by Timothy Baldwin
If the current version of the US Constitution, as construed and applied by the federal government (in every branch) over the past 220 years, were reduced to writing in the form of a new constitution (the original language and meaning of the US Constitution notwithstanding), would the people of the states, as they existed in 1787, ratify the constitution? I think you would have to be utterly void of understanding of the principles of a constitutional federal republic and void of the history of our country and forefathers to state that such a constitution would be ratified today. This does not even take into consideration whether the states today would ratify the constitution of 2010–though there would likely be several states that would choose to be bound to the tyrannical national system existing today, but most certainly not all would.
Through various ways and means, the constitution as applied in 2010 literally contradicts not only the limitations placed upon the federal government, but also the retained powers of the sovereign states and the very character and nature of the union in 1787. So, what does this mean for the posterity of those people in 1787? It means that we are living under the force of a constitution which we did not ratify or consent to. Put differently, we are living in slavery, for the very definition of slavery is a people living under the force of government against their will.
It is quite clear from the plain meaning of the US Constitution that it was ratified with certain principles and understandings at that time to protect usurpations of the federal government over the states and the people respectively. The states sent delegates to the constitutional convention from May to September 1787 to address and remedy the flaws of the Articles of Confederation. For five months those men debated, articulated and prayed over the formation of the constitution. After the proposed constitution was sent to each state for consideration, each state convened in their own conventions to discuss the principles of free government as it related to the proposed constitution and whether that state should ratify it. For each state that ratified the constitution, they expressly stated that their ratification was to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY.”
One thing is certain: those involved in the ratification of the US Constitution expected that its principles and meanings be followed by their posterity, for without its fixed meaning, the “security” of the constitution would be seriously compromised. Indeed, how can a constitution secure the blessings of liberty for posterity when the meanings and applications of the constitution change by the opinion of 9 non-elected, President-appointed, life-term judges, who are connected to and dependent upon the very system of government the constitution was intended to limit? Talk about a conflict of interest.
If our forefathers who ratified the US Constitution intended to secure the blessings of liberty for their posterity but believed that its meaning, application and limits would change over time, then the US Constitution (as applied today) falls severely short of securing the blessings of liberty for their posterity. Are the people of fifty states in 2010 bound by principles and applications that contradict those believed in 1787, especially when we have not ratified the constitution as it is forced upon us today? America’s history proves that even a written constitution does not adequately protect the freedoms of a people. James Madison admits this much in Federalist Paper 49 before the ratification of the constitution:
“Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these [federal] departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment [constitutional] barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?…[E]XPERIENCE ASSURES US, THAT THE EFFICACY OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN GREATLY OVERRATED; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government…The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a MERE DEMARCATION ON PARCHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS OF THE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS, IS NOT A SUFFICIENT GUARD AGAINST THOSE ENCROACHMENTS WHICH LEAD TO A TYRANNICAL CONCENTRATION OF ALL THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT IN THE SAME HANDS.” (Emphasis added).
Was Madison right on or what! Madison could not be clearer: limiting the federal government by a mere piece of paper does nothing to protect freedom. What effect do words have when their intended meaning and their forming principles are not complied with? As the Federal Supreme Court repeatedly said in its earlier opinions, “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). Indeed, something more than words is necessary to protect freedom.
Unfortunately, there are some (though I cannot judge their intentions necessarily) in the US who argue that the only lawful means by which the people of the states may redress federal grievances is through the (1) election, (2) judicial or (3) amendment processes. They argue as a basis for their position that whatever the federal government passes (through Congress), executes (through the President) and upholds (through the courts) is the “Supreme Law of the Land” and that the states are thus required by the US Constitution to submit to those laws, even if it is admitted that those laws are in fact unconstitutional and that those federal powers are exercised at the expense of the retained sovereign powers of the states and the people.
Any studier of political theory knows these advocates believe that the US Constitution places the decision of “what is constitutional” into the sole and exclusive purview of the Federal Supreme Court; that this court has the power to define not only the limits and powers of Congress and the President (not to mention its own powers) but also the power to define the lines of sovereignty of the states who created the federal government by their sovereign powers; that nine unelected, President-appointed, life-term judges possess a power equal to what the ratifiers placed into the hands of at least three-fourths of the states as mandated by the US Constitution. Without getting into the details of the fallacy of this position, which creates a dangerous oligarchic power in the federal court, destroys all principles of a free federal republic, contradicts principles of natural law, ignores the intention of the ratification documents of the states, and reduces the power of state sovereignty to mere state submission, let us consider what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers relative to what ingredients are actually required and necessary in a federal constitutional republic to protect the freedom of the people (note: James Madison was one of the proponents in the constitutional convention who actually proposed that the federal courts have a negative power over state laws contrary to the constitution, which was of course rejected in the convention):
Federalist Paper 51: “TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments [of the federal government], as laid down in the Constitution? …It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: [1] by creating a will in the community independent of the majority — that is, of the society itself; [2] BY COMPREHENDING IN THE SOCIETY SO MANY SEPARATE DESCRIPTIONS OF CITIZENS AS WILL RENDER AN UNJUST COMBINATION OF A MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE VERY IMPROBABLE, IF NOT IMPRACTICABLE.
“The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. THE SECOND METHOD WILL BE EXEMPLIFIED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES…[T]HE STABILITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF SOME MEMBER OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE ONLY OTHER SECURITY, MUST BE PROPORTIONATELY INCREASED.” (Emphasis added)
Madison notes that the only way a minority of the people and of the states can be protected against the tyrannical actions of the majority through the federal government is that minority’s stability and independence be maintained and that minority’s stability and independence be proportionally increased with the increase of the majority’s power and influence. Thus, a mathematical equation is created: The Minority’s (e.g. the states) stability and independence increases in direct proportion to the majority’s (e.g. the federal government) attempt to circumvent the minority’s freedom. Madison continues in this line of thought:
Federalist Paper 52: “[The] federal legislature will not only be restrained by its dependence on its people, as other legislative bodies are, BUT THAT IT WILL BE, MOREOVER, WATCHED AND CONTROLLED BY THE SEVERAL COLLATERAL [STATE] LEGISLATURES…With less power, therefore, to abuse, the federal representatives can be less tempted on one side, and will be doubly watched on the other.” (Emphasis added)
Madison, as nationalistic-minded as he was in 1787, cannot escape the principle of states checking federal usurpations because it was so engrained into the conscience of the people and governments. Thomas Jefferson expresses the same principle of check and balance in a federal republic system: “the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary.” Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 133.
This application of state sovereignty was explained by James Madison in Federalist Paper 39, when he states, “[T]he [state] authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the [federal] authority, than the [federal] authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” Nothing can be more provable in American jurisprudence: sovereignty necessarily carries with it the power to defend it. Yet, even today, after seeing the usurpations of the federal government for more than 150 years, there are still those who would deny the states their power to defend sovereignty and thus the freedom of their citizens.
This can mean only one thing: these people prefer a national system of government (as certain of our founders did and as did the Tories) over a federal system of government. That may be their choice, but did our ratifiers create a national system, whereby the states gave up their right to defend their powers? The answer is most certainly, No. The evidence expressed even by those who advocated for a national government (e.g. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton) in the Federalist Papers, not to mention the vast array of freedom documents forming our country, confirms this. Yet, constitutional (de)construction, through federal courts, supposedly has created the very form of government that our ratifiers rejected.
A decision must be made in 2010: Are states politically and legally incapable of governing themselves within their borders, or do they have the power and right to defend their sovereignty retained? Are the states subject to the tyrannical definitions and lines drawn by the federal government’s court as sole arbiter, or do they have the power to judge for themselves and defend their powers given to them by the people of that state? Are the states bound to live under a constitution that applies to them contrarily to the constitution ratified in 1787, or do they have the natural law and constitutional right to be governed by the principles of a free republic without interference from other government bodies and to perpetuate those principles for them and their posterity? There is no neutral ground on this issue.
Those who advocate that the states MUST pass constitutional amendments to correct federal usurpations do not understand the first thing about living in freedom in a federal constitutional republic. Why should we–the non-aggressors–have to go through the arduous process of getting three-fourths of the states to correct federal abuses, when the federal government does not have the power or authority to act the way it does in the first place and are contradicting the limits we have already placed upon them? This line of thinking says, the federal government’s usurpations are valid and effective until the States pass a constitutional amendment stating otherwise. This effectively eliminates the usefulness of a written constitution, delegating only special and limited powers to a government, just as Madison explained.
How about this instead: a state can protect its own borders and powers by resisting and arresting federal tyranny, and if three-fourths of the states do not believe that state is correct in its defense of its powers, then let them pass a constitutional amendment limiting the states’ sovereignty in this regard. Giving the federal government (which our founders admitted and acknowledged would and should not comprise the vast majority of powers over the lives of the people) preference of sovereignty over the states contradicts the very structure and nature of our union in 1787, whereby the states possessed defendable concurrent power with the federal government–states who won their complete and absolute independence through a bloody and arduous seven years war, through the infinite pains and labors of millions and the lives of thousands of men, women and children. Any person or government that would have these states give up their powers and rights, when these states did not do so, commits treason against those states.
Thomas Jefferson rightly describes the tendency of human nature to suffer evils while evils are sufferable. Most of us would agree with this practical reality. Accordingly, “we must be patient…and give [the federal government] time for reflection and experience of consequences.” Jefferson, The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, 133. Perhaps so, but the states in America have suffered long enough. Our freedom and our posterity’s freedom are at stake. If the correct, appropriate and proportional actions are not taken soon, freedom will be that much harder to secure. It is time for the people of the states to decide which constitution they want to be governed by: a free one or an enslaving one.
Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2010
January 5th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I’d like to have Tim Baldwin on my show, “Our Constitution: Foundation and Principles” on http://www.phnmedia.com every Tuesday evening to discuss these foundational issues. Please have him contact me via email or call me at (254) 205-7852.
My show is educational rather than news oriented, so this would be a great fit. Previous guests include General Cash, Sheriff Mack, Chelene Nightingale etc…
Thank you,
Gerry Donaldson
January 5th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Well written! Keep up the good work.
January 5th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Timothy,
Before we do what you have written about more people have to understand that what we have today is not the same as what was created by Our Founding Fathers!
Web pages that are posted on my main website that need to be read and meetings about:
You Be The Judge & Jury: http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/Pattison_You_Be_The_Judge.html
http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/I_want_my_Country_back!.html
http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/A_Time_Line_focusing_on_Taxes,_Money_and_War.html
http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/History_of_the_Constitutions_for_Missouri.html
Then all the others posted!
To urge such a reexamination is not to be “anti-American”. It might be anti-Empire, as part of the positive and healthy goal of a Constitutional Common Law Republic and therefore is not a action of SEDITION, because it is not a revolt against a legitimate authority – Erskine, Princ. Laws Scotl. b. 4, t. 4, s, 14; Dig. Lib. 49, t. 16, l. 3, §19.
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
All rights reserved,
/S/ Steven Pattison, one of the People within the boundaries of Kansas, a state of the Union.
StevenPattison at everestkc dot net
January 5th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Timothy,
Excellent article. It would appear that, because we have been educated by the government schools, and improperly at that, we have some re-educating of the electorate before us. Having said that, and before education can begin, our attitude toward government has to change.
It is my perception that our present-day attitude toward government is what holds us back from seeking the truth. I’m not enough of a psychologist to explain why we are the way we are (unless we merely have a maturity problem) and how we can ‘get smart’ and change our attitudes, but we have to get back to the concept that we have a Constitution FOR the United States (as originally written and intended), and not a Constitution OF the United States.
Our country started out as a confederation of states, and can return to that status when people in the states make it happen – not before.
The Tea Parties and the Town Hall meetings are good signs, and I think the process of change toward local control is beginning. Your article supports this effort. Thank you.
Juan
January 5th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Sir, as priceless as the U S Constitution is to the American people, there is one major fact that cannot be ignored or overlooked. THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN BY MEN/PEOPLE. I guess you could say, IT IS MAN MADE POSITIVE LAW. This being so, it (U S Constitution) has been played around with and changer in every way by the imagination of man from day one. Man made it, man remake it. The only thing man cannot change is the intent and principles it is based on. The intent and principles are not man made. The intent of the authors and the principles they based their writings on was GOD’S POSITIVE LAW. IT IS NOT THE WORDS BUT THE PRINCIPLES AND INTENT THAT STAND BEYWEEN ” We The People” and tyranny. The American people have not abandoned the Constitution, they have abandoned God’s law. Man cannot change God’s law. So since man cannot change God’s law he separates his law from God’s law. THIS IS WHAT HAS DESTROYED OUR CONSTITUTION. Your long wordy essays sound good but they do not go to the root of the problem. He said/she said and the ongoing conflict between manoritry/majority for example are just so many high sounding words. Unless we as a nation turh our hearts and lives back to God our future is going to be more of the same- man ruling over man with nothing but more man made law. John
January 5th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Great piece!
Yes, the States are the legal means by which the people can seek refuge from an out-of-control central government. That’s why seeking national office is a waste of time — we need capable people engaged at the local level, strengthening local self-determination. Think how much more Michael Peroutka and Ron Paul could accomplish for the cause of liberty working to shore up their State governments!
January 5th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
agreed
January 5th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
For a man to be right with God, he has to be right with his fellow man. This includes instituting and maintaining godly government, based upon His laws as revealed at His creation.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
We are at a crossroads. If we continue be be passive and allow the globalists to continue to destroy our freedoms their will be a reveloution that nobody wins. Millions will go to the streets hungrey,homeless, and despondant. As we are highly armed and motivated to restore our Consitution their will be blood in the streets. We will be battling the drones of the elites as they have a safe haven while our nation self distructs. It’s very obivious that law inforcement and Army is gearing up for the internal revolution. This is a no-win situation that very well could devide our nation. That would play right into the hands of the globalist One World Agenda.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I have long thought that this union is past saving; there is no more coherency of thought regarding the role of the federal government and certainly, none in regards to culture.
It may not happen during my lifetime, but I think this ‘union’ is headed for dissolution into more like-thinking regions.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
If people could clean out our house [government] starting with impeachment,all the whining and complaining would come to an end, and end all this wasted time that could be well spent with better use.Secondly, Sovereignty of all states would be next on the agenda.Thirdly,decrease the size of government.Bickering is what we do not need.Everyone should think more on a solution.
I am totally disgusted with the media that continually hides the truth.
January 5th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
It is interesting Mr. Baldwin ignores the amendment process suggesting it is unworkable and time consuming so it should not be used. He says why should the states pass an amendment saying something that we know already is.
The answer to his question is that right now the Constitution doesn’t say what he complains about and needs to. He complains about federal judges saying they are life time. He should read his Constitution more carefully. Judges are appointed for periods of good behavior not life.
He should study the proposed amendments by the states at http://www.foavc.org. Nearly 80 per cent of these relate to Supreme Court rulings not to mention the fact there are at least three different state plans to regulate and control the courts. Similar amendments would control the president and the national legislature.
Yet he says instead of using a peaceful process to bring about change we should plunge straight ahead into the potential of civil war.
Why not support the states right to a convention Mr. Baldwin and at least give them the chance to try a convention as they are entitled, have it held, see what they do with it and then, if it fails, then call for dissolving this nation? In short, the states have the right to amend the Constitution and thus control the government. Why not give that a try before turning to the most dangerous step of each state dissolving the union?
January 5th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
The “We-must-amend-the-constitution-advocate” strikes again…He can’t stand the thought that a single state has the right and power to act as it deems appropriate within its own borders, despite the fact that the proposition was advanced by our founders, by the states who ratified the constitution and by those forefathers who implemented those principles post 1787. His current agenda of calling some sort of convention to rewrite the constitution turns into hateful name-calling and personal attack. He can’t stand it that someone is advocating for a different course of action than he is. Amazing.
Ah, what the heck…
A simple reading of the constitution shows that federal judges hold office during good behavior. When was the last time Congress impeached a US S CT judge? They never do, because the entire federal system rides together on the same band-wagon. You misstate and misconstrue my position entirely. But thanks for stating the obvious.
Of course the states have a right to call a convention, if they so choose. Who is saying they don’t have that right!? You are apparently putting words in my mouth. Stating what can be and what should be are two different things. The states have a right to call a convention based upon the each states’ individual sovereign status under the Law of Nations. However, if a state chooses not to call or join a convention, but rather, chooses to exercise its own sovereignty based upon the constitution that was already ratified, then that state has the power and right to do so, regardless of what collective effort the other states deem appropriate. If the states have a collective right to call a convention, then an individual state has all the more right to protect freedom within its borders. Freedom is not created by a union. Whatever option you choose, each is based upon the sovereignty of the state and the people.
If you want to call a convention, Bill, go for it! I am not stopping you, nor am I discouraging your state from doing what it deems right and proper. The fact is, the demand that the states call a constitutional convention (or as some advocate, a Constitutional Congress as in 1776) has nothing to do with the states’ right to do what they have a right to do: individually resist federal tyranny. I guess you do not agree with our founders on that subject and insist that we rewrite our constitution and open it up for making it worse than it is today, as applied by the federal government.
January 6th, 2010 at 7:19 am
Excellent Article
Clearly, the United States Government is in breach of contract and the as such the other parties (the people and the states) have no obligation to continue respecting their contractual obligations. More people than you might suspect believe that there is a case for treason to be made against the member of all three branches of the United States Government for violation of state soveriegnty and for perjury in advocating to change our form of government. However, we are without redress as the very court system in which we might seek strength is equally corrupt.
The education of the masses is not so weak, nor The Constitution so complicated that the truth of its meaning is difficult to ascertain. The opposite, Thank God, is actual case. Fortunately, the fact that the Colonies fought a war to obtain freedom is hard to hide, although it is given little (as little as possible) attention in schools. Interested parties have educated themselves and the revolt is growing Independent Candidates, Tea Party Movement, etc. It appears we are heading for a Revolution, much more than we are heading for a States’ Sovereignty Challenge. State Legislatures, are little more than extensions of the thinking that occurs in Washington, a few have joined 10th ammendement movements or 2nd ammendment movements but this is a very small weak response to the usurpations of the Federal Government.
I beleive that the US is headed for a Financial Crisis similar to that seen in second world countries, where crushing public debt and interest payments. If we just allow the Socialists to continue spending we may be forced to default on US Treasuries (90% of tax receipts are necessary just for Debt Service today, and Federal Spending is 75% more than tax receipts). Needless to say that these crisis have provided opportunities for both good and bad reform (normally bad). This, I think, is a much more likely path than the more educated peaceful one you propose. Jefferson, has given us the unfortunate, expensive and last word; “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Perhaps the threat of a second American Revolution to Restore Constitutional Government will be enough, I doubt it.
Parting Shots:
The States and People have no obligation to respect unconstitutional legislation.
The States and People need a much stronger Veto over federal legislation.
The States and People need a much stronger Limitation over Judicial Injustice.
Keep up the good work, educating and informing; perhaps there is still some hope that we can avoid a revolution…
January 6th, 2010 at 11:50 am
well put, Walter.
January 6th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
I think it is helpful to read the Anti-Federalist, the Constituion, and the Federalist Papers together. That way, it is more obvious that Madison’s assurances are absolute. The Anti-Federalists warned us of this out of control government that interferes with every aspect of our daily lives. They specifically noted the “general welfare clause” and the “necessary and proper clause” as providing the pretext for out of control government. Madison, in Federalist 41, declared that argument absurd, and then he went on to ask why there would be a list of particulars after the general welfare clause if it was not to limit and confine the general language.
We have relied upon John Marshall’s early miscontructions of the Constitution, who, in turn, largely relied upon Alexander Hamilton’s miscontruction in his Report on the Manufactures of the United States, in 1791, three years after the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. Madison, by contrast, wrote his assurances BEFORE ratification. if Hamilton were to be credible, he should have made his position known BEFORE ratification. I am certain, if Hamilton had been intellectually honest before ratification, the Southern States surely would not have ratified the Constitution. The Southern States relied on Madison. Therefore, Madison’s assurances should be binding on Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court. The constititution is, after all, a cotnract, and as we know in contract law, we look to the representations of those who drafted the contract to discern its meaning. Madison played the single largest role in drafting the document. The the extent it limits the power of the government it definees, it should be construed in favor of the citizens and against the government. Madison should be taken at his word.
John Marshall was an intellectual lightweight and was clearly not as well schooled in the principles of government as was Madison. His decision in McCulloch v. Maryland was a restatement of Hamilton’s argument. Chief Justice Robert Story repeated the Hamiltonian View in his constitutional treatise in the 1830s, yet, when we examine Madison’s letters from the 1830s, it is clear that Madison never changed his view of a strict adherence to enumerated powers. Madison’s view largley held sway until FDR packed the court in the 1930s. Those decisions borrowed heavily from Hamilton and Story.
I agree with Mr. Baldwin that the meaning of the Constitution can be objectively determined by reading the text itself and reading eminent scholars like Madison who explained its meaning before it was ratified. It is perfectly appropriate for a modern day justice to declare that the line of cases that follow McCulloch v. Maryand are simply wrong.
After all, look what the Supreme Court recently did. It flat out reversed Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in the mid 1980s, in Lawrence v. Texas. That’s barely a 20 year turnaround. Yet, the same court won’t touch Roe v. Wade and its alleged penumbras emanating from the privacy guarantee in the 4th amendment.
Some will say that the passage of time, between McCulloch v. Maryland and the present makes that case more set in stone than Bowers v. Hardwick. We say we believe in stare decisis, but we also believe in judicial review. There does come a point when a court has to say, “we were wrong.”
This is particularly true when our Congressional representatives think they can do whatever they want to do, without limitation. Clearly there is something wrong, and our judges should be able to see it as we spiral down toward a totalitarian state.
There is clearly a strong intellecually defensible case for a doctrine of original intent to be applied to constitutional interpretation.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
well said, Thomas Allen.
January 9th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Tim,
I think you are on to something, and it was a good paper, though a little longer that I was wanting to read. Still, it does a good job of hitting the bases. I am not really sure where we are headed as a nation. I think that it was Jefferson who said that our Constitution was only going to be effective for a moral nation. I am sure that is true. As we gradually slide into immorality, that great document is having a lot less control on our actions as a people. People marry and make pledges to one another; pledges they have no intention of keeping. Same with our laws; they are beginning to have less and less meaning. Ultimately, as far as states rights are concerned I doubt that any state administration has the courage to do what it takes to assert sovereignty. There is just too much money involved. The Federal Government is giving the states so much money that they will be totally unwilling to give that up. It will take something fairly radical to change that, and I don’t think we can do it. I doubt that we will even be able to slow down the expansion of government, even on the local level. Still, I believe it is worth a try, and we ought not to give up or be discouraged. Do tell your father “hello” for me. I generally appreciate his good messages. Jim Hollingsworth Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
January 9th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Thank you for this article Mr. Baldwin, your understandings are most encouraging.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
JMB, thank you and you are welcome. Knowledge and education are key to freedom.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Jim, thank you for your comments, and will do.
January 11th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
RE: “[H]ow can a constitution secure the blessings of liberty for posterity when the meanings and applications of the constitution change by the opinion of 9 non-elected, President-appointed, life-term judges, who are connected to and dependent upon the very system of government the constitution was intended to limit?”
In my other readings, I have come across this same thought, and I agree with its sentiment. What I have also come to understand is that the Marshall Court in Marbury v. Madison assumed this power for itself.
If the power to interpret the Constitution was not explicitly granted to any body, who should be given the power to interpret the Constitution?
France has a Constitutional Council, which is given the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation. In principle, this seems to be a possible answer to the question, although how we would implement such a council in the United States would certainly differ in many details.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
NeilBJ,
The draft and ratification of the US Constitution confirms that the union was made up of states, with concurrent power to carry out its sovereign powers through its constitution. There was an admitted possible conflict between state and federal. The federal supreme court no more had the power to define lines of sovereignty than did the state courts. To allow them this power would create a national form of government, which would render states subservient to only ONE part of the federal government. This cannot be possible, despite Marshall and subsequent court’s OPINION.
Thus, “who is to decide?” or “who is the final arbiter?” The answer is quite simple: those sovereigns who have the power to make and unmake constitutions: the people/bodies-politic in the states. Each state body-politic is decide whether its state or its federal agent is complying with the constitution. This was confirmed in the federalist papers–those nationalists even who did not prefer a federal form over national form, yet they still confirm this fact.
To say that “there has to be a final arbiter” is true, but that final arbiter is NOT in a federal court. It is those who have the power to make and unmake constitutions. This is one of the “experiments in freedom” of the US. How would the US be any different than Europe (which we seceded from) where the power to force states to comply existed in the federal courts? This would be WORSE than the Great Britain model, whereby only (arguably) Parliament had that power (the argument was, “representation equals sovereignty equals power.” But at least the people had representatives to voice their constituent’s position on the matter. The supposed US S CT as final arbiter is more dangerous than what we seceded from in 1776.
How ignorant we have become of the principles which caused our declaration of independence!
January 12th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Timothy Baldwin,
Thank you for your extended answer!
I know many states are passing 10th amendment resolutions, and I know in some cases “Federal” legislation (e.g., National ID Card) has been rejected by legislation in some states.
Since it is the states that gave us our Federal system of government, how do we get the states to formally recognize their role in rejecting unconstitutional legislation? (There is so much to be undone!)
It seems that what the states are beginning to do individually needs to be formalized somehow. Who will be that national leader or organization that brings this about? There are many organizations that speak in defense of the Constitution, and there are many movements that object to the direction in which our country is headed (e.g., the Tea Party movement), but until there is a concerted national effort to bring focus to all these disparate but worthy efforts, I don’t think much will happen.
January 12th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
NeilBJ, you raise a good question: “who will lead?” The answer is, the people must lead. They must insist that their legislators and governors not only understand these principles, but incorporate them. If they do not, then vote them out of office and put ones in who will.
The fact is, this movement is gaining ground more every day. Do not be discouraged or pessimistic concerning the appearance of losing ground. Most of what is going on in this regard is done without our recognition. But know that it is in fact taking place.