The Constitution is Dead

The Constitution is dead!  Meaningless!  Useless!   A bunch of unenforceable, misunderstood words on parchment.

The precise date of its demise is debatable and I’ll leave that to historians to ascertain.  However, it’s crystal clear the Constitutional objectives started to fray within a couple years of its enactment.  The decay and rot has worsened over the decades and centuries.

The primary objectives of the constitution were; to define a structure of government and define the specific powers delegated to the government.  Demonstrably, the framers and those in the state ratifying conventions understood the new government ordained by the Constitution was one of limited powers.  The three branches were intended to be co-equal where no one branch can control or dominate the other two branches.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was intended to further restrict the powers of the federal government and explains those rights not enumerated rights were retained by the people and that many powers were retained by the states or the people.  Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down by the chains of the Constitution.”

Unquestionably, the constitution has failed to meet its two primary objectives.  The chains are broken and the inmates are running the asylum.  The powers delegated to each branch respectively are gone, blurred by sophistry and judicial interpretation, usurped by other branches, or relinquished knowingly by one branch to another.  Likewise, the government was intended to be one of limited enumerated powers.  Today, the government is unlimited in its power.

There are no effectual checks of power in the Constitution.  It is not a self-enforcing document.  Words do not enforce themselves.  Absent are powers to restrain the federal government.  The creation is the arbiter of its own powers.  The creation is the usurper.  The creation is an entity with arbitrary and capricious power.

The creator – the people of the free, independent, and sovereign states – has been neutered.  The creator has been castrated, defanged, and declawed.  The creator is defenseless against the Goliath.  The people are at Goliath’s mercy.  The Goliath can destroy the people at any moment with overwhelming force.  Resistance is futile.  Compliance is demanded.  Questioning authority is nearly criminal.

The Constitution only means what nine people in black robes say it means.  The peoples’ political power has been marginalized by nine people out of 310 million.  More often than not, it is one person that decides everything for 310 million.  Nine unelected, unaccountable people that serve life terms without any limits on their power decide the peoples’ fate.  Nine people that believe their discretion and judgment are more accurate, wise, and insightful than those they lord over.  Nine omnipotent judges can supplant the political will of the people.

In reality, these are just nine people – nine human beings – out of 310 million.  Their opinions are not more insightful or binding when it comes to political will or political questions.  Their personal policy preferences and penumbras carry no more weight than any nine people chosen at random.  The very idea that the personal preferences of these nine people are better than any other nine people is ludicrous.  To believe nine people can decide political questions is asinine.  To believe nine people are the brain trust and the mouth piece of the people is absurd.

Consequently, consent of the governed has been obliterated.  Consent of the governed now means consent of the judges.  We are not a democracy.  We aren’t even a republic.  We are an oligarchical empire ruled by a few hundred people generally and nine people specifically.  Stick that representative, limited government in your pipe and smoke it.

Most issues are elevated to the national level either through legislation or the judiciary.  The omnipotent federal government decides everything.  Naturally, yet unsurprisingly, half the country is angry when the Democrats are in power and the other half are angry when the Republicans are in power.  Every issue is divisive.  The ruling class thrives on divisiveness.  Issues on race, gender, sexual orientation, defense, rights, taxing, spending, and immigration, etc. are divisive. The ruling class wants the people divided against one another because that ensures the ruling class remains in power.

The consequence of nationalism is a one-size fits all policy for 310 million diverse people.  Nationalism creates divisiveness.  It pits brother against brother and neighbor against neighbor.  This is not how free people in a free society are supposed to live.  Not that we are free, but we are supposed to be free.

Our moral document, The Declaration of Independence, is alive and breathing.  All the fundamental principles upon which government is instituted are elucidated in the Declaration.

The entire purpose of government is to better secure our unalienable rights.  To secure these rights government is instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  Whenever any form of government perverts or destroys these ends and liberty is manifestly endangered, and other means of redress of grievances are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to alter or reform the old Government or institute new Government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing their just powers in a form and manner that is in accordance with how the people wish to be governed and for their good and their happiness.

In other words, the people create their political societies.  Government is nothing more or nothing less than the people exercising their right of association to create a political society.  The people define the government’s structure and the powers delegated to the government.   The people are the sovereigns.  The people are the source of political power.

Imagine if there was a national policy on the flavor of ice cream.  Congress passes a bill that mint chocolate chip is the only legal flavor of ice cream.  The President signs the bill into law.  A case is adjudicated by the Supreme Court and in a 5-4 ruling opines that the only flavor of ice cream is mint chocolate chip.

Contrast that with choice in governance.  Today there are fifty states.  The least populous state is Wyoming with 570,000 people and the most populous state is California with 38 million people.  Imagine 100, 200, or 500 states.  Some states may be “far left” on the political spectrum.   People that prefer to be governed that way would freely choose to live in one of those states.  Likewise, some states may be “far right” on the political spectrum.  Those states may be very limited in government authority.  People that prefer to be governed that way would freely choose to live in one of those states.  There would be hundreds and hundreds of states in between those two extremes.

This is the Baskin-Robbins of governance.  Instead of a one-flavor system of governance there are hundreds of flavors.  You live in a state that governs in accordance with your wishes and views.  Likewise, I’ll live in a state that governs in accordance with my wishes and views.  You don’t force your governance on me and I don’t force my governance on you.

This is precisely how 310 million diverse people live in a country together without the dividing them.  The incessant bickering, fighting, acrimony, and animosity is mind-numbing.   People are sick and tired of being sick and tired.  Most people simply want to live with minimal government intrusion in their lives.

This was the intent of the American system of federalism.

Nationalism is a disease.  Federalism is the cure.

The Constitution is dead.  The Declaration lives on.

5 Comments

Filed under Constitution

True Diversity is the Genesis of American Exceptionalism

Frequently I proclaim to others, the more I learn and know the more I realize how little I know.  This truism shines brightly in my journey through life.  As an advocate for rightful liberty and the unalienable rights of all I encounter bigotry, ignorance, and selfishness on a daily basis.  Often these behaviors are clothed in self-righteous slogans and political group-think wielding the power of the State to the detriment of individuals and subsequently society as a whole.

Diversity is inherent in every human being.  More often than not diversity is confined to physical characteristics.   All are natural and uncontrollable.  True diversity is much broader and encompasses many other aspects of life; diversity of talent; diversity of thought, diversity of interests, diversity of customs and traditions, and diversity of outcomes.

What we have in common with each other is DNA.  We are of the same species.  However, being of the same species does not imply uniformity in how we live our lives.  What truly distinguishes one person from another is diversity in thoughts, interests, talents, and customs and traditions.  Consequently, these factors result in a diversity of outcomes.

Diversity of thought is uniquely individual.  Throughout history diversity in thought on important issues and subjects has been advantageous to mankind.  New or novel thoughts challenge the status quo.  New thought promulgates debate and discussion and through persuasion produces a change in peoples’ beliefs.  More often than not new thoughts are uncomfortable as they challenge the prevailing orthodoxy as well as our customs and traditions.  Throughout history people have abandoned what they once believed to embrace something new.  The Age of Enlightenment is just one example.

Likewise, not all new thoughts are beneficial, especially those imposed by force upon others.   The idea of uniformity in thought is perverse and regressive.  When Lenin and Stalin imposed secular thought and so-called government righteousness upon the masses the people were forced by government violence to accept uniformity of thought or be persecuted.  Christian heretics were pronounced by the Church as worthy of scorn and derision often resulting in physical punishment or death.

Today, diversity in thought is shunned and ostracized.  Political thought outside of Hillary Clinton on one side and Mitch McConnell on the other side is met with intolerance and bigotry.  Adults act like elementary school children by calling others names like extremist, racist, or terrorist.  The same people unleash personal attacks, blatantly lie, and purposely manipulate and evade the truth or real discussion.   Due to the lack of diversity in political thought people believe government is omnipotent and transcendent.  Blissful ignorance and group-think characterizes modern political thought as people blindly follow political parties and elevate self-professed political saviors to pedestals where they are led over a cliff, plummeting to their death as they sing the praises of their leaders.  Votes are blindly cast based on whether the letter “D” or “R” follows a name.

To ensure uniformity and conformity by the masses the people must be persuaded to worship government and bow down to their leaders.  This can be accomplished by force or persuasion.  The latter is the preferred method  and the delivery mechanism for this persuasion is the education system.  The latest debacle is the Common Core Standards implemented through a federal program called Race to the Top.

The entire purpose of the education system is to promote authoritarianism and nationalism, and mold children into useful cogs that would conform to societal standards and fit into the workplace.  John Dewey, often called the father of the modern education system, goal was “to turn public schools into indoctrination centers to develop a socialized population that could adapt to an egalitarian state operated by an intellectual elite”.  After a few generations of public education most people conform with and submit to complete government authority in all aspects of their lives.  People willingly bind themselves with government shackles because that is precisely what they were taught in school – to submit to and obey the government.

Those that have the audacity to question the education system or government authority are submitted to the behavior I described earlier.  In some cases people are arrested for simply asking school board members questions about Common Core Standards.  The treatment is even worse when questioning so-called government authority.

Diversity of interests is uniquely individual.  Self-interest should not be conflated with selfishness.  Self-interest in a free society embodies certain principles such as rightful liberty and personal responsibility.  In pursuit of our own self-interest we cannot violate the rightful liberty of others.  Rightful liberty is the unobstructed action according to our own will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.  Naturally, the pursuit of your interests not only implies but requires personal responsibility for the consequences of those pursuits.

Furthermore, diverse interests and the pursuit thereof, means everyone recognizes they cannot satisfy their own needs and interests without others in society.  That is not to say others are coerced to assist you in your pursuits or if the outcomes are less than desirable.  It means you utilize your talents and abilities in a manner you freely choose in pursuit of your happiness.   It is self-evident each person cannot produce on their own all the things they need and want.  Accordingly, people freely engage in trade with others to their mutual benefit.

Diversity in custom and traditions can be beneficial and detrimental.  There was a time when slavery was commonplace throughout the world.   Several dozen countries were engaged in the slave trade and/or slavery.   Today, all reasonable people agree the custom or tradition of slavery is vile and abhorrent.  However, hundreds of years ago slavery was accepted practice and very few challenged it.  All countries, with the exception of one, abolished slavery peacefully.

Likewise, the ideals set forth by the founders and the framers were unique at that time.  They cast aside the custom and tradition that certain men had either the divine or hereditary right to rule.  They recognized that all men are created equal and no one man possesses a divine or hereditary right to rule over others.  They recognized man is endowed with certain unalienable rights and every man inherently possesses these rights by his mere existence, and those rights are not granted by men to other men.  They recognized the only legitimate form of government is one that has the consent of the people and the people are the sovereigns.  They recognized human nature and the tendency for man to succumb to avarice and ambition.  They recognized the tendency for man to consolidate power to the detriment of individuals, freedom, and liberty.  As a result a new government was instituted upon these self-evident truths.

Their accomplishments did not happen magically.  Diversity of thought produced these new ideals for governance and mankind.  It was the result of diversity of thought and casting aside certain traditions that were hundreds of years old.  At the time, many people were indifferent or against such change.  Intolerance to new thoughts and stubbornly holding to certain traditions obstructs reasonable discourse, promotes bigotry, and fastens people to their own fractious and persistent ignorance.

Diversity of outcomes is the product of the diversity of talents, diversity of thought, diversity of interests, and the diversity of customs and traditions.   Undeniably, every person is of the same species just as ever person is not the same.   Millions of various inputs create even more distinct outcomes.   Those outcomes encompass success and failure, positives and negatives, leaders and followers, selflessness and selfishness, knowledge and ignorance, freedom and slavery, and virtue and vice.

Undoubtedly the number of outcomes is nearly unlimited.  Individuals, and our society, cannot be judged by outcomes alone as that promotes an end justifies the means mentality.   Character and virtue matter immensely.   What man produces as a result of pursuing his interests and using his physical and intellectual abilities matters.   A new chemical that provides a benefit to society may also be used to kill people.  The development of nuclear energy to provide electricity to society may also be used to develop weapons capable of killing millions.  A person that becomes wealthy by inventing a product others want is very different from the man that acquires wealth by stealing from others, or by a company that accrues wealth and benefits from government laws, regulations, and interference to the detriment of others.  The elected official that has been in office for thirty years because they’ve used their influence and position of trust to secure tax benefits or competitive advantages for others in exchange for campaign contributions and the fleecing of the people in general are exalted though their behavior is immoral, ignoble, unethical, and reprehensible.

Telecommunications companies are partnered with the government to spy on citizens.  Banking and financial institutions are the fabric of the Federal Reserve and work hand-in-glove with the government against the people.  Federal Reserve monetary policy promotes and supports reckless fiscal policy, deficit spending and, consequently, seventeen trillion dollars of debt.  Ponzi schemes are illegal yet the government institutes them in the form of Social Security and Medicare.  The health care industry and pharmaceutical companies are co-conspirators in the Affordable Care Act and other laws and regulations to the detriment of the people.

Today, diversity is mostly celebrated based on certain physical characteristics not by thought, talent, or interests.  Diversity of outcomes is eroded by politicians using the force of law to create an egalitarian society and the justice system is used for distributive justice rather than interpersonal adjudication.  Diversity is not limited to what the ruling class, academia, or the media say.

Diversity embraces individuality.  It is not a collectivist notion.

Embrace true diversity and you embrace the individual.  Embrace the individual and you embrace exceptionalism.  The essence of American exceptionalism is the individual not the government.  Individuals are exceptional in spite of government.  American exceptionalism as a collectivist notion is pure poppycock.

1 Comment

Filed under Philosophical

The Intolerant Tolerants

The past two weeks have been a whirlwind for me with all the live and taped television segments and radio programs, and press coverage in papers such as The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and the Baltimore Sun to mention a few. People’s opinions and thoughts vary greatly on the topic of the five western counties of Maryland leaving to form their own state.  But, there is one particular aspect of all this attention I’d like to focus on.

Tolerance.

The applicable dictionary definitions are:

  1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practice, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
  2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
  3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Therefore intolerance would be an unfair and biased attitude toward those whose opinions, practice, race, religion, nationality are different from one’s own viewpoint.  Also, tolerance does not explicitly or implicitly mean agreement or acceptance of another’s view. 

Ironically, those that proclaim tolerance and demand tolerance for their viewpoints flip, as easily as a light switch is turned on and off, to intolerance because a thought, idea, or view is different from their own.  Those than claim to be open minded, and in fact demand tolerance for their views are often the first to deny or infringe upon the views of others by resorting to petulant behavior, making derogatory comments about a persons’ race, gender, nationality, family, and religious beliefs.  Below are comments made by people opposing the idea of a new state (though truthfully too many concluded incorrectly that this was about seceding from the Union).

— Start of comments —

He knows very well it wont happen but its a way of creating more divisiveness and ramping up hated in America thanks to the repubs who see Obama as a nightmare come true.

The passion of the American Conservative for “Liberty” is only matched by his ignorance and apathy towards “Responsibility”. There is on way to describe that awful combination: adolescent.

MEDICAL ALERT:

Disease: Angry White Guy Syndrome
Symptoms: Wild ranting, fits of anger mainly at people that look different than you, desire to separate ones self from the populace.
Treatment: Come out of the bunker, turn off fox noise, make a friend with someone that doesn’t look like you

They will go broke in 60 days, red states are on the federal tit more than blue states

A bunch of crybabies complaining they can’s have everything their own way. And I sure as hell ain’t giving them a representative and two senators in Congress. Nor that diaper stain of northern Colorado, or anywhere else this childishness has drooled.

I think someone should send Scott Strzelczyk a soother, a blue blankie and a picture book showing him how to get along with others who don’t agree with him.

He is just being a whiner. Afterall, he isn’t pushing to have the entire State secede, just the white parts.

The free association of old red necks, who happen to be white, better know as The Tea Party or The Progressive Klan.

The State of Western Maryland’s constitution has not been written, nor has its tax plan been fully developed.  But when this bagger gets around to it, it won’t include a 13th amendment.

The right of self-determination should be opposed. Coercion by stronger forces is inevitable.

Sounds like an act of treason to me. I hope he gets 35 years imprisonment.

Right….they never think this through. For that reason, I think they should be allowed to do it, and live with all the consequences of their tea-bag policies. Only a reality check of this magnitude will cure the “free state, no taxes, no regulation” fantasy, but if they do, the rest of us should invoke “no do-overs” , you choose to be a West Md. citizen, stay there, live that nightmare you wanted to force on the rest of us.

Scott, please go back to tending that Unicorn farm and stop wasting our time.

Isn’t it funny how these same conservatives who trumpet the Constitution’s second amendment as justification for unlimited ownership of deadly weapons and secession have no problem with the federal government’s violation of the first and fourth amendments? Truly ironic!

It is also interesting that the Left never threatens secession. WE accommodate opinions that differ from our own, and always have.

There is a better way. Why doesn’t the bagger move to a trailer park in another redneck state where he can swill beer and listen to Ted Nugent with his ignorant kind all he wants?

Failing that, he pledges to sever his wèe-wèe.  THAT’LL show ’em!  Sooner or later, we’ll discover the swàmp where they brèed these crètins… amid the horseflies and frogs.

I have never seen a set of people who hates the United States and democracy as these bunch of Tea Baggers.  They do not have a clue what the Constitution says, and all they can do is talk about Second Amendment.

GET OVER IT ALREADY!! BARACK OBAMA IS PRESIDENT AND HE’S BLACK!!

I would love for all of these idiots to secede and start their own country. They can have their wish to have no taxes, so they won’t have public schools, police, or fireman. They can ban together to build roads and bridges. It will be great when they reach retirement age that they won’t have to worry about getting a social security check. Yep, socialism is a horrible thing. Have fun in your new land baggers. 

It is a good idea to secede the entire Texassissippianahomasas region for several reasons;

1. The average IQ of the remainder of the nation would go up at least 30 points.
2. The average median income would go up over $10,000.
3. The average educational level would go from 6th grade dropout to college level.
4. We would save hundreds of billions in waste on their education, welfare and infrastructure.
5. Their new kuntry could be called Baggertopia, or Neojebusland or Concrapia maybe.

Lincoln blundered terribly when he did not let those savages crawl back into their caves. Now the red states are the biggest “welfare queens” on the planet.

Another right wing clown who does not support our constitution.

Strzelczyk and his silly racist comrades deserve the kick in the pants that will come with secession however unlikely it may be.

This guy is one of the reasons there are so many Polish jokes.

Scott Strzelczyk  That’s Polish right? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

He calls himself a constitutionalist, but doesn’t know the Constitution. Figures

—– End of Comments —

This was a small sample from a single article.  There are thousands more like this. Derogatory comments covering race, religion, nationality, etc. permeate the page.  People that know absolutely nothing about me, our founding principles, or the Constitution are suddenly experts on what I think and who I am.

Many are unable to comprehend the difference between forming a new Union state and seceding from the Union.  Many are unaware of the provisions stipulated in the U.S. Constitution for new states being formed out of existing states.  Many are unaware a new state being erected out of an existing state happened seven times not once as many stated.   Many believe we are a democracy where the mob rules.  Some believe that force should be used to ensure this doesn’t occur.  In other words we will arrest, injury, or kill you if you attempt to establish a new state government according to the constitution itself.  

Many are unaware it was the Northern states that threatened secession four times from 1803 to 1815.  They are unaware that in 1845 Massachusetts threatened secession if Texas were admitted in the Union.  They are unaware of the fact that Northern states opposed new states being admitted as a result of the Louisiana Purchase.  Many lumped me in with conservatives, the GOP, and the tea party without ever reading an article I wrote on my blog or listening to The Forgotten Men program.  All are unaware that Mark, Joshua, and I met with the local Occupy leadership and attending their meetings.  All are unaware that The Forgotten Men radio show calls out Republicans, conservatives, and neo-conservatives on a regular basis for their violations of the Constitution.  All are unaware that we regularly say things like “both parties are different wings of the same bird of prey” or “it doesn’t matter if its the red wolfpack or the blue wolfpack”.  And, Joshua coined the term the “DC’vers” which refers to all the elected officials in DC and how the deceive us regularly.  We say frequently “DC will never fix DC” and “DC is broke and broken”.  All are unaware that we oppose the Patriot Act, NDAA, the FISA Courts, and the undeclared wars and regularly discuss how the so-called “limited government” Republicans like Allen West and Michele Bachmann are part of the problem not part of the solution.  They are the other wing to those like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  They are different wings of the same bird of prey.  

My reaction to the intolerance is one of laughter and fear; laughter at the absurdity of the comments and fear of their ignorance and willingness to use force and coercion – might makes right – to deny people their right of self-determination and self-governance.  Every person can decide on their own whether they support the idea or not.  They are entitled to their own opinions, however, they are not entitled to their own facts.  The fact is by denying the people the right of self-governance they believe people are not capable of governing themselves.  Naturally, if people are not capable of governing themselves then why do they believe people are capable of governing others.

Those that profess tolerance towards others with opposing views have exposed themselves as hypocritical because they abandoned their self-proclaimed tolerance as demonstrated by their comments.  To these people tolerance is a one-way street where they are not tolerant but you must be.  Whenever your views don’t comport with their views the immediate reaction is toss verbal hand grenades at those with different views.

Consequently, this comes through in party colors and hyper-partisanship from both sides of the political spectrum.  This behavior is intellectually debilitating because the so-called tolerance is laid bare, naked, and revealed for all to see. True intolerance is people steadfastly clinging to their own views while degrading the views of others, and often, demanding acceptance as well.

This intolerance is summed up in a word; Bigotry.

Dissent and disagreement are common and natural.  In fact, dissent is encouraged.  State and federal constitutions protect dissenting views in Bills or Declarations of Rights.  My advice to those that don’t agree with the Western Maryland Initiative is express your dissent in a manner that is constructive and reasoned.  Practice the tolerance you demand of others and end the bigotry.

7 Comments

Filed under Philosophical

Rebuttal to Cato Institute’s Bob Levy on NY Times Nullification Article

(Note, my rebuttal was published on the Tenth Amendment Center website.)

Robert Levy’s recent article, “The Limits of Nullification” is nothing less than an amalgamation of revisionist history covered in judicial fairy dust.  His assertions are premised upon a flawed understanding of certain fundamental principles and constitutional history.  Levy conveniently ignores them and, consequently, draws inaccurate conclusions.

Let’s dissect this piece by piece.

Levy implies the Constitution was ratified by the people acting in their aggregate political capacity – a single unitary body politic.  In fact, many people believe this falsehood because they rely on the words “We the People of the United States” in the Preamble.  The initial drafts of the Constitution named each and every state.  They said, We the People of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, etc.  But, Article VII of the Constitution states, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same”.

Each state is independent, free, and sovereign.  The ratification happened within each State by the people acting in their highest political capacity.  Each state voted up or down on the ratification.  There was no popular vote across all thirteen states.  There was no majority of people (50%, 75%, or 95%) of the people that could ratify the Constitution.  The people of each free, independent, and sovereign State ratified the Constitution independent form every other state.

Moreover, New Hampshire was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution.  The nine states ratifying the Constitution could not bind any of the remaining states.  In fact, the Virginia and New York ratification conventions were aware that New Hampshire had ratified thus putting the Constitution into effect for the states so ratifying.  Both states continued their conventions and proceeded with their votes for or against the Constitution.

The first government under the Constitution was comprised of only eleven states.  North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution when the first President was elected.  Neither state had electors to vote for the President nor did they appoint Senators to the Senate or elect Representatives to the House.  Both states were not part of the Union formed by the Constitution because they had not ratified it.

Demonstrably, the people of each free, independent, and sovereign state ratified the Constitution, not the people acting as one body politic.  On June 6, 1788, James Madison addressed the Virginia Ratification Convention.  Madison said, “Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment; and, as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining states would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it”.  [Emphasis added.]

Madison wrote in Federalist #39, “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.  In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.”

Madison wrote, in the Report of 1800 to the Virginia General Assembly, “That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” … “The resolution declares, first, that “it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties,” in other words, that the federal powers are derived from the Constitution, and that the Constitution is a compact to which the states are parties.”  Madison went on to say, “It is indeed true that the term “States” is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, according to the subject to which it is applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of territory occupied by the political societies within each; sometimes the particular governments established by those societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those particular governments; and lastly, it means the people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity.”  [Emphasis added.]

The basis for nullification is founded in the people of each State through each state convention ratifying the Constitution.  The compact is a fact, not a theory.  Therefore, the creation of the people of the States was the federal government.  The Constitution established the structure of the government; a legislative branch to make law, an executive branch to execute law, and a judiciary to adjudicate the law.  Each branch is limited to specific enumerated delegated powers. Further restrictions were placed upon the federal government when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Levy’s lynchpin in his argument is the Supreme Court.  Levy said, “In assessing constitutionality, our system of governance recognizes one Supreme Court, not 50 individual states.”  This is partially true.  There is only one Supreme Court.  That’s the true part.  The part Levy ignores is the Supreme Court is only supreme over the inferior courts that Congress may establish.  The Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches nor is it supreme over the states or the states’ courts.

In properly assessing constitutionality one cannot brush aside the fact that each branch is co-equal with every other branch.  One branch cannot dictate how the other two branches can act.  The order in which each branch deals with a law doesn’t change the constitutionality of a law.  More importantly, the judiciary is not supreme over the other branches or over the constitution itself.  The judiciary is beneath the Constitution.

Levy’s asserts “states cannot impede federal enforcement of a federal law merely because the state deems it unconstitutional. That is up to the federal courts.”   This is pure fantasy as it completely ignores the supremacy clause found in Article VI of the Constitution.  The supremacy clause is a rule of construction on interpreting the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.  The supremacy clause does not declare the federal government supreme in all matters.  The supremacy clauses establishes Supremacy of Law; meaning that in areas where the federal government was delegated power to act and a law is passed in pursuance of those powers the federal law is supreme.  In all other cases State law is supreme.

This also raises the question whether Levy grasps the ideal of American federalism.  Under the Constitution, all powers must fall into one of three categories; those exclusive to the federal government, concurrent powers where both the federal and state government can act, and by default everything else falls into those powers reserved to the states or the people.

Since the constitution only delegates powers… all other powers not delegated are reserved and this was re-enforced by the ratification of the tenth amendment. The constitution does not delegate any power to the federal government to modify the constitution through the judiciary. In other words, the judiciary is not and was not empowered to amend, modify, change, alter, or reform the constitution. Whenever the constitution is silent on an issue/power it is reserved to the people or the states. The argument by the Federalist against a Bill of Rights was premised primarily on the fact that whatever was NOT delegated was reserved and off-limits to the federal government; thus there was no need to protect any rights or privileges because they weren’t delegated in the first place.

While Levy doesn’t make this assertion I want to address a common misconception that is germane to this topic.  People say the constitution doesn’t authorize a state to nullify a federal law.  I completely agree.  The constitution doesn’t authorize a state to do anything.  The constitution was not intended to define state powers.  State powers were “numerous and indefinite” as Madison said in Federalist 45.  The constitution doesn’t state that local police powers, sumptuary laws, power over marriage and family affairs,  intestate distribution of property, religion, education, social services, etc. are all state powers.  But, because they are not delegated under the Constitution they fall, by default, into the third category of powers which are reserved to the states or the people.

If as Levy assets the Supreme Court is supreme over the other branches, supreme over the states, and supreme over the constitution itself then Levy must concede that the constitution is a dead letter as what it truly established is a federal government with unlimited powers.  If the judiciary can define what the constitution means and the meaning is left to the discretion of nine lawyers then the Supreme Court has been running a 220+ year continuous constitutional convention.

This also raises some other important questions.  First, the constitution reflects the political will of the people of each of the free, independent, and sovereign states.  Why should one person on the Supreme Court (in a 5-4 ruling) decide a political question for 310 million people?  Secondly, where and how did these nine people on the Supreme Court gain such insight and understanding to truly know the political will of the people?  How can the Supreme Court overrule the political will of the people; the people of each state being the sovereigns?  If the Supreme Court can overrule the political will of the people then our entire form of governance is farcical.  We are truly ruled by an oligarchical regime limited by absolutely nothing.

Furthermore, is it not the least bit ironical that if you were to steal $1,000 worth of goods from Walmart and are on trial, you have to be convicted unanimously by a twelve person jury (in most cases).  But, one person (in a 5-4 ruling) can decide everything and anything that impacts your life, liberty, and property.  Levy cannot seriously believe the founding generation declared their independence from Great Britain, fought a war to gain their independence, just to establish a government of unlimited powers.   This is the essence of Levy’s assertion and it is nonsense on stilts.

As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, “[a]nd that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”  [Emphasis added.]

Consequently, nullification has been used by northern and southern states throughout the history of the Union.  While Virginia and Kentucky first used nullification in 1798, northern states nullified federal laws enacted under the Jefferson administration.  For instance, Rhode Island legislature resolution of 1809 nullifying the Force Act; “ [t]hat the people of this State, as one of the parties to the federal compact, have a right to express their sense of any violation of its provisions.”  Northern states nullified the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

I suppose if Levy were alive in the 1850s and living in a northern state he would have fully complied with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 because the Supreme Court rendered an opinion that the Act was constitutional.  Let’s take this one step further.  Suppose the Congress passes the following bills, the President signs them into law, and the Supreme Court upholds them.

1)      A law that forces sterilization upon men and women.

2)      A one-child policy law that either forces a woman to get an abortion if pregnant with a second child or if a second child is born alive the child is removed from the home.

3)      A law that forces citizens to buy government securities.

4)      A law that forbids any criticism of the federal government in any form including verbally, in writing, e-mails, etc.

5)      A law that taxes 100% of your income and the government decides what job(s) you may perform.

6)      A law that states the government can detain an individual indefinitely, without cause, and without any due process.  My mistake, that’s already in place through an executive order.

The question is would Levy comply with these laws?  And, if Levy concedes these are “valid” laws then how does this square with a federal government with enumerated powers?

Levy’s argument is really one for a government with unlimited powers.  Naturally, this implies the constitution is a dead letter and we truly are at the mercy of the benevolence of our elected officials and nine unelected, unaccountable judges.

2 Comments

Filed under Constitution

The Gentry and the Regular Folks

I hear from people all the time; the country is irreconcilably divided.  This is true in many ways.  In fact, dividing the people along economic, social, and racial classes is nothing new in the history of mankind.  But, the divide I’m referencing is that between the gentry and the regular folks.

The gentry are the ruling class consisting of people from political parties, the business world, and universities.  A small cabal entrenched in the halls of Congress and in boardrooms and classrooms imposing their orthodoxy upon hundreds of millions of people.  Members of the ruling class are the self-anointed saviors  for all that ails the country, the people, and the planet.

The regular folks are the hundreds of millions of people across the Union. They are the country class.  Others use descriptive words such as fly-over country, the peasants, or the rural people.  Undoubtedly, the country class consists of hundreds of millions of people whereas the ruling class is a small fraction of the total population.

The difference between the ruling class and the country class is the former believes freedom and liberty is a privilege bestowed by them upon the country class; whereas the latter believes freedom and liberty is an inherent, unalienable right which every person possesses.  The ruling class determines precisely how much and to what extent freedom and liberty applies to everyone but themselves.  The country class mostly wants to be left alone to live their lives without the daily intrusion, inspection, and invasion of government.  Today, freedom and liberty are words used as a punch line at the gentry’s cocktail parties as they crack jokes about the country class.

Our modern society is under constant surveillance and subjected to hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations by the ruling class.  Under the guise of national security, defense, the children, or to keep us safe the ruling class has enslaved the entire country class.  With the exception of chattel slavery, the people are the most controlled and restrained in our history.

Another distinction separating the ruling class from the county class is the concept of governance or more precisely self-governance (local rule).  The ruling class rejects the ideal of self-governance and embraces the notion that only a select few are capable of governing.  The country class embraces the ideal of self-governance and rejects the notion that only a select few are capable of governing.  The ruling class uses rhetoric and sophistry to persuade the country class they are looking out for them and have their best interest in mind.  This is merely propaganda — propaganda that would make Joseph Goebbels blush.

The ideal that only a select few are capable of governing is dripping with irony.  The philosophical basis for the colonies seceding from Britain is based upon natural rights and liberty; where there is no hereditary or divine right for one (or some) to rule over all others.  In other words, all men are created equal.  Secondly, if man is not capable of governing himself, then how does anyone believe that man is capable of governing others?

When and how did things change where self-directed and autonomous people could live freely and without coercion to a society that bows submissively to the ruling class?  The constitution intentionally restrained elected officials to the limited powers delegated by the people.  The ruling class feigns allegiance to the constitution while transcending its powers.  The ruling class routinely acts outside constitutional powers and is enabled by other ruling class members posing as impartial judges clothed in black robes to ensure supremacy over the country class.

This is the very definition of tyranny.

Any time an elected official or an appointed official acts outside their delegated powers they are acting arbitrarily and capriciously.  The ruling class usurps every power and grants to themselves the exclusive privilege and authority over life, liberty, and property.  Their victims are the country class; the slaves that labor, pay taxes, and are saddled with $17,000,000,000,000 of debt and hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities.  The children, so preciously used by the ruling class to further their ends, are enslaved in the system.  Those not yet born will be subject to the consequences of decades of abuses and usurpations by the ruling class.   The ruling class’ lust for and accumulation of power over the past one hundred and fifty years is nearly complete.

James Madison wrote in Federalist #47, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system”. [Emphasis added.]

In the last sentence, Madison explains that if this were the case under the Constitution the debates over ratification should end and every state ratifying convention should reject the constitution.  Demonstrably, we are well past the point where all the powers are accumulated in the hands of the few – the ruling class.

Unquestionably, this is not the system of governance the founders established.  Sovereignty no longer rests with the people.  Sovereignty has been stripped from the people and the states.  The country class stands naked, exposed to callous, ambitious, greedy, and unrepentant masters exercising dominion over hundreds of millions of people.  A union premised upon consent of the governed and the people as the rulers and the elected officials of servants is gone like dust in the wind.  Chattel slavery was abolished to be replaced with our modern system of slavery.  Abolitionist Lysander Spooner said, “There was no difference of principle—but only of degree—between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men’s natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.”

Consequently, society was transformed from people being free to live their lives acting as self-directed autonomous people pursuing their own happiness and reaping the fruits of their labor, to a society where the ruling class is the plantation owner, the United States is the plantation, and the country class are slaves.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Romantic Nationalism

Americans are romantics at heart.  They are imbued or dominated by idealism.  They are infatuated with glamour, the latest trend, and the newest rock star personality.  Perhaps a movie star or a sports figure, a hip-hop artist or the latest casual-chic fashions, or the next savior that has ventured on to the political stage. 

A country divided along cultural, spiritual, and political lines has created an aura of animosity fueled by media and political vitriol aimed directly at their enemies.  We the people are the enemies.  The half in power wants to marginalize if not eradicate their enemies.  The rallying cry for the other half is “Take Back America”.   It has devolved into an epic struggle over power.  The power to rule and exercise dominion over others is to subjugate fellow human beings under a single unitary view.  A view you may or may not agree with.  Make no mistake; a large swath of people will be subjugated if this course is pursued to its logical end.

What the mob wants the mob will get.  The mob will get it through their romantic attachment to the latest and greatest politician.  Obama is our savior.  Vote for Romney because he’s not Obama.  The cult-a-personality infatuation with people has resulted in romantic nationalism.

Inherent in peoples’ romantic obsession with nationalism is the complete destruction of individual rights, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Nationalism is collectivism clothed in red, white, and blue overtures.  The nation, the country, is placed upon a pedestal that towers over everyone and everything.  As the people rally around a flag, a pledge, an anthem, or rally around this candidate or that candidate, they lose sight of simple truths.  They cannot see the forest through the trees.

The Union was not founded in nationalism; rather it was founded upon certain transcendent and fundamental principles.  Indeed, some degree of nationalism was present even during the founding generation; however the cementing of nationalism started with the Hamiltonian types (Hamilton, Wilson, Marshall) and was accelerated by Lincoln.  Over the decades other such as Wilson, Roosevelt, and Johnson (to name a few) reinforced the idea of nationalism through government intervention in all economic and personal activities. 

An interventionist foreign policy under Wilson, and propagated since then by most presidents, has transmuted the Union into an “international democracy force” under some moral imperative that all people around the world deserve to live like Americans whether they want it or not.  And, America is going to give it to them good and hard.  Lincoln’s obsession with preserving the Union gave birth to the notion that the government knows what’s best for the people, and by compulsion or force the government will subjugate you according to their judgment.  Lincoln’s obsession birthed a “might makes right” mentality.  The victim – besides the 650,000 killed – was consent of the governed.  The right of self-determination was given a swift burial under Lincoln’s mighty sword.

The rebar for these political agendas is none other than the Supreme Court.  The so-called “protector” of the Constitution acts as the enabler to those that wish to further consolidate and concentrate power into the hands of a few hundred people.  Once again, the people are enamored by and revere the nine members of the Supreme Court as though they are oracles.  Once again the people are cast under the spell of these nine sagacious, impartial, and just politically connected lawyers that have a vested interest in retaining power.   Thus, the romance continues as the people subjugate themselves to the personal policy preferences and penumbras of other people.  The people sacrifice their freedom and liberty upon the nationalist altar of superiority while being consumed by the latest casual-chic fashion or latest reality show.  

These rallying calls to “take back America” or “we’ll through the bums out next election”, or “restore America’s mission” miss the point.  Federalism and republicanism are the answers.  But, those on both sides of the political aisle are romantically attached to the idea of nationalism.

Federalism and republicanism are superior because they embrace consent of the governed – the right of self-determination and self-governance.  They are superior because the people, in smallish communities determine the laws they live under.  They are superior because individual rights are secured and protected rather than decided on by one person on the Supreme Court.  They are superior because they decentralize power.  They are superior as hundreds or thousands of states offer choices to individuals instead of living under a unitary, monolithic government. They are superior because it is the only system where self-directed and autonomous people can live without the daily grind of coercive and intrusive government.

The romance with nationalism is fatal.  It’s not unlike a relationship with two people.  Any relationship has but two possible outcomes; it eventually ends or someone dies (think about it). The Union will either end or a lot of people will die to ensure its survival.  The Union will end if the people can exercise their right of self-determination, secede, and re-form their political societies.  Or, just as Lincoln ensured 650,000 people died, there may be a time when the government kills millions more to the detriment of the “consent of the governed”. 

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Time Has Come

The fundamental premise that the federal government is one of enumerated and limited powers where the legislature makes laws, the executive executes the laws, and the judiciary hears cases and controversies is dead.  It’s gone.  It’s a distant memory hidden away in the recesses of a few craniums, occasionally making faint appearances in mans’ consciousness.  The Rule of Law has been eviscerated; jettisoned from the minds of all Americans and supplanted with the Rule of Man.

If, like me, you understand the principles so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence you should be outraged at the despicable, immoral, and ignoble acts of government.   If, like me, you understand the Constitution established by the voluntary acts of the people of the thirteen free and independent states birthed a Union of limited, enumerated powers you should be horrified by the complete and total annihilation of our political societies.

Words have meaning and in our governing documents those words have a fixed meaning.  Without a fixed meaning and understanding it’s nonsensical to believe a government could operate in a stable, consistent manner.  Government operates without constraint.  Government operates with impunity and utter disregard to the Rule of Law.  Five hundred and forty five people rule over three hundred and ten million people.  Frankly, this is often times reduced to one person ruling over everyone else.

Contrast a common crime like a person stealing $1,000 of merchandise from a Walmart and being tried.  To convict them it takes 12 people reaching a unanimous decision.  Now, imagine that your right to property, to keep and bear arms, etc. is in question and reaches the Supreme Court.  In a 5-4 decision, 1 person – YES 1 PERSON – can take anything from you.  There is absolutely no limit to what the miscreants in government and especially the Supreme Court can and will do to you.

The judiciary has enabled the destruction of the Constitution by operating within a sphere of power never delegated to it under the Constitution.  Judicial policy preferences and penumbras have superseded the very idea of consent of the governed.   Constitutional law has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution.  The basic principle of consent of the governed is the people make the laws that they live under.  Those laws may not always be wise, good, or moral.  One lawyer was never empowered to override the consent of the governed even when those laws may not comport with their personal preference, dictums, penumbras, or any other belief.

The judiciary is nothing less than what Raoul Berger describes in his book, Government by Judiciary, as a continuous constitutional convention.  Judges act as though they speak for the people by revising, amending, and twisting the constitution to mean anything they desire.  Typically, those desires reflect the judges’ personal preferences over the Constitution and the people themselves.  Consent of the governed is but a distant memory as judges issue opinions overriding the majority will of the governed.  These opinions are viewed as authoritative and binding on the people even when the opinions contradict the consent of the governed.  It is farcical and absurd to consider the political right to vote as the only means to exercise your consent as the governed.  Consent of the governed encompasses much more than the mere casting of a ballot every two or four years.

The executive is empowered to execute laws.  The executive has an opportunity to veto any law he believes violates the constitution.  However, once enacted the executive is bound by his duty to execute the law.  If the executive dismisses his duty is he not in violation of his oath of office?  For instance, if the executive unilaterally decides to not implement part of the Affordable Care Act is that not a nullification of that part of the Act?  Likewise, the Defense of Marriage Act was not enforced by the current executive.  Is that not an act of nullification?  Likewise, border security is not enforced.  Is that not an act of nullification?

The executive, as our agent and fiduciary, has nullified duly enacted laws.  As an agent of the people of the states he has no authority to nullify any law he disagrees with.  In fact, he swore an oath to faithfully execute the laws.

The Congress is the branch delegated the power to make laws.  The executive and the judiciary have no law-making powers under the Constitution.   No branch of government has any power delegated to amend, revise, rescind, or alter the constitution or the meaning of the constitution.  Only a properly ratified amendment can change the constitution.  But, Congress has far exceeded the powers delegated under Article I Section 8 of the constitution.  The executive has exceeded powers delegated in Article 2.  The judiciary has exceeded powers delegated in Article 3 by operating in a continuous constitutional convention revising, amending, and re-writing the Constitution according to their own personal preferences.

All three branches operate without any limitations on power.  Instead of a government of enumerated and limited powers we have a government without limits exercising all power over the people.  The Congress, the executive, and the judiciary act in concert with one another to destroy the fabric of the Union.  Torn down and apart by decades of usurpations the government has metastasized like a malignant tumor destroying the component parts that give life.  The tumor has consumed the very ideals of consent of the governed and the right of self-determination.  Federalism has been obliterated.

The people stand exposed and naked against the brute force of arbitrary and capricious acts of the ruling class.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The time has come to end the foolish belief the ruling class will neuter its own power.   The time has come to exercise our right to self-determination and self-governance by throwing off the very Government that reduces us to absolute Despotism.  The time has come for the consent of the governed to withdraw their consent as it is our Right and our Duty to provide new Guards for our future security.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized