3 posts tagged “constitution”

Lest anyone misunderstand, my previous piece, State Sovereignty: The Final Hope, was not meant to be an expression of desire for secession from the union by any state.  The actual intent was to clarify that the states set up the federal government, the states set the parameters for its organization, the states granted and limited its powers, and the states have the power to reign it in.  The question is, will they?

There were a few Governors who initially resisted the stimulus funds offered by the federal government.  They stood initially on principle before succumbing to public pressure.  Some rationalized the taking of some of the money after originally telling us how it didn't come without strings attached.  I'm not sure whether or not any leaders held out completely.  It was a chance for true leadership to stand up and say, "Enough, we will not be participants." 

If the states will not stand up to the federal government, the trends will never be changed.  Both major political parties have been enlarging the size of government and increasing the debt and deficit.  We cannot expect any substantive change to come from within.  We the people are fairly powerless once the election is completed.  Party politics trumps serving the people once they get to D.C. and their collection of form letters.

The states could very well amend the Constitution should they wish to do so, whether that be to add an amendment or to repeal one.  Three-fourths of the states, thirty eight, can call the convention to deal with such issues.  The details are laid out in Article V of the Constitution.  It is apparent that the Founding Fathers planned for the possibility of the government being non-responsive to the people.

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The states have allowed the federal government to pass legislation and rule from the bench regarding areas that should have been state issues.  They have allowed the government to grow out of control.  The result is being seen as the government is now dictating to private industry as to how their business should be carried out from having company officers terminated to removing standing from investors.  Threats and retribution by the government toward companies and individuals is a step too far.  The states need to take back the power they have ceded to the federal government.  The Founding Fathers were rightly concerned about a centralized government becoming too powerful.  The things they warned of are coming true before our very eyes.  Our last hope is to elect state and local leaders that will stand up to the federal government or succumb to the whims of D.C.

The common misconception is that we are a sovereign nation of fifty states.  The reality is that our nation is a republic of fifty sovereign states.  A game of semantics?  There is a difference between the two ideas.  Even if the difference seems to be subtle, the effect is great.  In his first inaugural address, President Ronald Reagan said, "We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around."  This country is a union of sovereign states with a common federal government to provide certain services for the common good of the group as dictated by the powers enumerated in the Constitution.  It is not a national government with a territory of fifty states to serve the government.  The government has become a beast that continues to grow, demanding more of its subjects as it grows.

One change that I would support and see as a positive step, but in reality I do not expect to ever see happen, is to repeal the 17th amendment.  Article 1, section 3 of the Constitution states in part, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."  The Senators were appointed to serve the interests of their state, to prevent other states from passing laws that would put their state at a disadvantage.  Today's Senators have no fear of being recalled by their State Legislature if they fail to act in the best interest of their state.

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The states in effect gave up a means of control to the federal government.  The state I live in, Minnesota, frequently has a legislative body that is far from conservative.  Even though I am at odds with their decisions on a regular basis, I would much rather have them retain control of the situation with the ability to rein in a Senator that plays party politics over the interest of the state.

Some states are actually beginning to make a stand as legislators introduce resolutions based on the Kentucky Resolutions of Thomas Jefferson.  According to Joseph Sobran, "The Resolutions were written in protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Jefferson saw as unconstitutional. It’s now generally agreed that he was right. He stressed that if the Federal Government were to be the final and exclusive authority on what the Constitution meant, it would be free to define the extent of its own powers — which would defeat the whole purpose of a written constitution.  On this occasion Jefferson didn’t call for secession, but later secessionists would draw on his powerful arguments. He treasured the Union, but he abhorred the idea that the states could or should be kept in the Union by force. They were still, in principle, “Free and Independent States.” They could remain free and independent only if they remained sovereign.  In 1816 Jefferson would write that “if any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in union ... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’” He hoped it would never come to that, but he saw that the ultimate right to withdraw from the Union was essential to the Union’s free and voluntary character"

Another States issue of recent weeks is the talk of the ability to secede from the Union.  Now remember, this is a Union of States.  The preamble to the Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  The union is of states, multiple sovereign states.  They created the federal government and gave limited powers to it, reserving all other considerations to themselves individually.  The federal government has over stepped those bounds frequently and radically.  The states have given over their rights to the feds, or maybe better put, have sold their souls, had they had souls.  The states voluntarily joined the union, and the threat of secession is the power the states held to keep the government in check.  Secession is a tool the states have to help keep the federal government in check, to control it's actions.  While it is not a tactic to be used carelessly, it is a necessary tool to retain freedom from tyranny.

When the original thirteen states formed the union, they wrote The Declaration of Independence.  Adopted on July 4, 1776, it was sub-titled, The United Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America.  The opening paragraph is:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

They declared their separation from England and understood that it may be necessary from time to time as a government became tyrannical and oppressive.  The men who made the stand against England declared the colonies to be free and independent states.  They believed, and set up our nation based upon the belief, that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The second paragraph begins:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The closing paragraph is:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.  And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

They were independent states who formed the government and gave it limited powers which they controlled.  The states controlled the federal government, the federal government was not created to control the states.  The Articles of Confederation also states, “Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence."

When the USSR broke down as a union, the United States basically supported the states such as Georgia, Bosnia and Croatia in their secession.  Does the same government now declare secession to not be valid?  If a government demands that it is illegal for a state to secede from a voluntary union, isn't that justification to consider secession as an option to tyranny?  If you would like to see the secession movements around the world, check:

http://www.secessionist.us/active_autonomist_and_secessioni.htm .

Secession Quotes

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." – Abraham Lincoln, (speech in Congress January 1848)

"A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants." - Ludwig Von Mises. Omnipotent Government, p.90

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." – Plato (circa 400 B.C.)

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." – Thomas Jefferson

"The constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."-Patrick Henry

"Only a despotic and imperial government can coerce seceding states" - William Seward US Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln in 10 April 1861 to Charles Francis Adams, Minister to the Court of St. James (Britain)

"We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." - The New-York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860

"The consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin of all that has proceeded it." - Robert E. Lee to Lord Acton December 15, 1866

"We dissent . . . because the powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of he several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism, as nothing short of the supremacy of despotic sway could connect and govern these United States under one government. . . . [I]t would . . . produce a despotism, and that not by the usual gradations, but with the celerity that has hitherto only attended revolutions effected by the sword." (The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, December 18, 1787), in R. Ketchum, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers, pp. 237-256).

 

George Orwell, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

 

Why does it need to be such a difficult issue?  Concerning President Obama, is he or is he not technically eligible to be president of These United States of America?

The professional politicians of our day have trampled the Constitution under foot in pursuit of gaining and retaining power.  It has been a deteriorating situation as the years pass and the full time politicians feel the need to always be doing something in D.C. to justify their presence.  Unfortunately for we the people, the laws, regulations and uncontrolled spending have produced an oppressive atmosphere in our beloved country.

The arrogance of our legislators, judges and executive has created a situation where even our freedom of speech is being threatened.  To challenge the validity of President Obama's qualifications is now looked  upon as lunacy and appears to be approaching criminal activity.  Court cases are dismissed without hearings for a variety of reasons.  Judges even mock those who bring the cases.  The political parties have no courage to stand up for what is right.  The people of this great nation are not being listened to on this issue or any number of other issues from the sanctity of life, to the definition of marriage, to the illegal alien invasion.

The very oath taken by our federal officials is broken almost immediately after the swearing in ceremony.  The Constitution they swear to uphold and defend is only consulted when it supports what they want to do.  If it is in the way of their goals, it is as if it doesn't exist.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

President Obama has, and has had all along, the power to put the debate to rest.  All he has needed to do, and can still do, is to produce a valid birth certificate.  What has been published on his website is not an actual birth certificate.  So the question that needs to be asked is, "What does President Obama have to hide?" 

A World Net Daily report explains, "Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan.

Lawyers and plaintiffs in a multitude of lawsuits also have asked why, if a birth certificate actually reflects that Obama was born in Hawaii, has he spent sums estimated by observers of up to $1 million hiring various law firms to keep concealed his birth certificate, his college records and other documentation

."

Perhaps the birth certificate does not exist.  Concerning the Hawaii certificate, it is a certificate of live birth which is different from a birth certificate.  From Berg v. Obama, "Obama has tried to obfuscate the issue by providing a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) from Hawaii authorities.  Said document has been proven as a forgery. The left-wing Annenberg organization factcheck.org has tried to obfuscate the issue even more, by declaring the forged document as real.  The primary issue however, is that the document in question is only a registration of birth filing, and not an official "Vault" Birth Certificate.  Registration was a method used by some to gain U.S. citizenship even after being born in a foreign country.  Many of Obama's relatives in Kenya say that Obama was born in Kenya, and flown to Hawaii after three days to enable the registration filing.  The above linked video of his Kenyan Grandmother suggests that Obama was born in Kenya, but is not conclusive."

And what of his school records?  Is it possible that he used foreign student status to gain exchange student privileges and grants?  This is consistent with the ploys of today's politicians in general.  Use the details and facts when advantageous to achieving the goal, otherwise ignore them.

Beyond the eligibility issue, other amendments and rights are under attack.  From free speech, to bearing arms, to freedom from involuntary servitude, all are being threatened.  It isn't all President Obama , in fact, it is mostly the Democrat controlled House and Senate.  The President still signs off on the issues and is therefore held to some degree of responsibility for the resulting actions and repercussions .  As we heard throughout the campaign, eight years of failed Bush policies was the cause of all of our ills.  Of course the opposition led Congress was not held accountable by our media.

Back on November 7, 2008, I wrote about "America Serves" on change.gov which was President Obama's site on which he spelled out some of his plans.  This was a program that mandated community service under the guise of volunteerism.  Don't get me wrong, I do believe that volunteerism and community service is a good thing.  Once it becomes mandated by the Federal Government, however, it crosses the line and is no longer volunteer service.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I wrote, "That's it, the whole amendment.  It is pretty straight forward and easy to understand.  Involuntary servitude is not constitutional.  the phrase, "developing a plan to require" is the key point.  If the service is required, it is involuntary."

Shortly after this article was written, along with a great many other articles decrying the proposed action, the website was changed.  So "by developing a plan to require" has been changed to "by setting a goal that".  Whether the word "require" is used or not, if the service is in fact required, the point that it is unconstitutional remains the same.    More information can be found at the linked article.

And now it has become The Give Act.  Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ‘Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act’ or the ‘GIVE Act’.  More details can be found at the Education & Labor site. A FOX news article states, "The legislation, slated to cost $6 billion over five years, would create 175,000 "new service opportunities" under AmeriCorps, bringing the number of participants in the national volunteer program to 250,000. It would also create additional "corps" to expand the reach of volunteerism into new sectors, including a Clean Energy Corps, Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps and Veterans Service Corps, and it expands the National Civilian Community Corps to focus on additional areas like disaster relief and energy conservation."  

"We contribute our time and money under no government coercion on a scale the rest of the world doesn't emulate and probably can't imagine," said Luke Sheahan, contributing editor for the Family Security Foundation. "The idea that government should order its people to perform acts of charity is contrary to the idea of charity and it removes the responsibility for charity from the people to the government, destroying private initiative."

"It's allowing taxpayer funding of the left-wing organizations," said Larry Hart, director of government relations for the American Conservative Union.  I think this is a problem that is rife throughout the federal government. When you dramatically expand the program, then you dramatically expand the ability for these left-wing advocacy organizations to get more funding. I don't see a lot of attention being paid to that, even from those who are critical. That's where the focus should be. Republicans tend to say its not that they oppose the program, they just want to spend less money. It's the program that's bad."

On February 28, 2009, I wrote an article titled, When they silence the opposition.  In the article I discussed the so called Fairness Doctrine and the less offensive sounding Localism.  Either way it goes, the democrats are looking to limit the effect of conservative talk radio hosts to challenge the performance of Congress and the White House.  Funny, one of the ten pillars of communism is: 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.  The Constitution on the other hand states,

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 Make no mistake, the Democrat Party leadership has made ample comments directed at silencing the opposition.  Witness the recent demonization of Rush Limbaugh.  This is a very popular tactic of the leftists in this country.  Allegations and screaming flies through the air in character assassination style.  Once out there, it cannot be called back in the sound bite society we live in.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment is under constant threat and usually exists in a perilous state when Democrats are in control in both State and Federal governments.  I find it odd that people are willing to vote away a right that is actually in the constitution but will fight for supposed rights that are not.  For instance a vote against abortion or gay marriage is somehow voting away the rights of others.  Those items are not in the Constitution and should be State issues.  Instead we have the tyranny of the Feds and Judges step in and impose their will based on their own agenda.  In the case of an amendment being passed at the state level, a challenge will made saying that we can't vote away individual rights.  Yet the right to bear arms is regularly squelched and it does exist in the Constitution.

I encourage you to watch this administration with an eye to their behavior and attitudes.  Everything seems to be a crisis and legislation needs to be rushed through.  When they say it is for our sake, for the good of the people or the nation, beware!  The smoke screens are many as they mask what is going on.  They cannot afford to let the people see what is really in this legislation because the result would be outrage that would stall the agenda they are trying to push through.  In the meantime our rights and liberties will be eroded as they continue to change our society forever.

Just as a point of interest, I encourage you to review the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work.  Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

"So, is the U.S. a "free country" today?  Hardly!  Not compared to what it once was.  Yet, very few Americans today challenge these Marxist institutions, and there are virtually no politicians calling for their repeal or even gradual phase-out."

I encourage you to visit the site for more reading on each of these planks.  Some are seeming all too familiar while others are on the horizon, being strengthened as our legislators throw money at every issue thinking that they are somehow being creative while they are really making us subservient to world rule as a debtor nation.  The collapse of our monetary system will be the next "bubble" to burst and will provide the needed impetus to transfer what little wealth we have left to others in the world.  Those who say that president Obama doesn't have Marxist tendencies ignore his past and most likely have not read the Communist Manifesto.  Yet, without knowledge of what Marxism entails, they will vehemently deny that he is Marxist.  It is looked upon as a derogatory term rather than a definition of his ideology.