Tag Archives: Tenth Amendment

Obama Presidency Most Lawless in History

The Obama government is the most lawless government in American History. When the fifty-five delegates to the Philadelphia Convention debated and crafted the U.S. Constitution their intention was to write the rules for the operation of the federal government. Their task was to preserve the principles of government identified in the Declaration of Independence, while at the same time, drawing up a plan that would provide the new government with the powers necessary for carrying out their legal functions and preserve the sovereignty of the participating states. A crucial goal of the Constitution was to limit the power and scope of the federal government and prevent it from encroaching on the legitimate powers of the states.

Article VI of the Constitution established the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land”. More specifically, it established the Constitution as the supreme law governing the operations and scope of the federal government. Only to the extent that the government is in compliance with the Constitution can it make any claim to being a government “of laws and not of men”.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to clarify portions of the Constitution and give emphasis to its limited powers. The limit on the powers of the federal government was given further emphasis in the Tenth Amendment. From the beginning, many power-hungry elected officials, tried to expand their powers beyond those granted. For the first hundred years Presidents and the Supreme Court were somewhat effective in defending the integrity of the Constitution. However, in the presidential elections of 1892 and 1896 conscious decisions were made by all the major political parties to begin testing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

The most important proposed departures from the original plan was to allow the federal government to collect a graduated income tax, and elect Senators by popular vote rather than by appointment of the state legislators as the Constitution required. The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments ratified in 1913 during the “progressive era” opened the floodgates, allowing for the wholesale violation of the Constitution. The sixteenth Amendment allowed for a direct income tax on individuals, making it possible for socialists and progressives in government to engage in income redistribution through a graduated income tax. The Seventeenth Amendment shifts the election of Senators from the state legislatures to the general population of each state, effectively neutralizing the Tenth Amendment placing the real government power in the hands of political “bosses” of the Parties in power.

Since that time the powers of the federal government and violations of the Constitution have increased exponentially to the point that it is questionable whether we are any longer a Constitutional Republic. Every administration since 1896 has violated the Constitution, both Democrats and Republicans. However, none have so blatantly refused to acknowledge the authority of the Constitution as Barack Obama, beginning with the first sentence of the first Article.

Article 1.1.1 “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This clause makes it clear that the Executive and Judicial Branches do not have the power to legislate or make laws. Yet, most of the laws enforced by the federal government today that infringe on our liberties originate in the Executive and Judicial Branches and not in the Legislature. The legitimate functions of the various departments in the Executive Branch are to implement the laws and policies established by the Legislative Branch. The Treasury Department, State Department, Interior Department, Justice Department, and Defense Departments exist under the “necessary and proper clause” of the enumerated powers section. Others are unconstitutional because they do not relate to the limited powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Today we have a plethora of Executive Branch bureaucracies, reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, making laws affecting every aspect of our personal and business life. These bureaucracies are headed by “Secretaries” who are illegally authorized by Congress to make laws at their discretion. This is a double violation of the Constitution; (1) Most are unconstitutional because their jurisdictions are not authorized by the Constitution; (2) Congress does not have the authority to delegate its legislative powers to another branch of government.

President Obama has taken this egregious violation of the Constitution to a new height by appointing Czars over the various bureaucracies who answer directly to the President, and have the authority to “dictate” to the Secretaries and department officials the “rules” to be made and enforced by the full power of the federal government. Department Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate and are accountable to it. The Czars are appointed directly by the President and are not confirmed by or accountable to Congress. This situation cannot be allowed to continue if we are to maintain any fragment of our liberty in the future. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to cut funding for these unconstitutional departments until they are forced out of existence.

****

Article 1.3.6 “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

This clause makes the Vice President the Chief Executive Officer of the Senate. The phrase, “but shall have no vote” has been interpreted by Senate Political Parties to turn the office of President of the Senate into a ceremonial position with no executive authority. Contrary to the belief of Vice President Biden, The Constitution places the office of Vice President in the Legislative Branch not the Executive; its position in the line of Presidential succession not withstanding. As a matter of fact, Presiding over the Senate is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution. The office of Majority Leader, an unconstitutional office created by the Senate in 1921, has been allowed to usurp the authority of the Vice President with impunity for almost a hundred years. The Senate is the primary check on the Executive Branch of government. This departure from the Constitution upsets that balance of power in favor of the Executive Branch. There is no historical or Constitutional justification for the office of Majority Leader in its present form.

****

Article 1.7.1:  “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;”

1.7.2:  “but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

This clause gives the House of Representatives the “power of the purse” since revenue can only be raised to fund the legitimate functions of government and all revenue bills must specify the purposes for which the revenue is to be allocated.

Article 1.9.7:  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Since budgets, revenue and allocations are inseparably linked, budgets are to originate in the House although the Senate may propose amendments. The President can make budget recommendations to Congress under Section 2 of the Constitution.

Article 2.3.1:  “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”

The undisciplined and often unconstitutional methods of budgeting, allocating funds and raising revenue are a primary culprit in our present financial crisis.

Congressional authority for taxing and spending is further explained in section eight, Article I.

Article 1.8.1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

1.8.2:  but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1.8.3:  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Here Congress is given the power to tax and spend for three specific purposes; pay debts, provide for the general welfare and common defense. This is followed by a list of sixteen specific items for which revenue may be raised and spent, clarifying the general phrases “general welfare” and “common defense”.

****

One of the ways Party leaders ensure their choice of candidates for President and Vice President is to manipulate primary dates in violation of Article II of the Constitution. When we cast our votes in a primary election, we are actually voting for an Elector, and only indirectly for the candidate that Elector is pledged to support in the Electoral College. By manipulating the dates on which primaries are held, party leaders are able to influence the outcome through the power of suggestion, with support building for candidates who appear to have the most popular appeal. Article II, Section 1, clause 16, was included in the Constitution specifically to prevent prior voting by one state from influencing the votes in other states.

Article 2.1.16:  “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

This clause is a single compound sentence broken only by a semicolon. The rules of English indicates that the Framers intended for the “time of choosing the Electors” and the “day on which they shall give their votes” to be on the same day respectively. The primary system and the primary dates are the creation of Political Parties and not the Constitution. The current primary system often results in candidates being chosen that do not represent the real choice of the voters.

****

Article3.2.9:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

This clause gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases in which a state is one of the parties involved. However, due to the number of cases involving states because of the federal government’s overstepping of its Constitution role, for efficiency, cases involving states are handled in the same way any other federal lawsuit is handled; they are first heard in district courts, then appealed to the appellate courts, and eventually to the Supreme Court. We currently have several cases involving states winding their way through the court system; involving immigration, Obama care, and several other matters. Meanwhile the Constitutional issues these cases relate to continue unabated. The Constitution does not give either Congress or the Supreme Court the authority delegate these cases to a lower court.

****

One of the functions of the Executive Branch is to enforce the federal laws through the Justice Department.

Article 2.3.4:  [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The Obama Justice Department picks and chooses the laws it will enforce and ignores those the President disagrees with.  The most obvious laws that Obama refuses to enforce are immigration laws.

4.4.1 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

4.4.2 And shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

By any definition, the yearly influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. amounts to an invasion. Although “invasion” does not necessarily need to involve a foreign military, there have been several instances where foreign military have invaded U.S. territory while the Justice Department does nothing. There have been many instances where armed criminals have invaded our territory and committed murder and kidnapping, again with only a cursory response from the federal government. Example, instead of supplying protection to the State of Arizona when requested, and as the Constitution Demands, the Justice Department brought suit against the state for attempting to enforce the law themselves.

These are just some of the illegal acts committed by the federal government against the original Constitution. When we add violations of the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, the list becomes too long to discuss in detail in a blog post. They would include violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, expression and assembly; the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right of self-defense; Amendment Four protecting against illegal searches and seizures; and Amendment Five, the double-jeopardy Amendment. Last and most important is the constant and continuing violation of Amendment Ten.

Amendment 10-0:  “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.”

Cut, Cap, and Unbalance

The more I see of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan being ballyhooed by the Conservative Republicans the more it seems like little more than “smoke and mirrors” designed to hide from the American people the responsibilities of the Republican House of Representatives. It may succeed in making it appear that the Democrat Senate and the White House are responsible for our current mess, and since it has such a strong populist appeal, it may even become law. It cannot solve our problems however, and it plays on the lack of awareness by the American people as to how we got to where we are and who alone has the power to get us out.

We have a $14.5 trillion dollar debt only because of the unconstitutional spending of prior Congresses; mostly Democrats, often aided and abetted by “moderate” Republicans and RINO’s. Presidents are the titular heads of their respective party and Congresses of the same party try to follow his leadership and pass the legislation he asks for. There is no sound reason for doing so however, if his proposed legislation is unconstitutional. The willingness of Congress members to follow the wishes of their Party Bosses rather than the dictates of the Constitution is the only reason our country is in the fiscal shape it is.

Cut, Cap and Balance will not solve that problem, especially if the Cut and Balance is scheduled for future “out-years” and not NOW. Every new Congress starts with a new slate. They can pass any legislation or appropriate any funds they wish. The only constraints on them are those found in the Constitution which they ignore anyway. There is no reason to think future Congresses would honor the requirements of a CCB Amendment any more than they have honored Article I or Amendment 10 in the past. The only thing a Congress critter fears is losing his or her cushy position and the power that goes with it. There is only one way to turn the country around and it is questionable if enough members of Congress have the stomach for it.

The first step is to rein in spending, and the method for doing it is not complicated. Do not appropriate the funds for any NEW unconstitutional expenditure. The Executive Branch can only spend funds appropriated by Congress and for the purposes designated in the appropriations bill. (Constitution 101) The second step is to gradually de-fund the existing unconstitutional programs created by prior Congresses. While we are at it we also need to de-fund much of the bloated Executive Branch budget, particularly the unconstitutional bureaucracies created by Congresses determined to avoid voter censorship while implementing the socialist agenda through bureaucratic “rulemaking” in violation of the first clause in the Constitution. (Article I, Section 1, clause 1)

These reforms can only be undertaken by the House of Representatives which the Constitution gives sole responsibility over the national treasury. (Articles I, Sections 1, 7, 8 and 9). Voters also have an important role to play in any reforms we make. Watch your elected representatives carefully, those who support any appropriation bills authorizing unconstitutional expenditures or programs should be voted against in the next election, whether they wear the label of conservative, Republican, moderate, fiscal conservative, or are just plain RINOs. Allowing them to continue in office only makes our task more difficult.

Choosing the Right Candidate

Before we know it, we are going to find ourselves in the midst of the most important primary race in generations. The number of patriots who recognize the perils facing America has grown exponentially over the past two years along with the continued growth of the Tea Party Movement. A number of patriotic politicians have stepped up to the plate to oppose the reckless and dangerous socialist policies of the current administration. Still, as we survey the developing field of possible “conservative” candidates we see a lot of ambiguity as to what it means to be a true constitution  conservative, both among the people and the potential candidates.

There are only two issues in the next election, one for the people and one for the candidates. The one for the people is; do we wish to continue as a constitutional republic or as a democratic socialist oligarchy?  The answer to that question determines the question we must get a clear answer to before we decide to support any candidate in the coming elections.  If the answer is that we want to continue as a constitutional republic, then the only thing we need to know about the candidate is; will he or she fight for our founding principles and defend our founding documents?

This is not something about which we have to speculate.  We have over four hundred years of history as our guide; 169 years of colonialism under a monarchy, 5 years as independent nation states, 8 years as a confederation of sovereign states, and 222 years as a constitutional republic, including some 130 years of experimenting with socialism. The one lesson we should have learned from our own history as well as the history of other nations of the world is that socialism does not work. Yet, in spite of the clear evidence that it does not, our political leaders continue to attempt to force in on an inadequately informed population.

The number one challenge facing the patriot movement today is a lack of knowledge among the voting public concerning our history, our Constitution and our American heritage. America has become a nation addicted to big government socialism. In order to cure any addiction one first has to recognize it and admit that it is a problem and have a real desire to break the habit.

Illinois Conservative.Com has published a new book, “Philosophy of Evil” especially for Tea Party Members and other patriots to help in understanding who we are as a people, where we are today as a nation and how we got here. It is the result of years of study and months of intensive research in American history and the history of socialism, especially as it took root and grew in American society. Philosophy of Evil traces the history of socialism in America from the early experiments with it in colonial times, through the utopian commune movement, the progressive era and its rapid growth in the twentieth century, culminating in the economic, political and social crises we are experiencing  today.

We invite our readers to go to our website, check out the subject index and read the sample chapters we have posted there. We believe an understanding of the information found in this book is essential to the restoration of America as a constitutional republic. As Thomas Jefferson said concerning his writing of the Declaration of Independence,

“[Our purpose is] not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent. …. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it [is] intended to be an expression of the American mind.”  Thomas Jefferson, 1825

New Book
Philosophy of Evil
Socialism in America

Click HERE for more information

The Founder’s Lockbox

By Jerry McDaniel

Unlike the fictitious Social Security lockbox, the Constitution contains a lockbox for the federal government. That box is the list of enumerated powers found in Article One of the Constitution, and the lock is the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. In Houdini like fashion, the government has escaped from the box over the past century, using the Seventeenth Amendment to open the lock. Our task in the twenty first century is to stuff it back into its box and reclose the lock.

Bracketed between the first and nineteenth clauses of Article I, Section 8, is a comprehensive list of all the powers delegated to the federal government; or to put it another way, a list of those things the federal government is charged with managing on behalf of the American People; namely, those that cannot be adequately managed by the states or individual citizens. This is the “lockbox” intended by the Founders to contain the federal government.  Clause One introduces the enumerated powers and describes the taxing powers of the government and Clause Nineteen describes the conditions all laws passed by Congress must meet. Clause One reads,

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

This clause list three purposes for which Congress is allowed to lay and collect taxes, debt, defense, and welfare. The two key words are “common” and “general”. Under common defense, the Feds are allowed to tax us for the collective defense of all the states and territories making up the United States. It does not authorize taxing in order to provide block grants for law enforcement activities within individual states,  to protect individual citizens against insults and unkind treatment by other citizens, our own unwise decisions, or to protect us from the proselytizing efforts of various religious groups.

Neither does it authorize Congress to tax us for the defense of other nations, unless the defense of that nation is directly related to our own national security. Border security, anti-drug smuggling and human trafficking, etc. are legitimate functions of the federal government because they are for the “common defense” of all the states. International defense against terrorism is also a Constitutional power that falls under this clause because international terrorist organizations have declared war on America.

The same principle applies to “general” welfare. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out in his report to George Washington concerning the chartering of a National Bank, Congress does not have the power to tax for any purpose that might be thought to promote the welfare of citizens but only for the general welfare of the nation as a whole and extending only to those enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Taxing one group of citizens in order to provide for the welfare of another group of citizens is not countenanced by the Constitution. Most of the “earmarks” that are used by Congress members to “buy votes” only improve the welfare of a limited number of citizens therefore are unconstitutional. The famous “bridge to nowhere” would have benefited only a small number of the citizens in Alaska, for example.

The phrases “common defense” and “general welfare” also make up the litmus test for the laws authorized by clause nineteen, which reads,

“[Congress shall have the power…]To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The key words here are “necessary”, “proper” and “foregoing”. Keep in mind that clause eight is a single, compound sentence made up of nineteen clauses, separated, as James Madison pointed out, by “nothing stronger than a semicolon”. The word “foregoing” refers only to the enumerated powers listed in clauses two through eighteen, all of which fall under the headings of common defense or general welfare. Thomas Jefferson pointed out that the word “necessary” applies only to those laws without which an enumerated power could not be carried into execution. This is the first test as to whether a law is constitutional or not. Necessary does not have the same meaning as “facilitate” or “make more convenient“.

The second test of constitutionality under this section is, is it proper? Does the law fulfill the purpose set forth in the introductory clause of providing for the common defense or the general welfare of the nation? If it does not it is not “proper” for the purpose and is therefore, unconstitutional.

Someone has said, “the power to tax is the power to enslave” however, repealing the Sixteenth Amendment or reforming our tax code is a useless exercise until we first return the federal government to its constitutional lockbox. Regardless of the form it takes, the American people have to be taxed eventually in order to pay for government spending since the only income it has is what it is able to squeeze out of the taxpayer. The only way to establish and sustain lower taxes is to limit government spending to those things included in the enumerated powers section of the Constitution. That is our challenge for the twenty-first century.

HELP WANTED: Prophet

By Jerry McDaniel

America’s founding principles of life, liberty and property are rooted in the Judeo-Christian traditions found in the Holy Bible. I have long believed that our founding documents contain God’s plan for the American government.  No, this was not reveled to me by an angel in a vision and I am not a crazed religious fanatic. Neither am I claiming Divine inspiration for the Founding Documents. I came to this view after many years of study in American History, the Founding Documents and the Bible, particularly the Old Testament which reveals God’s dealings with the nations of the earth. 

We know from history that virtually all the Founders, including Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had a deep and abiding faith in the sovereignty of God over the affairs of man as expressed in the frequently used term, “Divine Providence.” Thomas Jefferson is the author of “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” in the Declaration of Independence.  Congress as a whole added the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”, after extensive debate.  Benjamin Franklin expressed his faith in the Providence of God during the Philadelphia Convention by calling for prayer for God’s guidance on their deliberations; “…The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” He declared. The Founding Fathers fervently prayed for God’s guidance as they debated the new government. The historical evidence is that God heard those prayers and answered them.

Throughout our history, whenever we have strayed from our principles as expressed in our founding documents, we have multiplied our problems. After a century of ignoring the Constitution and corrupting its meaning when convenient, it appears that we, as a nation, have lost our faith in both Divine Providence and America. Our national leaders no longer have faith in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding principles or American exceptionalism. Expressions of faith by a political leader, are routinely met with ridicule and derision by large segments of the “elite ruling class” and the popular media. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves on the very brink of losing the liberty so many Americans have sacrificed and died to protect.

In the Old Testament God used prophets to pronounce judgment on Israel and Judah for their idolatrous ways and to call for repentance. From our founding, there have been patriots whose roles in our origin and development as a nation were similar to the prophets of old. Early American prophets like, Samuel Bryan, Melancton Smith, Robert Yates and John DeWitt warned us about the dangers of a consolidated national government, an over-powerful executive, rogue courts with lifetime judges, the danger of internal taxes and the insatiable appetite for power of professional politicians. It is to them we owe the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is our protection against an out-of-control national government. In recent generations, we have allowed our internal enemies to use it instead, to deny us the liberty it was designed to protect, through perverted interpretation and application by the courts and rogue congresses. Instead of a shield of liberty, we have allowed it to be used as a tool of socialist tyranny. It is time for us to “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” as a nation and reaffirm our faith in God, America, and American principles when we go to the polls in a few weeks to elect a new Congress.

Millions of Americans are discovering anew our founding documents and demanding that we return to the principles they espouse. For that to happen we cannot continue to vote for candidates who deny the principles of our Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights whatever the excuse. What we need today is a few modern day prophets like those of old who are willing to stand up to the powers that be and declare the judgment of God on America’s idolatrous apostasy from our founding principles.

Reprinted from “Christian Patriots

It’s Time To Retire Both Political Parties

The Democratic Party has been in existence since 1825; the Republican Party since 1854. Both have failed the Country miserably.  Perhaps the time has come when we should think about abolishing both parties and establishing a new method for selecting candidates for elective office.

Conventional wisdom among conservatives is that we need to take over the Republican Party and regain control of Congress in the next two elections. That is not something we need do, it is something we absolutely must do if we are to have any hope of changing the direction the country is going.

Assuming though, that we are successful in returning Congress to Republican control in November, and assuming we are also successful in returning the Republican Party to the control of conservatives, then what? Is there any logical reason for continuing to give conservative support to it in the future? Political parties are a lot like service businesses, only with voters instead of customers. The service it provides to the public is finding and publicizing candidates for office. Conservatives have, for generations, given their time and money to the Republican Party with the expectation that its candidates, once in office, would enact legislation designed to protect our liberty and defend our Constitution and way of life. What person, in his or her right mind would continue supporting a business that never delivered the service it had agreed to provide?

Who would patronize an airline that never took them to the destination their ticket called for? Who would continue to employ a security firm to protect their business if thefts kept increasing year after year? That is exactly what we are doing with the Republican Party. Conservatives keep volunteering their time and donating their money, yet they never get what they work for and pay for. We have been conditioned to believe that strong political parties are necessary for the functioning of government. That may be true — but, we need to reexamine that assumption and, at a minimum, rethink what it is that we want our political parties to do for us.

There is no legitimate reason, based on our Constitution and founding documents, for allowing political parties to exercise the amount of power they have today over our government and the choice of leadership we have as citizens. When the Founders were designing our government with its balance of power, they designed it to balance the powers between the different branches of the federal government and between the federal government and the states. They did not and could not have envisioned that the stability of our nation and the security of our liberties would depend on a balance of power between two political parties.

For diagrams depicting the differences between the government established in 1989 and the government existing today see here and here.

The power of political parties has increased concurrently with the decline of federalism in our national government. The founders did not establish the United States as a consolidated “nation state”. The federal government was established by the Declaration of Independence as a federation of nation states, primarily for the purpose of mutual defense and international relations. The nature of the United States is described by Thomas Jefferson in the final paragraph of the Declaration.

“…These united colonies are and, of right ought to be free and independent States;…that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

This is the last occurrence of the word “colonies” in the official documents of the U.S. From that time forward, citizens of the various states considered their state to be their “country”. Whenever the word “country” appears in the personal writings of that era, it almost always refers to an individual state, rarely to the “United States” as a whole. The Declaration declares the states, in their individual capacity, to be free, independent, sovereign nation states, equal to any other nation state such as Spain, Great Britain, Germany, Poland, etc. It does not present them merely as parts of a larger consolidated “nation state”. Later governing documents, based on the Declaration of Independence does not change the fundamental nature of the states described in the Declaration. The essential and fundamental nature of the states in their declaration of independence, and in their successive governing documents is state sovereignty and independence.

Recognizing the shared threats to the individual states posed by other nations, and the common interest of the states in a few other issues, they organized an “umbrella” government for the common defense and certain other matters of common necessity. The Articles of Confederation, ratified by the states in 1781 describes this federation as,

…“A firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.” (Article III)

To preclude any attempts by the Federation to impinge on the individual sovereignty of the various states, they included this statement in Article II:

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

With the Articles of Confederation the states relinquished a small portion of their sovereignty to the “umbrella” government, namely, the powers of war and peace and the unfettered right to form alliances. All other powers were retained by the states.

Our second governing document, the Constitution of the United States, did not alter the fundamental sovereign nature of the states. The only additional sovereignty, of any consequence, relinquished to the federal government was the power to directly tax citizens rather than assessing the State Legislatures for the tax monies necessary to administer the federal government; granting the federal government the right to regulate interstate commerce to insure free trade between the states; coin money and operate the postal service; and the establishment of a national judiciary. The previously delegated powers of war, peace, and international alliances were also restated. Other than that, the states retained their full sovereignty.

Either by malicious intent or oversight, the statement of sovereignty contained in the Second Article of the Articles of Confederation was omitted from the Constitution. However, it was added at the insistence of the Anti-Federalist, with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments ratified in 1791.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.”

With the formation of the Democrat Party, organized by Andrew Jackson in 1825, the real power of government began to shift from the people to political parties. For the past hundred and eighty-five years the two major political parties have competed with each other for the reigns of power. Party power has increased until today we are ruled over by an oligarchy consisting of the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the President, and the so-called “swing vote” of the Supreme Court, each representing the needs of their respective parties rather than the needs of the people and the states. Lip-service is given to the “sovereignty of the people” by allowing them to choose which of the two political parties will rule over them for the next two, four or six years. The constitutional form of government established by the Founders has all but been forgotten.

If we are ever to regain the liberty and freedom left to us by the Founding Fathers, it is imperative that we throw off the power exercised over us by political parties. This cannot be accomplished in one or two election cycles. Because of the six-year term of Senators, multiple election cycles will be required. However, it can be done with the concentrated and focused efforts of the American people. We can pass on to the next generation a free republican form of government envisioned by the Founders or we can pass on a socialist oligarchy, the choice is up to us.

Bookmark and Share

Another Shot To The Left Foot

Fortunately for America, the left keeps shooting itself in the foot; this time, with said foot firmly implanted in its mouth. I am talking, of course, about the ruling on Wednesday by activist judge Sarah Bolton on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration bill. While her ruling might seem to be a setback for patriots opposed to the open borders policy of the Obama Administration, it does stoke the fire in the belly of conservatives and other patriots everywhere. If nothing else, the left seems intent on keeping the passions of patriots white hot until the November elections. We need to thank them for that.

More than 70% of the voters support Arizona’s law and a majority of voters nationwide wants their Legislatures to pass similar laws. That is a large voting block for the left to alienate, and is another bone-headed action that could help lead to the destruction of the Democrat Party in the coming two election cycles.

While the court’s ruling is only a temporary injunction until the full case in presented in court, it does for the time being, neuter the Arizona law. The court forbade the police from questioning the immigration status of suspects picked up on other charges. It also prohibited the enforcement of the federal requirement that immigrants have their immigration papers on their person at all times. It also struck down the part of the law dealing with the illegal immigrant’s ability to seek employment and perform work. It leaves in place, however, the right to bring civil suit against sanctuary cities that refuse to allow enforcement of immigration law in their jurisdiction.

Drug dealers, rapists, muggers, carjackers, and so forth can now be bailed out and put back on the street instead of being turned over to ICE for processing and possible deportation, as has been the custom. I suppose that if an illegal immigrant flags down a police car and confesses to being an illegal immigrant, the officer can still provide taxi service to ICE headquarters, although that might be risky since the illegal can always change his mind and claim the officer demanded his “papers”.

This is by no means the final chapter in Arizona’s fight against illegal immigration. All eyes are now on Sheriff Arpiao to see what he will do. He already has a planned crime and immigration sweep scheduled to take place regardless of the outcome of the court case today. Some have suggested that Arizona officials ignore the court ruling and continue with its enforcement plans. This would trigger a constitutional crisis and no one knows what the outcome would be. Frog marching Governor Brewer out of the Governor’s Mansion would certainly be an attention grabber guaranteed to provide at least a couple of day’s material for our friends in talk radio and the talking heads on TV. Even members of the MSM like the New York Times and MSNBC would find it hard to ignore. The next few days are going to be quite interesting.

Bookmark and Share