By Timothy Baldwin.
After the release of my column “Freedom’s Destruction by Constitutional De-Construction,” I received so many responses to my statement, “The people of the states [must] once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism,” that I felt the need to develop this subject more thoroughly. The question I received was: “How can I choose federalism once again?” Indeed, answering this question is crucial to injecting a cure for the sickness and illness of tyrannical, national control over the people of the states. Undoubtedly, we are going to need an acute dosage to even begin ridding ourselves of the disease destroying the body of our once-great federation.
The reality is, the answer is not complicated. The more relevant question will likely be, what portion of the cure(s) must we implement. This will require a diagnosis of the degree and seriousness of the disease’s attack on our Confederate Republic. Let us analyze briefly the seriousness of the attack so that we may proportionally and accordingly respond and defend against the encroachments on our constitutional freedoms, guarantees and powers.
Keeping in line with my last article and the position that the national system of government (under which the United States currently operates) is completely contrary to the federal system that our founders and Constitution’s ratifiers bequeathed to us, a fact is established: We the People of the United States of America have been denied our natural and compactual rights under God and the Constitution. Again, how can it be argued that it is now legally and morally right and proper to do what our Constitution did not create or authorize? How can freedom exist in a country where we supposedly believe in the “consent of the governed” when that consent has been usurped by force? Consequently, our right of defense is activated.
Make no mistake about this: the US Constitution did NOT create a national government, but rather created a federal government whereby the states were coequal with the federal government in the exercise and defense of the powers granted to them by the people of each State. The founders and ratifiers of the Constitution expressly rejected the notion that the federal government has supreme sovereignty. The issue here is not whether there are “national components” of the procedures in the system, such as voting for the House of Representatives by the people. We know that the founders implemented a few elements of national-type procedure in the US Constitution, just as they did even in the Articles of Confederation.
Rather, the bottom-line issue is, whether the states have coequal power to exercise and defend their powers–and their citizens–and whether the Federal government has the power to force the states to accept its own interpretation and (de)construction of the Constitution. If the union of the United States was formed by the people of the states in their capacities as the sovereign of each State, creating a FEDERAL government, then the states are coequal in power and do have the right to exercise and defend their powers. If the union of the United States was formed by the whole of the people as a mass body politic, without regard to the sovereign states, creating a NATIONAL government, then the states are mere corporations of the parent company, called the Federal government.
I need not expound the answer to this question here, because I have done so in numerous other articles before, proving that the union was formed by the states as states, and not by the people as one nation. The conclusion is more than provable that the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution did not create a nation, but created a federation, and actually expected the states to be the active guardians of freedom for their own people. Thus, what methods can we use today to once again choose federalism over nationalism?
There are five basic methods by which the people of the states can counter the attacks of the federal government’s prolonged tyrannical usurpations of power. They are: (1) Change of Politicians; (2) Checks and Balances; (3) Constitutional Amendment; (4) Constitutional Convention; and (5) Revolution.
1. Change of Politicians. Alexander Hamilton notes in Federalist Paper 21, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” This method of cure is no mystery, and has been the mode of “change” in the US for the past 50 years. Dare I say, this method has proven to be anything but effectual? Please show me how changing the Federal government from Republican to Democrat and vice versa has done ANYTHING to reinstitute our federal form of government, provided by the Constitution. Both parties in the federal government do absolutely nothing to revert rightful power to the people of the states. I shall not waste any more valuable time or words on this ineffectual method. (Then again, if we had a majority of congressmen such as Ron Paul in Washington, D.C., we wouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.)
2. Checks and Balances. There are two types of checks and balances: (a) federal against federal, and (b) State against federal. Since the early 1900s, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government have usurped power from the states. To say that the people of the states can count on the three branches of the federal government to check each other in this regard and to maintain a Federal form of government is a joke. All three branches maintain that they possess the sole power (through the judiciary) to interpret and construe the Constitution, and that all others (i.e., the states) must submit thereto. This is in fact the very definition of nationalism, which the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected.
As for the states’ check against federal usurpations of power, most ignorant or disillusioned people would say that they lost that right when the Confederate States of America lost the Civil War in 1865, and from that point onward, the states could not check the federal government through arresting action. They suggest that to conquer equals the right to rule: a notion completely rejected in American jurisprudence. Time does not allow me to expand on this erroneous doctrine, so I will simply say, How ludicrous!
The fact is, the Federalist Paper writers expected the states to be the guardians against federal tyranny. This necessarily meant (as they expressed) that the states develop actual arms of resistance to such encroachments. This, of course, shows, once again, the FEDERAL character and nature of our form of government: the states were not subservient to the federal government’s dictates, but were coequal in power to protect their own authority and freedoms through their State Constitutions.
Thankfully, we are seeing a current resurgence of State activism to be the voice and arm of the people to protect and perpetuate the US Constitution. While the federal v. federal checks and balances have proven to be less than fruitful, the states today are taking their role more seriously in this regard, just as our founders and ratifiers demanded. It is this State power of active and passive nullification and resistance that will once again protect federalism and freedom in America. Therefore, it is this State power that affords us the best opportunity to defend liberty and restore constitutional government, and that we should expend most our energies to revive.
3. Constitutional Amendment. The US Constitution requires three-fourths of the STATES to amend the Constitution. Most certainly this is an effective tool to reverse and prevent evils in government. Our founders expected that this process would protect freedom and the principles of freedom. However, as we have seen since 1865, the amendment process has been used only to increase national power and decrease State power. From the states being denied power in the Senate, to the income tax and “privileges and immunities” clause of the fourteenth amendment, the nationalists of the twentieth century have had their heyday by deepening their squeeze of national ideals over federal. Ironically, the attack on federalism has come through the same document protecting our federation: the Constitution. (The illegality of amendments being used to propagate principles contrary to freedom and federalism is for another article and discussion.)
That being said: if there were enough states to amend the Constitution to clarify federal doctrines, limit federal government power, and reinstitute original State powers, then it most certainly would be beneficial. Praise the day when such amendments would be ratified.
4. Constitutional Convention. I have heard this method suggested by some in certain circles of the “patriot movement,” and while I understand the suggestion of calling a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution, I believe that to do so would likely create more problems than what we are dealing with today. However, there is a caveat, as explained below.
To convene a constitutional convention, states would have to send delegates (just as in 1787) for the purpose of discussing and drafting a Constitution. Not even getting into the legal issues and ramifications inherent in such a method, a very practical question is raised: Would a majority of the people convening at such a monumental event even possess the understanding, knowledge and belief needed to perpetuate and protect the principles of freedom and federalism? By virtue of what I see throughout the US today, I venture to say, No. I believe one of the greatest contributions to national ideals defeating federal ideals is that the people (including on State
levels) do not understand, know or believe in the principles expressed by our founders and their forefathers.
Thus, to call a constitutional convention would most certainly place us in a worse situation. That said, there is one positive that could result from this. If the Constitution were re-written, it would require the ratification of the states that wanted to join a new union under a new contract (Constitution). In this case, it very well may provide a way for the people of the states to decide which path they wanted to take: national or federal.
In other words, those states that yet wanted to live under Federalism and not Nationalism could reject the new compact and could declare themselves independent or seek to form yet another compact among like-minded states. (Of course, this could happen anyway, per number 2 above–even without a constitutional convention–making any proposed Con Con a dangerous and unnecessary action.)
5. Revolution. Revolution simply means a change of power. For those who perceive such a term as being a bad thing, why do they not then demonize the current illegitimate system of national government, because this current system is not the one the states ratified back in 1787? If a squatter turns your property into his, are you not within your rights to remove him, his family, his friends and his belongings completely from your property?
It is a fact that Americans (nationalists, federalists and even monarchists) believed in the natural right of revolution–that every generation has the God-given right to effect change by revolution when change cannot be reasonably expected and effected through other more peaceful means.
Coming full circle, then: To what degree has the federal government usurped its powers? This question is crucial because, as our forefathers expressed, resistance should be enacted proportionally to the usurpation. While there may be some who think that “it’s not all that bad,” I suggest that it is much worse than we think it is. We are at a point today when we are not only fighting for State sovereignty and a federal system, but we are fighting for national sovereignty (according to the LAWS OF NATIONS as expressed by enlightenment philosophers and jurists), against those who desire that the US become part of the global community.
The evidence around us is beyond reasonable doubt: we the people of the United States have been fraudulently denied our rights under the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and under the US Constitution. The rights to resist this tyranny already exist. The methods to choose federalism and freedom have their hands out, offering to help us. It is time we choose which method or methods will best reach the ultimate goal of freedom. And as I said, I believe a revival of State sovereignty–whereby states are resolved to exercise the authority they have per the terms of their charter (Constitution)–is the most attractive and effective method currently feasible to reclaim federalism and freedom in America.
Copyright ©Timothy Baldwin 2009
October 30th, 2009 at 1:28 am
I would like to be part of a cause that will endure, and with continued guidence and encouraging each other I believe we can accomplish this simple, yet monumental task of restoring our country to the republic of which will serve the people once again.
How can I help you here in the Tampa Bay area of Florida?
God Bless us all!
October 30th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Jon,
We MUST insist on state leadership under our sovereign powers reflected in the 10th amendment. We are almost at a point of the natural law of self-preservation and self-defense, as those in Washington D.C. have completely ignored their constitutional limitations and the states’ powers and sovereignty. Elect state legislators, senators, governors, county sheriffs &c. that understand the principles of federalism and freedom. We need POWER checking POWER.
Tell others about http://www.libertydefenseleague.com and pass on my articles, and educate people on these crucial issues. We the people of this state will never reclaim freedom without educating a large number of people. We cannot do this alone: we need the help of each other and our state government.
God save our federal republic!
October 30th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I just wanted to thank you Timothy for creating this site. You have inspired me to be an active participant to restore our Republic. I am putting together a petition to assert State Sovereignty here in Jackson County Oregon. This criminal rogue government is out of control and now is the time to stand for liberty. If you have any advice on how to best draft the petition let me know.
God bless you,
Scott
October 31st, 2009 at 1:21 am
Scott,
It is my honor and duty to be able to proclaim the truth of freedom. The fact is, the truth shall set us free. Very few are proclaiming it today, but I believe there is still hope for freedom-loving people in the (some of) the states. Together we can make this happen.
As for your petition, are you referring to a State Sovereignty Resolution or something different?
October 31st, 2009 at 2:00 am
I was referring to State Sovereigntu Resolution.
October 31st, 2009 at 10:43 am
for a great reference on State Sovereignty Resolutions, go to http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com. You can find the resolutions that have been proposed or passed in the various states. You would do well by starting there.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Oregon has proposed a State Sovereingnty Resolution. It was just proposed on the 22nd of October. I would still like to get a petition together in an effort to educate the public on this issue. I think a great deal of our problem is the lack of understanding of personal as well as State sovereignty. We need a revival of the constitution (spirit of 1776).
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Agreed.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Brother Tim,
I salute you for your leadership in this issue. The Lord will magnify your voice as you continue to battle on the LEGAL and non-violent ground to restore “liberty in law” to these United States, in accordance with the Biblical principles that gave rise to this nation in the first place (through years of struggle from preaching the gospel to savage tribes through Magna Carta and on to this geography and William Penn’s great experiment). When we stand on a law basis, the God who ordains authority (Romans 13) stands with us. This means we will be victorious (as Revelation shows from its prophesied victory of the martyr saints and others who persevered under the hand of the Imperial Roman Beast and False Prophet of Judaism that rejected the true Messiah) – we, as one new man, Jew and Gentile, who submit ourselves to the authority of the Messiah, as the Israel of God.
The prophets in the Church today have said the new front line will be the states, and this has come to pass already. Onward! The victory is at hand. Let us encourage one another to be faithful, and, as we evangelize and disciple, focus civil efforts on electing godly men in our state houses. We must also lift all of their hands in prayer, for the Lord can move hearts.
I wrote to our new state legislators last year about supporting a state sovereignty resolution in the Commonwealth, as we trust it is moving forward.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
First of all I must compliment you Mr. Baldwin on the fact you allow comments to be made to your columns. Unlike your father’s web page which does not, at least you allow for people to respond.
That said, however, I am surprised that a practicing attorney, former prosecutor for Florida State and a graduate of a recognized law obviously flunked his constitutional law course.
Overall I can agree with the sentiment and statements in your column UNTIL you begin discussing (3)constitutional amendment and (4) constitutional convention. Both you and your father have repeatedly stated misstatements of fact in regards to these issues but have, until now, remained in the shadows hiding behind your web pages and message machines. For example, I have asked several times to come on to your father’s radio program to discuss an Article V Convention. I’ve not even received so much as courtesy of a response. Obviously your father is afraid of the truth which is strange considering that his whole life has been devoted to spreading the gospel, that is to say, speaking the truth.
Now to the specifics of your column. Our organization, FOAVC, Friends of the Article V Convention has complied photographic documented evidence of official government records which clearly show all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention. The texts of the applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org. Congress has refused to obey the Constitution and call a convention. Many of the issues of amendment proposed by the states deal with the concerns your and your organization have raised. The problem is, for your organization, the states dealt with these problems in proposed amendments as much as 50 years ago meaning they saw this problem and moved to resolve it before you were even born.
You fail to mention any of these facts when discussing (3). You misstate the facts of amendment. It requires three fourths of the states to RATIFY an amendment proposal. I will put this in caps so you don’t miss it. IT IS OBVIOUS BY READING THE FEDERALIST PAPERS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED THAT THROUGH AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION THE STATES COULD EXERCISE THEIR CO-EQUAL POWER TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEY LEFT NO OTHER METHOD TO DO SO. THE SHEER NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BY THE STATES IS AMPLE PROOF THE STATES CLEARLY REALIZE THIS FACT. THE FACT CONGRESS REFUSES TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION AND HAS ADMITTED SUCH REFUSAL IS A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF OATH OFFICE AND IS WILLING TO RISK CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS CLEARLY SHOWS THEY REALIZE WHERE THE TRUE POWER OF THE STATES LIES. See FAQ 9.1 for Walker v Members of Congress at our FOAVC website.
As a former criminal prosecutor you should be outraged that members of the government have admitted in open public court as a matter of public record they have committed a crime. Yet, the fact is your father and you have stood in favor of Congress doing this by your opposition to obeying the Constitution and calling an Article V Convention as required by Article V. In short, you are a constitutional hypocrite. You say you favor the Constitution but your actions show you really don’t.
You should take time to read the applications Tim before misstating the facts. They clearly prove that the proposed amendments made by the states is to reduce federal power. For example, the state of Wisconsin proposed a national initiative, referendum and recall amendment and the reduction of federal power that such an amendment would cause is obvious. None of this you’ve ever mentioned or are even willing to discuss.
The amendments you mention in (3) have all been proposed as the applications show. But with people such as yourself urging the right of Congress to veto the Constitution be upheld, is it any wonder Congress feels no problem in vetoing the Constitution and refuses to call a convention as it is required to do?
As to number (4). Article V clearly limits both Congress and an Article V Convention to proposing amendments “to this Constitution.” In short, a convention such as you suggest is entirely unconstitutional and you as an attorney should know this. Otherwise as I’ve said, it’s obviously you flunked your constitutional law course in law school. No court has ever held that Article V allows for a constitutional convention such as you describe and I would challenge you to provide one shred of proof in documentation of official court records when one has.
Therefore your fears that you express are completely meaningless because the Constitution does not allow for such a convention. You mislead people for your own purposes and that is shameful.
If you wish to learn the facts about an Article V Convention, I suggest you go to our web site and read the applications and in future tell the truth about an Article V Convention.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I am all in favor of a constitutional amendment that reduces federal power and reflects the true nature and character of our Confederate Republic. I am certainly opposed to any attempts by our federal government to refuse the constitutional guarantees of the states to amend the constitution in a manner that reflects its true principles.
As to your accusations that I and my father are constitutional hypocrites, I vehemently deny such accusations or insinuations. You certainly make serious accusations on such baseless claims. I love the laws upon which our country was founded and am willing to die for those truths and principles.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Tim,
You’ve missed a premise regarding how things are what they are.
The Federal government, with leave of the States, has war powers – once Congress declares that a state of war exists. At that point the Constitution goes into a semi-suspended state of “preservation,” cf. the presidential oath of office. We miss that because every president on the occasion of a war declaration, immediately issues his first martial order: “The civil law shall be maintained.”
It’s maintained under martial law. For the most part it looks the same. But individual aspects of the civil law, including the Constitution, can be overcome by further martial orders. I’m not fond of it, but that’s how it works. War isn’t waged by laws. War is waged only on the conscience of the Commander in Chief, as to what he finds most expedient to that end.
You’ll want to say that’s irrelevant, as there is currently no declared war. That’s the hidden premise. There most certainly is a declared war.
Congress declared war on Germany in the 1910s. I will pay you or anyone $1000 to produce a Senate ratified Peace Treaty which would have overcome that war declaration. I’m most confident that none exists.
I’ll even do likewise for a Peace Treaty that brought the next war declaration on Germany (form the 1940s) to closure. Again, I’m perfectly confident – but you’re welcome to research it.
The United States of America and Germany are still technically, but far more importantly, LEGALLY, still at war. Martial authority continues to exist in the Federal government. States’ rights? What states’ rights? The states have waived all rights when it comes to war, save to act to repel an invasion.
Sorry, but the whole mess is resting on that little hidden premise. If you want to restore the rights of the states (and the people), then all that’s needed is for the president to negotiate, with the advice of the Senate, and then for the Senate to consent to a Peace Treaty with Germany. Now how hard could that be? You can buy a VW, Audi or Mercedes. We have trade with Germany. We obviously have amity and friendship. All we need is a Peace Treaty to end those war declarations, confirming, LEGALLY, that amity and friendship – and the end of those wars (and the martial powers of the Federal government)!
Absent that, then what he have is what we established! The Federal government is certainly going to expand its powers. Why not? It has the power to do so. It has usurped nothing!
It has merely used the powers given it. Perhaps there’s a small bit of mis-information involved in it, as the public consensus would surely be that WWII ended a very long time ago, that we have long been at Peace with Germany. But legally, that consensus would be quite wrong.
And unfortunately, it’s not about popular consensus. It’s a very technical legal matter. But that’s the way we established it!
Go back to the books Tim. You’re a competent lawyer. Prove me wrong. I dare ya!
We don’t need a revolt. To the exact contrary. All we need is PEACE. How weird is that?
Ralph
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I have only been reading Chuck and now Timothy Baldwins columns for a few months.I have found them both to be most enlightening to say the least, and pass them to my few friends that might comprehend the messages they share.Let’s face it, millions must dearly LOVE what Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Lavin and a few others are flooding the airwaves with, but
in so doing it makes one want to scream WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT ?
What Bill Walker writes,is most disheartening! Good grief.. there are so very few wanting to get at the heart of our problem and resolve it, WHY
do we have such bitter infighting when we all want the same goal?I reject anything Walker suggest, just because of his attitude alone Devisive, not helpfull at all! – Please don’t let folks like him slow you down. You are to be highly praised for airing his views and not retaliating in the crude manner he employs…. but then what would I know? I’m just a 77 year old retired USAF officer, Vietnam combat veteran who had thought too many have rejected 2 Chron. 7:14…and relief could ONLY come when Christ returns, America is a lost cause… Thank you and God bless you all
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Excellent commentary! Where you mention, “I suggest that it is
much worse than we think it is,” you may invoke “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (1 Corinthians 5: 6) The definition in juris-prudence for rape is, “penetration, however slight.” Also, for the lesser intellectuals among your readers, only the vigilant see the wolf coming, and the others cry “help” when it is at the door! Had they prepared themselves for the impending danger, they would have withstood its attacks.
But, having been warned, and still have done nothing but complain about the bad news is unconscionable!
You’ve prepared a valuable tract, and I believe it should presented to the public. Therefore, I shall!
Well done! Tim. cc: Chuck
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Ralph,
There is a fundamental difference between your analysis and mine:
Mine rests on the premise that the Federal government has usurped its powers. Yours rests on the premise that they have not. There is no way you and I can agree on what needs to be done to restore freedom in the country when we don’t agree on that fundamental premise.
By definition based upon your premise, the people of the States live in freedom as they are consensually and willingly subjected to the federal and state governments under the terms expressed in their constitutions. If that is the case, what need is there for any change whatsoever?
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Peter, St. Jean,
Thank you for your comments. America may be a “lost cause”, but freedom never is. Do not lose heart and hope. If our founders could do what they did, we certainly can as well, because it was not the human effort alone that created a free country, it was the implementation of certain principles. Principles are as everlasting as God himself.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“tagnine”,
Thank you and well said!
November 4th, 2009 at 10:26 am
1) never happen they have too much power, money and corruption. — FAIL
2) gone, the federal government has been given unlimited power by the supreme court, and there is absolutely no controls now except for an occasional ruling on the first 5 bill of rights — FAIL
3) and 4) Enough states have ALREADY followed the process OFFICIALLY CALLED for a constitutional convention and the federal government is IGNORING THEM. I thought more people know about this blatant abuse of federal powers? — FAIL
http://www.sweetliberty.org/standing_calls.htm
5) Revolution…. more and more it looks like the only way. History has shown that liberty can be lost in seconds by the stoke of a pen. It has always taken the stroke of a sword and bloodshed to get it back.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Han Solo,
I have to disagree in some regards, but I certainly understand your sentiment. Let us continue to do all we can, until we can do no more.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:18 am
I thought that this was an excellent article that should be read by all who value our freedoms. One problem I see about the states exercising their sovereign right over the federal government is there are more corrupt leaders than there are more moral honest servants in both the State governments and the Federal governments that influence any possible change for good.
I don’t see how we the people can at this late stage of our present time change the course that our country is going in without a moral base of the people to start with. To do that you would have to convert the majority of the people to be REAL active, informed, and educated in the correct principles of government and Christian morality to turn this nation around. That endeavor, it seems to me would take more time that we have left at this VERY late hour.
That is why I believe we quite possibly are just spinning our wheels and doing a LOT of busy work.
What say Ye Tim??
November 5th, 2009 at 10:25 am
This man really understands Federalism. Tim Baldwin for President !
November 5th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Bill,
I believe that in many parts of the country, the “state movement” will not be successful. However, in other states, I believe that the “state movement” will be very successful. This is the genius of a federal system: it allows people to be self-governed. It also gives those people who want to be in a state of freedom to find that state and move there.
You are correct in your statement that without a moral base, there will be no freedom, but I believe that the moral base is out there: it is just not everywhere.
Thanks for your comments.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Solo regarding his assumption that a convention call has failed. First of all, until FOAVC came along no one (including Congress) had complied the public record in an easily available single source that could be examined by the public. The failure of Congress to do this was deliberate and is evidenced by the applications themselves. In a few of applications you will see where such applications for specific issues have been summarized meaning Congress possesses the ability to do and simply has refused to obey the Constitution.
As more people learn of this they will begin to ask Congress questions such as “why do you claim the right to veto the Constitution” and “why when your own attorney of record admitted such action is a crime do you feel it is not.” The outrage over a clearly provable, demonstrable government cover up is coming, not going.
In short, the sleeping giant is waking up and so to assume there will not be pressure on Congress over an admitted deliberate violation of the Constitution that is irrefutable is premature.
As to Mr. Baldwin’s comment “As to your accusations that I and my father are constitutional hypocrites, I vehemently deny such accusations or insinuations. You certainly make serious accusations on such baseless claims. I love the laws upon which our country was founded and am willing to die for those truths and principles.”
Please don’t make me waste countless lines of text copying and pasting in countless columns by Mr. Baldwin senior and junior where you have opposed a “con-con” as you term it meaning you oppose obeying Article V. In the case of senior the opposition extends all the way to the 1990’s. He has stated over and over again “32 states have applied for a convention and if we get two more a convention must be called…” repeated. Obviously public record shows him to be a liar on this as the number of applications is far, far beyond 32. And ignorance is no excuse here. In 1990, BEFORE your father took a public position, a research article in Hamlin Law Review by Senior District Court Judge Bruce Van Sickle and attorney Lynn Boughey summarized up the 567 applications they had been able to locate in the congressional record and provide citations to those texts.
In short, the public proof was available at all times. The fact is you are constitutional hypocrites. You have repeatedly stated false information about the Constitution regarding an Article V Convention, that it has the power by itself to overthrow our Constitution and write a new one when in fact a simple reading of Article V clearly proves this false. You therefore say you support the Constitution but you oppose obeying it because Article V clearly states a convention must be called if the states apply and they have. I could go on, but trust me, if you really want me to start proving this, I suggest you go to http://www.intheory.tv/2009/01/chuck-baldwin-con-con-would-be-the-end-of-the-united-states-of-america-as-we-know-it-and-our-current-constitution-and-bill-of-rights-would-be-forever-altered-beyond-recognition/ as one public example of Mr. Baldwin senior public position.
Now, you’ve said and I quote again, “”As to your accusations that I and my father are constitutional hypocrites, I vehemently deny such accusations or insinuations. You certainly make serious accusations on such baseless claims. I love the laws upon which our country was founded and am willing to die for those truths and principles.”
I’ve proven you are right here and again all it took was a simple Google search under Chuck Baldwin, constitutional convention. And please don’t try to weasel out of this saying you were talking about something else other than Article V. The mention of the applications in the column itself disproves that. In short, my accusations are not baseless but easily and clearly demonstrable. You are constitutional hypocrites saying you believe in the Constitution but urging it not be obeyed.
Now comes the tough part Chuck. You say you “love the laws upon which this country was founded.” You say you are willing to “die” for them. I’m not asking you to die except perhaps politically.
Have you and your father come out publicly and repeatedly in favor of an Article V Convention as required by the Constitution. Have the courage to publish what I am writing here in your column and then come out publicly favoring the calling of an Article V Convention. If you “love the laws” then that means you support them and honor them. That means you obey them and you support others to do the same. It also means that if there are concerns about a convention, you address them not as excuses to disobey the Constitution but as issues to be resolved in complying with the Constitution.
You worry about the agenda of a convention? Then I suggest you begin rallying support behind people to be delegates who you can support.
Point is the gospel teaches us above all to tell and speak the truth. Jesus never said such a path is easy. You’ve gotta choice. The elephant is in the room and it isn’t going away. Either you and father are going to start telling the truth as it is, supporting the states in their obvious efforts to have a convention, or you are going to continue to lie about the number of applications and the complete lies of what a convention can do or might do.
The decision is yours. Obey the law you love or throw it away. We all live in the least exclusive club with the highest paying dues: the United States of America. The states have applied. The Constitution demands a convention.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Bill Walker,
I will let God be the judge of your accusations against me and my father.
Your suggestion that an Article 5 convention is required has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Federalism (which I am attempting to educate the people about), whereby INDIVIDUAL states can arrest federal tyranny on an individual state level. Your Article 5 suggestion is one of a collective federal effort. Mine is a singular federal effort, in which the principle of SELF-GOVERNMENT applies much more strongly and effectively. Your are comparing apples and oranges.
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it is actually impossible for New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, etc. to agree in philosophy, principle, morality, ethics and politics with states such as Montana, Tennessee, South Carolina, Wyoming, etc.? Have you stopped to think that maybe it would actually be better for certain states to live under different constitutions, under a much more federated system? Have you ever stopped to analyze what some of the most influential philosophers, such as Montesquieu, considered to be the only types of conditions in which a Constitutional Republic can exist?
This article, Choosing Federalism, Choosing Freedom, clearly states the different options (as expressed by our founders and forefathers) we the people have in our states respectively. I certainly agree that a Constitutional Convention is an option: I just do not agree that it will produce more freedom. This opinion is based upon the facts I believe to be true. You very clearly believe the facts to be different. So be it.
If 2/3’s of the states want an Article 5 convention, I support their constitutional right to do that. I simply believe that there are serious dangers in doing so (have you not read the constitutional convention debates and notes of 1787 and how a monarchy and purely national/centralized government were actually and strongly proposed by some of the delegates?!), because I do not believe the vast majority of the states believe in the fundamental principles that created our Confederate Republic to begin with. As just an example, there is already a sweeping movement in the states to eliminate the electoral college! This is just another step towards nationalizing our Confederate Republic, just as the states did with the 17th amendment.
Making the accusation that “not supporting a constitutional convention is equal to ‘throwing the law’ away” is simply ludicrous. And by the same stone that you throw at me, you hit yourself by not supporting the execution of Federalist principles, whereby the INDIVIDUAL states have a role in arresting federal tyranny under the 10th Amendment and you are equally “throwing the law away”.
In fact, history proves that individual states (under the 10th amendment) have arrested more federal tyranny than any Constitutional Convention ever has since 1787. Please point to ONE constitutional amendment since 1865 that has reduced federal power and increased state power? To the contrary, most amendments have only cemented the Federal government’s usurpation over the states.
You obviously have a difference of opinion than I and those who agree with me. That is your right, and I do not judge you for your opinion. I encourage you to do what you think is right. However, it is apparent that anyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, and again, I will let God and the people judge my and my father’s beliefs and the proposals to restore freedom in this country.
We who love freedom are all trying to determine the best plan of action with the limited resources and man-power that we have. May God uplift the best plan.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Bill Walker,
You said, “For example, I have asked several times to come on to your father’s radio program to discuss an Article V Convention. I’ve not even received so much as courtesy of a response. Obviously your father is afraid of the truth which is strange considering that his whole life has been devoted to spreading the gospel, that is to say, speaking the truth.”
I ask, did you ever think that maybe Chuck is not “afraid of the truth”, but is simply applying Proverbs 26:4,5…
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Lest you also be like him.
5 Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
Lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Apparently your ignorant attempts to debate a point that you are missing the overall concept of don’t merit a response.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
NO CON-CON For the facts about the current status of a “con-con” as well as why it is not a prudent action (though Tim already discussed this better in less words), see this article: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/1241 . This holds more weight seeing that the JBS (TNA is their flagship publication, with excellent cutting edge research and reporting) has successfully led past fights against a dangerous Constitutional Convention.
ASSERT STATE POWERS While it is not sufficient, nevertheless returning the federal government to its delegated, enumerated powers IS a workable strategy for today. Prophets in the church declared some years ago that the spiritual battle in the civil arena would be fought on the State level. This has happened. Furthermore, it is a LEGAL and non-violent way to reassert law. And lawfully-ordered freedom (rather than government dictates – Nannystate) is the end we seek in the civil arena. Thereby we can live quiet, peaceable lives in godliness, for which we are commanded to pray.
UNITED WE STAND… Thirdly, the cut up snake on an early colonial flag has a great lesson for us here. The image speaks to both sides in this war for a vision of civilization. We must now unite, or perish. If we unite, standing on Law before the God of heaven, we will see the babel-builders again confused, the Egyptian powers again overthrown, the Babylon empire builders again crushed from the ground up, the Beast overthrown by we who persevere in faith and worship, trusting God and not our swords to subdue the power of the sword to God-ordained limits.
NULLIFICATION DOCTRINE (LESSER MAGISTRATE) Tim, in these two columns, along with your re-examination of Marbury, you have given the legal strategy that will work, as applied by each State. “Put your trust in His prophets and succeed.” (2 Chron. 20:20) An excellent free podcast that gives more ammunition is at the Tenth Amendment Center website, “Nullification” by Thomas DiLorenzo – please listen to it, the cases he mentions and the new 2 volume history on the history of nullification by R. Kirk Wood.
LAND OF THE FREE REQUIRES HOME OF THE BRAVE Tim, keep up the great work. Sound this forth, and let no one distract you from this effectual strategy. Let the rest of us make our State legislators aware of this, and pour effort into getting better State legislators in 2010 and beyond. We can win, and we must. Faith always outlasts oppression, as the book of Revelation shows (the 1st century church outlasting Jewish unbelieving religion and the Roman Beast).
November 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
DiLorenzo misspoke. The two-volume set is by _W._ Kirk Wood, entitled Nullification, A Constitutional History, 1776-1833. It was published in April 2008.
November 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Pat Henry,
Thank you for your comments. I intend on spreading the truth of this matter as long as God gives me the ability. Please help me by spreading this website to your contacts.
November 7th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Tim, I am doing that, as I am able – including having sent links to your excellent articles to my State legislators.
One thing your webmaster should know is that as of yesterday, a Google search no longer came up with your website (even the exact name). It should be at the top (as it was in a search a few days prior).
December 9th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Most Americans still believe we have adequate freedom, and that what resstrictions we experience now are for our own good (protection against terrorism and other enemies, to stimulate the economy, health, etc.) I find it very difficult to explain these freedom losses to most people I encounter. They just don’t believe that we have been losing freedoms.
I am especially aware of the diminishing freedom to spend our income as we choose, and to control that property that is taxed away from us and given as welfare and foreign aid, regardless of what we might think of the recipients entitlement to it. I also note the diminishing 2nd Amendment right, loss of the freedom to speak out against activities I consider immoral, diminishing freedom to influence the education of our children, and loss of access to certain medical remedies, especially homeopathic remedies, that are “unapproved” by certain FedGov agencies
What losses have you folks noticed and/or been affected by?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Ralph, you cannot force people to wake up. They have to make that decision themselves. If they think they are free, then they have become slaves to the Matrix created by those who would control us and those who do not even know the system they advocate.
December 10th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
NO! CON-CON! Instead, this:
“It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Do you think the Heller, Heller v. D.C., decision was wrong? The case decided that a D.C. resident has the right to the 2d amend. Now today the S.Ct. is deciding if in fact the fed. Bill of Rights apply to the indiv. w/in the several states in the McDonald case from ORD, Chicago.