by Timothy Baldwin
There is nothing new about the content of the article authored by Richard Latimer, entitled, A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry, posted on January 4, 2010. You can read the article for yourself, but Latimer attempts to “set straight” Rep. Jeffrey Perry’s method of constitutional construction concerning the general welfare clause and the tenth amendment of the US Constitution, as it relates to the federal government’s power of passing the national health care bill. This article is not an attempt to defend the honor of Rep. Perry, as correct as he may be on the subject discussed. It is not to make Latimer “see the light”, for I believe that many people who have adopted certain philosophies, world views and political ideas will never “see the light,” without an intervening act of God. I write this article to expose just a few of the flaws of the social and government philosophy that has been stressed in our society for over 100 years, and to defend the principles of a free federal constitutional republic, made up of states, for the enlightenment of those who still have an open mind to something other than what the tories/nationalists/oligarchies/globalists say.
General Welfare Clause: A Grant or a Limitation of Power?
A Grant of Power
Latimer essentially argues that the preamble (to the constitution and/or Article 1, Section 8–he is not clear on which, but for purposes of analysis, it matters not)–specifically, the “general welfare” clause–grants power to Congress and was intended “to state the broad, fundamental purposes of our democratic constitutional government in light of which all of the more specific provisions which follow must be understood.” Put differently, Latimer suggests the following method of constitutional construction of the words, “general welfare”: the specific enumerated powers granting certain limited powers to the federal government are to be constructed in light of the words, “general welfare.”
This method would go something like this. Suppose the federal supreme court needs to interpret the meaning of the words, say, “commerce among the several states”, in a case whose issue is the extent of Congress’ power to regulate commerce. If the court were to use a constitutional construction method as suggested by Latimer, the court would impose the meaning of said words that comports to whatever end would accomplish the goal of the “general welfare” of the American people, regardless of state sovereignty or limiting enumerating language to the contrary. The legal question would go, “Does this particular law passed by Congress promote the general welfare?” If yes, then Congress may regulate that commerce, and as such, the states and the people necessarily do not have the power to regulate or interfere with such law. Thus, the limit to the power is not the actual words of the delegation (“commerce among the several states”), but the end result of the law, that is, “general welfare.” Unfortunately, this is in fact the type of construction method that federal courts have used for many years (though not necessarily admitted as such). Consequently, the federal government (and those within the control of its matrix) has done a great job as feeding the ignorance and deception of the people of the states relative to what a limited federal constitutional republic is.
This method contains nothing but disingenuous political thought and standard, to where a part (“general welfare”) of the whole (the constitution) is used to defeat the very purpose of the whole. This flawed standard is analogous to saying that the federal government has no power to encroach state sovereignty (which the tenth amendment declares), but that one branch (i.e. the Judiciary) out of the three in the federal government has the power to define what state sovereignty is. If the standard of federal power was the “general welfare” and that all powers are to be judged in that light, please explain: why enumerate any powers at all? Why suggest that the federal government is a limited government? Why go through the formalities of actually writing a constitution? Why debate the extent of its powers for years before its ratification? Why suggest to the ratifiers that the federal government is strictly bound by the limitations enumerated and that the states have an inviolable line of sovereignty within their borders?
Did the founders and ratifiers spend years of intense and heated debate and discussion on the purpose of a constitution; the principles of free government; the difference between a federal verses national verses monarchy verses democratic government; the need for a limited federal government; the absolute retention of the states’ powers; the lines of sovereignty and the words which would adequately effect these ends, all to be misinterpreted and deconstructed by the virtually limitless power of the “general welfare” clause? How ludicrous and illogical a thought!–unless of course you are not concerned about the evils of human nature, the abuse of power, the limitation of government, state sovereignty as expressed in the Law of Nations (which is acknowledged in the US Constitution), federalism (which was admittedly the most superior form of government the world had ever seen), and the true character and nature of the union as modified in 1787.
A Limitation on Power
“Latimer’s method” completely ignores and excludes the other constitutional construction method relative to the “general welfare” clause–the one proposed by those who drafted and ratified the constitution. That is, instead of the “general welfare” clause defining the specific enumerations of Congress’ power, the specific powers actually define what “general welfare” is, just as all of the articles and amendments of the constitution and their limitations on the federal government shed light on what “securing the blessings of liberty” is. This method is literally Contract and Law Interpretation 101, which is well-settled that “specific contract provisions prevail over general provisions” and “the general rule of statutory construction is that a specific provision prevails over a more general one.” See, Daff v. U.S., 78 F.3d 1566, 1574 (Fed.C.A. 1996); Crooker v. BATF, 670 F.2d 1051, 1080, FN2 (D.C.C.A., 1981). I guess sound rules of construction do not apply to the most important legal document in our country.
With that said, did the term “securing the blessings of liberty” convey power to the federal government too?! After all, that clause is in the preamble preceding all the articles in the constitution, which would convey this power not only to Congress, but to all of the federal government. They might as well have said, “Congress has the power pass whatever laws they deem right and just. The President has the power to execute whatever laws it deems right and just. The Judiciary shall uphold all laws it deems right and just.” What nonsense! Generic grants of power have long been considered wholly inadequate to check the abuse of power and to limit centralized governments. As one of the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers noted,
“Before the existence of express political compacts it was reasonably implied that the magistrate should govern with wisdom and justice, but mere implication was too feeble to restrain the unbridled ambition of a bad man, or afford security against negligence, cruelty, or any other defect of mind…Therefore, a general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security.” Brutus and Ralph Ketcham, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 318.
This rationale was in fact the concern raised about the “general welfare” clause in the proposed constitution in 1787. Consider James Madison’s response in Federalist Paper 41 to these concerns:
“It has been urged and echoed, that the 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,’’ AMOUNTS TO AN UNLIMITED COMMISSION TO EXERCISE EVERY POWER which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. NO STRONGER PROOF COULD BE GIVEN OF THE DISTRESS UNDER WHICH THESE WRITERS LABOR FOR OBJECTIONS, than their stooping to such a MISCONSTRUCTION. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare’…
“BUT THE IDEA OF AN ENUMERATION OF PARTICULARS WHICH NEITHER EXPLAIN NOR QUALIFY THE GENERAL MEANING, AND CAN HAVE NO OTHER EFFECT THAN TO CONFOUND AND MISLEAD, IS AN ABSURDITY, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the LANGUAGE USED BY THE CONVENTION IS A COPY FROM THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ‘their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.’ The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ‘All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,’’ etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. CONSTRUE EITHER OF THESE ARTICLES BY THE RULES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION PUT ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION, AND THEY VEST IN THE EXISTING CONGRESS A POWER TO LEGISLATE IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER.
“But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR ERROR TO ESCAPE ITS OWN CONDEMNATION!” (Emphasis added)
Madison’s response to this constitutional construction (held by Latimer) is quite strong and literally satirical and cynical, actually mocking those who would even propose such an interpretation of the US Constitution. Madison expressly notes that the enumerated powers define the parameters of the “general welfare,” not the other way around as Latimer suggests. Madison even points out that the general welfare, common defense and security of liberty provision clause in the preamble is identical to the one in the Articles of Confederation, just as about all the powers of the federal government are identical. (Sorry, nationalists: the US Constitution was in fact of the same nature and character as the Articles–a union of states, not people.) In other words, the purpose, character and nature of the federal government did not change from the Articles to the US Constitution.
Of course, this theme of constancy between the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution is consistent throughout the federalist papers, proving in part that the method for constitutional construction is one of limitation, not expansion of federal power, and is one that maintains the inviolable line of sovereignty between state and federal. While the federal courts have completely twisted this principle of constitutional construction since the early 1800s, starting with John Marshall’s court, many supreme court justices have not bought into the nationalist-interpretation of Congress’ power. (“I challenge the broad proposition that the General Welfare Clause is a grant, not a limitation, of power.” Buckley v. Valeo, 96 S.Ct. 612, 740 (1976), Justice Burger.)
Yet, even when the most nationalist-minded founders express the following concerning the role of the federal government, we still have people like Latimer who attempt to defraud the people to believe that the federal government’s powers are more than what has been granted to them and that the states are mere subsidiaries to a mega-corporation, vis-a-vis, the Federal Government:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 45.
If James Madison is correct regarding the general welfare clause conferring power to the federal government, then Latimer is most certainly wrong. If Latimer is right, then we certainly do not live in a free federal constitutional republic.
Tenth Amendment: Actual or Pretense?
This leads me to the next point of discussion in Latimer’s article: the powers reserved to the states under the tenth amendment. Given Latimer’s constitutional construction method alone (i.e. “the [preamble] grants Congress power”), the tenth amendment is utterly worthless, having no effect whatsoever; specifically by the preamble stating that the constitution’s purpose was to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Given Latimer’s method of constitutional construction, if the federal government deemed that a state were not implementing laws best conducive to the “blessings of liberty,” the federal government could use its extremely broad powers to “secure the blessings of liberty” and could dictate to the states the laws it may or may not pass; despite the states’ expressly reserving all powers not granted to the federal government, which the Law of Nations acknowledges a sovereign state has the absolute right to do and defend. Of course, to Latimer and his like, elimination of the states would likely be a good thing, regardless of whether his interpretation of the constitution is ACTUALLY the meaning understood by the ratifiers in 1787.
Line of Separation Between Federal and State: Who Maintains It?
Latimer’s method of construction devours the limitations placed upon the federal government and the line of separation between the states and the federal government–a line that Madison claimed was inviolable–unbreakable and unassailable. James Madison says in Federalist Paper 39, “the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and LEAVES TO THE SEVERAL STATES A RESIDUARY AND INVIOLABLE SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL OTHER OBJECTS.” (Emphasis added) How can an inviolable line of powers be maintained if the federal government can increase its powers at will, or as defined by the most un-democratic office holders in the country: the federal supreme court? Interestingly enough, the federal government, in toto, seems to be doing a great job at drawing and maintaining a “line of separation between church and state.” Why not apply the same strict principle of separation to the sovereignty of federal and state government? Funny how lines all of a sudden get blurry. The fact is: federal government lovers care nothing of the lines of sovereignty, except moving it encroachingly more into the territory and dominion of the states and people respectively, the tenth amendment notwithstanding. This requires the states to defend what is rightfully theirs.
Red Herrings–The Typical Response
Latimer attempts to debunk the purpose, reality and strength of the retained powers of the states by using red herrings to distract his readers, such as using the de-segregation cases of the 1950s. He appeals to emotions instead of conclusions of correct political application, as if expanding the federal government’s limited powers at the expense of the states’ retained powers is noble and was somehow justified because an apparent injustice was taking place within certain states; as if those apparent injustices create power in the federal government, despite the lack of constitutional authority to do so. Latimer makes a false (and supposedly benign) statement that the “Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of American citizens,” as if to suggest that he actually cares what the real meaning and intention of the constitution and amendments express. Perhaps Latimer should go back to the history books and learn that even the federal supreme court judges did not believe that the actual and real meaning of the fourteenth amendment conveyed the power to Congress which Latimer would have us believe per se, even while the “general welfare” clause was still there.
Actual Meaning–Does It Even Matter?
While attempting to find historical support in context of the passage of the fourteenth amendment to give Congress the power to impose upon the states their will regarding the matters of desegregation, despite the tenth amendment and no enumerated power in Article 1, section 8 to do so, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter’s law clerk confirmed that “it is impossible to conclude that segregation be abolished; impossible also to conclude that they foresaw it might be, under the language they were adopting.” Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution?, (New York, NY, Crown Forum, 2008), 47. So, instead of comporting to the line of separation between federal and state powers anticipated and demanded by the US Constitution, the federal supreme court decided it would declare a “new law for a new day,” as worded by Justice Robert Jackson. Ibid., at 49. And so the story has been for quite some time: new laws for new days shape constitutional construction.
A “Living” Constitution Kills Its True Meaning and Purpose
This “living/changing constitution” notion is evident when Latimer states the following: “Similarly, TODAY, Congress is empowered under Article I, Sect. 8, through taxation and regulation of commerce, to promote the general welfare by enacting socially beneficial programs into law, such as…health care reform legislation.” (Emphasis added). Latimer stresses in this sentence–and ones previous–that Congress has powers TODAY that it did not once have based upon the “general welfare” clause.
This constitutional approach of course contradicts the belief of those who influenced the principles of and who drafted and ratified the constitutions of the United States from 1777 to 1787. In fact, George Washington, the father of our country, expressed the fixed meaning of the constitution this way:
“Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.” Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. and Mabel Hill, comp., Liberty Documents: With Contemporary Exposition and Critical Comments Drawn from Various Writers, (New York: Longmans, Green, 1903), 218.
The federal supreme court has recognized the same fixed meaning of the constitution: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895).
Of course Latimer would likely scoff at a notion that the constitution’s meaning is fixed. Unfortunately, most attorneys (ignorantly or not) do today (though consider the source of their education: ABA). When meanings change, it is no wonder how Latimer can in “good faith” conclude that the federal government has the power to force individuals to purchase health insurance mandated and controlled by them and force states to go along like little good slaves. It is this approach to constitutions that form the premises necessary to wittingly empower Congress to regulate “commerce [within] the several states” under the moving hand of the people’s “general welfare”.
So, What is “Limited Government”?
No doubt, Latimer and his like would say that the federal government is limited as well–perhaps not in the tongue-in-cheek fashion that Nancy Pelosi demonstrated when asked the question, Is the national health care bill constitutional? So, what is their proposed limitation? Latimer tells us: the federal government’s power rests somewhere between the “public interest [verses] individual liberties.” Of course, these definitions are made by either Congress or the federal supreme court. Perhaps Latimer should attempt to define “limit” for us: it would likely come out worse than Bill Clinton’s allusion to the definition of “is.”
What Are the Principles?
Of course, there is one thing that is ultimately missing in Latimer’s article: that is, principles or maxims. So, one must infer them, so here they are: the federal government has whatever power it decides to use subject to no restrictions other than the balance between “public interest and individual liberty” (short of maybe the federal supreme court’s opinion or presumably, constitutional amendment, though he would not dare suggest that the states should limit the power of the federal government in any way); human nature is naturally good; (federal) government is not to be feared; individuals are not created with certain inalienable rights which must not be interfered with by government; government need not encourage self-responsibility and -reliance, but government-program and -reliance; the status of “sovereign” states has no bearing to the limitations of the federal government; constitutions do not form the supreme will and consent of the sovereigns forming it; and to violate that supreme will is not committing an egregious act (of war) upon those sovereigns. In other words, Latimer’s principles run in direct contrast to the principles adopted by those whose thoughts formed and who drafted and ratified the Articles of Confederation and US Constitution. To Latimer, the federal government is our protector, our provider and our parent. To Latimer, “[t]hat socialized function of the federal government is not just constitutional; it’s intelligent, humane and long overdue.”
Now What?
The conclusion to be drawn from the juxtapositions displayed in Latimer’s method and the ones I have highlighted is that the people of the states have a serious identity crisis. We do not know who we are, why we are or how we came to be. We live in a country, under a federal constitution, which is supposed to be the “Supreme Law of the Land”; yet, there is not even close to being a consensus or even a similarity of thought on the nature and character, purpose, limitations and application of the constitution that we are all supposed to be governed by.
The polarities of the formation of the constitution (i.e. It was created by one people, forming one nation, creating a government subject only to the control of the people VERSES It was assented to by the sovereign individual acts of states in the form of a federal compact) cannot exist simultaneously. One will eventually give way to the other. Unfortunately, the nationalists have indeed gained ground on the matter for quite some time. Therefore, for all those who do not know where you stand, it is time to pick a side. Your ignorance is helping no one. If you do not know where to stand and why, then you need to study our history directly from the sources that influenced our country’s formation–not from talking heads, TV news stations or even talk radio. Watching Glenn Beck will not equip you to engage in the battle we are confronted with today. Finally, for those who stand firmly on the principles of self-government and federalism, “It’s Time We Decide” the identity of the constitution we consent to be governed by!
Copyright (c) 2010 Timothy Baldwin
Sphere: Related Content
9. January 2010 at 1:00 pm
Thanks, Tim! You’ve written an excellent defense of Madison’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause. One observation: I think it is generally agreed that the Preamble to the Constitution contains no delegation of powers; it simply states the purposes of the Constitution. If any powers concerning the general welfare are conveyed in the Constitution, it must be in the General Welfare Clause at the beginning of Article I, Section 8.
Godspeed,
John Eidsmoe
9. January 2010 at 1:31 pm
John, an approbation coming from you is an honor in itself. Thank you for your comments. For those who do not know John Eidsmoe, find his books here.
9. January 2010 at 2:22 pm
Nice work Tim,
We need more people like you in general and specifically on US Supreme Court.
God Bless You for Your Work in Educating and Explaining.
9. January 2010 at 2:23 pm
Mr. Baldwin,
This time you have written something I can agree with, however, you did not go far enough. It is ludicrous to assume that those who would lose the argument would live peacefully with the winners, and the argument would resume.
If separate, self defining political ideologies can be written, and States provided for both, even then IGNORANCE would prevail.
There is never going to be a democracy that can rule without force, and the idea that the people have the power has always been a surreptitious lie.
All government is power, pure and simple, and the people never have it.
James OldDog Harvey
9. January 2010 at 7:07 pm
Walter, thank you for your comments.
9. January 2010 at 8:08 pm
Hi, Thank you for this opportunity to make a few comments. It’s just great, how we know how to separate. How many years have we been fighting the war too separate the Church from the state? Now we are fighting a war too separate of federal from the state. And then the on going war for the separation of the republicans from the democrats, the haves from the have nots, the politicians the lawyers, the judges, the bureaucrats want to separate the people from their Constitution, the black from the white, the wrong from the right, the swine from the pearls, etc, etc, etc. There is one thing about all of this. Do you think things would get better if we all had a good, old fashion whoopin? Some years back a man got the whoopin of his life. His one comment was; ” can’t we all just get along”? Many, many years ago another man got the whoopin of His life. His comment was; … “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. After many hundreds of years it is crystal clear man still does not know what he is doing. The root cause of all this trouble. Man has separated his man made law from God’s moral law. Separating man’s law from God’s law is a recipe for disaster that even the U S Constitution can’t save us from. John
10. January 2010 at 1:07 am
Mr. Baldwin:
There are two other axioms, at least:
1. A decle-edged check (or other – sic – “good”) to an individual is specific “welfare”, not general “welfare”, and, thus, not germain to the “general welfare” clause.
2. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 1 declares that “Congress shall have power (to receive monies) to” do three things:
a. “pay the debts”—of the(se) States, United
b. “provide for the common Defence”—of the(se) States in Union
c. provide for the “general Welfare”—of the(se) StateS
….in all three instances – “..OF THE(SE) UNITED STATES”.
Individuals, persons are not included, involved, covered, etc., and, thus, excluded.
Further, a. above, is an order. The Constitution provides for NO long term “national debt”. All encumbrances are to be paid “at the end of the month”. If/when there is NO debt, there is no interest on no debt, no dependence on (deference to) creditors, no threat of “calling in’ the loan, etc. – ie., there will be FREEDOM from the tyranny of a “crown” in DCA, and its acts.
b. above, obligates the Congress to order the defence/security of the common peripheral borders of these States, confederated – and the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Same would be “good Behavior”, should the matter reach the Supreme Court.
c. above, obligates the Congress to conduct itself (the central government) in the manner specified in the Constitution; i.e, keeping hands off (being subservient to) its creator – the States. These US of A are a confederacy, not a nation. As the Constitution declares, except where specifically loaned to Congress, all other power is to remain in each State, where it was before confederation – not to be usurped by DC.
It’s in the book – plain and simple! No JD required.
Curtis Caine, Parliamentarian, Constitution Party;
long time friend of your Dad;
almost novogenarian.
10. January 2010 at 12:36 pm
Tim –
Excellent article! Keep up the good work. We the people are still the ‘employers’ in these United States, however, there are those that have decided to destroy this great country by ignoring us. We shall keep their feet to the fire and constantly remind them of who we are and who God is.
God will bear us up but only after we have joined His army and are willing to endure to the end. This country, this world is not ours. It was created by GOD, Almighty, and He has the final say as to what our destiny on this rock will be. We must remain vigilant and true to His course to win the battles and war before us as no man can put down Lucifer in the end –only GOD. WE can, however, be a part of His great army and do everything in our power to thwart the destruction of the inspired Constitution, Rule of Law, and this choice land which God gave to us to use.
I thank our Heavenly Father for men such as you and your father — good men — righteous men — patriots.
For Freedom — Semper Fidelis,
Matt
11. January 2010 at 2:04 am
Matt, thank you much. We need men all across our states to stand up–NOW! As a military man, have you considered the Oath Keepers?
11. January 2010 at 2:06 am
Curtis, thank you much! and well said! The truth will prevail and will set us free. It is a must that we do our part to spread this truth to others who have an ear to hear.
11. January 2010 at 11:54 am
Baldwin – 1
Latimer – 0
Ballinger – A+
Being a VN veteran, and after having retired from 20 years as a street cop, who believes in the 13th chapter of Romans, my conclusion is that the root all America’s difficulties can be traced either directly or inderectly, to the content found within the comments of Tim’s article and Mr. Ballinger’s statements above.
In ancient Israel, the root cause of thier problems was similar, and their prescribed remedy was identical to what ours should be, that is – re-establishing in the minds of every American, the validity of 2nd Chronicles 7:14
“…..If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land…”
It was evidently salient in the minds in the pilgrims, our founders, & our earliest statesmen. ( notice, I did not say ‘politicians’ ) Without this as step numero uno, all efforts of diplomacy, legislation, and demonstration are but a futile endeavor to propel humanism above God’s “Natural Law” – which, of course, as proposed by Blackstone, is the foundation of our very form of law. God Bless America…. pray for her.
wildbill
11. January 2010 at 12:11 pm
WildBill, correct. Unfortunately, many Christians do not connect repentance to the implementation of God’s laws (natural/revealed) to form a free government. They think that being a “good Christian” means going along with tyranny and oppression, as if it is godly to do so. Nothing could more of a lie than that.
God bless the States of America!
11. January 2010 at 3:07 pm
We do not have a republic. We have a union of 50 free and independent republics. The belief that the US is a republic is false and is caused primarily by the brain-washing received in public schools requiring the recitation of the socialist Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge is a most egregious attack on State sovereignty.
The preamble of the Constitution does not grant anything. The text of Article I, Section 8 makes plain the required language that must be used to grant powers.
Congress has no power to punish violations of federal laws as is proven by the clear and concise language of the grants in Article 1, Section 8. The police power, power to punish violations of the supreme law, was left to the States to exercise in their sovereign capacity. Congress passes tax laws in order to meet the specific requirements of Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1. The States decide whether or not the law is Constitutional and if the law passes muster, the States provide enforcement of the law. Everyone ever punished under federal tax punishment laws has been unconstitutionally punished. The same goes for commerce laws.
The “necessary and proper” doesn’t provide power to punish. Don’t argue with me about this. If one can’t find the proper understanding about punishments in section 8, one is not reading and comprehending what is being read. It is plain as day. It’s as obvious as the nose on one’s face.
Our system is even more about the sovereign States managing things than most realize. The federal powers that are delegated are narrow and explicit. There are no implied powers. That too is as plain as the nose on one’s face IF one can read and comprehend the language of and the specifics of the granted powers.
Apparently Latimer has problems with language!
11. January 2010 at 3:26 pm
fwb, you are correct: we do have 50 individual republics. Now if we can get the people of those republics to realize that.
12. January 2010 at 11:09 am
Instead of bombarding our current senators / congressmen with futile attempts to get them to “change”, it is imperative that we place our efforts in a location with real abilitiy to affect change —- GOVERNORS ! Governors of every state need to excercise states rights to the fullest and then “re-ban” together if needed, as needed. Such actions would result in great tumult and attacks from without, but any and all governors standing up for their state would be instantly catapulted into hero status. It better be done soon, before the legal authority to do so is taken away. The current regime is well aware of this and constantly attempts to disable this feature of our constitution so all such actions can then be declared illegal and, hence – justify police action to quell…. yes, against our own citizens.
Pray for America – and be ready to fight for her….ask yourself, am I willing ? Does America really that much to me ? This battle will begin in the hearts / prayers of Americans, then move into the judicial realm, or wind up in the streets. Its time Americans make serious choices.
wildbill
12. January 2010 at 11:44 am
Bill, you are absolutely correct: (Real) Governors are needed now more than ever!
12. January 2010 at 9:09 pm
Well Article VII says that “The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.” This does not sound like 13 or 50 individual republics just carried on their own merry way unencumbered.. It sounds like 13 and later 50 states ratified a document creating a federal government of limited and enumerated powers. There is a federal government out there. Moreover, in part of the document the States ratified by convention (not by an act of their legislature), they also limited their own power. They said
Article IV Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Having given away some pretty significant powers, if the states are just and still 50 individual republics then they aren’t very good republics. It is one thing to recognize that a civil government ought not exercise any power under the law of God and of nature to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, bar ex post facto laws, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility or coin money. No sovereign power should ever exercise such powers.
But it is quite another thing to limit the valid civil power of every sovereign republic or nation to deny themselves by their own consent the power to enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; emit bills of credit; or without the Permission of the Congress they just created, to lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: or agree that the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; or submit to Congress the power of revision and control of all such laws; or bar themselves from laying any duty of tonnage, power to keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, or the power to enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
The fact that 50 “independent state republics” agreed to alienate from themselves these particular sovereign powers in Article IV by their consent, does not strike me as the act of retaining every jot and title of sovereignly as full fledged independent republics. These republics or 50 nations or what have you, denied themselves several key powers enjoyed by free and independent states which they previously enjoyed as of July 2, 1776.
Sure the federal government is corrupt and needs to be altered if possible, or abolished by law if not curable, but what I am saying here is that whether or not the federal government is a demon or perfect in terms of the exercise of its enumerated powers, does not change one iota that the states alienated key elements of their sovereignty by agreeing to the document. Unless and until that document is repealed or amended by removing these limitations on the states, the states are bound by its terms.
To say that “Well Congress has destroyed the document by abuse and that this abuse (for instance of the general welfare clause as Tim has so well shown) somehow frees the states from their Article IV limitations so the states can now, of their own violation re-acquire by the act of their legislatures, all of these powers alienated by them previously in Article IV” sounds as lawless a disregard of the Constitution as what the federal government has been doing.
Thus the states are not independent republics unless by this we mean that a republic by definition is one that may not exercise the power to lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, or the power to enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
This is even more poignant when you consider that in 1776 the states had the power “as Free and Independent States” to enjoy the “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.”
How do the states get out of this mess once we all realize the tragedy of the states current legal position? I suppose 2/3rds of the states could call for conventions repealing these limitations or calling for the repeal of the Constitution itself.. The states could exercise the powers they did not alienate to get hold of the federal government (i.e., instruct their Congressional senators to tow the line and protect the states as states even though elected popularly, revive militias, propose commercial compacts that will become effective when Congress is no more, meet and figure out what a private currency law looks like without a federal reserve or its state proxy, etc.). Some suppose that several states could also declare to secede.The challenge seems to be 1) what means may be employed to confine the federal government to its Constitutionally enumerated powers, or 2) if that is hopeless, to abolish the national government and establish voluntary compacts among states for matters of commerce, legal tender and military, etc.
If 20 states secede for instance, this does nothing to confine the federal government to its enumerated powers or abolish the national government. It just means 20 states opt out and create compacts by and among themselves as they desire. It also means that a Leviathan federal government still exists and not only will continue to rule the other 30 states but will want to war against the 20 that left.
This may be the inevitable result. But if there is a chance that 3/4 of the states could agree to abolish the Article IV limitations on their power or abolish the federal government created by the Constitution, it would be worth every effort to seek that result. That is why the states must at least get together and coordinate what they are doing here. I have called this meeting ground a Congress of States which would receive state delegates chosen by the state legislatures to attend a congress and come up with a common plan of dissolution (not secession). This Congress would have no authority to bind any state but would report back to the state legislatures who in turn could take whatever action each deemed best.
Its just that jumping to secession off the bat failed militarily the last time. 1860 style secession is not a good Plan A. It may be an inevitable Plan B, but Plan A should be to get the states together to see what we can all agree on, if anything, first.
In the end, the states must re-acquire the elements of sovereignly they gave away and they must do it lawfully. I know some say that a state can just unilaterally declare the deal is off and go their way but that did not work out so well last time. What more the states agreed to give up some of their power and must ignore the constitution Article IV to get to this result–the exact sin of the lawless federal government.
12. January 2010 at 9:58 pm
Kerry, you are quite off base. In fact, the states are individual republics. This is confirmed in part in Article 4, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, 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.” Each State gave to the other states a guarantee that each would help the other in maintaining a republican form of government in each state.
Your perception of the states’ weakness (compared to the usurped power of the federal government) has absolutely nothing to do with the sovereignty retained. You attempt to make the states look as though they gave up a huge part of their sovereignty in Article 4, when in fact, that is not even admitted by the most nationalist-minded of the founders (James Madison and Alexander Hamilton), who recognized that the States retained the bulk of sovereignty to govern themselves within their states.
Your statements, such as, that states did not retain “every jot and title of sovereignty” demonstrate that you are not familiar with (or at least do not agree with) those political philosophers who discussed the natural laws concerning nations and their ability to enter into compacts with other nations, delegating certain limited powers to a different sovereign, but retaining all other powers.
No one argues that the states retained every jot and title. Is that to say that the federal government may define their own powers and force the states to submit?! How absurd an insinuation!
The desire to hold onto a union for union’s sake is as ludicrous a statement as one who would suggest that State’s have no right to secede. What has this (“If 20 states secede for instance, this does nothing to confine the federal government to its enumerated powers or abolish the national government. It just means 20 states opt out and create compacts by and among themselves as they desire.”) got to do with a state’s RIGHT and POWER to govern itself according to principles of free government? Nothing. Your desire that a state stay with a union has nothing to do with its power and right to govern itself, especially when the created government (i.e. the federal government) has utterly stolen and usurped the powers intended to remain with that state for its own protection.
You say that 20 states seceding will not confine the federal government to its enumerated powers. First, that is completely not true as to the 20 states who decide “enough is enough.” Second, it does more than confine their powers. It does better: it destroys their powers–powers that they do not even deserve to claim color of title to.
A state that decides to exercise its political sovereignty to resist tyranny and eliminate the perpetuation of tyranny most certainly does so lawfully. Just because you do not believe it to be lawful does not mean it is unlawful, just as a man who defends his home against the intruder stands before no one except God with his decision to defend his home. No court judges his action before he so defends. If he is brought on charges of manslaughter or murder, the jury may find him guilty, but that does not mean he is guilty. He stands guiltless before God and those whom he protected.
So a state has the power and right to defend its powers and its citizens, and while there are those who attempt to judge a state for their actions to defend, those attempts contain no justification in constitution or natural law to force them to submit. This what we call a “state of war” where two sovereigns disagree on the exercise of sovereignty. Sometimes those conflicts are settled by peaceful means; other times, they are not. But an aggressor’s insistence on submission only invokes the victim’s right of defense that much more, and the non-aggressor’s defense against those encroachments are most certainly lawful.
You say “lawful” as if the federal government is even worthy of being treated “lawfully”. How insulting to those states and people who are trying to live free as much as possible under an illegitimate federal government. How insulting to those who fought and died and infinitely suffered to gain the sovereignty and freedom of the states. How insulting to those who formed a union with the anticipation and expectation that it would be followed and honored by that limited government (i.e. the federal government) which would not have even existed were it not for the consent of the states.
You speak of dissolution of the federal government, as if that is different than secession. Dissolution of the federal government in essence is secession: mass secession. If 3/4 of the states decide to abolish the federal government (which they can do), then effectively they have seceded all of the states from a union and completely destroyed the federal government. Are the then remaining 1/4 of the states FORCED to join union with the 3/4s of the “dissolving” states? No. They may retain the federal government as they know it, or begin a new union. Such is the nature of sovereign states. They may make and unmake constitutions. If they so decide, then so be it. It is just one exercise of state sovereignty acknowledged by the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The states getting coordinated in these types of efforts is a must–I agree.
This, however, does not admit that individual states have no power or right to act individually as they deem appropriate. To suggest that the states must remain bound to a compact that the created government from the compact does not follow is to say that a non-breaching party to a contract has a duty to comply with his obligations when the breaching party does not. This contradicts natural law and American jurisprudence for hundreds of years. What effect does article IV of the constitution have to limit the states when Congress, the President and US S CT have ignored their limitations for generations!? Nonsense. The states’ following whatever limitations they voluntary consented to in the US Constitution are only being done for convenience at this point. There will come a time when they decide to preserve themselves and to prosper themselves, by cutting the dead weight.
You are confusing the constitutional amendment process, where the constitution is found to be defective, with the individual state secession or nullification process where the constitution is not defective, but where the actions of the federal government are defective. They are completely two different political platforms, requiring two completely different responses.
13. January 2010 at 10:57 am
Tim,
So your argument comes down to this: the Federal government has thrown the Constitution down and will not obey its Article 1, sect 8 limits (or Article II or III or any other limit for that matter). This is certainly true.
But from this true proposition you assert a corollary: that ergo the states are thereby freed from their part of the constitutional bargain too. That they are now absolved from any promises that they made as States, to limit themselves under Article 1, sect. 10 (which my spell check
mistakenly changed to Article IV rather than Article I).
You suggest that this corollary is defensible based on “natural law and American jurisprudence for hundreds of years.” You state that the means of implementing this corollary are nullification and secession. You don’t say if the states can ignore Article V too or the electoral college or the
13th amendment or the 17th amendment, but I assume you hold they can throw out any and all of the document as they please. For this result you stand on the law of nature.
Do I have this correct?
13. January 2010 at 11:22 am
Kerry,
When a compact is breached (e.g. “a long train of abuses…”), it is the constitutional (which recognizes the Laws of Nature and is based upon them) right of those bodies-politic that made the constitution (i.e. the sovereigns of the STATES, acting on behalf of the STATES) to enforce remedies as provided in the Law of Nations. Just as a private contract does not need to state that each party has the right to defend its rights under the contract, so in the US Constitution, the compact need to expressly state that the States have the right to defend its powers upon breach of the compact. It is their inherent rights under the laws of sovereignty.
The States never gave up their rights of self-defense and self-preservation (e.g. nullification, secession, etc.). They have these remedies available to them. The other states never gave them these rights. They come from God. There is a reason why the US Constitution is silent on this issue of state remedy: it is inherent in the sovereign power of statehood to defend their powers and rights, and the States would have never given up these rights.
Are you suggesting that the States’ only means of lawful defense is for 3/4 of the states to give them that right of defense? How ludicrous a proposition. No reasonable person suggests that the States use their rights of defense lightly. This is confirmed by human nature. However, when an intent of bad faith is demonstrated against the states and individuals, it is their and our right and duty to repel those invasions that will ensure freedom’s protection. Freedom is not confined to what 3/4 of the states say it is, no more than what the US S CT says it is. It is based upon self-government and the consent of the governed.
13. January 2010 at 12:58 pm
Humm. I take it the forgoing is a more complete “yes” to my question. If so, then do your principles dictate that the states may adopt a resolution short of secession? You live in Florida right? So for instance:
Whereas the law of nature and nations provides that the State of Florida is absolved from the limits it voluntarily consented to in Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution, because the United States has irrevocably breached the Constitutional limits on its power; and
Whereas the State now desires to reacquire and more fully exercise those powers as a State otherwise subject to the Constitution.
Now Therefore, the State of Florida declares that it is absolved from the limits placed upon it by Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution,
That the State of Florida shall in all other respects continue under the Constitution,
That the Governor is hereby requested to review the laws of Florida and propose to the Legislature what may current laws may be enforced, repealed or new laws adopted, to determine what imposts or duties on imports or exports it may lay, to determine what duties on tonnage it may lay; to determine what troops and ships of war it may raise and support; to determine what agreements or compacts with other states, or with foreign powers it may propose, to consider the basis for engaging in war, to define the conditions of granting letters of marque and reprisal, to devise a plan for the private and public coining of money in Florida from gold and silver, and to determine if legal tender laws shall or shall not be adopted.
That the Legislature hereby establishes a committee for the purpose of likewise considering the forgoing measures.
That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the States and Congress.
Would your principles support this remedy, short of secession with a state still in the Union?
13. January 2010 at 3:50 pm
I challenge John Eidsmore, Madison said that the mention of “General welfare” in Art I, sec. 8 was confined to taxation.
Moreover, I challenge you too, Tim. Art IV, sec. IV does not mean that the republican form of government is to be in every state; it merely states that the United States government, the government between the states, will be republican; to wit: the states will be represented in the Senate. This flew out the window with the 17th amendment. In the face of the 17th, the United States can no longer live up to its Art, IV garantee!
14. January 2010 at 2:32 pm
Kerry,
If the State did that, the Federal government would likely create a case in controversy to bring the matter to the US S CT, where the court would declare a state cannot observe only those portions it wants to, thereby ruling the state’s action “unconstitutional”. The state would then have to decide, is it going to submit to that ruling or is it going to continue to assert its sovereign power to govern itself with those retained powers. It would inevitably raise the issue to all the states at that point: are the states sovereign or must they submit to the US S CT’s decisions?
The answer to your question seems obvious given the principle that states may secede. If they can abolish the whole, could they not abolish the part? But the practical question becomes, how and why would a state only abolish a part when their action necessarily requires them to abolish the whole for that state? They are simply delaying the inevitable. However, if a state attempts to put the federal government and all other states of notice of the breach of compact and their response, they are within their rights as a sovereign state to do that. The consequences are theirs.
15. January 2010 at 12:52 pm
Is this something you would pursue in Florida?
There is great advantage in this middle ground from an educational and coalition point of view. First, it raises the issue while a state remains in the union. Second, it make the states’ power the issue, not secession. Think about that. The state would not be claiming a power to secede here and now, it would be claiming a power to re-acquire that which was specifically given away. It is a narrow issue. Third, if a state is going to secede eventually, it is going to need to have already established its commercial relations with other states and countries anyway. This gets the ball rolling. Fourth, if a state succeeds it will need an army and Florida will need a navy. Or it will need compacts with those who have such. Fifth, it will also need its own money.
Imagine if Florida seceded today. What chaos. It has no compacts. It has no military. It has no currency. The US would embargo it. It would be a short trip to a federal penitentiary and most people would say “Throw away the key.”
But the resolution is a test case without all those consequences. As matter of fact, the easiest test case would be if Florida laid impost or imports and did not kick back to Congress. Right now the ” net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States.” Florida passes the resolution and then cuts off the money to the fed. It’s a great test case on the principle of mutual breach.
How much would Florida save if they denied Congress this revenue? I don’t know. If alot, I bet a coalition could be built around this issue.
The people are not ready to secede, but they and the states may be ready to deny Congress money. Perhaps a FOIA request to the state treasury on how much they turn over would be the place to start.
15. January 2010 at 1:11 pm
Kerry,
You have well thought out plans. I do not completely agree with you, but reasonable people can disagree on certain points. It is good to see that people are thinking in these terms.
You say, “Imagine if Florida seceded today. What chaos. It has no compacts. It has no military. It has no currency. The US would embargo it. It would be a short trip to a federal penitentiary and most people would say ‘Throw away the key.’” I believe that secession is (by human nature) the last resort, but I believe when that time comes, Florida will not be alone. In fact, Florida will never be the first to do such a thing, just as most states east of the Mississippi River would not be the first to do such a thing.
Keep in mind, the Colonies did not have those elements which you claim Florida does not have either. Yet, they succeeded!
Whether or not the people “are ready to secede” is really not the question. The question is, how is freedom preserved and perpetuated. Do you think that the people will ever feel “ready” short of outright, complete, and utter oppression from the federal government? No. The federal government will always try to make us feel as comfortable as they can so they can wrap their hands around us tighter.
I even had a conversation with a friend of mine a week ago or so about these issues, and while he agreed that the states need to do something, his ultimate response was, “but I am still comfortable”, so he is not willing to really do anything that will disrupt that. So goes most people in the US.
Therefore, it will take leaders in each state to show the people the reality of our plight, the principles of free government and actions necessary to be taken NOW before it will be even harder to accomplish in the future.