Tag Archives: President Obama

Obama's Flawed Constitution

liberty-bellPresident Obama has expressed, on several occasions, his belief that the Constitution is a flawed document.  He has also indicated a primary goal of his administration is to change the way things are done in America to match the principles on which he believes the nation was founded.  Millions of Americans cheer his efforts, believing they will make their lives easier and more rewarding.  Since more than sixty percent of Americans approve of his job performance after four months in office, pursuing his goal to remake America, it is important to understand just what the founding principles of our nation really are.

We will not find a definition of those principles in the Constitution although we do find examples of them.  At the same time, we find several places where the Constitution seems to contradict those principles.  The Constitution is a political document.  As such, it reflects compromises on issues that many of the framers did not agree on. The two most important were those between the federalists and the republicans and between the slave holding states and the anti-slave states.

The founding documents of America are actually three distinct documents written at different times and for different purposes.  They are The Declaration of Independence (1776), The Constitution (1787) and The Bill of Rights (1789).

The Declaration of Independence, often referred to as the nation’s charter, was based on a republican philosophy and contains the founding principles for our form of government.  The first principle is that a legitimate government receives its powers from the people.  The second is that all men are created equal. The third principle is that of unalienable rights endowed by God, not granted by government.  The fourth is that the only purpose of government is to protect those rights in a secure and stable civil society.

During the Revolutionary War, a Federation of the thirteen states was formed to carry out the war and perform other functions of a national nature, under the Articles of Confederation.  The Federation had no taxing powers, no means of regulating commerce between the states, and no mechanism for enforcing laws passed by the Congress.  The Articles of Confederation proved inadequate as a blueprint for governance, and the states authorized a convention in 1787 for the purpose of amending the Articles to correct many of the defects.

The Convention, meeting at Philadelphia, was dominated by Federalists who wanted a strong central government with the states in a subordinate relationship to the federal government, much like the relationship between counties and towns to state governments.  The minority, known as the anti-federalists, was strongly opposed to the Constitution as written.  Fearing it gave too much power to the central government, they demanded a Bill of Rights.  Many of the Founding Fathers we revere today were on opposing sides in the debate.

Federalists Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and James Madison, among others, were strongly opposed to a Bill of Rights.  Federalist No. 84 by Hamilton was written in opposition, arguing that adding a list of specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution was not only unnecessary but dangerous to the welfare of the union.  Many of the strongest advocates for a Bill of Rights were not delegates to the Convention. Thomas Jefferson was in France on a diplomatic mission during the debates and unable to contribute personally.  However, in a letter to his friend James Madison he expressed a strong concern that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights.  Patrick Henry, another strong anti-federalist refused to attend the Convention and therefore did not take part in the debates.

However, after the draft of the Constitution was presented to the states for ratification, Henry became one of the dominant leaders in the anti-federalist opposition along with Samuel Adams, and John Hancock of Boston.  Failing in their efforts to get a Bill of Rights included in the Constitution the anti-federalists worked diligently in their state legislatures to secure assurances that a Bill of Rights would be added as amendments to the Constitution as a condition of ratification.  In this, they succeeded.

The discord in the Philadelphia Convention can be seen by comparing the title of the Declaration with the signing statement of the Constitution.  The full title of the Declaration boldly proclaims it to be “The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America”.  By comparison, the Constitution simply says in the last paragraph,

“Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.”

This ambiguous wording was drawn up by George Mason and presented by Benjamin Franklin as a way of encouraging delegates to sign the draft and maintain the impression of unanimity on their behalf.  Notice, it is the Convention itself, not the signing of the Constitution that claims the “unanimous consent”.  On the day of signing only 43 delegates representing twelve states were present, including George Washington, President of the Convention and William Jackson, Secretary.  Three of the forty-three delegates that were present refused to sign; hardly a unanimous agreement.

Five states ratified the Constitution shortly after it was presented to the states.  However, it bogged down in Massachusetts.  Only after Samuel Adams and John Hancock had negotiated “the Massachusetts Compromise”, did the Massachusetts Convention vote for ratification. The compromise, recommending amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into effect allowed delegates to vote for ratification with the prospect of a Bill of Rights being added later.

The Adams-Hancock compromise probably saved the Constitution from certain defeat.  Other states followed their example in their ratifying conventions.  Without the Bill of Rights, there would be no basis in law to protect our rights and restrict the powers of Congress.  The Tenth Amendment is the cornerstone of our founding documents and the basis for the doctrine of “enumerated powers”.  Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, there were still contradictions between the principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

These differences were not to be reconciled for another hundred years.  Only after the Civil War at a cost of more than 500,000 lives in battle and the addition of Amendments 13, 14 and 15, was the principle that “all men are created equal” recognized in the Constitution.  Today the Declaration and the Constitution, with its amendments, are in near perfect harmony. Unfortunately, from the beginning, the federal government has seemingly violated the letter and the spirit of the Constitution at will with little if any opposition from the people as a whole.

For the past seventy-five years we have witnessed the wholesale violation of the Constitution by Congresses, courts and Presidents, none more so that our current President and Congress.  When President Obama speaks of “perfecting” the Constitution or “remaking America” he is really talking about discarding the Constitution and tearing down all the traditions and customs that have made America great.

The warning uttered by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Philadelphia Convention has an ominous ring to it today.

“Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.

Have the American people been so corrupted by the allure of socialism as to be incapable of any form of government other than despotism, as Franklin suggested?  The next few months and years will answer that question for many generations to come.


The Brown Shirts Are Coming!

minute-man-2-lithoFor the past two weeks we have witnessed the greatest political sleight-of-hand display in modern history, or as magicians call it, “misdirection”.  While the media has kept our attention on the super-hyped bonuses of AIG and other financial executives, other events have been taking place virtually unnoticed by the MSM.

Before I get to those, however, there is something else I noticed as I searched for information.  While surfing the web for details of some of Obama’s new initiatives I noticed a pattern that is somewhat disturbing.  “Official” Obama propaganda is everywhere on the web, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Flicker, numerous websites and blogs—some hold-overs from the campaign, others new.  The thing that struck me is the emphasis on Obama as a personality, not as the President of the United States.

For example, most Presidents have been content to use the “Seal of the Office of President of the United States” as their “logo.”  Obama, on the other hand, has his own personal seal, the all too familiar red and blue “O” with the stylized flag across the bottom, and it is everywhere.  Another thing I noticed is that on many of the official sites the references are to “Obama”, not to President Obama.  As I browsed around, I kept getting a mental image of the smiling face of Obama staring down from huge posters on the side of buildings in the fashion of Mao, Stalin, Hussein, et al.

Yeah, Okay…so I am becoming paranoid. Sue me.  Anyway, back to what’s been happening while AIG is monopolizing our attention.  First, last week the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1388, the “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act” (G.I.V.E.).   Yesterday the Senate voted to move their version of the same bill to the floor on a vote of 74-14.  A vote is expected on the Senate Bill sometime this week.

Since these bills enjoy bi-partisan congressional support, they are likely to pass with little opposition.  When passed into law they will consolidate the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 and the National Community Service Act of 1990 bringing the Peace Corps of President Kennedy and AmeriCorps of President Clinton into the twenty first century and putting them on steroids as the National Civilian Security Corps promised by Obama during the campaign.

Starting with a mere $6 billion in “seed” money the programs are expected to reach their full size by 2014.  All total, the combined programs will employ up to 250,000 paid “volunteers” nationwide. Up to 2,500 uniformed security corps personnel (troops) will be deployed in each state.  From what I can gather by sifting through the sparse information available, most of the “grunt” work will be carried on by Community Organizers, elevating that occupation to the top of the heap.

Billions of dollars in grants and “partnership” arrangements will be made available to faith based  community organizing groups and ACORN affiliates to carry out “approved” programs in local communities.  Meanwhile, steps are being taken to establish a year round, ongoing political campaign to insure Democrat control of Congress and the White House.

David Plouffe, former head of Obama’s campaign for President now heads a group called “Organizing For America”  working out of the Democratic National Committee.  The purpose of this group is to carry out “grassroots” efforts to promote Obama’s agenda, utilizing the millions strong e-mail network and volunteer canvassers  used during the campaign.

On this past Saturday, thousands of volunteers spread out across the county “button-holing” citizens and getting them to sign pledge cards promising to support Obama’s agenda and lobby their representatives for passage of his $3.5 billion budget. Thus far, however, Congress has not felt the effects, according to McClatchy newspapers.

These, and similar initiatives by Obama are much more dangerous to the future welfare of America than the bonuses earned by financial executives or the use of corporate jets a fraction of the size of “Pelosi One” or Air Force One.  They undermine the federalist nature of our Constitution by nationalizing major portions of our private charities and strengthening control of our state run social services by the federal government.  Many of the goals proposed by these bills are certainly worthwhile, but THEY ARE NOT THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Totalitarianism 101

minute-man-2-lithoThe patterns of totalitarianism are taking shape in the American government virtually unacknowledged.  Few Americans can fathom the possibility of elected officials deliberately carrying out policies detrimental to the country’s welfare.  In the minds of Washington socialist dominating our government, the policies they are advocating are really best for the country.  To them, American is a flawed government that must be remade for its own survival.  Totalitarian policies are intended for the good of the people, to protect them from themselves.

A look at the despotic governments of the twentieth century reveals at least four characteristics of totalitarian governments.  Three of these characteristics are evident in recent developments we read about on the front pages of our daily papers or hear about in prime time newscasts every day.  The fourth is a necessity that must be implemented in order for the first three to take root and flourish.

1. Centralized Power

One of the fundamental themes of our Constitution is protection from tyranny and the preservation of liberty.   The original plan consisted of thirteen independent and sovereign states united in a federal government believed to be necessary for the collective security and harmony of the several states.  One of the greatest fears of the founders and their critics was that any federal arrangement might develop into a consolidated government that would usurp the sovereignty of the states and trample on the liberty of the people.

To guard against this possibility the Framers listed in the Constitution the specific powers granted to the federal government (Article I, Section 8) and then emphasized the sovereignty of the individual states by adding the Tenth Amendment.  Over the years the Federal government has chipped away at this feature of the Constitution through targeted tax incentives and economic and social regulations designed to transfer power from the states and the people to an elite ruling class in Washington.

For over forty-five years—two generations—the Federal government has managed our education system.  The end result is that most Americans have lost sight of the federal, republican character of our government and think of it a monolithic central government designed to direct the affairs of all the states and their citizens.  The economic downturn that started at the end of 2007 and continues today provided an opening for the government to centralize economic planning and direction in Washington and they are taking full advantage of the opportunity.

The central planning and control of economic activity is a central part of all totalitarian governments. Through the trillions of dollars being pumped into the economy by “stimulus packages” implemented by both the Bush and Obama administrations we have been placed firmly on the path to the tyranny of centralized planning.

2. One Party Rule

All totalitarian governments have one political party that acts as a “rubber stamp” for the head of the party who functions, to a degree, as a dictator, much like the City Council and Mayor of Chicago, Illinois.  In America we have two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.  Regardless of the label, all political parties in America fall within a continuum from Constitution Fundamentalism on the right to Marxist Socialism on the left.  The Democratic Party, with the election of Barack Obama, is on the threshold of becoming a true Marxist Party to the left of European Socialism.

The Republican Party is slightly to the left of center and would be further left if not for the restraining influence of its conservative base.  Too many Republicans share the aspirations of power with the Democratic Party and believe the way to get and keep that power is by supporting big government and raiding the public treasury on behalf of their supporters.  The touted ideal of “bipartisanship” is nothing more than a tool for moving the Republican Party further to the left until we eventually have one party with two labels.

During his first month in office, Obama has instituted a number of policies designed to entrench the power of the Democratic Party for generations to come.  As we have pointed out numerous times over the past year, Community Organizers are the “foot soldiers” of the socialist movement.  They work diligently at the local level to “plant” the principles of socialism at the grassroots of American Society.  Few have been more active or more successful in this task than the former affiliate of Barack Obama, ACORN.  In the stimulus package just signed into law millions of dollars have been allocated for “community organizing” and organizations similar to ACORN.

Another effective means of strengthening the Democratic Party is by Gerrymandering Congressional Districts and manipulating the counting of citizens.   By Executive Order, Obama intends to take over the 2010 census.  By changing the way in which citizens are counted and “estimating” rather than counting citizens difficult to find, the Democratic Party can substantially increase its representation in the House of Representatives and alter the number of Presidential Electors allocated to the various states.  Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution places the responsibility for conducting the census totally in the hand of the Legislature and not the Executive.

“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they (Congress) shall by Law direct.” (Article 1, Section2, Clause 4)  The transfer of this duty to the White House by Executive Order is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Executive Branch.

3. Dependency

Still another means of concentrating power in the hands of a single party is through the creation of dependency.  The third and most reliable tool of totalitarianism is to cultivate a dependency of the masses on the power of the state.  The three most effective means for creating dependency are in the areas of defense, crises, and economics.  Because of the natural dangers in the world of international relations, the “enemies” ploy is a “gimmie” for the would be dictator.  Every modern dictator has used the threat of real or manufactured enemies as a means of solidifying the support of the people behind the protection of the state.

Sometimes the enemy is real and easily identified, like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Islamic Terrorism.  Sometimes they are manufactured like “The Great Satan” of Islamic despots or “global warming“.  Always they are used by aspiring tyrants as a means of creating fear and rationalizing an ever expanding role for government.  Unfortunately, we in America are not immune to this tactic.  Whatever the good intentions, and even the necessity of some policies, there is no denying that the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty and the war against climate change has seen a steady erosion of personal liberty and freedom in our own country.

Another means of creating dependency is crisis management.  Natural disasters like hurricane Katrina provide fertile ground for the expansion of government.  Although federal response to Katrina highlighted its shortcomings in dealing with local disasters, it has still been used to increase the dependency of citizens on the national government rather than state and local governments in responding to local crises.  At the same time it is utilized as the rationale for expanding the federal government into areas that should be the primary responsibility of the states and the people, weakening the power of local government and further consolidating the power of Washington bureaucrats.

On the economic front, a large majority of the American people are to some extent dependent on the federal government for part or all of their livelihood.  In addition to those we normally think of as being on the “public dole”, anyone who works in an industry dependent on government contracts, grants, tax incentives, or other government programs ad infinitum, is to some extent, a ward of the federal government.

The best example of this is the health care industry.  In spite of the picayune payments made by agencies like Medicare and Medicaid on behalf of individual patients, the industry as a whole has become dependent on the federal government for its existence; from the phlebotomist to the hospital administrator they all rely on government for a substantial part of their paychecks.

Almost any problem can be turned by the government into an opportunity to increase dependency and expand the scope of government.  As Rom Emmanuel says “never let a crisis go to waste”.  In the hands of government anything can be and often is turned into a crisis.  The mild recession we entered in 2007 has been turned into an economic crisis by the Democratic Party and used to justify the largest expansion of government in our nation’s history.

4. Control of the Means of Communication

With proper information, people will always make decisions based on what is best for their own welfare.  Information is power, and for that reason totalitarian governments always fear the free flow of information.  An argument could be made that America today would not be on the verge of converting to socialism, if not for the national media functioning as propagandists for the socialist movement over the past decade.

The Democratic Party controls the flow of information through the mass media with only a few exceptions.  Those exceptions are talk radio, a segment of the internet, and FNC.  No one would voluntarily choose tyranny over liberty if they were aware of the choice they were making.  Eight years of misinformation, slanted reporting, half-truths and propaganda against the Bush administration by the MSM created the circumstances that led to the election of Obama as President.

Now that we are at the point of transition between capitalism and socialism, control of information is even more critical to the new President and his supporters.  In order for the transformation of our society planned by Obama to go somewhat smoothly, the tens of millions of listeners to talk radio must be neutralized.  For Obama and the Democratic Party that is not just something that would make their lives easier, it is an absolute necessity.  Democratic leaders like Schumer, Durbin, Pelosi, Reid and others are already sending out “feelers” as they cast about for a plan that can be sold or forced on the public.

Make no mistake about it.  An attempt will be made by the federal government to silence talk radio.  It’s only a matter of finding the correct vehicle for its implementation.  When that happens it will be the fourth and final step on our road to totalitarianism.

Is President Obama Really a Socialist?

minute-man-2-lithoMost Americans reject socialism.  After more than forty years of cold war with the Soviet Union and its eventual collapse, the obvious failure of socialism in Cuba and countries of the Eastern Block, most of us realize that socialism simply does not work.  That’s good, except that most of us clearly do not recognize socialism even though it permeates every fabric of our society.

This fact is obvious in considering the reaction by a majority of us to the various attempts to “stimulate the economy” including the “stimulus package” passed by Congress last week and signed into law by President Obama.  We cling to the classic definition of socialism as communal ownership where the state owns and controls the means of production and distribution.  Any system that does not measure up to that definition is not considered socialism.  That is not the way modern western style socialism works, at least, not in the beginning stages.

Because of the negative image of socialism in the West, governments have been content, until now, to allow private ownership of business property, contenting itself with taking a lion’s share of profits through taxation and controlling commercial and industrial operations through regulation.  The dictionary definition of socialism simply does not accurately define socialism in its modern Western form.  Consequently, it is easy to accept the idea that is put forth by pundits and opinion makers in the media that Obama and his policies are not socialist but progressive.

What is not properly understood by many of us is the difference between means and goals.  In socialism, the goal is to redistribute wealth to attain what they believe to be social justice.  Nationalization, progressive taxation, targeted tax policies, and proliferation of social programs are merely the means used to reach this goal.  A necessary by-product of the goal is control over the personal behavior of the people; otherwise, they will not voluntarily cooperate in its achievement.  This is particularly true of those who are heavily taxed only to see those taxes redistributed to less productive members of society.

The litmus test as to whether a policy is socialist or not is whether it results in a transfer of income or wealth from one group of citizens to another.  Policies that take income or wealth from the person or persons who labored to accumulate it and transfers it to other individuals or groups who had no part in its creation is socialism, whatever label might be used to disguise the fact.  By this easily understood standard, President Obama is clearly a dedicated socialist and the policies he proposes are just as clearly socialistic.

Aside from the world wide, historical evidence that socialism is destructive to any society where it is practiced, in America it is also illegal.  The one thing all Americans, including our elected officials, agree on is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.  The problem is that not enough of us know what that means.  The Constitution was crafted by delegates to the Philadelphia Convention on behalf of their respective states to provide a means of performing certain necessary functions that could not be effectively performed by the several states individually.  After much debate, it was finally ratified by all thirteen of the original states.  The Constitution had two major purposes.  First, to provide the new government with the powers necessary for national defense and the protection of liberty and property.  The second purpose was to limit that power to the functions spelled out in the document.

Any powers not spelled out (enumerated) in the Constitution that may be necessary to maintain a stable and free society is left to the discretion of the states and the people by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.  As with most laws, the limited powers of the Federal Government were soon tested in court.  The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, George Marshall, wrote in the majority opinion of a Court case in 1803, “Any law passed by Congress not sanctioned by the Constitution is by its nature, void.” (Paraphrased for clarity)

Socialism, which is based on greed, envy, resentment and a lust for power, is undeniably unconstitutional and therefore illegal.  When elected or appointed officials of government impose their will on the people either by legislation, bureaucratic regulation or Executive Order they are in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land and it is the duty of every citizen to resist such unlawful behavior by any means at their disposal.

Curbing Government Corruption

minute-man-2-lithoIllinois’ Ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich gave the American People the best example of how our government really works that I have seen in my lifetime.  In return, he was fired by the Illinois Legislature for airing the family laundry in public.  The corruption we saw in Illinois may be extreme, but in substance it is little different from that practiced in state houses across the nation as well as in Washington D.C.  In fact, Washington has literally become the D.C. Stock Exchange of Power.  Leading politicians are not called “power brokers” for nothing.

As Thomas Jefferson warned in 1822, “…If ever this vast country is brought under a single government it will be one of the most extensive corruption….”  Corruption is the inevitable consequences of power, so it is axiomatic that the larger a government becomes, the more corrupt it gets.  It is not a coincidence that the Executive Orders signed by Barack Obama thus far, primarily benefit those who supported his election or that the “pork” bill masquerading as a “stimulus package” primarily benefits supporters of the Democratic Party.

The answer to limiting corruption in government is to limit its power.  This fundamental truth was recognized by the Founders in framing the Constitution.  That is why they established the doctrines of “enumerated powers“, and the “system of checks and balance”.  A certain equilibrium is maintained in the balance of power within the government because of competition between the three branches.  The same cannot be said for the doctrine of enumerated powers.  Here the contest is not between the three branches of government, but between those branches and the people.

We are in a period of exponential growth in government.  That growth will continue until the people realize the dangers involved and take the necessary steps to correct it.  Unless a correction is made, we cannot survive as a free people.  With the latest expansion of government, we are headed even faster in the direction of socialism.  Socialism is antithetical to liberty and freedom since it can only be administered through dictatorial control over the daily lives of its people.

If we are to avoid the destruction of free market capitalism and its replacement with a monolithic socialist state dictating every segment of our personal and private lives, we must take immediate steps to halt the growth of government.  Conservatives have been heartened in recent weeks by the seeming reawakening of the Republican Party.  The unanimous vote of the House Republicans against the destructive and irresponsible spending bill passed by the Democrats last week is an encouraging sign, but the reasons given publicly for Republican opposition do not indicate they yet understand the underlying problem.

According to the Associated Press, Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio complained about the excessive spending for Democratic programs and that the bill will not sufficiently stimulate the economy or produce enough jobs.  In addition, according to reports by AP, Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, says the bill must be stripped of its unnecessary spending and focused more on housing issues and tax cuts if it is to gain Republican support.  Other Republican lawmakers voiced similar views.

Meanwhile, Republican Governors are stepping up pressure on their Senators and Representatives to get the bill passed as soon as possible.  The National Governors Association has called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.  Even Governor Sarah Palin has trekked to Washington to press McConnell for Alaska’s share of the package.  Governors Charlie Crist, of Florida, Jim Douglas of Vermont and other Republican governors plan to make their support of the plan known in Washington this week.

This plan is shaping up to be a repeat of last year’s stimulus plan, which gave some $160 billion in “tax rebates” to citizens, many of which paid no income tax in the first place.  That bill was first defeated in the House but later passed both Houses with bipartisan support after some tinkering and compromises in conference that tossed some “goodies” to the Republicans.

The elephant in the room that is being conveniently avoided by both parties is the fact that Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to pass any part of the plan for the purposes stated.  Lawmakers on Capital Hill have always been reluctant to defend their positions based on the enumerated powers doctrine embodied in the Constitution.  Unless they recover from their shyness and take a principled position in defense of the Constitution this plan will become law.

There has been a bill brought before every Congress since 1997 by Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona.  The bill known as “The Enumerated Powers Act”, has gotten little support from Shadegg’s colleagues and no notice at all in the national media.  It would require that “all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.”  As Congressman Shadegg points out on his website, “This measure will force a continual re-examination of the role of the national government, and will fundamentally alter the ever-expanding reach of the federal government.”

Some type of effort along this line is our best hope for reducing the size of government and putting it back under the control of the people. When it becomes common practice that a routine part of the floor debate on any bill includes a debate on its constitutionality we cannot help but see a vast improvement in the legislation brought before Congress.  However, Congressman Shadegg’s effort will not succeed without the focused support of citizens nationwide.

In addition to supporting the Enumerated Powers Act, we need to hold our individual Congressmen and Senators accountable for any legislation they sponsor, co-sponsor or support.  We can do this by making it a habit to call, write or e-mail our representatives and asking a very simple question; “Which article in the Constitution authorizes the enactment of this legislation?”  If enough citizens take this minimal step, it will force our representatives to consider the Constitutionality of every vote they cast.  If a campaign of this type were continued for a long enough time, we would see the discussion of constitutionality a routine part of Congressional debate, and media coverage as well.

In the end, as the old adage says, we get the kind of government we deserve, either because of neglect, a desire for personal benefits at the expense of our fellow citizens, or a genuine desire to put the welfare of the country and the welfare of future generations before all else.  Our future is up to us.