version of our tenth amendment resolution during his first stint in the Okla. House of Representatives back in 1990s. Of course he was way ahead of his time then. Besides, Oklahoma's legislature was then controlled by liberal democrats even though the people of the state were then (as well as now) by and large conservatives. But we've rectified that little situation, and Charles Key, thank goodness, is again representing the good people of his district.

Do go over to the Tenth Amendment Center and listen to the interview, though. It's only about 20 minutes long, and Key answers the critics and the naysayers who musn't have anything better to do than to critize the tenth amendment movement as being "ineffective," "just a resolution," "not really serious," and so forth and so on. Recall also that after the Oklahoma legislature overrode the Governor's veto of the measure, Key answered the question of whether secession might be in the cards basically by saying that Oklahoma will not dismiss any option available to us. And he's damn sure right about that.

Read More

Term limits again?!

There's probably not a single political issue out there that unites more disparate factions than the term limit issue. Would-be government reformers seem to align on this issue almost to the man.

A few days ago I was reading a discussion involving term limits at the Tenth Amendment Center. Everyone was pretty much in agreement that we need to install term limits in the federal constitution, but one commenter in particular made the statement that term limits is a "no-brainer." Which is to say that if you don't support the popular idea of term limiting the federal Congress, then you're something like the village idiot.

Well, I must be the village idiot. And village idiot that I am, I dared to challenge this individual on his assumption. Anyway, the moral of that particular story is that if you lack a good workable knowledge of the constitution and its explication in the Federalist Papers, you best not tangle with someone that possesses it. Oh, I was nice about it; I didn't engage in any personal attacks (what would have been the point?). But when I suggested that this individual might want to read the Federalist Papers to gain a better understanding of the federal constitution, and why the framers included certain provisions therein while leaving others out, I was informed that I was the one that didn't understand the constitution, and that the Federalist Papers offered no instruction on the subject because that was the government they (the framers) were trying to improve when they wrote the Constitution. Well, at this suggestion I simply advised that my interlocutor google the terms "Federalist Papers," and "Articles of Confederation," because it seemed he might be confusing the two. These young whipper-snappers!, I don't quite know what to think about 'em sometimes. ;-) I tend to think, though, that the modern educational apparatus in America, with all of its concern about "self-esteem," absolute equality and so forth and so on, has a tendency to bring out the very worst in individuals and they lack a certain humility and deference that is proper for the relatively uneducated and inexperienced to possess. But that's just a theory and it's beside the point...

A few days later the question arose again under a different article at the Tenth Amendment Center. Same basic results -- people jumping on board advocating for a term limit amendment added to the federal Constitution. And again I felt I needed to challenge this position. But let me just say, without going into a lot of detail, that (1) the founders were well aware of so-called "career politicians," the avarice, inrigue, ambitions and so forth that they possess. Yet they still didn't include term limits (modern definition) in the federal constitution. And (2) the constitution the founders created is a complete working system; a system that, like any other system, when you begin mucking around with it making changes and alterations which, on the surface, appear to be "limited" you later tend to find that they have unintended, unforseen negative consequences which affect the whole structure, and therefore the whole effectiveness as to its original intent, of the government as the founders originally designed it. But our founders didn't leave us without explanation on this point of term limiting the federal Congress. We may read something about it in Federalist no. 64, among other places.

But my main point about federal term limits is this -- I personally couldn't ever support a constitutional amendment that alters the original fundamental structure of the federal government, or that undermines its design and its legitimate purpose. We've done that enough times already with everything from "birthright citizenship" for the children of illegal aliens, to the imposition of a federal income tax, to the "democratic" election of our Senators in the 17th amendment, to limiting the terms of presidents, etc. And this is the very reason I've never supported the FMA. I'm a strong advocate of traditional marriage, but I don't want some federal beaurocracy engaging in fraud, waste, and abuse, issuing marriage licenses and taking ultimate control of the marriage issue. No; my consistent position has been that I can never support a given amendment proposal unless it can be shown to be in keeping with the original intent and design of the government. And when you get down to where the rubber meets the road, this popular clamoring for federal term limits is simply an attempt to establish more mob rule. We've got enough of that already, in my humble opinion. Besides, what makes people think that a state like Massachusetts will not replace a Ted Kennedy with a clone of Ted Kennedy as soon as he's out, I will personally never know. If the people can't control themselves without term limits, how in God's name are they going to control themselves with them? And as our founding fathers were quick to point out to us, we can't always know that people are on the right side of an issue for noble reasons, and vice versa. In other words, don't think for a minute that everyone is on board with term limits because they want to "limit" the size and influence of the federal government. Let me tell you something -- probably the vast majority of people vying for federal term limits have an opposite goal in mind. But, you know, we moderns tend to think that democracy is the ultimate in good government.

Read More

On the proper role of the federal government

When you've got 52 minutes to spare, follow the link provided to the Tenth Amendment Center and listen to Michael Boldin's podcast interview with Constitutional scholar and expert Prof. Rob Natelson.

The interview is well conducted, and Mr. Natelson's answers and explanations are very informative. Also on the page are links to articles published by Mr. Natelson, as well as a link to some of his fuller length essays on subjects related to the constitution.

Read More

Tennessee Senate pitches 'no-hitter' in Tenth Amendment battle

Below is the text of the article posted at the Tenth Amendment Center.

Tennessee Senate Unanimously Affirms Sovereignty
Posted on 12 June 2009

Today, the Tennessee State Senate unanimously voted to pass, as amended, House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108). The resolution “Urges Congress to recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the tenth amendment to the Constitution.”

The State House passed the resolution on 05-26-09 by a vote of 85-2.

Tennessee joins Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho and Oklahoma - as the sixth state to have both their House and Senate pass a resolution in support of the 10th Amendment.

The final vote was 31-0. (h/t Steve Rowland)

Read the final version of the resolution below:

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “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”; and

WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE

CONCURRING, that we hereby affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed by the Speaker of the House and of the Senate, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolution to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of Tennessee’s Congressional delegation.

Read More

On the destruction of local self-government/"establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states"

(Note: The entry has been updated below.)

By now you've all undoubtedly read about the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' ruling on the matter of a local Oklahoma county's display of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse lawn, brought about by a single, solitary individual who was (gasp!) "offended" by such display, thus filed a complaint.

Our frequent and insightful commenter, Chiu Chunling disagrees with me on this point, but I, nonetheless, cannot fail to mention the establishment of a constitutionally recognized dual citizenship in that pesky fourteenth amendment, U.S. Constitution which has provided the impetus for the federal courts to deem all governmental entities, down to the smallest most local level, mere agents and arms of the "federal" government.

Notwihstanding that, how anyone in his right mind can derive from the unambiguous phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." that the judicial arm of the central government has any jurisdiction, and/or, authority over the procedures (or displays, as it were) of a county or municipal government (re: local government) is beyond me. Our county and municipal governments in the State of Oklahoma are not arms and agents of the federal authority in any event. Whenever they become that, tyranny reigns supreme.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invaribly the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to create new guards for their future security.

But I've also quoted, many times, Hamilton from Federalist #84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights. (italics added)

If I thought there was the slightest chance in hell that any relief was to be had via our "illustrious" legislators in Congress whose prerogative it is to tell the federal courts to take a proverbial hike in this matter, you can bet I'd be doing all in my power to persuade them to do so. As it is, though, I think it's more or less a collaborative effort.

Posted below the fold is the NewsOK article on the subject.

DENVER — An appeals court ruled Monday a Ten Commandments monument on the Haskell County Courthouse lawn in Stigler violates the Constitution because its primary effect is to endorse religion.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 against the 8-foot-tall monument in a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and a Haskell County resident who said it offended him.

The ACLU said the decision means "the county cannot continue to display it on the courthouse lawn. That said, nothing prevents any individual, group, or congregation from publicly displaying the same monument on their own property — and we would defend their right to do so.”

An attorney for the commissioners said the judges erred "for many reasons” in Monday’s decision, and he cited Supreme Court decisions in similar cases to support his conclusion. Attorney Kevin Theriot said he is recommending to the commissioners that they ask all 12 judges of the court to reconsider the decision of the three-judge panel.

Monument endorses religion, judges say

The monument was erected in 2004.
The Haskell County commissioners’ authorization of the monument "had the impermissible principal or primary effect of endorsing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause” of the Constitution, the judges wrote in a 52-page decision.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The judges said the Supreme Court has interpreted the clause to mean a government action must not have a primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.

The judges wrote that, "in the unique factual setting of a small community like Haskell County,” the Christian origins of the monument’s erection "tended to strongly reflect a government endorsement of religion.”

Monday’s decision overturned a 2006 ruling by a Muskogee federal judge who concluded the commissioners did not overstep the constitutional line "demarcating government neutrality toward religion.”

Circuit Judge Jerome Holmes of Oklahoma City, a conservative appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote the decision for the Denver-based appeals court.

End of initial entry.

**********

Update: A short discussion on this topic has been had over at the Tenth Amendment Center where commenter Patrick Henry Lives first sounded the alarm. Also, he's written a supportive letter to the Haskell County Board of Commissioners and posted it in a comment under the thread. Here is the text of his letter:

Haskell County Board of Commissioners
E Main Street
County Courthouse
Stigler, OK 74462-2439
Phone: (918) 967-4352
Fax: (918)967-3290

Dear Board of Commissioners,

It was with saddened hearts that we learned of the recent ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals declaring that the display of the Ten Commandments was an unconstitutional “endorsement of religion.” However, we were greatly encouraged by the statement of Commissioner Mitch Worsham indicating it was your intention not to obey or to take the monument down. We write to strengthen and confirm you in that resolve.

It has been the sovereign right of the People of the several States to acknowledge God in our public places since before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. All of our nation’s organic documents acknowledge Christ and God. This is historically true. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and to their peoples all powers not given to the federal government nor prohibited by the Constitution to them. The First Amendment prohibition against an Establishment of Religion applies by its express terms only to Congress. The usurpation of reserved States Rights by liberal, activist judges cannot override the written Constitution nor can it obviate our duty before the Majesty in Heaven. We must obey God more than men. We implore you not to yield to spiritual wickedness in high places by surrendering your ground.

Oklahoma recently passed a Tenth Amendment Resolution claiming sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution. To date, 34 States have followed or are following Oklahoma’s example in telling the federal government to cease and desist it unlawful intrusion into and usurpation of reserved States’ Rights. To bring this matter to an immediate Constitutional confrontation and crisis, we encourage you to petition the Oklahoma Legislature to enact legislation making it unlawful for any officer of the State or any of its subdivisions to obey a federal court judgment purporting to invade reserved States’ Right by ordering the removal of any monument displaying the Ten Commandments, the Cross of Christ, or other acknowledgement of God as the Supreme Majesty in Heaven, who alone is the author of our being, the guardian of our liberties, and the wellspring of our happiness.

God bless you as you endeavor to persist in your moral courage and resolution to resist the unlawful acts of a usurping federal judiciary. Better that Oklahoma secede from the Union than to abandon its duty to its citizens and to God.

Sincerely,

Patrick Henry Lives

Read More

What would be the result of secession?

There is a school of thought that says of secession that, pacifists that we (modern Americans) are, there would be no agressive counter-movement by the central authority were a state or a group of states to secede from the union.

At the Tenth Amendment Center Jeff Matthews argues this position (albeit he doesn't use the term "pacifists," but I think this is essentially what he's getting at).

Jeff Matthews writes:

No way we’d have civil war if one or more states seceded. Not in these days of thinking we Americans are above the fray. We have it in our minds that civil wars and unrest are for the Middle East and perhaps, Korea, but not for here. We are far too good a people for that. There is no way the feds would even dream about it. They’d be pissing their pants, thinking about what to do, but there is no way, they’d invoke martial law and start shooting, dropping bombs, throwing grenades, and launching rockets. Not if it happened now.

Ha, ha.

No disrespect intended, but sometimes I have to wonder about these people, about their personal experiences, their upbringings, etc., -- what it is that convinces them to believe that any government, including (or especially) our own, cannot be provoked to take up arms against its own citizens. The thinking, in my opinion, besides being pretty naive, is a bit dangerous as well.

I personally cannot imagine a scenario involving the secession of one or more states in which the central government would not see it as a hostile act by the offending party/parties. Thus, I cannot imagine a secession scenario that would not involve aggressive action by the central government eventually resulting in bloodshed. So Jeff and I are on opposite ends of this particular spectrum. Okay, I'll grant a 1% chance that a state or states would be allowed to secede from the union peacefully, with no immediate violence done to them on behalf of the union. But that's about all the chance I'd give it. And notice that I said immediate.

Does it never occur to people that it's easy to be pacifistic whenever pacifism is made easy? Sorry if it sounds a little too cliche', but isn't it the truth? I mean, what need have our northern neighbors the Canadians of a strong, viable military? What need of national strength and masculinity when the most powerful nation on God's earth shares a continent and a border with you? However, whenever someone feels like he's being backed into a corner and fears for his life, he's liable to come out swinging. But our government isn't run by a bunch of pacifists anyway. They just like to give that impression because they think it's in vogue. Besides, I hold that any government capable of a Waco style massacre is capable of just about anything.

Update: The discussion took off after I mentioned in the thread the implications of the Waco massacre.

Patrick Henry Lives wrote:

The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched. Attacking a seceding State would have to be open and overt war, so the dynamics are different. At Waco, they had to conceal the arson and murder of 80 people, including women and children, and thus play homage to virtue and moderation by hiding what they wre really like and lengths they willing to go to. With a seceding State they could not conceal the aggression and killing. The whole facade of pretending to be righteous would have to be shed.

Jeff Matthews follows up:

Also, Waco was perceived as a small group of nutjobs. It’s far different than taking on a whole state.

TM replies,

You guys are making the point and then missing it. What do you think a seceding state would be made to look like but a bunch of nutjobs hostile to the United States? C’mon.

and further:

…even by a (large) segment of its own citizenry, by the way; a segment of the citizenry that enjoys a form of dual citizenship - state and national.

Hannibal Barca weighs in:

Constutional convention or secession…This is why it is important - NO, it is CRUCIAL, to take over the state legislature. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. The tenth amendment is about the states. We should be focusing on the states. We should be looking at pulling people out of office via recall. We shouldn’t be waiting to just vote them out. Rip them out.

The good news is that WE THE PEOPLE happen to live in the states, not WE THE FEDERAL GOVERNNMENT.

TM follows up on Patrick Henry Lives's comments:

“The one thing about Waco, though, was that it was secretly torched.”

True. But let me just point out that that was after the ‘compound’ and the people in it were ruthlessly attacked (by land and air) by a bunch of jackboot thugs who had already tipped off the media and everything else. So what, in reality, is different about it?

The ATF wasn’t too concerned about the image it was going to project, other than it concerned itself pointedly to projecting the image of POWER wielded for the noble cause of ‘justice’. Not to mention that there was a fifty one day ’standoff’ in which all manner of evil and lewd and lascivious behavior was going on at the hands of our illustrious government law enforcement officers taking their orders straight from the top (granted, this was all concealed). But the Congressional hearings on the matter, in which such things came out, were an absolute joke in which the government was made to look like the innocent and noble victim of a bunch of religious crazies in spite of it all.

Yeah; I can see that happening again.

Jeff Matthews replies:

You are all letting your imaginations get the better of you. Our federal government will not start a war with a seceding state. Think about it and tell me who will. Congress? Not on your life! The President? Fat chance. It will not happen. The feds would rather write them off than suffer the blow in the world’s eyes of having a civil war - not to mention the cost of such a war.

TM replies to Jeff:

Jeff,

A flyover state like Oklahoma (perceived by the general public to be populated by a bunch of ungovernable backwoods hillbillies) secedes. Upwards of thirty percent of its citizens cry foul. The U.S. government has an interest in that thirty percent because they are also U.S. citizens who disagree with Oklahoma’s move to secession. On top of everything else that group would be perceived as victims of an aggressive majority population whose rights would be threatened, and the U.S. government would be pressured (as if that would be necessary) to come to their rescue. And on and on and on.

Now, you can say I’m letting my imagination run away with me, but it doesn’t make it so. And you can’t simply say “not on your life,” “fat chance, it isn’t going to happen.” That’s a bit weak, don’t ya think? But what in God’s name does the fed care about world perception on the subject of a seceding American state? ‘The World’ routinely puts down such movements. So whose side do you think it would take?

I can imagine any number of scenarios involving secession that would ultimately result in bloodshed, but I can’t imagine a single scenario that would not. Nonetheless…

I’m content to leave it at that. We’ll undoubtedly see eventually because a state will definitely cross over that rubicon at some point in the not too distant future. And I imagine that others will soon follow. Until then, it’s all just speculation on our parts. But I’ll wager a cup of coffee on it if you like. ;-)

Jeff replies:

I see the issues you raise, Terry. I imagine it is possible to manufacture a “Fort Sumter” scenario all over again.

I find the whole scenario kind of eerie in a “Hotel California” sort-of way. “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”

TM replies:

Jeff,

Believe it or not I’ve actually quoted that exact Hotel California line myself (several times) in these same kinds of discussions.

And don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying that a state seceding would necessarily result in an immediate aggressive counter-move by the national government (although that, to me, seems like the most likely scenario if some latitude is given to the term “immediate, for the reasons I’ve already listed and more.). On the other hand, I can hardly envision a “fractured” America (an America that does not universally recognize a single central governing authority) that could live in mutual peace and harmony for very long. So when I say that secession means civil war, I’m saying that a fractured America, from the very moment that it fractures into different (independent) governing entities and onward, is an America whose exposure to internal disputes automatically increases exponentially. Independent governing entities have, by nature and by necessity, authority to enter into treaties with other nations and states, coin money, provide for its own defense, declare war, and so forth and so on. So in the end, it all boils down to internal disorder between the various governing entities, and civil war. At least that’s the way I see it. And let’s face it, there’s no love lost between certain states and certain others in this union. But anyway…

I will add further comments as they're posted.

Also, not that I'm trying to cover every possible scenario, or to mention every single contingency that would ultimately factor into a likely scenario (as if to say that I'm capable of it in any event), because I think it is important that different perspectives be offered, but I cannot fail to mention that in addition to the "upwards of thirty percent" of U.S. citizens that the U.S. government would be "bound" to defend, there are also the "birthright" children that the government would consider, under such a scenario, wards of the state. Again, I think the Waco incident is a good analogous example of how this might all play itself out.

Update: Jeff Matthews responded to my last post above:

I see it not as a matter of will everyone think what everyone else does is okay after a secession. I highly doubt that. We certainly don’t agree with all that England or France does, but we get along with them just fine (for the most part).

I see no problem existing that way and being the happier for it.

I would as soon see the Union stick together, but these clowns in D.C…. They are ruining it for all of us.

I chose not to respond under the article because I figure it's probably time to let the discussion die in that particular thread. Plus, I wanted to give Jeff the final word, since it's his article'n'all. ;-) We can take the subject up again somewhere else. However, let me just say that in his comments above Jeff reveals more lack of discernment. First of all, comparing the severing of the United States into two or more independent sovereign governmental entities to our relationship with Great Britian and France, et al, is like comparing apples and oranges. To have mentioned our relationship with Canada and Mexico, given that we share the same continent and are not separated by a whole ocean, would have been a better example, but it would still be apples and oranges. I trust that you understand why.

Read More

Gay "marriage": a victory for decentralization?

I've been spending quite a bit of time lately over at the Tenth Amendment Center where they're doing a good job of keeping up with all of the tenth amendment resolutions, and other state enactments and citizen movements as they're happening.

Just a few days ago New Hampshire became the sixth state in the union to authorize gay "marriage." In praise of this radical move by the New Hampshire legislature, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center writes that,

Whether you support this particular issue or not, I think people across the political spectrum can see this as a victory for decentralization. The 10th Amendment makes it quite clear that the most important social issues should be handled on a state level, or by the people themselves.

Really? I'm not going to dispute that the tenth amendment reserves to the states and to the people the great residual of political powers, obviously, it being a central theme of this blog the principle of Balanced Constitutional Government. But exactly how is this instance some prime example of a "victory for decentralization?" And if it is an example of such a victory, isn't the fact that 34 or 35 other states in this union which have explicitly denied homosexual "marriage" is the more important and more decisive victory ... for decentralization?

I suppose I understand the impulse to applaud movements which seem to favor the decentralization of political powers consistent with the constitution, particularly in an era in which centralization of political powers is not only commonplace, but one of the ruling principles of our degenerating society. On the other hand, something so obviously self-destructive to society as undermining its foundational institution hardly seems to me to be especially deserving of praise and adulation, particularly when the exact same principle one is supposedly applauding has been applied in six times the number of states, albeit with diametrically opposing results.

I won't say that Boldin has some kind of underlying homosexual advocacy agenda here, because we know that people are often on the wrong side of an issue for all the right reasons, and vice versa. But it seems rather odd to me, nonetheless, to praise this radical, self-destructive movement by the state of New Hampshire while neglecting to mention the movement amongst the states to protect the institution of marriage. But maybe it was just an error of omission.

Y'know, had the New Hampshire legislature voted the other way, not only would it be able to claim a victory for decentralization, but it would have also retained its dignity. As it is, the state is apparently ruled by sodomites.

Read More

Why do I always put the term federal, as generally applied to the central government, in scare quotes?

Well, partly because the U.S. Government, as it now stands, is probably about as far away from being a "federal" government as any government can possibly be. And partly because when we ... spontaneously? ... refer to the central government as THE Federal Government, we simply obfuscate the meaning of the term federal and its derivatives, rendering the term, particularly as it applies to these United States, effectively meaningless (I'll grant that some people understand what the term means, yet still use the descriptive "federal government" in reference to the central authority as a matter of convenience and habit.).

If it is even possible, at this point in the game, to save the country, we must restore the federal principle to its rightful place in our system of government. To do that, we must know first what the term means. But, irregardless of whether we can save the country or not, it will serve us all well to be considerate about the way we use such terms.

I will quote again William James who said:

"There is nothing so absurd than when you repeat something often enough, people begin to believe it." (the statement doesn't originate with James, but he is most often accredited with it, nonetheless.)

Referring to the central government as The Federal Government, as we're so apt to do these days, has (had) this effect I think. Likewise, it has been stated so frequently and so often over the course of decades in this country -- the doctrine of the "separation of church and state" -- that people actually think that the actual words are contained in the U.S. Constitution. And, of course, you all know by now that one of my pet peeves is the common reference to the Constitution as being (in and of itself) the Supreme Law. But the term federal has a specific meaning, particularly as it applies to the United States.

There is an article by Clarence B. Carson newly posted at the Tenth Amendment Center this morning, originally published in 1983 (several years before I became politically aware), entitled The Meaning of Federalism. I posted a short comment to the article this morning in which I invoke Noah Webster and his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, as well as his descriptive of the United States as a Federal Representative Republic. Also, the author mentions the original mode of selecting U.S. Senators as an integral part of preserving (or, re-establishing in our current situation) the federal principle in American government. Do read the article. And keep in mind that it was originally published back in 1983. Further erosion of the federal principle has since occured.

Read More