Rekindling the American Revolution
If we want to reclaim American freedom, there are no shortcuts. There is no petition to Washington that will solve our problems. There is no champion to win the White House and set us free. The path to American freedom begins in our own states, our own communities, our own homes, and our own minds.
For as long as the people of this country are willing to tolerate tyranny, tyranny will continue to thrive.
In this letter to H. Niles, John Adams tells us the true foundation of American freedom.
“…But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people;…
…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution…”
During the last century, a counter-revolution has been effected. Now, our task is daunting, but it is the only way. To reclaim freedom, we must win back the minds and the hearts of the American citizenry.
THE LETTER
To H. Niles
From: John Adams
February 13, 1818
The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy, according to the laws and constitution derived to them from the God of nature and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good; but when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the continental congress and all the thirteen State congresses.
There might be, and there were others who thought less about religion and conscience, but had certain habitual sentiments of allegiance and loyalty derived from their education; but believing allegiance and protection to be reciprocal, when protection was withdrawn, they thought allegiance was dissolved.
Another alteration was common to all. The people of America had been educated in an habitual affection for England, as their mother country; and while they thought her a kind and tender parent, (erroneously enough, however, for she never was such a mother,) no affection could be more sincere. But when they found her a cruel beldam, willing like Lady Macbeth, to “dash their brains out,” it is no wonder if their filial affections ceased, and were changed into indignation and horror.
This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.
By what means this great and important alteration in the religious, moral, political, and social character of the people of thirteen colonies, all distinct, unconnected, and independent of each other, was begun, pursued, and accomplished, it is surely interesting to humanity to investigate, and perpetuate to posterity.
To this end, it is greatly to be desired, that young men of letters in all the States, especially in the thirteen original States, would undertake the laborious, but certainly interesting and amusing task, of searching and collecting all the records, pamphlets, newspapers, and even handbills, which in any way contributed to change the temper and views of the people, and compose them into an indepedent nation.
The colonies had grown up under constitutions of government so different, there was so great a variety of religions, they were composed of so many different nations, their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance, and their intercourse had been so rare, and their knowledge of each other so imperfect, that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the same system of action, was certainly a very difficult enterprise. The complete accomplishment of it, in so short a time and by such simple means, was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. Thirteen clocks were made to strike together — a perfection of mechanism, which no artist had ever before effected.
In this research, the gloriole of individual gentlemen, and of separate States, is of little consequence. The means and the measures are the proper objects of investigation. These may be of use to posterity, not only in this nation, but in South America and all other countries. They may teach mankind that revolutions are no trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken rashly; nor without deliberate consideration and sober reflection; nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice and humanity; nor without a people possessed of intelligence, fortitude, and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness, patience, and perseverance, through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery trials and melancholy disasters they may have to encounter.
The town of Boston early instituted an annual oration on the 4th of July, in commemoration of the principles and feelings which contributed to produce the revolution. Many of those orations I have heard, and all that I could obtain, I have read. Much ingenuity and eloquence appears upon every subject, except those principles and feelings. That of my honest and amiable neighbor, Josiah Quincy, appeared to me the most directly to the purpose of the institution. Those principles and feelings ought to be traced back for two hundred years, and sought in the history of the country from the first plantations in America. Nor should the principles and feelings of the English and Scotch towards the colonies, through that whole period, ever be forgotten. The perpetual discordance between British principles and feelings and of those of America, the next year after the suppression of the French power in America, came to a crisis, and produced an explosion.
It was not until after the annihilation of the French dominion in America that any British ministry had dared to gratify their own wishes, and the desire of the nation, by projecting a formal plan for raising a national revenue from America, by parliamentary taxation. The first great manifestation of this design was by the order to carry into strict executions those acts of parliament, which were well known by the appellation of the acts of trade, which had lain a dead letter, unexecuted for half a century, and some of them, I believe, for nearly a whole one.
This produced, in 1760 and 1761, an awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings, with an enthusiasm which went on increasing till, in 1775, it burst out in open violence, hostility, and fury.
The characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent and influential in this revival, from 1760 to 1766, were, first and foremost, before all and above all, James Otis; next to him was Oxenbridge Thacher; next to him, Samuel Adams; next to him, John Hancock; then Dr. Mayhew; then Dr. Cooper and his brother. Of Mr. Hancock’s life, character, generous nature, great and disinterested sacrifices, and important services, if I had forces, I should be glad to write a volume. But this, I hope, will be done by some younger and abler hand. Mr. Thacher, because his name and merits are less known, must not be wholly omitted. This gentleman was an eminent barrister at law, in as large practice as any one in Boston. There was not a citizen of that town more universally beloved for his learning, ingenuity, every domestic and social virtue, and conscientious conduct in every relation of life. His patriotism was as ardent as his progenitors had been ancient and illustrious in this country. Hutchinson often said, “Thacher was not born a plebeian, but he was determined to die one.” In May, 1763, I believe, he was chosen by the town of Boston one of their representatives in the legislature , a colleague with Mr. Otis, who had been a member from May, 1761, and he continued to be relectcd annually till his death in 1765, when Mr. Samuel Adams was elected to fill his place, in the absence of Mr. Otis, then attending the Congress at New York. Thacher had long been jealous of the unbounded ambition of Mr. Hutchinson, but when he found him not content with the office of Lieutenant-Governor, the command of the castle and its emoluments, of Judge of Probate for the county of Suffolk, a seat in his Majesty’s Council in the Legislature, his brother-in-law Secretary of State by the king’s commission, a brother of that Secretary of State, a Judge of the Supreme Court and a member of Council, now in 1760 and 1761, soliciting and accepting the office of Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, he concluded, as Mr. Otis did, and as every other enlightened friend of his country did, that he sought that office with the determined purpose of determining all causes in favor of the ministry at St. James’s, and their servile parliament.
His indignation against him hence forward, to 1765, when he died, knew no bounds but truth. I speak from personal knowledge. For, from 1758 to 1765, I attended every superior and inferior court in Boston, and recollect not one, in which he did not invite me home to spend evenings with him, when he made me converse with him as well as I could, on all subjects of religion, morals, law, politics, history, philosophy, belles lettres, theology, mythology, cosmogony, metaphysics, — Locke, Clark, Leibnitz, Bolingbroke, Berkeley, — the prestablished harmony of the universe, the nature of matter and of spirit, and the eternal establishment of coincidences between their operations; fate, foreknowledge absolute; and we reasoned on such unfathomable subjects as high as Milton’s gentry in pandemonium; and we understood them as well as they did, and no better. To such mighty mysteries he added the news of the day, and the tittle-tattle of the town. But his favorite subject was politics, and the impending, threatening system of parliamentary taxation and universal government over the colonies. On this subject he was so anxious and agitated that I have no doubt it occasioned his premature death. From the time when he argued the question of writs of assistance to his death, he considered the king, ministry, parliament, and nation of Great Britain as determined to new-model the colonies from the foundation, to annul all their charters, to constitute them all royal governments, to raise a revenue in America by parliamentary taxation, to apply that revenue to pay the salaries of governors, judges, and all other crown officers; and, after all this, to raise as large a revenue as they pleased, to be applied to national purposes at the exchequer in England; and further, to establish bishops and the whole system of the Church of England, tithes and all, throughout all British America. This system, he said, if it was suffered to prevail, would extinguish the flame of liberty all over the world; that America would be employed as an engine to batter down all the miserable remains of liberty in Great Britain and Ireland, where only any semblance of it was left in the world. To this system he considered Hutchinson, the Olivers, and all their connections, dependents, adherents, shoelickers, &c., entirely devoted. He asserted that they were all engaged with all the crown officers in America and the understrappers of the ministry in England, in a deep and treasonable conspiracy to betray the liberties of their country, for their own private, personal and family aggrandizement. His philippics against the unprincipled ambition and avarice of all of them, but especially of Hutchinson, were unbridled; not only in private, confidential conversations, but in all companies and on all occasions. He gave Hutchinson the sobriquet of “Summa Potestatis,” and rarely mentioned him but by the name of “Summa.” His liberties of speech were no secrets to his enemies. I have sometimes wondered that they did not throw him over the bar, as they did soon afterwards Major Hawley. For they hated him worse than they did James Otis or Samuel Adams, and they feared him more, because they had no revenge for a father’s disappointment of a seat on the superior bench to impute to him, as they did to Otis; and Thacher’s character through life had been so modest, decent, unassuming; his morals so pure, and his religion so venerated, that they dared not attack him. In his office were educated to the bar two eminent characters, the late Judge Lowell and Josiah Quincy, aptly called the Boston Cicero. Mr. Thacher’s frame was slender, his constitution delicate; whether his physicians overstrained his vessels with mercury, when he had the smallpox by inoculation at the castle, or whether he was overplied by public anxieties and exertions, the smallpox left him in a decline from which he never recovered. Not long before his death he sent for me to commit to my care some of his business at the bar. I asked him whether he had seen the Virginia resolves: “Oh yes–they are men! they are noble spirits! It kills me to think of the lethargy and stupidity that prevails here. I long to be out. I will go out. I will go out. I will go into court, and make a speech, which shall be read after my death, as my dying testimony against this infernal tyranny which they are bringing upon us.” Seeing the violent agitation into which it threw him, I changed the subject as soon as possible, and retired. He had been confined for some time. Had he been abroad among the people, he would not have complained so pathetically of the “lethargy and stupidity that prevailed;” for town and country were all alive, and in August became active enough; and some of the people proceeded to unwarrantable excesses, which were more lamented by the patriots than by their enemies. Mr. Thacher soon died, deeply lamented by all the friends of their country.
Another gentleman, who had great influence in the commencement of the Revolution, was Doctor Jonathan Mayhew, a descendant of the ancient governor of Martha’s Vineyard. This divine had raised a great reputation both in Europe and America, by the publication of a volume of seven sermons in the reign of King George the Second, 1749, and by many other writings, particularly a sermon in 1750, on the 30th of January, on the subject of passive obedience and non-resistance, in which the saintship and martyrdom of King Charles the First are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in Swift or Franklin. It was read by everybody; celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies. During the reigns of King George the First and King George the Second, the reigns of the Stuarts, the two Jameses and the two Charleses were in general disgrace in England. In America they had always been held in abhorrence. The persecutions and cruelties suffered by their ancestors under those reigns, had been transmitted by history and tradition, and Mayhew seemed to be raised up to revive all their animosities against tyranny, in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism, and inconsistency. David Hume’s plausible, elegant, fascinating, and fallacious apology, in which he varnished over the crimes of the Stuarts, had not then appeared. To draw the character of Mayhew, would be to transcribe a dozen volumes. This transcendent genius threw all the weight of his great fame into the scale of his country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death, in 1766. In 1763 appeared the controversy between him and Mr. Apthorp, Mr. Caner, Dr. Johnson, and Archbishop Secker, on the charter and conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. To form a judgment of this debate, I beg leave to refer to a review of the whole, printed at the time and written by Samuel Adams, though by some, very absurdly and erroneously ascribed to Mr. Apthorp. If I am not mistaken, it will be found a model of candor, sagacity, impartiality, and close, correct reasoning.
If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread an universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension, that bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops, could appoint bishops in America, without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches, as conventicles and schism shops.
Nor must Mr. Cushing be forgotten. His good sense and sound judgment, the urbanity of his manners, his universal good character, his numerous friends and connections, and his continual intercourse with all sorts of people, added to his constant attachment to the liberties of his country, gave him a great and salutary influence from the beginning in 1760.
Let me recommend these hints to the consideration of Mr. Wirt, whose Life of Mr. Henry I have read with great delight. I think that, after mature investigation, he will be convinced that Mr. Henry did not “give the first impulse to the ball of independence,” and that Otis, Thacher, Samuel Adams, Mayhew, Hancock, Cushing, and thousands of others, were laboring for several years at the wheel before the name of Henry was heard beyond the limits of Virginia.
For as long as the people of this country are willing to tolerate tyranny, tyranny will continue to thrive.
In this letter to H. Niles, John Adams tells us the true foundation of American freedom.
“…But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people;…
…This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution…”
During the last century, a counter-revolution has been effected. Now, our task is daunting, but it is the only way. To reclaim freedom, we must win back the minds and the hearts of the American citizenry.
THE LETTER
To H. Niles
From: John Adams
February 13, 1818
The American Revolution was not a common event. Its effects and consequences have already been awful over a great part of the globe. And when and where are they to cease?
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. While the king, and all in authority under him, were believed to govern in justice and mercy, according to the laws and constitution derived to them from the God of nature and transmitted to them by their ancestors, they thought themselves bound to pray for the king and queen and all the royal family, and all in authority under them, as ministers ordained of God for their good; but when they saw those powers renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities of their lives, liberties, and properties, they thought it their duty to pray for the continental congress and all the thirteen State congresses.
There might be, and there were others who thought less about religion and conscience, but had certain habitual sentiments of allegiance and loyalty derived from their education; but believing allegiance and protection to be reciprocal, when protection was withdrawn, they thought allegiance was dissolved.
Another alteration was common to all. The people of America had been educated in an habitual affection for England, as their mother country; and while they thought her a kind and tender parent, (erroneously enough, however, for she never was such a mother,) no affection could be more sincere. But when they found her a cruel beldam, willing like Lady Macbeth, to “dash their brains out,” it is no wonder if their filial affections ceased, and were changed into indignation and horror.
This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.
By what means this great and important alteration in the religious, moral, political, and social character of the people of thirteen colonies, all distinct, unconnected, and independent of each other, was begun, pursued, and accomplished, it is surely interesting to humanity to investigate, and perpetuate to posterity.
To this end, it is greatly to be desired, that young men of letters in all the States, especially in the thirteen original States, would undertake the laborious, but certainly interesting and amusing task, of searching and collecting all the records, pamphlets, newspapers, and even handbills, which in any way contributed to change the temper and views of the people, and compose them into an indepedent nation.
The colonies had grown up under constitutions of government so different, there was so great a variety of religions, they were composed of so many different nations, their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance, and their intercourse had been so rare, and their knowledge of each other so imperfect, that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the same system of action, was certainly a very difficult enterprise. The complete accomplishment of it, in so short a time and by such simple means, was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. Thirteen clocks were made to strike together — a perfection of mechanism, which no artist had ever before effected.
In this research, the gloriole of individual gentlemen, and of separate States, is of little consequence. The means and the measures are the proper objects of investigation. These may be of use to posterity, not only in this nation, but in South America and all other countries. They may teach mankind that revolutions are no trifles; that they ought never to be undertaken rashly; nor without deliberate consideration and sober reflection; nor without a solid, immutable, eternal foundation of justice and humanity; nor without a people possessed of intelligence, fortitude, and integrity sufficient to carry them with steadiness, patience, and perseverance, through all the vicissitudes of fortune, the fiery trials and melancholy disasters they may have to encounter.
The town of Boston early instituted an annual oration on the 4th of July, in commemoration of the principles and feelings which contributed to produce the revolution. Many of those orations I have heard, and all that I could obtain, I have read. Much ingenuity and eloquence appears upon every subject, except those principles and feelings. That of my honest and amiable neighbor, Josiah Quincy, appeared to me the most directly to the purpose of the institution. Those principles and feelings ought to be traced back for two hundred years, and sought in the history of the country from the first plantations in America. Nor should the principles and feelings of the English and Scotch towards the colonies, through that whole period, ever be forgotten. The perpetual discordance between British principles and feelings and of those of America, the next year after the suppression of the French power in America, came to a crisis, and produced an explosion.
It was not until after the annihilation of the French dominion in America that any British ministry had dared to gratify their own wishes, and the desire of the nation, by projecting a formal plan for raising a national revenue from America, by parliamentary taxation. The first great manifestation of this design was by the order to carry into strict executions those acts of parliament, which were well known by the appellation of the acts of trade, which had lain a dead letter, unexecuted for half a century, and some of them, I believe, for nearly a whole one.
This produced, in 1760 and 1761, an awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings, with an enthusiasm which went on increasing till, in 1775, it burst out in open violence, hostility, and fury.
The characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent and influential in this revival, from 1760 to 1766, were, first and foremost, before all and above all, James Otis; next to him was Oxenbridge Thacher; next to him, Samuel Adams; next to him, John Hancock; then Dr. Mayhew; then Dr. Cooper and his brother. Of Mr. Hancock’s life, character, generous nature, great and disinterested sacrifices, and important services, if I had forces, I should be glad to write a volume. But this, I hope, will be done by some younger and abler hand. Mr. Thacher, because his name and merits are less known, must not be wholly omitted. This gentleman was an eminent barrister at law, in as large practice as any one in Boston. There was not a citizen of that town more universally beloved for his learning, ingenuity, every domestic and social virtue, and conscientious conduct in every relation of life. His patriotism was as ardent as his progenitors had been ancient and illustrious in this country. Hutchinson often said, “Thacher was not born a plebeian, but he was determined to die one.” In May, 1763, I believe, he was chosen by the town of Boston one of their representatives in the legislature , a colleague with Mr. Otis, who had been a member from May, 1761, and he continued to be relectcd annually till his death in 1765, when Mr. Samuel Adams was elected to fill his place, in the absence of Mr. Otis, then attending the Congress at New York. Thacher had long been jealous of the unbounded ambition of Mr. Hutchinson, but when he found him not content with the office of Lieutenant-Governor, the command of the castle and its emoluments, of Judge of Probate for the county of Suffolk, a seat in his Majesty’s Council in the Legislature, his brother-in-law Secretary of State by the king’s commission, a brother of that Secretary of State, a Judge of the Supreme Court and a member of Council, now in 1760 and 1761, soliciting and accepting the office of Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, he concluded, as Mr. Otis did, and as every other enlightened friend of his country did, that he sought that office with the determined purpose of determining all causes in favor of the ministry at St. James’s, and their servile parliament.
His indignation against him hence forward, to 1765, when he died, knew no bounds but truth. I speak from personal knowledge. For, from 1758 to 1765, I attended every superior and inferior court in Boston, and recollect not one, in which he did not invite me home to spend evenings with him, when he made me converse with him as well as I could, on all subjects of religion, morals, law, politics, history, philosophy, belles lettres, theology, mythology, cosmogony, metaphysics, — Locke, Clark, Leibnitz, Bolingbroke, Berkeley, — the prestablished harmony of the universe, the nature of matter and of spirit, and the eternal establishment of coincidences between their operations; fate, foreknowledge absolute; and we reasoned on such unfathomable subjects as high as Milton’s gentry in pandemonium; and we understood them as well as they did, and no better. To such mighty mysteries he added the news of the day, and the tittle-tattle of the town. But his favorite subject was politics, and the impending, threatening system of parliamentary taxation and universal government over the colonies. On this subject he was so anxious and agitated that I have no doubt it occasioned his premature death. From the time when he argued the question of writs of assistance to his death, he considered the king, ministry, parliament, and nation of Great Britain as determined to new-model the colonies from the foundation, to annul all their charters, to constitute them all royal governments, to raise a revenue in America by parliamentary taxation, to apply that revenue to pay the salaries of governors, judges, and all other crown officers; and, after all this, to raise as large a revenue as they pleased, to be applied to national purposes at the exchequer in England; and further, to establish bishops and the whole system of the Church of England, tithes and all, throughout all British America. This system, he said, if it was suffered to prevail, would extinguish the flame of liberty all over the world; that America would be employed as an engine to batter down all the miserable remains of liberty in Great Britain and Ireland, where only any semblance of it was left in the world. To this system he considered Hutchinson, the Olivers, and all their connections, dependents, adherents, shoelickers, &c., entirely devoted. He asserted that they were all engaged with all the crown officers in America and the understrappers of the ministry in England, in a deep and treasonable conspiracy to betray the liberties of their country, for their own private, personal and family aggrandizement. His philippics against the unprincipled ambition and avarice of all of them, but especially of Hutchinson, were unbridled; not only in private, confidential conversations, but in all companies and on all occasions. He gave Hutchinson the sobriquet of “Summa Potestatis,” and rarely mentioned him but by the name of “Summa.” His liberties of speech were no secrets to his enemies. I have sometimes wondered that they did not throw him over the bar, as they did soon afterwards Major Hawley. For they hated him worse than they did James Otis or Samuel Adams, and they feared him more, because they had no revenge for a father’s disappointment of a seat on the superior bench to impute to him, as they did to Otis; and Thacher’s character through life had been so modest, decent, unassuming; his morals so pure, and his religion so venerated, that they dared not attack him. In his office were educated to the bar two eminent characters, the late Judge Lowell and Josiah Quincy, aptly called the Boston Cicero. Mr. Thacher’s frame was slender, his constitution delicate; whether his physicians overstrained his vessels with mercury, when he had the smallpox by inoculation at the castle, or whether he was overplied by public anxieties and exertions, the smallpox left him in a decline from which he never recovered. Not long before his death he sent for me to commit to my care some of his business at the bar. I asked him whether he had seen the Virginia resolves: “Oh yes–they are men! they are noble spirits! It kills me to think of the lethargy and stupidity that prevails here. I long to be out. I will go out. I will go out. I will go into court, and make a speech, which shall be read after my death, as my dying testimony against this infernal tyranny which they are bringing upon us.” Seeing the violent agitation into which it threw him, I changed the subject as soon as possible, and retired. He had been confined for some time. Had he been abroad among the people, he would not have complained so pathetically of the “lethargy and stupidity that prevailed;” for town and country were all alive, and in August became active enough; and some of the people proceeded to unwarrantable excesses, which were more lamented by the patriots than by their enemies. Mr. Thacher soon died, deeply lamented by all the friends of their country.
Another gentleman, who had great influence in the commencement of the Revolution, was Doctor Jonathan Mayhew, a descendant of the ancient governor of Martha’s Vineyard. This divine had raised a great reputation both in Europe and America, by the publication of a volume of seven sermons in the reign of King George the Second, 1749, and by many other writings, particularly a sermon in 1750, on the 30th of January, on the subject of passive obedience and non-resistance, in which the saintship and martyrdom of King Charles the First are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in Swift or Franklin. It was read by everybody; celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies. During the reigns of King George the First and King George the Second, the reigns of the Stuarts, the two Jameses and the two Charleses were in general disgrace in England. In America they had always been held in abhorrence. The persecutions and cruelties suffered by their ancestors under those reigns, had been transmitted by history and tradition, and Mayhew seemed to be raised up to revive all their animosities against tyranny, in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism, and inconsistency. David Hume’s plausible, elegant, fascinating, and fallacious apology, in which he varnished over the crimes of the Stuarts, had not then appeared. To draw the character of Mayhew, would be to transcribe a dozen volumes. This transcendent genius threw all the weight of his great fame into the scale of his country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death, in 1766. In 1763 appeared the controversy between him and Mr. Apthorp, Mr. Caner, Dr. Johnson, and Archbishop Secker, on the charter and conduct of the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. To form a judgment of this debate, I beg leave to refer to a review of the whole, printed at the time and written by Samuel Adams, though by some, very absurdly and erroneously ascribed to Mr. Apthorp. If I am not mistaken, it will be found a model of candor, sagacity, impartiality, and close, correct reasoning.
If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is grossly mistaken. It spread an universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension, that bishops, and dioceses, and churches, and priests, and tithes, were to be imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither king, nor ministry, nor archbishops, could appoint bishops in America, without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies, and tithes, and prohibit all other churches, as conventicles and schism shops.
Nor must Mr. Cushing be forgotten. His good sense and sound judgment, the urbanity of his manners, his universal good character, his numerous friends and connections, and his continual intercourse with all sorts of people, added to his constant attachment to the liberties of his country, gave him a great and salutary influence from the beginning in 1760.
Let me recommend these hints to the consideration of Mr. Wirt, whose Life of Mr. Henry I have read with great delight. I think that, after mature investigation, he will be convinced that Mr. Henry did not “give the first impulse to the ball of independence,” and that Otis, Thacher, Samuel Adams, Mayhew, Hancock, Cushing, and thousands of others, were laboring for several years at the wheel before the name of Henry was heard beyond the limits of Virginia.
FEDERAL REPORT: COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM
Properly defined, competitive federalism is the powerful harnessing of our tri-partite sovereignty system that allows states to compete with each other over a broad range of issues to provide citizens with the best value goods and services at the lowest cost.
We must move the discussion away from populist promises to raise taxes on certain segments of Americans or to cut government by programmatic picking and choosing to the real issue—where do Americans want the locus of government power over their lives to reside?
Competitive federalism aims to rebalance the powers between the federal government and the states in a way that more faithfully adheres to the Constitution. It is not government itself that is inherently troublesome; rather, it is the misappropriation of power by the federal government that requires action. The antidote is not the destruction of government. It is the returning of power to the states and a proper return to the natural constitutional order.
Competitive federalism serves as a barrier to centralization. America’s greatness comes from a competitive spirit that is woven into the very DNA of the Constitution. By encouraging competition among the states and between the states and the federal government, our Founding Fathers guaranteed the ultimate success of America, as failure in one state couldn’t doom the entire country and state successes could be adopted and tailored by other states.
No matter your ideological views, few Americans today would claim that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined” and that the states’ powers are “numerous and indefinite.” Federal laws, rules, and regulations constrain states from freely acting on virtually every subject matter. One-size-fits all policies render meaningful competition among the states limited to few issues. We must inject competition back into the fabric of our governments.
Instead of taking a “mother may I?” approach to federal power, competitive federalism requires a cut to federal taxes and an end to grants, tax transfers, and other inefficient tax schemes. With full control over issues, states, as Alexander Hamilton recognized, must retain the tax dollars of their residents so they directly can fund the programs. No more will citizens of one state be forced to subsidize the domestic policy decisions of other states. Equally important, states will no longer be incented to provide goods or services they can’t self-fund or to delay reforming their programs.
By returning programmatic and taxing power over these issues to the states, we will empower state elected officials to experiment and identify solutions that best serve the unique needs of their citizens. The best solutions can serve as models for other states, allowing for differences based on demographic nuances.
Competitive federalism is apolitical. Regardless of which political party controls the two branches of the federal government, we believe governors and state legislatures, whether controlled by Democratic or Republican politicians, are best suited to serve the needs of citizens. Each state can decide how generously to fund programs.
http://libertyfound.org/report/
The Recipe to Restore Competitive Federalism.....
ARTICLE V STATE AMENDMENT "PROJECT" - our process is to encourage 50 state legislatures to vote on a 20 word amendment - so simple and simplicity is the key to success.
OUR PROPOSAL Propose a Twenty-eighth Amendment*
The fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
The articles shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the conventions in several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of submission hereof, to the States by the Congress.
*We seek to have the Item 1 above which is 20 words of the 28th amendment voted on in each of the 50 States legislatures.
* We seek to have all States legislative members educated to our SO SIMPLE AMENDMENT That RESTORE STATES RIGHTS AND POWERS.
*We believe that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN AND IN DEBT - 125 years OF ELECTIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED the GROWTH OF POWERS IN WASHINGTON.
*We believe that... WE THE PEOPLE... HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT - 77% OF THE POPULATION ACCORDING TO GALLOP (today) BELIEVE THAT DC- CANNOT - AND WILL NOT - CHANGE.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v---group-overvi...
We must move the discussion away from populist promises to raise taxes on certain segments of Americans or to cut government by programmatic picking and choosing to the real issue—where do Americans want the locus of government power over their lives to reside?
Competitive federalism aims to rebalance the powers between the federal government and the states in a way that more faithfully adheres to the Constitution. It is not government itself that is inherently troublesome; rather, it is the misappropriation of power by the federal government that requires action. The antidote is not the destruction of government. It is the returning of power to the states and a proper return to the natural constitutional order.
Competitive federalism serves as a barrier to centralization. America’s greatness comes from a competitive spirit that is woven into the very DNA of the Constitution. By encouraging competition among the states and between the states and the federal government, our Founding Fathers guaranteed the ultimate success of America, as failure in one state couldn’t doom the entire country and state successes could be adopted and tailored by other states.
No matter your ideological views, few Americans today would claim that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined” and that the states’ powers are “numerous and indefinite.” Federal laws, rules, and regulations constrain states from freely acting on virtually every subject matter. One-size-fits all policies render meaningful competition among the states limited to few issues. We must inject competition back into the fabric of our governments.
Instead of taking a “mother may I?” approach to federal power, competitive federalism requires a cut to federal taxes and an end to grants, tax transfers, and other inefficient tax schemes. With full control over issues, states, as Alexander Hamilton recognized, must retain the tax dollars of their residents so they directly can fund the programs. No more will citizens of one state be forced to subsidize the domestic policy decisions of other states. Equally important, states will no longer be incented to provide goods or services they can’t self-fund or to delay reforming their programs.
By returning programmatic and taxing power over these issues to the states, we will empower state elected officials to experiment and identify solutions that best serve the unique needs of their citizens. The best solutions can serve as models for other states, allowing for differences based on demographic nuances.
Competitive federalism is apolitical. Regardless of which political party controls the two branches of the federal government, we believe governors and state legislatures, whether controlled by Democratic or Republican politicians, are best suited to serve the needs of citizens. Each state can decide how generously to fund programs.
http://libertyfound.org/report/
The Recipe to Restore Competitive Federalism.....
ARTICLE V STATE AMENDMENT "PROJECT" - our process is to encourage 50 state legislatures to vote on a 20 word amendment - so simple and simplicity is the key to success.
OUR PROPOSAL Propose a Twenty-eighth Amendment*
The fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the seventeenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.
The articles shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the conventions in several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of submission hereof, to the States by the Congress.
*We seek to have the Item 1 above which is 20 words of the 28th amendment voted on in each of the 50 States legislatures.
* We seek to have all States legislative members educated to our SO SIMPLE AMENDMENT That RESTORE STATES RIGHTS AND POWERS.
*We believe that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN AND IN DEBT - 125 years OF ELECTIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED the GROWTH OF POWERS IN WASHINGTON.
*We believe that... WE THE PEOPLE... HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT - 77% OF THE POPULATION ACCORDING TO GALLOP (today) BELIEVE THAT DC- CANNOT - AND WILL NOT - CHANGE.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v---group-overvi...
A 'Round-the-table' Discussion
Chair A.
"So here lays the dilemma. It is to bad we do not have a crystal ball, so we could see the reaction of the action of the road that we could go down. Also, it's sad that we can not look into each person's soul, heart and mind to find the truth....I believe there are many reasons why we are here in troubled times. I think the day shall come when true love is like a rare jewel and respect only comes out of fear. Perhaps it's just meant to be, one step forward and two steps backwards."
Chair B.
"We're here because we thought that no one would usurp the Constitution. The very thought of it should be treason, but is so commonplace in the halls of Congress today that most barely know, that it is anything more than, a relic from another time."
Chair C.
"Once we decided that it was within our right to force others into compliance of our opinions and saw the Federal government as a way of implementing such compliance, our own liberty and Republic was doomed to this slow rot, of which we might be seeing the final stages. You can trace any problem we have to these "good intentions".
You see none of this could happen without that attitude of "I know what's best for you even if I have to ruin your life to help you". Simple? Yes perhaps, simple; but as deadly to Liberty as any other act of tyranny. Perhaps even more so than other's, because more often than not, this is a tyranny of the majority, the worst kind."
Chair D.
"Had there been printed media on that day in 1625, this fact probably would have headlined periodicals throughout the New York City region and beyond. Peter Minuit, governor of the settlement then referred to as New Amsterdam, bought Manhattan from a group of local Native Americans for about $24 worth of beads. Now, with nearly 400 years of history in our rear view mirror, the inequity of the transaction is glaringly self-evident. But at the time the Natives were so bedazzled by the cheap, colorful glass -that they were willing to forfeit their very inheritance, in order to secure such counterfeit wealth.
Does this not pail in comparison to what our government is doing to us today, for example, selling our manufacturing capability to the rest of the world and telling us that we are now a 'service nation'..... or did they really mean... 'servant'?
Will the epitaph of The United States Of America read....
The children of the Gallant and Brave thirsted for all the pleasures of life.... and sold their Father's lands and wealth for trinkets and beads....or better yet... HD TV's and and BMW's?"
This night was served a 'bitter meal'...should that be the only offering on the menu...?...only the future will tell the tale.
"So here lays the dilemma. It is to bad we do not have a crystal ball, so we could see the reaction of the action of the road that we could go down. Also, it's sad that we can not look into each person's soul, heart and mind to find the truth....I believe there are many reasons why we are here in troubled times. I think the day shall come when true love is like a rare jewel and respect only comes out of fear. Perhaps it's just meant to be, one step forward and two steps backwards."
Chair B.
"We're here because we thought that no one would usurp the Constitution. The very thought of it should be treason, but is so commonplace in the halls of Congress today that most barely know, that it is anything more than, a relic from another time."
Chair C.
"Once we decided that it was within our right to force others into compliance of our opinions and saw the Federal government as a way of implementing such compliance, our own liberty and Republic was doomed to this slow rot, of which we might be seeing the final stages. You can trace any problem we have to these "good intentions".
You see none of this could happen without that attitude of "I know what's best for you even if I have to ruin your life to help you". Simple? Yes perhaps, simple; but as deadly to Liberty as any other act of tyranny. Perhaps even more so than other's, because more often than not, this is a tyranny of the majority, the worst kind."
Chair D.
"Had there been printed media on that day in 1625, this fact probably would have headlined periodicals throughout the New York City region and beyond. Peter Minuit, governor of the settlement then referred to as New Amsterdam, bought Manhattan from a group of local Native Americans for about $24 worth of beads. Now, with nearly 400 years of history in our rear view mirror, the inequity of the transaction is glaringly self-evident. But at the time the Natives were so bedazzled by the cheap, colorful glass -that they were willing to forfeit their very inheritance, in order to secure such counterfeit wealth.
Does this not pail in comparison to what our government is doing to us today, for example, selling our manufacturing capability to the rest of the world and telling us that we are now a 'service nation'..... or did they really mean... 'servant'?
Will the epitaph of The United States Of America read....
The children of the Gallant and Brave thirsted for all the pleasures of life.... and sold their Father's lands and wealth for trinkets and beads....or better yet... HD TV's and and BMW's?"
This night was served a 'bitter meal'...should that be the only offering on the menu...?...only the future will tell the tale.
The 17th Amendment and the States
"The state governments are essential parts of the system. Senators represent the sovereignty of the states;. they are in the quality of ambassadors of the states. [But suppose] that they [were] to be chosen by the people at large. Whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government?" : Fisher Ames of Massachusetts
Remarks in the Massachusetts ratifying convention, 19 January 1788; in Elliot 2:46;
In retrospect, the 17th amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum of the 17th amendment was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate who has shown a callus disregard to the constitutionality or even the rights of the states they represent, lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. In fact one could argue that it has only compounded the problem and perverted the very structure of the Federal government. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman and divorce layers." not to speak badly of used-car salesmen. Unless the States are educated to the role of the Senate and forces them to a servant of the state legislature and governor there can be no change in outcome with or with the 17th Amendment.
“James Madison was not only involved in structuring the system, but was also a keeper of its contemporaneous record. He explained in Federalist No. 10 the reason for bicameralism: "Before any bill takes effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the State Legislatures / agents in the Senate."
“The need for two powers to concur would, in turn, thwart the influence of special interests, and by satisfying two very different constituencies, this would assure the enactment was for the greatest public good. Madison summed up the concept nicely in Federalist No 51:
“In republican government, the legislative authority, necessarily predominate. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions and their common dependencies on the society, will admit.”
The Founders knew if the Senate was directly elected it would just become another arm of the Federal beast they feared and had fought so long and hard to avoid, in order that we would be a free people. It worked until the Progressives took hold and we have been paying a very steep price since then.
Remarks in the Massachusetts ratifying convention, 19 January 1788; in Elliot 2:46;
In retrospect, the 17th amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum of the 17th amendment was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate who has shown a callus disregard to the constitutionality or even the rights of the states they represent, lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. In fact one could argue that it has only compounded the problem and perverted the very structure of the Federal government. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman and divorce layers." not to speak badly of used-car salesmen. Unless the States are educated to the role of the Senate and forces them to a servant of the state legislature and governor there can be no change in outcome with or with the 17th Amendment.
“James Madison was not only involved in structuring the system, but was also a keeper of its contemporaneous record. He explained in Federalist No. 10 the reason for bicameralism: "Before any bill takes effect, legislation would have to be ratified by two independent power sources: the people's representatives in the House and the State Legislatures / agents in the Senate."
“The need for two powers to concur would, in turn, thwart the influence of special interests, and by satisfying two very different constituencies, this would assure the enactment was for the greatest public good. Madison summed up the concept nicely in Federalist No 51:
“In republican government, the legislative authority, necessarily predominate. The remedy for this inconveniency is, to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them by different modes of election, and different principles of action, as little connected with each other, as the nature of their common functions and their common dependencies on the society, will admit.”
The Founders knew if the Senate was directly elected it would just become another arm of the Federal beast they feared and had fought so long and hard to avoid, in order that we would be a free people. It worked until the Progressives took hold and we have been paying a very steep price since then.
The Party In Control
Thousands of Americans are being accused of being Tea Partiers or American individualists, anarchists, Capitalists, Constitutionalists; right-wing sympathizers have become the subject of aggressive investigations, wire tapping, and questioning, before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were retired military and government employees, farmers and ranchers, small businesses owners, mill workers, and investment managers, bankers, and leaders of industries. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed right-wing associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered the threat of imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about without trial and verdicts were later overturned by public outrage, and by law that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute. What is their crime? They are the greatest threat to this government. Their unyielding loyalty to the American Constitution and the natural rights of man has made them enemy number one to progressivism. They wanted to limit the federal government, free market economics, and a government that is fiscally responsible. Nothing more; They just wanted to be free of a government that is too Big to Manage.
Throughout the 1940s and 1950s America was overwhelmed with concerns about the threat of communism growing in Eastern Europe and China. Capitalizing on those concerns, a young Senator named Joseph McCarthy made a public accusation that more than two hundred “card-carrying” communists had infiltrated the United States government. Though eventually his accusations were proven to be untrue, and he was censured by the Senate for unbecoming conduct, his zealous campaigning ushered in one of the most repressive times in 20th-century American politics.
While the House Un-American Activities Committee had been formed in 1938 as an anti-Communist organ, McCarthy’s accusations heightened the political tensions of the times. Known as McCarthyism, the paranoid hunt for infiltrators was notoriously difficult on writers and entertainers, many of whom were labeled communist sympathizers and were unable to continue working. Some had their passports taken away, while others were jailed for refusing to give the names of other communists. The trials, which were well publicized, could often destroy a career with a single unsubstantiated accusation. Among those well-known artists accused of communist sympathies or called before the committee were Dashiell Hammett, Waldo Salt, Lillian Hellman, Lena Horne, Paul Robeson, Elia Kazan, Arthur Miller, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Charlie Chaplin and Group Theatre members Clifford Odets, Elia Kazan, and Stella Adler. In all, three hundred and twenty artists were blacklisted, and for many of them this meant the end of exceptional and promising careers.
During this time there were few in the press willing to stand up against McCarthy and the anti-Communist machine. Among those few were comedian Mort Sahl, and journalist Edward R. Murrow, whose strong criticisms of McCarthy are often cited as playing an important role in his eventual removal from power. By 1954, the fervor had died down and many actors and writers were able to return to work. Though relatively short, these proceedings remain one of the most shameful moments in modern U.S. history.
Today it's Tea Party Conservatives, during the 1960 it was civil rights demonstrators, for Nixon it was Democrats . The Party in control determines who is threat.
Throughout the 1940s and 1950s America was overwhelmed with concerns about the threat of communism growing in Eastern Europe and China. Capitalizing on those concerns, a young Senator named Joseph McCarthy made a public accusation that more than two hundred “card-carrying” communists had infiltrated the United States government. Though eventually his accusations were proven to be untrue, and he was censured by the Senate for unbecoming conduct, his zealous campaigning ushered in one of the most repressive times in 20th-century American politics.
While the House Un-American Activities Committee had been formed in 1938 as an anti-Communist organ, McCarthy’s accusations heightened the political tensions of the times. Known as McCarthyism, the paranoid hunt for infiltrators was notoriously difficult on writers and entertainers, many of whom were labeled communist sympathizers and were unable to continue working. Some had their passports taken away, while others were jailed for refusing to give the names of other communists. The trials, which were well publicized, could often destroy a career with a single unsubstantiated accusation. Among those well-known artists accused of communist sympathies or called before the committee were Dashiell Hammett, Waldo Salt, Lillian Hellman, Lena Horne, Paul Robeson, Elia Kazan, Arthur Miller, Aaron Copland, Leonard Bernstein, Charlie Chaplin and Group Theatre members Clifford Odets, Elia Kazan, and Stella Adler. In all, three hundred and twenty artists were blacklisted, and for many of them this meant the end of exceptional and promising careers.
During this time there were few in the press willing to stand up against McCarthy and the anti-Communist machine. Among those few were comedian Mort Sahl, and journalist Edward R. Murrow, whose strong criticisms of McCarthy are often cited as playing an important role in his eventual removal from power. By 1954, the fervor had died down and many actors and writers were able to return to work. Though relatively short, these proceedings remain one of the most shameful moments in modern U.S. history.
Today it's Tea Party Conservatives, during the 1960 it was civil rights demonstrators, for Nixon it was Democrats . The Party in control determines who is threat.
The Alien and Sedition Acts
L.F. Tantillo's Return of the Experiment records the arrival of the Experiment in Albany, New York, after its trip to China. It was only the second American ship to journey to Asia.
|
No protesting the government? No immigrants allowed in? No freedom of the press. Lawmakers jailed? Is this the story of the Soviet Union during the Cold War? No. It describes the United States in 1798 after the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. |
The strong steps that Adams took in response to the French foreign threat also included severe repression of domestic protest. A series of laws known collectively as the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS were passed by the Federalist Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President Adams. These laws included new powers to DEPORT foreigners as well as making it harder for new IMMIGRANTS to vote. Previously a new immigrant would have to reside in the United States for five years before becoming eligible to vote, but a new law raised this to 14 years.
Clearly, the Federalists saw foreigners as a deep threat to American security. As one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to "invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity." Not coincidentally, non-English ethnic groups had been among the core supporters of the Democratic-Republicans in 1796.
Clearly, the Federalists saw foreigners as a deep threat to American security. As one Federalist in Congress declared, there was no need to "invite hordes of Wild Irishmen, nor the turbulent and disorderly of all the world, to come here with a basic view to distract our tranquillity." Not coincidentally, non-English ethnic groups had been among the core supporters of the Democratic-Republicans in 1796.
|
The most controversial of the new laws permitting strong government control over individual actions was the SEDITION ACT. In essence, this Act prohibited public opposition to the government. Fines and imprisonment could be used against those who "write, print, utter, or publish . . . any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government.
Under the terms of this law over 20 Republican newspaper editors were arrested and some were imprisoned. The most dramatic victim of the law was REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW LYON of Vermont. His letter that criticized President Adams' "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and self avarice" caused him to be imprisoned. While Federalists sent Lyon to prison for his opinions, his constituents reelected him to Congress even from his jail cell. |
Charles Willson Peale was one of the great artists of early America. Here, John Adams is captured by Peale's paintbrush.
|
A fight in Congress! This image appeared inHarper's New Monthly Magazine nearly a century after the incident between Lyon and Griswold with the poetic caption: "He in a trice struck Griswold thrice / Upon his head enraged, Sir; / Who seized the tongs to ease his wrongs, / And Griswold thus engaged, Sir."
|
The Sedition Act clearly violated individual protections under the first amendment of the Constitution; however, the practice of "JUDICIAL REVIEW," whereby the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of laws was not yet well developed. Furthermore, the justices were all strong Federalists. As a result, Madison and Jefferson directed their opposition to the new laws to state legislatures. The Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed resolutions declaring the federal laws invalid within their states. The bold challenge to the federal government offered by this strong states' rights position seemed to point toward imminent armed conflict within the United States. |
Enormous changes had occurred in the explosive decade of the 1790s. Federalists in government now viewed the persistence of their party as the equivalent of the survival of the republic. This led them to enact and enforce harsh laws. Madison, who had been the chief architect of a strong central government in the Constitution, now was wary of national authority. He actually helped the KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE to reject federal law. By placing states rights above those of the federal government, Kentucky and Virginia had established a precedent that would be used to justify the secession of southern states in the Civil War.
U.N. Attacks Freedom of the Press
Just in case you ever had any doubt that the United Nations will only be happy once it has rolled back our freedoms one at a time, news came last week that the world body has now turned its attention to the freedom of the press.
A U.N.-authored report, ostensibly penned with the fanciful notion of fighting terrorism, includes restricting press freedom worldwide as one of its primary recommendations. Indeed, in the report, the U.N. endorses "voluntary" codes to restrict journalists' ability to do any number of things including, of course, interviewing terrorists.
The model for such a voluntary code is now in place in Russia, where the government has routinely closed down newspapers and broadcast media outlets that it deems too friendly to Chechen rebels or anyone else on its enemies list. The Russian version of the code requires that journalists seek permission from the police before they undertake any reporting that might be suspect.
Columnist Mark Fitzgerald, writing for Editor & Publisher magazine, adds this keen observation:
Expect this nonsense -- in which the police and government effectively deputize the press as enforcement agents - - to get a respectful hearing at the General Assembly. After all, only last week, the U.N. re-launched its discredited Human Rights Commission as the Human Rights Council -- and promptly elected as members such well-known lovers of press freedom as Cuba, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia.
Needless to say, the U.N.'s anti-terrorism proposals aren't exactly full of gusto either. Indeed, one could reasonably put aside the report and wonder whether the world body had mistaken the target of their anti-terrorism efforts, deciding to target reporters instead of indiscriminate killers.
While U.N. pronouncements will have no effect in the War on Terror, the the world body's attack on press freedom will provide an important means for dictators and other totalitarian regimes to justify further crackdowns within their own borders.
We've written many times about the importance of a free press, and the importance of defending our freedoms even if the content that's being targeted is inflammatory or disgusting.
No one likes to see the terrorists on Al Jazeera, parading around. But the only way for people around the world to understand and value freedom is for them to see and understand major threats to that freedom for themselves.
Of course, the U.N. isn't interested in that because the world body is an organization of governments, not peoples. And the banana republics and third-rate regimes that dominate the U.N. have no interest in seeing their peoples free to do anything. So driven by its Lilliputian members and its own radical agenda, the U.N. persists in attacking freedom, whenever and however it can
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/UN...
A U.N.-authored report, ostensibly penned with the fanciful notion of fighting terrorism, includes restricting press freedom worldwide as one of its primary recommendations. Indeed, in the report, the U.N. endorses "voluntary" codes to restrict journalists' ability to do any number of things including, of course, interviewing terrorists.
The model for such a voluntary code is now in place in Russia, where the government has routinely closed down newspapers and broadcast media outlets that it deems too friendly to Chechen rebels or anyone else on its enemies list. The Russian version of the code requires that journalists seek permission from the police before they undertake any reporting that might be suspect.
Columnist Mark Fitzgerald, writing for Editor & Publisher magazine, adds this keen observation:
Expect this nonsense -- in which the police and government effectively deputize the press as enforcement agents - - to get a respectful hearing at the General Assembly. After all, only last week, the U.N. re-launched its discredited Human Rights Commission as the Human Rights Council -- and promptly elected as members such well-known lovers of press freedom as Cuba, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia.
Needless to say, the U.N.'s anti-terrorism proposals aren't exactly full of gusto either. Indeed, one could reasonably put aside the report and wonder whether the world body had mistaken the target of their anti-terrorism efforts, deciding to target reporters instead of indiscriminate killers.
While U.N. pronouncements will have no effect in the War on Terror, the the world body's attack on press freedom will provide an important means for dictators and other totalitarian regimes to justify further crackdowns within their own borders.
We've written many times about the importance of a free press, and the importance of defending our freedoms even if the content that's being targeted is inflammatory or disgusting.
No one likes to see the terrorists on Al Jazeera, parading around. But the only way for people around the world to understand and value freedom is for them to see and understand major threats to that freedom for themselves.
Of course, the U.N. isn't interested in that because the world body is an organization of governments, not peoples. And the banana republics and third-rate regimes that dominate the U.N. have no interest in seeing their peoples free to do anything. So driven by its Lilliputian members and its own radical agenda, the U.N. persists in attacking freedom, whenever and however it can
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/UN...
A Stealth Attack on Freedom of the Press
Robert W. McChesney and Mark Crispin Miller | February 21, 2002The Federal Communications Commission is presently conducting an inquiry--a "rulemaking"--to determine whether to relax, or even to eliminate, the remaining few regulations that limit how many media entities a single company may own. Regulations still standing include: prohibiting the ownership of a TV station and a newspaper in the same community; limiting a company to owning not more than 35 percent of all TV stations in the United States; and limiting a single company to providing cable TV services to no more than 30 percent of the US population. The FCC will likely reach a decision by the summer. This rulemaking is going on in virtual secrecy, with powerful corporate lobbyists dominating the deliberations. The stakes are extremely high. For the firms, such a relaxation could mean a dramatic rise in company value almost overnight. For the public, further deregulation will lead to another wave of media consolidation, with all that that suggests for the marketplace of ideas.
The case opposing further deregulation is being organized by the Consumer Federation of America and the Center for Digital Democracy. The following was written to be part of their brief:
We have read the various reports and filings before the Federal Communications Commission concerning the proposed relaxation, or elimination, of the last restrictions on media ownership. Our purpose here is not to lay out any new empirical data in support of a position. Rather, we wish to offer a few general points concerning the importance of these rules--observations based on our combined four decades of research as media scholars.
First, there are no grounds in either law or history for the notion that cable and broadcasting are essentially "free-market" enterprises, in whose affairs the government must never intervene. The very fact that these are now commercial enterprises was itself determined not by God or nature, but at a certain point in time by public policy. Such markets could not even exist without government licensing of monopoly rights to spectrum or cable franchises. When the government allocates these privileges, it does not set the terms of competition so much as it selects the winners of that competition. The issue, therefore, is not whether government will play a role, but the precise identity of those whom it will serve by intervening. To put it bluntly: Will it serve the people--and, if so, how--or will it serve a few large profit-making entities? It is that question which the policy debates are meant to answer.
Second, for communication policy to be most effective in a functioning democracy, it requires the greatest possible degree of informed participation by the public. If the hearings on these regulations are restricted to self-interested commercial parties, with only marginal participation by any other interests, the outcome will surely be agreeable to those well-fixed insiders--and no one else. Given the importance of these regulations, it is imperative that the FCC and Congress act to open up such hearings to the general public, and to facilitate their contribution to the ongoing debate. The commission certainly should not relax the rules concerning media ownership without the informed consent of the American people.
Third, in these times of excessive corporate influence on US politics, the FCC must be particularly vigilant against corruption of its policy-making. The same large private firms that have been lobbying aggressively for relaxation of these rules are also among the largest donors to the campaigns of Congressional and presidential candidates. (They are also among the main beneficiaries of outlandish campaign spending, as TV stations profit hugely from political advertising, and therefore lobby hard against campaign finance reform.) Thus there is a powerful whiff of impropriety to this whole process--especially since these hearings are unknown to nearly all Americans. The commission must do everything within its power to ensure that it does not lose popular respect. In our view, hearings should be held in communities across the nation rather than in tightly controlled Washington offices.
Along these lines, we should add that during the course of discussing media issues with several members of Congress in January 2002, it became clear that virtually none of them, including a member of the committee that oversees the FCC, are aware of the current FCC hearings, despite the fact that these hearings rank among the most important in the FCC's sixty-eight-year history. This has the earmarks of the sort of backroom politicking that has marked some of the darkest chapters in American history.
Fourth, the FCC should not share the presumption, common to the media corporations, that whatever is most lucrative for them is also best for the American people. On the contrary: The commission ought to honor the ideals of our democracy by holding the presumption that our media should not be centralized by any sort of concentrated ownership, whether governmental or commercial. As the commissioners know, this nation was founded on--and, indeed, enabled by--the principle that centralized control over the press is incompatible with genuine self-government. The Founders understood the crucial democratic value of a press system that would give the people more than just a choice of different items penned by others, but a daily chance to speak up for themselves. A huge cartel that deals in very similar journalistic "product"--and one dominated not by citizens but by transnational corporations--was surely not what Jefferson or Adams had in mind.
Fifth, to put this another way, unless there is overwhelming evidence that letting media firms own still more media will somehow raise the quality of broadcast news and entertainment, the FCC should at least maintain the regulatory status quo--or even consider further tightening the rules. The fact that further concentration poses no immediate threat to the Republic does not justify the relaxation of the current rules. The historical record offers ample evidence that we cannot foresee the full effects of such a move, and so caution here is well advised. Trying to restore such regulations once they have been lifted would be near-impossible, so powerful are the media lobbies.
Sixth, one need only look at the current state of radio to see what's likely to ensue should the regulations be relaxed. The 1996 Telecommunications Act deregulated radio broadcasting so that any single firm could thenceforth own as many stations as it wished. (Previously the national cap had been twenty-eight.) The consequence: Over the past six years, the nation's radio stations have been gobbled up by just a handful of colossal firms, like Clear Channel and Viacom, that each own hundreds of stations--and up to eight in certain of the cities where they operate. These behemoths use their market power to standardize their fare, lower the amount of local programming (which now appears to cost too much) and jack up the amount of advertisements and overall commercialism. Small stations, unable to compete, sell out, and listeners pay the price. (Drive across the country with your car radio on, and you will hear the same thing playing everywhere.) It may be good for Wall Street and the pricey lobbyists inside the beltway, but on Main Street it means mostly trash and boredom.
Seventh, the claims of the media giants should be taken with a giant grain of salt. All their arguments are mere fig leaves, posed to hide their naked self-concern. For example, the giants claim that deregulation will spur competition, lower prices and better service. If there were any truth to that proposition, those corporations and their lobbyists would not be pushing for it. The truth is that such deregulation will permit those firms to get so much larger that they will have less fear of real competition and all the more ability to commercialize their content for the sake of greater profit. This truth is well-known in the business community, whose members categorically dismiss the cant that these firms feed the FCC in their pursuit of more deregulation.
Eighth, the media giants also claim that the emergence of the Internet moots all social, aesthetic, political and cultural concerns about increasing media concentration. After all, the argument goes, what does it matter if a few companies have massive empires when there are millions of websites operating at minimal cost competing for our attention? The problem with this argument is that the market-driven Internet has not given rise to a new generation of commercially viable media content providers. Capitalism trumps technology. It is now clear that for the Internet to provide a well-funded alternative to corporate media fare, it will require explicit policies to enable that development. And it is also clear that if the media corporations are allowed to get larger than they are already, they will be even better positioned to maintain their dominance in the digital era and to snuff out any potential challenger in its digital infancy.
Ninth, there are some--even among those who are critical of the US media system--who believe that such concerns as ours are overblown. After all, they say, media content was no better decades ago, when there was greater competition. Or, they might argue, the much-romanticized small commercial media frequently provide worse fare than what the media giants offer us. These comments are beside the point. Certainly, the concentration of the media is not the only factor that affects the conduct of the press or the quality of entertainment. Even more competitive markets in broadcasting have flaws, due to the obsessive pursuit of profit and, in particular, the reliance upon advertising as a major source of funding.
To a great extent, commercialism per se is the problem, for while the commercial media have given us some excellent material over time, there are some kinds of work--dramatic, comedic, journalistic--that they are disinclined to invest in. Moreover, the media giants' overemphasis on a few large demographic blocs has neglected many other, smaller audiences, and has contributed immensely to the dumbing down of both news and entertainment. For these reasons, we need, as a crucial complement to the commercial media, a broad range of independent, nonprofit and noncommercial outlets. Such a new resource would certainly enrich our culture and society--and so would a more competitive commercial sphere. While concentration at the top is surely not the only factor that affects the media's performance, the fact is that in nearly every instance, the overall effect of such consolidation has been negative, both for the media's workers and the audience.
Tenth, the champions of further ownership deregulation do make two noteworthy points: First, the emergence of digital technologies, which undermine the distinctions among media, has made traditional regulations obsolete. Second, it is indeed unfair that some media companies and industries cannot compete on equal terms with firms that have had the good fortune to perform in the less-regulated media sectors. The solution to this problem is, however, not to abandon media ownership regulations entirely, but to revise them to take the new technologies into consideration, and then to generate new rules that apply across all media. Such regulations can never be generated in the forums currently provided by the FCC, where high-roller lobbyists make their case behind closed doors, without participation by, or awareness of, the public.
To conclude, the FCC should not now relax the media ownership regulations to permit greater media concentration. Any hearings into the alteration of these rules should be moved well outside the beltway, with numerous public forums established for broad-based citizen participation. The commission should be openly--and proudly--biased toward media multiplicity and not further concentration, which now poses a considerable threat to our democracy.
Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/stealth-attack-freedom-press
Read more: http://www.thenation.com/print/article/stealth-attack-freedom-press...
The case opposing further deregulation is being organized by the Consumer Federation of America and the Center for Digital Democracy. The following was written to be part of their brief:
We have read the various reports and filings before the Federal Communications Commission concerning the proposed relaxation, or elimination, of the last restrictions on media ownership. Our purpose here is not to lay out any new empirical data in support of a position. Rather, we wish to offer a few general points concerning the importance of these rules--observations based on our combined four decades of research as media scholars.
First, there are no grounds in either law or history for the notion that cable and broadcasting are essentially "free-market" enterprises, in whose affairs the government must never intervene. The very fact that these are now commercial enterprises was itself determined not by God or nature, but at a certain point in time by public policy. Such markets could not even exist without government licensing of monopoly rights to spectrum or cable franchises. When the government allocates these privileges, it does not set the terms of competition so much as it selects the winners of that competition. The issue, therefore, is not whether government will play a role, but the precise identity of those whom it will serve by intervening. To put it bluntly: Will it serve the people--and, if so, how--or will it serve a few large profit-making entities? It is that question which the policy debates are meant to answer.
Second, for communication policy to be most effective in a functioning democracy, it requires the greatest possible degree of informed participation by the public. If the hearings on these regulations are restricted to self-interested commercial parties, with only marginal participation by any other interests, the outcome will surely be agreeable to those well-fixed insiders--and no one else. Given the importance of these regulations, it is imperative that the FCC and Congress act to open up such hearings to the general public, and to facilitate their contribution to the ongoing debate. The commission certainly should not relax the rules concerning media ownership without the informed consent of the American people.
Third, in these times of excessive corporate influence on US politics, the FCC must be particularly vigilant against corruption of its policy-making. The same large private firms that have been lobbying aggressively for relaxation of these rules are also among the largest donors to the campaigns of Congressional and presidential candidates. (They are also among the main beneficiaries of outlandish campaign spending, as TV stations profit hugely from political advertising, and therefore lobby hard against campaign finance reform.) Thus there is a powerful whiff of impropriety to this whole process--especially since these hearings are unknown to nearly all Americans. The commission must do everything within its power to ensure that it does not lose popular respect. In our view, hearings should be held in communities across the nation rather than in tightly controlled Washington offices.
Along these lines, we should add that during the course of discussing media issues with several members of Congress in January 2002, it became clear that virtually none of them, including a member of the committee that oversees the FCC, are aware of the current FCC hearings, despite the fact that these hearings rank among the most important in the FCC's sixty-eight-year history. This has the earmarks of the sort of backroom politicking that has marked some of the darkest chapters in American history.
Fourth, the FCC should not share the presumption, common to the media corporations, that whatever is most lucrative for them is also best for the American people. On the contrary: The commission ought to honor the ideals of our democracy by holding the presumption that our media should not be centralized by any sort of concentrated ownership, whether governmental or commercial. As the commissioners know, this nation was founded on--and, indeed, enabled by--the principle that centralized control over the press is incompatible with genuine self-government. The Founders understood the crucial democratic value of a press system that would give the people more than just a choice of different items penned by others, but a daily chance to speak up for themselves. A huge cartel that deals in very similar journalistic "product"--and one dominated not by citizens but by transnational corporations--was surely not what Jefferson or Adams had in mind.
Fifth, to put this another way, unless there is overwhelming evidence that letting media firms own still more media will somehow raise the quality of broadcast news and entertainment, the FCC should at least maintain the regulatory status quo--or even consider further tightening the rules. The fact that further concentration poses no immediate threat to the Republic does not justify the relaxation of the current rules. The historical record offers ample evidence that we cannot foresee the full effects of such a move, and so caution here is well advised. Trying to restore such regulations once they have been lifted would be near-impossible, so powerful are the media lobbies.
Sixth, one need only look at the current state of radio to see what's likely to ensue should the regulations be relaxed. The 1996 Telecommunications Act deregulated radio broadcasting so that any single firm could thenceforth own as many stations as it wished. (Previously the national cap had been twenty-eight.) The consequence: Over the past six years, the nation's radio stations have been gobbled up by just a handful of colossal firms, like Clear Channel and Viacom, that each own hundreds of stations--and up to eight in certain of the cities where they operate. These behemoths use their market power to standardize their fare, lower the amount of local programming (which now appears to cost too much) and jack up the amount of advertisements and overall commercialism. Small stations, unable to compete, sell out, and listeners pay the price. (Drive across the country with your car radio on, and you will hear the same thing playing everywhere.) It may be good for Wall Street and the pricey lobbyists inside the beltway, but on Main Street it means mostly trash and boredom.
Seventh, the claims of the media giants should be taken with a giant grain of salt. All their arguments are mere fig leaves, posed to hide their naked self-concern. For example, the giants claim that deregulation will spur competition, lower prices and better service. If there were any truth to that proposition, those corporations and their lobbyists would not be pushing for it. The truth is that such deregulation will permit those firms to get so much larger that they will have less fear of real competition and all the more ability to commercialize their content for the sake of greater profit. This truth is well-known in the business community, whose members categorically dismiss the cant that these firms feed the FCC in their pursuit of more deregulation.
Eighth, the media giants also claim that the emergence of the Internet moots all social, aesthetic, political and cultural concerns about increasing media concentration. After all, the argument goes, what does it matter if a few companies have massive empires when there are millions of websites operating at minimal cost competing for our attention? The problem with this argument is that the market-driven Internet has not given rise to a new generation of commercially viable media content providers. Capitalism trumps technology. It is now clear that for the Internet to provide a well-funded alternative to corporate media fare, it will require explicit policies to enable that development. And it is also clear that if the media corporations are allowed to get larger than they are already, they will be even better positioned to maintain their dominance in the digital era and to snuff out any potential challenger in its digital infancy.
Ninth, there are some--even among those who are critical of the US media system--who believe that such concerns as ours are overblown. After all, they say, media content was no better decades ago, when there was greater competition. Or, they might argue, the much-romanticized small commercial media frequently provide worse fare than what the media giants offer us. These comments are beside the point. Certainly, the concentration of the media is not the only factor that affects the conduct of the press or the quality of entertainment. Even more competitive markets in broadcasting have flaws, due to the obsessive pursuit of profit and, in particular, the reliance upon advertising as a major source of funding.
To a great extent, commercialism per se is the problem, for while the commercial media have given us some excellent material over time, there are some kinds of work--dramatic, comedic, journalistic--that they are disinclined to invest in. Moreover, the media giants' overemphasis on a few large demographic blocs has neglected many other, smaller audiences, and has contributed immensely to the dumbing down of both news and entertainment. For these reasons, we need, as a crucial complement to the commercial media, a broad range of independent, nonprofit and noncommercial outlets. Such a new resource would certainly enrich our culture and society--and so would a more competitive commercial sphere. While concentration at the top is surely not the only factor that affects the media's performance, the fact is that in nearly every instance, the overall effect of such consolidation has been negative, both for the media's workers and the audience.
Tenth, the champions of further ownership deregulation do make two noteworthy points: First, the emergence of digital technologies, which undermine the distinctions among media, has made traditional regulations obsolete. Second, it is indeed unfair that some media companies and industries cannot compete on equal terms with firms that have had the good fortune to perform in the less-regulated media sectors. The solution to this problem is, however, not to abandon media ownership regulations entirely, but to revise them to take the new technologies into consideration, and then to generate new rules that apply across all media. Such regulations can never be generated in the forums currently provided by the FCC, where high-roller lobbyists make their case behind closed doors, without participation by, or awareness of, the public.
To conclude, the FCC should not now relax the media ownership regulations to permit greater media concentration. Any hearings into the alteration of these rules should be moved well outside the beltway, with numerous public forums established for broad-based citizen participation. The commission should be openly--and proudly--biased toward media multiplicity and not further concentration, which now poses a considerable threat to our democracy.
Source URL: http://www.thenation.com/article/stealth-attack-freedom-press
Read more: http://www.thenation.com/print/article/stealth-attack-freedom-press...
Enough Is Enough: Why General Welfare Limits Spending
By John C. Eastman January 13, 2011
Perhaps no other clause in the Constitution generated as much debate among the Founders as the “Spending Clause”—the first of the 18 powers granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the principal authors of The Federalist, famously disagreed about the meaning of “general Welfare” and the limits to Congress’s spending power. For the past 70 years, however, this fruitful debate over the meaning of the Constitution has been replaced by the view that there are no limitations whatsoever on Congress’s power to spend and that the “general Welfare” means whatever Congress says it means. Today, no project is deemed too local or too narrow not to fall under the “general Welfare” rubric. It is therefore incumbent upon Members of Congress to consider, once again, the limits of their spending power and recognize, as even Hamilton did, that it is not unlimited. This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” — Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
Although the Spending Clause is the source of congressional authority to levy taxes, it permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and constitute the “Spending Power.”
To many today, those two purposes are so broad as to amount to no limitation at all. The contemporary view is that Congress’s power to provide for the “general Welfare” is a power to spend for virtually anything that Congress itself views as helpful. To be sure, some of the Founders, most notably Alexander Hamilton, supported an expansive spending power during the Constitutional Convention; but such proposals, including an explicit attempt to authorize spending by the federal government for internal improvements, were rejected by the Convention. Hamilton continued to press his case by arguing during George Washington’s administration for an expansive interpretation of the clause (which Washington adopted). In his “Report on Manufactures” (1791), Hamilton contended that the only limits on the tax-and-spend power were the requirements that duties be uniform, that direct taxes be apportioned by population, and that no tax should be laid on articles exported from any state. The power to raise money was otherwise “plenary, and indefinite,” he argued, “and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive.”
Hamilton’s broad reading met with opposition from many of the other Founders. James Madison repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Thomas Jefferson.
There was also a third, more intermediate, interpretation, recognized later even by Alexander Hamilton. According to this view, the “common Defence and general Welfare” language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit. President James Monroe later adopted this position—albeit with more teeth than Hamilton had been willing to give it—in his 1822 message vetoing a bill to preserve and repair the Cumberland Road. Monroe contended that Congress’s power to spend was restricted “to purposes of common defence, and of general, national, not local, or state, benefit.”
There are relatively few examples from the early Congresses of debate over the scope of the spending power, but the few that do exist are enlightening. The First Congress refused to make a loan to a glass manufacturer after several Members expressed the view that such an appropriation would be unconstitutional, and the Fourth Congress did not believe it had the power to provide relief to the citizens of Savannah, Georgia, after a devastating fire destroyed the entire city. The debates do not reflect whether Congress thought such appropriations unconstitutional because they did not further other enumerated powers (Madison’s position) or because they were of local rather than national benefit (Monroe’s position), but they reflect a rejection of the broad interpretation of the spending power originally proffered by Hamilton.
On the other hand, some appropriations for apparently local projects were approved, but it can be argued that those projects were of general benefit or specifically tied to other enumerated powers, and hence within the authority conferred by Article I, Section 8. At the same time it was denying a request to fund the dredging of the Savannah River, for example, Congress approved an appropriation for a lighthouse at the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay. Both measures were important for navigation, but the lighthouse was of benefit to the coastal trade of the entire nation (and hence to interstate commerce), while the dredging operation was primarily of local, intrastate benefit to the people of Georgia and hence fell on the “local” rather than the “general” side of the public welfare line.
Congress approved various appropriations to fund a road across the Cumberland Gap, but it rejected as unconstitutional a larger appropriation for internal improvements of which the Cumberland Gap road project was a part. Congress accepted the view that it had no power under the Constitution to open roads and canals in any state; its power to fund the Cumberland Road was the result of the compact with Ohio “for which the nation receive[d] an equivalent,” namely, Ohio’s promise not to tax for five years any lands sold by the federal government in Ohio. Moreover, as George Washington had repeatedly urged while President, the opening of a road across the Cumberland Gap was strategically necessary to keep the western territories allied with the coastal states (rather than with the foreign powers that controlled the Mississippi river region at the time), something critically important to the security of the entire nation and not just the people of Ohio. The Cumberland Gap road was an example of a local project that directly benefited the nation. Appropriations for other local projects such as public education and local roads and canals, the “general” benefit of which was less direct, were viewed as unconstitutional, and a proposal in Jefferson’s 1806 State of the Union Address to amend the Constitution to permit funding for such internal improvements was never adopted.
In sum, although Alexander Hamilton and other leaders of the Federalist Party argued for an expansive reading of the spending power, their reading was, on the whole, rejected both by Congress and, after the election of 1800, by the executive. Indeed, the differing views on the scope of federal power was a principal ground on which the 1800 presidential-election contest between Jefferson and incumbent Federalist President John Adams was waged. As Jefferson would note in an 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin, the different interpretations of the Spending Clause put forward by Hamilton, on the one hand, and Madison and Jefferson, on the other, were “almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans.” Jefferson won that election, and, save for a brief interlude during the one-term presidency of John Quincy Adams, the more restrictive interpretation of spending power was adopted by every President until the Civil War.
President Madison vetoed as unconstitutional an internal improvements bill that was passed by Congress at the very end of his presidency. President James Monroe also rejected the expansive Hamiltonian view of the Spending Clause (albeit on slightly different grounds than Madison had), vetoing various attempts at internal improvement bills during most of his two terms. But in the last year of his presidency, James Monroe, finding the line between “general” welfare and local welfare a hard one to define, signed a few bills to fund surveys for some local internal improvement projects. He thus opened a gate through which flowed a flood of spending on local projects during the administration of President John Quincy Adams. But Adams’s resurrection of the Hamiltonian position became the focus of the next presidential election, contributing to Adams’s defeat at the hands of Andrew Jackson, who promptly put to rest “this dangerous doctrine” by vetoing a $200 million appropriation for the purchase of stock in the Maysville and Lexington Turnpike Company and for the direct construction of other “ordinary” roads and canals by the government itself. So strong was his veto message that for four years Congress did not even try to pass another such bill, and when in 1834 it passed an act to improve the navigation of the Wabash River, Jackson again responded forcefully, rejecting as a “fallacy” the contention that the Spending Clause conferred upon Congress the power to do whatever seemed “to conduce to the public good.”
In 1847 and 1857, Presidents James K. Polk and James Buchanan, respectively, vetoed subsequent congressional efforts to fund internal improvements. Polk vetoed a bill strikingly similar to much of the pork-barrel legislation to which we have grown accustomed in modern times. It provided $6,000 for projects in the Wisconsin territory—constitutionally permissible because of Congress’s broader powers over federal territories—but it also included $500,000 for a myriad of projects in the existing states. Polk contended that to interpret the Spending Clause to permit such appropriations would allow “combinations of individual and local interests [that would be] strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into a hopeless indebtedness.”
Similarly, in his message vetoing the college land grant bill, President Buchanan took it as a given that the funds raised by Congress from taxation were “confined to the execution of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress.” The idea that the resources of the federal government—either taxes or the public lands—could be diverted to carry into effect any measure of state domestic policy that Congress saw fit to support “would be to confer upon Congress a vast and irresponsible authority, utterly at war with the well-known jealousy of Federal power which prevailed at the formation of the Constitution.”
Thus, while there were clearly voices urging for an expansive spending power before the Civil War, the interpretation held by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe is the one that prevailed for most of the first seventy years after adoption of the Constitution.
Modern-day jurisprudence on the Spending Clause begins with the 1936 New Deal-era case of United States v. Butler. In that case, both parties relied upon the Hamiltonian position, despite the history recounted above. Both the majority and dissenting opinions of the Court facially accepted the correctness of Hamilton’s position even though the majority ruled that the particular tax and regulatory program at issue in the case was unconstitutional because its purpose was to regulate and control agricultural production, “a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government”—a holding much more in line with Madison’s interpretation of the spending power than Hamilton’s.
Moreover, the Hamiltonian position purportedly adopted by the Court was not the expansive view that Congress could do whatever it deemed to be in the public interest, but the much more limited view that the limits on spending were contained in the Spending Clause itself and not in the remainder of Article I, Section 8. “While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited,” Justice Owen J. Roberts wrote, “its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress.” In other words, the only limitation on Congress’s power to tax and spend was that the spending be for the “general Welfare”—the position actually advocated by James Monroe. What really makes Butler a departure from the early interpretation of the clause, then, was that it gave virtually unlimited discretion to Congress to determine what was in the “general welfare”—a holding that, practically speaking, is much more in line with the expansive Hamiltonian position than the positions advocated either by Monroe or by Madison and Jefferson.
Since Butler, the courts have essentially treated whatever limitation the clause might impose as essentially a nonjusticiable political question. In the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, for example, the Supreme Court noted that “the level of deference to the congressional decision is such that the Court has more recently questioned whether ‘general welfare’ is a judicially enforceable restriction at all.” Instead, the courts have focused not on the constitutionality of spending programs themselves, but on whether various conditions imposed on the receipt of federal funds—conditions designed to achieve ends concededly not within Congress’s enumerated powers—were constitutionally permissible. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Court adopted a four-prong test against which it assesses the constitutionality of spending conditions: (1) the spending power must be in pursuit of the “general Welfare,” a requirement that the Court left to Congress’s judgment to satisfy because, in its view, “the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress”; (2) whether the conditions imposed were unambiguous; (3) whether they were related to the particular national projects or programs being funded (thus far, the Court has not invalidated a spending restriction on the grounds that it is too unrelated to the programs being funded); and (4) whether there are other constitutional provisions that provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. For example, Congress could not impose as a condition that a state receiving federal funds for its welfare programs require welfare recipients to waive their Fourth Amendment rights.
Of these four requirements, the “relatedness” and the independent constitutional bar prongs are the only ones that at present have any prospect of actually imposing a real limit on spending. Yet in the facts of South Dakota v. Dole itself, the Court concluded that conditioning receipt of federal highway funds on a state’s adoption of a twenty-one-year-old drinking age was sufficiently related to the funding program. Eighteen-year-old residents of states with a twenty-one-year-old drinking age would drive to border states where the drinking age was eighteen and procure their liquor, the argument went. When driving back, the drivers had an increased risk of drunk driving on the highways paved by federal funds, and that was a sufficient connection for the Court.
Both Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and Sandra Day O’Connor dissented. Justice O’Connor noted in her South Dakota v. Dole dissent: “If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality...is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress...to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This...was not the Framers’ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”
While the Court has recently restored some limits to other powers delegated to Congress (such as the Commerce Clause), it has not yet done so with the Spending Power. This does not prevent Congress from adopting on its own a view of its power to spend that is more in accord with those of the Founders.
Perhaps no other clause in the Constitution generated as much debate among the Founders as the “Spending Clause”—the first of the 18 powers granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, the principal authors of The Federalist, famously disagreed about the meaning of “general Welfare” and the limits to Congress’s spending power. For the past 70 years, however, this fruitful debate over the meaning of the Constitution has been replaced by the view that there are no limitations whatsoever on Congress’s power to spend and that the “general Welfare” means whatever Congress says it means. Today, no project is deemed too local or too narrow not to fall under the “general Welfare” rubric. It is therefore incumbent upon Members of Congress to consider, once again, the limits of their spending power and recognize, as even Hamilton did, that it is not unlimited. This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” — Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
Although the Spending Clause is the source of congressional authority to levy taxes, it permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and constitute the “Spending Power.”
To many today, those two purposes are so broad as to amount to no limitation at all. The contemporary view is that Congress’s power to provide for the “general Welfare” is a power to spend for virtually anything that Congress itself views as helpful. To be sure, some of the Founders, most notably Alexander Hamilton, supported an expansive spending power during the Constitutional Convention; but such proposals, including an explicit attempt to authorize spending by the federal government for internal improvements, were rejected by the Convention. Hamilton continued to press his case by arguing during George Washington’s administration for an expansive interpretation of the clause (which Washington adopted). In his “Report on Manufactures” (1791), Hamilton contended that the only limits on the tax-and-spend power were the requirements that duties be uniform, that direct taxes be apportioned by population, and that no tax should be laid on articles exported from any state. The power to raise money was otherwise “plenary, and indefinite,” he argued, “and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive.”
Hamilton’s broad reading met with opposition from many of the other Founders. James Madison repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Thomas Jefferson.
There was also a third, more intermediate, interpretation, recognized later even by Alexander Hamilton. According to this view, the “common Defence and general Welfare” language is not, as Madison contended, a shorthand way of limiting the power to tax and spend in furtherance of the powers elsewhere enumerated in Article I, Section 8; but it does contain its own limitation, namely, that spending under the clause be for the “general” (that is, national) welfare and not for purely local or regional benefit. President James Monroe later adopted this position—albeit with more teeth than Hamilton had been willing to give it—in his 1822 message vetoing a bill to preserve and repair the Cumberland Road. Monroe contended that Congress’s power to spend was restricted “to purposes of common defence, and of general, national, not local, or state, benefit.”
There are relatively few examples from the early Congresses of debate over the scope of the spending power, but the few that do exist are enlightening. The First Congress refused to make a loan to a glass manufacturer after several Members expressed the view that such an appropriation would be unconstitutional, and the Fourth Congress did not believe it had the power to provide relief to the citizens of Savannah, Georgia, after a devastating fire destroyed the entire city. The debates do not reflect whether Congress thought such appropriations unconstitutional because they did not further other enumerated powers (Madison’s position) or because they were of local rather than national benefit (Monroe’s position), but they reflect a rejection of the broad interpretation of the spending power originally proffered by Hamilton.
On the other hand, some appropriations for apparently local projects were approved, but it can be argued that those projects were of general benefit or specifically tied to other enumerated powers, and hence within the authority conferred by Article I, Section 8. At the same time it was denying a request to fund the dredging of the Savannah River, for example, Congress approved an appropriation for a lighthouse at the entrance of the Chesapeake Bay. Both measures were important for navigation, but the lighthouse was of benefit to the coastal trade of the entire nation (and hence to interstate commerce), while the dredging operation was primarily of local, intrastate benefit to the people of Georgia and hence fell on the “local” rather than the “general” side of the public welfare line.
Congress approved various appropriations to fund a road across the Cumberland Gap, but it rejected as unconstitutional a larger appropriation for internal improvements of which the Cumberland Gap road project was a part. Congress accepted the view that it had no power under the Constitution to open roads and canals in any state; its power to fund the Cumberland Road was the result of the compact with Ohio “for which the nation receive[d] an equivalent,” namely, Ohio’s promise not to tax for five years any lands sold by the federal government in Ohio. Moreover, as George Washington had repeatedly urged while President, the opening of a road across the Cumberland Gap was strategically necessary to keep the western territories allied with the coastal states (rather than with the foreign powers that controlled the Mississippi river region at the time), something critically important to the security of the entire nation and not just the people of Ohio. The Cumberland Gap road was an example of a local project that directly benefited the nation. Appropriations for other local projects such as public education and local roads and canals, the “general” benefit of which was less direct, were viewed as unconstitutional, and a proposal in Jefferson’s 1806 State of the Union Address to amend the Constitution to permit funding for such internal improvements was never adopted.
In sum, although Alexander Hamilton and other leaders of the Federalist Party argued for an expansive reading of the spending power, their reading was, on the whole, rejected both by Congress and, after the election of 1800, by the executive. Indeed, the differing views on the scope of federal power was a principal ground on which the 1800 presidential-election contest between Jefferson and incumbent Federalist President John Adams was waged. As Jefferson would note in an 1817 letter to Albert Gallatin, the different interpretations of the Spending Clause put forward by Hamilton, on the one hand, and Madison and Jefferson, on the other, were “almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans.” Jefferson won that election, and, save for a brief interlude during the one-term presidency of John Quincy Adams, the more restrictive interpretation of spending power was adopted by every President until the Civil War.
President Madison vetoed as unconstitutional an internal improvements bill that was passed by Congress at the very end of his presidency. President James Monroe also rejected the expansive Hamiltonian view of the Spending Clause (albeit on slightly different grounds than Madison had), vetoing various attempts at internal improvement bills during most of his two terms. But in the last year of his presidency, James Monroe, finding the line between “general” welfare and local welfare a hard one to define, signed a few bills to fund surveys for some local internal improvement projects. He thus opened a gate through which flowed a flood of spending on local projects during the administration of President John Quincy Adams. But Adams’s resurrection of the Hamiltonian position became the focus of the next presidential election, contributing to Adams’s defeat at the hands of Andrew Jackson, who promptly put to rest “this dangerous doctrine” by vetoing a $200 million appropriation for the purchase of stock in the Maysville and Lexington Turnpike Company and for the direct construction of other “ordinary” roads and canals by the government itself. So strong was his veto message that for four years Congress did not even try to pass another such bill, and when in 1834 it passed an act to improve the navigation of the Wabash River, Jackson again responded forcefully, rejecting as a “fallacy” the contention that the Spending Clause conferred upon Congress the power to do whatever seemed “to conduce to the public good.”
In 1847 and 1857, Presidents James K. Polk and James Buchanan, respectively, vetoed subsequent congressional efforts to fund internal improvements. Polk vetoed a bill strikingly similar to much of the pork-barrel legislation to which we have grown accustomed in modern times. It provided $6,000 for projects in the Wisconsin territory—constitutionally permissible because of Congress’s broader powers over federal territories—but it also included $500,000 for a myriad of projects in the existing states. Polk contended that to interpret the Spending Clause to permit such appropriations would allow “combinations of individual and local interests [that would be] strong enough to control legislation, absorb the revenues of the country, and plunge the government into a hopeless indebtedness.”
Similarly, in his message vetoing the college land grant bill, President Buchanan took it as a given that the funds raised by Congress from taxation were “confined to the execution of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress.” The idea that the resources of the federal government—either taxes or the public lands—could be diverted to carry into effect any measure of state domestic policy that Congress saw fit to support “would be to confer upon Congress a vast and irresponsible authority, utterly at war with the well-known jealousy of Federal power which prevailed at the formation of the Constitution.”
Thus, while there were clearly voices urging for an expansive spending power before the Civil War, the interpretation held by Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe is the one that prevailed for most of the first seventy years after adoption of the Constitution.
Modern-day jurisprudence on the Spending Clause begins with the 1936 New Deal-era case of United States v. Butler. In that case, both parties relied upon the Hamiltonian position, despite the history recounted above. Both the majority and dissenting opinions of the Court facially accepted the correctness of Hamilton’s position even though the majority ruled that the particular tax and regulatory program at issue in the case was unconstitutional because its purpose was to regulate and control agricultural production, “a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government”—a holding much more in line with Madison’s interpretation of the spending power than Hamilton’s.
Moreover, the Hamiltonian position purportedly adopted by the Court was not the expansive view that Congress could do whatever it deemed to be in the public interest, but the much more limited view that the limits on spending were contained in the Spending Clause itself and not in the remainder of Article I, Section 8. “While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited,” Justice Owen J. Roberts wrote, “its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of Section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress.” In other words, the only limitation on Congress’s power to tax and spend was that the spending be for the “general Welfare”—the position actually advocated by James Monroe. What really makes Butler a departure from the early interpretation of the clause, then, was that it gave virtually unlimited discretion to Congress to determine what was in the “general welfare”—a holding that, practically speaking, is much more in line with the expansive Hamiltonian position than the positions advocated either by Monroe or by Madison and Jefferson.
Since Butler, the courts have essentially treated whatever limitation the clause might impose as essentially a nonjusticiable political question. In the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole, for example, the Supreme Court noted that “the level of deference to the congressional decision is such that the Court has more recently questioned whether ‘general welfare’ is a judicially enforceable restriction at all.” Instead, the courts have focused not on the constitutionality of spending programs themselves, but on whether various conditions imposed on the receipt of federal funds—conditions designed to achieve ends concededly not within Congress’s enumerated powers—were constitutionally permissible. In South Dakota v. Dole, the Court adopted a four-prong test against which it assesses the constitutionality of spending conditions: (1) the spending power must be in pursuit of the “general Welfare,” a requirement that the Court left to Congress’s judgment to satisfy because, in its view, “the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress”; (2) whether the conditions imposed were unambiguous; (3) whether they were related to the particular national projects or programs being funded (thus far, the Court has not invalidated a spending restriction on the grounds that it is too unrelated to the programs being funded); and (4) whether there are other constitutional provisions that provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. For example, Congress could not impose as a condition that a state receiving federal funds for its welfare programs require welfare recipients to waive their Fourth Amendment rights.
Of these four requirements, the “relatedness” and the independent constitutional bar prongs are the only ones that at present have any prospect of actually imposing a real limit on spending. Yet in the facts of South Dakota v. Dole itself, the Court concluded that conditioning receipt of federal highway funds on a state’s adoption of a twenty-one-year-old drinking age was sufficiently related to the funding program. Eighteen-year-old residents of states with a twenty-one-year-old drinking age would drive to border states where the drinking age was eighteen and procure their liquor, the argument went. When driving back, the drivers had an increased risk of drunk driving on the highways paved by federal funds, and that was a sufficient connection for the Court.
Both Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., and Sandra Day O’Connor dissented. Justice O’Connor noted in her South Dakota v. Dole dissent: “If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress’ notion of the general welfare, the reality...is that the Spending Clause gives ‘power to the Congress...to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.’ This...was not the Framers’ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.”
While the Court has recently restored some limits to other powers delegated to Congress (such as the Commerce Clause), it has not yet done so with the Spending Power. This does not prevent Congress from adopting on its own a view of its power to spend that is more in accord with those of the Founders.
Oh, Those Liberals!
Liberals have launched a website to track tea partiers and their rallies. The website’s slogan, “A watched teapot never boils”
Soros and the foundation left have launched a website designed to go after the growing Tea Party movement. Teapartytracker.org will post video interviews and blog entries gathered by folks on the false left who never grow weary of demonstrating their outrage over the very idea of a grassroots political effort overthrowing establishment Democrats and Republicans in the district of corporate criminals.
Teapartytracker.org will be sponsored by the NAACP, Think Progress, New Left Media and Media Matters for America. Think Progress is a George Soros operation connected to John Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Podesta is Clinton’s former chief of staff. Media Matters for America is the brainchild of a MoveOn consultant and Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Soros is a major supporter of MoveOn.
__________________________________
Richard Trumka has sounded the call to arms saying “We know you’re angry. We know you’re frustrated. We know we haven’t achieved everything that we worked for. But we’ve made progress, and we have to keep it going.” He continued on by praising President Obama for his efforts in creating new jobs, overhauling health care, and passing financial reform legislation. Trumka summed up his speech to his membership by saying their anger must be placed on Republicans because they are the ones standing in the way.
The upcoming election could end up being a showdown between the influence of the tea party movement verses the strong-arm tactics of Richard Trumka and his union goons. Although polls show that Democrats are set to lose many seats in Congress, the union’s ability to engineer elections should not be discounted.
__________________________________
NTEU raised just over a half million dollars, all of which was spent to support Federal level Democrat candidates
Hatch Act and Political Activities
The Hatch Act limits certain political activities of Federal employees both on and off duty. (Members of the Senior Executive Service, are subject to further restrictions and should contact the General Counsel's office for additional guidance.) Violations of the Hatch Act may result in disciplinary action, up to and including removal.
The term "political activity" means doing something in active support of or opposition to a political party, a candidate for partisan political office (e.g., President, senator, representative, state or local legislature or office), or a partisan political group (e.g., "Historians for Smith"). Examples of political activity that would violate the Hatch Act if done while on duty or using Government property include:
circulating a candidate's nominating petition within your office;
using the PC in your office after work to produce a brochure in support of a candidate's campaign;
sending e-mail invitations to campaign events to friends within the agency;
and using National Archives' Internet connections to forward e-mail messages received from a partisan campaign or someone supporting a partisan candidate.
Permissible political activity under the Hatch Act would include voting for the candidates of your choice; expressing opinions about candidates and issues; assisting in voter registration drives.
For a more comprehensive view of what the Hatch Act allows and disallows, please review the list of Hatch Act Do's and Don'ts shown below. Questions concerning the Hatch Act may be directed to Christopher Runkel, Office of General Counsel, either by telephone at 301-837-1750 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 301-837-1750 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting , by fax at 301-837-0293, or by e-mail addressed to "ethics@nara.gov."
As a Federal Employee you cannot:
Engage in political activity while on duty
Engage in political activity while wearing an official Government uniform or identifying as A Federal Employee
Engage in political activity while using a Government vehicle
Engage in political activity in any Government office
Engage in political activity while using Government property, including computers, printers, copiers, fax machines, and telephones
Wear political buttons while on duty
Display items (e.g., posters, signs, stickers) at work that indicate support of or opposition to a political party or a candidate in a partisan election
Run as a candidate for public office in any partisan election, except in jurisdictions specified by OPM
Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions (except in limited circumstances involving certain Federal labor or employee organizations)
Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions from a subordinate employee
Allow your official title to be used in connection with fund raising activities
Host a fund raiser at your home
Use your official authority or influence to interfere with an election
Knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has. or is doing business with the federal government.
Soros and the foundation left have launched a website designed to go after the growing Tea Party movement. Teapartytracker.org will post video interviews and blog entries gathered by folks on the false left who never grow weary of demonstrating their outrage over the very idea of a grassroots political effort overthrowing establishment Democrats and Republicans in the district of corporate criminals.
Teapartytracker.org will be sponsored by the NAACP, Think Progress, New Left Media and Media Matters for America. Think Progress is a George Soros operation connected to John Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Podesta is Clinton’s former chief of staff. Media Matters for America is the brainchild of a MoveOn consultant and Podesta’s Center for American Progress. Soros is a major supporter of MoveOn.
__________________________________
Richard Trumka has sounded the call to arms saying “We know you’re angry. We know you’re frustrated. We know we haven’t achieved everything that we worked for. But we’ve made progress, and we have to keep it going.” He continued on by praising President Obama for his efforts in creating new jobs, overhauling health care, and passing financial reform legislation. Trumka summed up his speech to his membership by saying their anger must be placed on Republicans because they are the ones standing in the way.
The upcoming election could end up being a showdown between the influence of the tea party movement verses the strong-arm tactics of Richard Trumka and his union goons. Although polls show that Democrats are set to lose many seats in Congress, the union’s ability to engineer elections should not be discounted.
__________________________________
NTEU raised just over a half million dollars, all of which was spent to support Federal level Democrat candidates
Hatch Act and Political Activities
The Hatch Act limits certain political activities of Federal employees both on and off duty. (Members of the Senior Executive Service, are subject to further restrictions and should contact the General Counsel's office for additional guidance.) Violations of the Hatch Act may result in disciplinary action, up to and including removal.
The term "political activity" means doing something in active support of or opposition to a political party, a candidate for partisan political office (e.g., President, senator, representative, state or local legislature or office), or a partisan political group (e.g., "Historians for Smith"). Examples of political activity that would violate the Hatch Act if done while on duty or using Government property include:
circulating a candidate's nominating petition within your office;
using the PC in your office after work to produce a brochure in support of a candidate's campaign;
sending e-mail invitations to campaign events to friends within the agency;
and using National Archives' Internet connections to forward e-mail messages received from a partisan campaign or someone supporting a partisan candidate.
Permissible political activity under the Hatch Act would include voting for the candidates of your choice; expressing opinions about candidates and issues; assisting in voter registration drives.
For a more comprehensive view of what the Hatch Act allows and disallows, please review the list of Hatch Act Do's and Don'ts shown below. Questions concerning the Hatch Act may be directed to Christopher Runkel, Office of General Counsel, either by telephone at 301-837-1750 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 301-837-1750 FREE end_of_the_skype_highlighting , by fax at 301-837-0293, or by e-mail addressed to "ethics@nara.gov."
As a Federal Employee you cannot:
Engage in political activity while on duty
Engage in political activity while wearing an official Government uniform or identifying as A Federal Employee
Engage in political activity while using a Government vehicle
Engage in political activity in any Government office
Engage in political activity while using Government property, including computers, printers, copiers, fax machines, and telephones
Wear political buttons while on duty
Display items (e.g., posters, signs, stickers) at work that indicate support of or opposition to a political party or a candidate in a partisan election
Run as a candidate for public office in any partisan election, except in jurisdictions specified by OPM
Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions (except in limited circumstances involving certain Federal labor or employee organizations)
Solicit, accept, or receive political contributions from a subordinate employee
Allow your official title to be used in connection with fund raising activities
Host a fund raiser at your home
Use your official authority or influence to interfere with an election
Knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has. or is doing business with the federal government.
Federalist 48 (Madison)
"It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it."
You don't have to be a libertarian to acknowledge this fundamental truth — governments thrive on expanding their own power at the expense of personal freedom. President Obama can't stop it, and indeed he benefits from enhancing it, just like his predecessors did. For every abuse of power we catch, there are thousands of abuses that are never publicly aired. I don't say this to dance on the grave of Obama's reputation, but as a warning against putting faith in those who crave power. It will not end well for any of us. A government is much like an economy: It exists to expand. Every time someone finds a way around a law or regulation, the state must expand to plug another leak in its absolute authority. As more and more control slips through the cracks, government must get more aggressive to assert itself, or risk losing legitimacy. Where this tendency eventually leads should be obvious. Government tyranny the only way to stop it is to crush it. Throughout history tyranny is rarely stamped out peacefully those who have power are so addicted to it they cannot give it up oh there are people that say they are for reducing the size of government the Republicans say they want a balanced budget and smaller government and lower the debt but do they really fallow through when they have the power to do something?
In light of the current I.R.S. Scandal:
Abuse of IRS power has been going on for almost 80 years. It began under FDR, not long after the IRS was created. In reality, there is only one way to ensure that something like this never happens again. The IRS must be abolished, the 16th Amendment must be repealed, and most existing federal taxes must be replaced by the FairTax, which is a national retail sales tax.
Stepping back for a moment, it is striking that so many government employees could participate in an unlawful attack on conservative organizations and political donors and not realize that they were doing something wrong. Indeed, some of the accounts of the bureaucratic hoops that organizations with conservative-sounding names (but not ones with liberal-sounding names) were forced to jump through in order to get 501(c)4 status sound almost gleeful. (“Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s make them send us copies of their Facebook posts!”) The fact that some groups want to teach the Constitution was considered political and right wing and needed further investigation.
Striking? Yes. Surprising? No. Certainly, what transpired at the IRS would not have surprised James Madison.
The IRS is one of the two great instrumentalities of progressivism (The other was the 17th amendment). Progressivism holds that, when they wrote the U.S. Constitution, James Madison and the other Founders basically got it wrong. Control over the lives of ordinary Americans should not be vested in the people themselves, but needs to be directed by the government for the common good.
You don't have to be a libertarian to acknowledge this fundamental truth — governments thrive on expanding their own power at the expense of personal freedom. President Obama can't stop it, and indeed he benefits from enhancing it, just like his predecessors did. For every abuse of power we catch, there are thousands of abuses that are never publicly aired. I don't say this to dance on the grave of Obama's reputation, but as a warning against putting faith in those who crave power. It will not end well for any of us. A government is much like an economy: It exists to expand. Every time someone finds a way around a law or regulation, the state must expand to plug another leak in its absolute authority. As more and more control slips through the cracks, government must get more aggressive to assert itself, or risk losing legitimacy. Where this tendency eventually leads should be obvious. Government tyranny the only way to stop it is to crush it. Throughout history tyranny is rarely stamped out peacefully those who have power are so addicted to it they cannot give it up oh there are people that say they are for reducing the size of government the Republicans say they want a balanced budget and smaller government and lower the debt but do they really fallow through when they have the power to do something?
In light of the current I.R.S. Scandal:
Abuse of IRS power has been going on for almost 80 years. It began under FDR, not long after the IRS was created. In reality, there is only one way to ensure that something like this never happens again. The IRS must be abolished, the 16th Amendment must be repealed, and most existing federal taxes must be replaced by the FairTax, which is a national retail sales tax.
Stepping back for a moment, it is striking that so many government employees could participate in an unlawful attack on conservative organizations and political donors and not realize that they were doing something wrong. Indeed, some of the accounts of the bureaucratic hoops that organizations with conservative-sounding names (but not ones with liberal-sounding names) were forced to jump through in order to get 501(c)4 status sound almost gleeful. (“Hey, I’ve got an idea. Let’s make them send us copies of their Facebook posts!”) The fact that some groups want to teach the Constitution was considered political and right wing and needed further investigation.
Striking? Yes. Surprising? No. Certainly, what transpired at the IRS would not have surprised James Madison.
The IRS is one of the two great instrumentalities of progressivism (The other was the 17th amendment). Progressivism holds that, when they wrote the U.S. Constitution, James Madison and the other Founders basically got it wrong. Control over the lives of ordinary Americans should not be vested in the people themselves, but needs to be directed by the government for the common good.
Obama's 'idiot' defense
JONAH GOLDBERG | National Review Online 05/22/2013
Although there’s still a great deal to be learned about the scandals and controversies swirling around the White House, the nature of President Barack Obama’s bind is becoming clear. The best defenses of his administration require undermining the rationale for his presidency.
“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It’s actually closer to us being idiots.” So far, this is the administration’s best defense. It was offered to CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson by an anonymous aide involved in the White House’s response to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Well-intentioned human error rarely gets the credit it deserves. People want to connect dots, but that’s only possible when you assume that all events were deliberately orchestrated by human will. This is the delusion at the heart of all conspiracy theories.
Behind all such delusions is the assumption that government officials we don’t like are omnicompetent and malevolent. The truth is closer to the opposite. They mean well but can’t do very much very well.
This brings us to the flip side of the conspiracy theory — call it the redeemer fantasy: If only we had the right kind of government with the right kind of leaders, there’d be nothing we couldn’t do.
It’s been a while since we had a self-styled redeemer president. John F. Kennedy surely dabbled in the myth that experts could solve all of our problems, though much of JFK’s messianic status was imposed on him posthumously by the media and intellectuals.
You really have to go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson to find a president who pushed the salvific powers of politics as much as Obama.
His presidency has been grounded in the fantasy that there’s “nothing we can’t do” through government action if we just put all our faith in it — and, by extension, in him. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, he tells us, and if we just give over to a post-political spirit.
For Obama, the only things separating America from redemption are politics, specifically obstruction from Republicans and others clinging to outdated and vaguely illegitimate motives. Opposition to gun control is irrational because the “government is us.” Reject warnings “that tyranny is always lurking,” he told the graduating class at Ohio State, because a self-governing people cannot tyrannize themselves.
But when the administration is ensnared by errors of its own making, the curtain is drawn back on the cult of expertise and the fantasy of statist redemption.
Early in the IRS scandal, before the agency’s initial lies were exposed, political consultant David Axelrod defended the administration on the grounds that the “government is so vast” the president “can’t know” what’s going on “underneath” him. Of course, it was Obama who once said, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.”
That is, when things are going relatively well. When scandal hits, he goes from “the government is us” to talking of his own agencies the way a czar might dismiss an injustice in some Siberian backwater. The hubris of omnicompetence gives way to “lighten up, we’re idiots.”
Obama insists that he is outraged. And, if sincere, that’s nice. But so what? What the president doesn’t understand is that the founders were smarter than he or that the American people aren’t as dumb as he thinks we are.
A free people will have legitimate differences on questions of policy. A government as vast as ours is destined to abuse its power, particularly in a climate where a savior-president is delegitimizing dissent (and journalistic scrutiny).
Government officials will behave like idiots sometimes, not because they are dumb but because a government that takes on too much will make an idiot out of anyone who thinks there’s no limit to what it can do.
Although there’s still a great deal to be learned about the scandals and controversies swirling around the White House, the nature of President Barack Obama’s bind is becoming clear. The best defenses of his administration require undermining the rationale for his presidency.
“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It’s actually closer to us being idiots.” So far, this is the administration’s best defense. It was offered to CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson by an anonymous aide involved in the White House’s response to the attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
Well-intentioned human error rarely gets the credit it deserves. People want to connect dots, but that’s only possible when you assume that all events were deliberately orchestrated by human will. This is the delusion at the heart of all conspiracy theories.
Behind all such delusions is the assumption that government officials we don’t like are omnicompetent and malevolent. The truth is closer to the opposite. They mean well but can’t do very much very well.
This brings us to the flip side of the conspiracy theory — call it the redeemer fantasy: If only we had the right kind of government with the right kind of leaders, there’d be nothing we couldn’t do.
It’s been a while since we had a self-styled redeemer president. John F. Kennedy surely dabbled in the myth that experts could solve all of our problems, though much of JFK’s messianic status was imposed on him posthumously by the media and intellectuals.
You really have to go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson to find a president who pushed the salvific powers of politics as much as Obama.
His presidency has been grounded in the fantasy that there’s “nothing we can’t do” through government action if we just put all our faith in it — and, by extension, in him. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for, he tells us, and if we just give over to a post-political spirit.
For Obama, the only things separating America from redemption are politics, specifically obstruction from Republicans and others clinging to outdated and vaguely illegitimate motives. Opposition to gun control is irrational because the “government is us.” Reject warnings “that tyranny is always lurking,” he told the graduating class at Ohio State, because a self-governing people cannot tyrannize themselves.
But when the administration is ensnared by errors of its own making, the curtain is drawn back on the cult of expertise and the fantasy of statist redemption.
Early in the IRS scandal, before the agency’s initial lies were exposed, political consultant David Axelrod defended the administration on the grounds that the “government is so vast” the president “can’t know” what’s going on “underneath” him. Of course, it was Obama who once said, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.”
That is, when things are going relatively well. When scandal hits, he goes from “the government is us” to talking of his own agencies the way a czar might dismiss an injustice in some Siberian backwater. The hubris of omnicompetence gives way to “lighten up, we’re idiots.”
Obama insists that he is outraged. And, if sincere, that’s nice. But so what? What the president doesn’t understand is that the founders were smarter than he or that the American people aren’t as dumb as he thinks we are.
A free people will have legitimate differences on questions of policy. A government as vast as ours is destined to abuse its power, particularly in a climate where a savior-president is delegitimizing dissent (and journalistic scrutiny).
Government officials will behave like idiots sometimes, not because they are dumb but because a government that takes on too much will make an idiot out of anyone who thinks there’s no limit to what it can do.
WHY WAS THIS NOT A SURPRISE????????///
D-Day... "The only three times."
For those too young to remember; Here is a photo of the The Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in France memorializing the fallen US soldiers of the D-Day Invasion to retake Europe from the Nazis. The large white areas in the photo are created by thousands of white Crosses and Star of David grave markers:
For those too young to remember; Here is a photo of the The Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in France memorializing the fallen US soldiers of the D-Day Invasion to retake Europe from the Nazis. The large white areas in the photo are created by thousands of white Crosses and Star of David grave markers:
There is also a D-Day Monument in Bedford , VA ... a relatively short 200 mile helicopter ride from the White House:
In all the years since D-Day 1945, there are only three occasions when the sitting President of the United States of America failed to go to the D-Day Monument that honors the soldiers killed during the Invasion. Only Three Times... The three were:
1. Barack Obama 2010
2. Barack Obama 2011
3. Barack Obama 2012
For the past 68 years, every single president, except Obama, has paid tribute to the fallen American soldiers killed on D-Day. Last year, instead of honoring the soldiers, he made a 3,000 mile campaign trip on Air Force 1 to California to raise funds for the past election. Priorities? - - It speaks volumes... doesn't it?
1. Barack Obama 2010
2. Barack Obama 2011
3. Barack Obama 2012
For the past 68 years, every single president, except Obama, has paid tribute to the fallen American soldiers killed on D-Day. Last year, instead of honoring the soldiers, he made a 3,000 mile campaign trip on Air Force 1 to California to raise funds for the past election. Priorities? - - It speaks volumes... doesn't it?
The Courage to Succeed
The sea is dangerous and its storms terrible. But these obstacles have never been sufficient reason to remain ashore...Unless the mediocre, intrepid spirits seek victory over those things that seem impossible...It is with iron will that they embark on the most daring of all endeavors... To meet the shadowy future without fear and conquer the unknown. ~ Ferdinand Magellan 1520
.....It is with iron will that they embark on the most daring of all endeavors... To meet the shadowy future without fear and conquer the unknown.
When do we leave?
It all starts here . . Facts will sooner or later convince the tired, the weak, and the old that AMERICA is still the land of the Free and the home of the brave. There were many doubters in 1775 and again in 1787, over half of the Citizens wanted to stay under the King . . but like now the king overreached the treatment of the people.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
If there is one theme that comes out of the IRS scandals, EPA overreach, and Federal encroachment into States Rights is that the government is far more dangerous and corrosive to liberty then Capitalism and limited government ever thought of being. When the nation uses law to take from the people there is little one can do to escape that taking. If industry does something you don't like, you can quit and find another job, like wise if you do not like the taxes in one State you can move to another. But when oppressive power comes from the federal government there is no escape, except to flee your country.
It has been a recurring theme of the left, who’s aspirations is for the government to control the corrosive nature of Corporations, the environment, and “safety and wellbeing” of its citizens to build ever greater government control. It has been so successful at this that most all light manufacturing has left the country, the government’s authority given to the EPA is so overbearing and abusive it is becoming imposable to start up new anything unless you can pay the tens of thousands of dollars that is demanded by the government to “protect the environment”. There has not been an aircraft downed or high-jacked by a US Citizen in the last forty years yet it is the citizen that has to endure the unwarranted and intrusive searches of the government to “protect our safety”.
The states especially those states who are victims of progressives, are over taxed, and over managed by its bureaucracies They have surrendered to the federal governments deep pockets allowing the government to dedicate, their schools curriculum, their mineral rights, Sovereignty over their own lands, even the morality of the states, is challenged by the federal government. Progressives continue to grant more and more power to government. They fail to see that Human Nature dictates Human behavior. Power gained by Corporations over their employees is no different than Power and control of the government over it citizens. Profit motivation is no different than Taxation motivation of the government. When these motivations are combined with Law the power to jail and even terminate non-compliant citizens, the power becomes tyrannical, and Orwellian. Unlike Corporate-power that can be mellowed by associations or unions, the powers taken by government leaves the citizen little that he or she can do to escape the power and the reach of government. Once power it has been taken and the government has created its controlling bureaucracies the average citizen who is subject of these powers is totally captive to will of government and is left with no other options but revolt to regain sovereignty over their government.
The founders of our Constitution knew the weakness of human nature and the corrupting influence of power. They knew that government was as, corruptible as any other institution, and perhaps even more corrosive to freedom liberty than any corporation created by men. After all they had lived under, and had fled from, such governments. They knew that they had to create a Constitution that would protect its citizens FROM government and that is what they did.
.....It is with iron will that they embark on the most daring of all endeavors... To meet the shadowy future without fear and conquer the unknown.
When do we leave?
It all starts here . . Facts will sooner or later convince the tired, the weak, and the old that AMERICA is still the land of the Free and the home of the brave. There were many doubters in 1775 and again in 1787, over half of the Citizens wanted to stay under the King . . but like now the king overreached the treatment of the people.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/take-action.html
If there is one theme that comes out of the IRS scandals, EPA overreach, and Federal encroachment into States Rights is that the government is far more dangerous and corrosive to liberty then Capitalism and limited government ever thought of being. When the nation uses law to take from the people there is little one can do to escape that taking. If industry does something you don't like, you can quit and find another job, like wise if you do not like the taxes in one State you can move to another. But when oppressive power comes from the federal government there is no escape, except to flee your country.
It has been a recurring theme of the left, who’s aspirations is for the government to control the corrosive nature of Corporations, the environment, and “safety and wellbeing” of its citizens to build ever greater government control. It has been so successful at this that most all light manufacturing has left the country, the government’s authority given to the EPA is so overbearing and abusive it is becoming imposable to start up new anything unless you can pay the tens of thousands of dollars that is demanded by the government to “protect the environment”. There has not been an aircraft downed or high-jacked by a US Citizen in the last forty years yet it is the citizen that has to endure the unwarranted and intrusive searches of the government to “protect our safety”.
The states especially those states who are victims of progressives, are over taxed, and over managed by its bureaucracies They have surrendered to the federal governments deep pockets allowing the government to dedicate, their schools curriculum, their mineral rights, Sovereignty over their own lands, even the morality of the states, is challenged by the federal government. Progressives continue to grant more and more power to government. They fail to see that Human Nature dictates Human behavior. Power gained by Corporations over their employees is no different than Power and control of the government over it citizens. Profit motivation is no different than Taxation motivation of the government. When these motivations are combined with Law the power to jail and even terminate non-compliant citizens, the power becomes tyrannical, and Orwellian. Unlike Corporate-power that can be mellowed by associations or unions, the powers taken by government leaves the citizen little that he or she can do to escape the power and the reach of government. Once power it has been taken and the government has created its controlling bureaucracies the average citizen who is subject of these powers is totally captive to will of government and is left with no other options but revolt to regain sovereignty over their government.
The founders of our Constitution knew the weakness of human nature and the corrupting influence of power. They knew that government was as, corruptible as any other institution, and perhaps even more corrosive to freedom liberty than any corporation created by men. After all they had lived under, and had fled from, such governments. They knew that they had to create a Constitution that would protect its citizens FROM government and that is what they did.
“Where’s the Line, America?”
"I have always thought that where the line of demarcation between the powers of the General and the State governments was doubtfully or indistinctly drawn, it would be prudent and praiseworthy in both parties, never to approach it but under the most urgent necessity."
– Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814.
“In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 51
"It is important to strengthen the State governments; and as this cannot be done
by any change in the Federal Constitution (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for), it must be done by the States themselves, erecting such arriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the General Government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government. A weak one will lose ground in every contest."
– Thomas Jefferson letter to Archibald Stuart, 1791.
“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” – Alexander Hamilton Federalist 28
http://www.wheresthelineamerica.com/SitePages/wheres-the-line-ameri...
The Constitution is not a mere list of recommendations to be followed if convenient; it is the law. In fact, it is the supreme law. All state and federal lawmakers and officers take office at least partly by reason of it, and all are required to swear an oath to support it. Officials who fail to honor that oath thereby deny their own legitimacy. As leading Founders recognized, all serving under the Constitution are duty-bound to defend its divisions of authority. State lawmakers and officials in particular do not merely have the right to guard against federal encroachment;
they are legally and morally obligated to do so.
Where ’s the Line ?
Here’s The Line?
This careful division of powers between the states and the federal government, and the external constitutional controls over the power of each, were not established merely for the sake of state power and jurisdiction. They were established to preserve and maintain the compound republic itself in order to secure the rights of the people.
John Dickinson, a major Founder too little recognized today, wrote that “It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”
George Washington wholly endorsed this statement.
The Founders who devised this deliberate network of constitutional checks and balances clearly intended that the state legislatures be constitutionally duty-bound to: ...jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power[ better] than any other power on earth can do... [as the] sure guardians of the people’s liberty.
- James Madison, Introduction of the Bill of Rights, The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session,
448-460, 1789 (emphasis added) 1, Section 27)
How can we expect to enjoy the blessings of liberty, peace, and prosperity secured by our Constitution if we fail to fully appreciate or if we allow ourselves to stray from its fundamental principles? In a day when the federal government appears intent upon exercising unbounded power over virtually every aspect of Americans’ daily lives, state legislatures, state legislators, and their constituents need to “recur to fundamental principles ” by frequently asking the question: “Where’s the Line, America?”
– Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1814.
“In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”
– James Madison, Federalist No. 51
"It is important to strengthen the State governments; and as this cannot be done
by any change in the Federal Constitution (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for), it must be done by the States themselves, erecting such arriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the General Government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government. A weak one will lose ground in every contest."
– Thomas Jefferson letter to Archibald Stuart, 1791.
“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” – Alexander Hamilton Federalist 28
http://www.wheresthelineamerica.com/SitePages/wheres-the-line-ameri...
The Constitution is not a mere list of recommendations to be followed if convenient; it is the law. In fact, it is the supreme law. All state and federal lawmakers and officers take office at least partly by reason of it, and all are required to swear an oath to support it. Officials who fail to honor that oath thereby deny their own legitimacy. As leading Founders recognized, all serving under the Constitution are duty-bound to defend its divisions of authority. State lawmakers and officials in particular do not merely have the right to guard against federal encroachment;
they are legally and morally obligated to do so.
Where ’s the Line ?
Here’s The Line?
This careful division of powers between the states and the federal government, and the external constitutional controls over the power of each, were not established merely for the sake of state power and jurisdiction. They were established to preserve and maintain the compound republic itself in order to secure the rights of the people.
John Dickinson, a major Founder too little recognized today, wrote that “It will be their own faults, if the several States suffer the federal sovereignty to interfere in the things of their respective jurisdictions.”
George Washington wholly endorsed this statement.
The Founders who devised this deliberate network of constitutional checks and balances clearly intended that the state legislatures be constitutionally duty-bound to: ...jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power[ better] than any other power on earth can do... [as the] sure guardians of the people’s liberty.
- James Madison, Introduction of the Bill of Rights, The Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, First Congress, 1st Session,
448-460, 1789 (emphasis added) 1, Section 27)
How can we expect to enjoy the blessings of liberty, peace, and prosperity secured by our Constitution if we fail to fully appreciate or if we allow ourselves to stray from its fundamental principles? In a day when the federal government appears intent upon exercising unbounded power over virtually every aspect of Americans’ daily lives, state legislatures, state legislators, and their constituents need to “recur to fundamental principles ” by frequently asking the question: “Where’s the Line, America?”
What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power? Advice From James Madison, Father Of The US Constitution
1. What can a State – or several States – do to resist encroachments & usurpations by the federal government?
2. Federalist No. 46 (7th para) discusses how individual States or several States carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. If a particular State takes an action which the federal government doesn’t like, but which has the support of the People of that State, the federal government can’t do anything about it unless it is willing to use force.
When several States oppose an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, Madison says they have powerful means of opposition: the disquietude of the people, their repugnance (e.g., baby-killing enshrined into public policy), the Peoples’ refusal to co-operate with the officers of the federal government; the opposition of the State officials; and all those legislative devices State Legislatures can invent to thwart & impede the federal government in its unconstitutional schemes.
So, in para 7, Madison contemplates that not all States will oppose unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. But he shows that this need not impede the States who do. Such States need not implement in their States the federal government’s lawless usurpations. Have we forgotten how to just say, “NO! You have no authority under the Constitution to do this, and the Sovereign State of X and the Sovereign People of the State of X won’t permit this.” If we have taken the Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3), then we are bound by Honor to support it!
3. Note that Madison doesn’t say the States should file lawsuits in federal court. And WHY would Sovereign States, which formed a federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive) exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress or encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)? All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time! Why do States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?
Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not even the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution! Alexander Hamilton said federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, 10th para).
4. In para 8, Madison discusses a “general alarm” among the States as to encroachments by the federal government. Here, Madison contemplates concerted “plans of resistance” among the States; and Madison says it may come to a “trial of force” if a crazed federal government doesn’t back down. In para 10, Madison says that the federal government’s “schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people”.
5. In para 9, Madison discusses the federal government’s initiation of a “trial of force”. But who would fight for the federal government? Madison spoke of the regular Army as the force used by the federal government. But that has been the Army of our children and neighbors’ children! [We need not fear them unless we permit aliens to serve in our armed forces.] The federal government does have, here & there, those heroic, noble, and brave men who shoot nursing mothers in the forehead, young boys in the back, and gas & apparently incinerate men, women & children. How many are they? Then there is Obama’s personal “civilian national security force”. Has it been established? Even so, would they be honorable men, or another collection of thugs? In any event, Madison said, “…it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”
6. When we quote James Madison and The Federalist Papers on what States may do when the federal government has encroached upon the powers reserved by the States and the People; we quote a high Authority on The Constitution. James Madison is the Father of the Constitution, and the author of many of the Federalist Papers. States act lawfully when they follow such guidance of James Madison. When the federal government descends into lawlessness & tyranny, The States and The People may protect and preserve their Constitution – as they are already sworn to do.
7. Yes, the ultimate authority resides in The People. But this does not mean that The People should – or need to – initiate a show of force. Remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King! He put on his clerical collar and went out into the streets with others to protest State LAWS which enforced segregation. They used non-violent civil disobedience: Black people sat down at “white’s only” lunch counters! Black people sat in the front of the buses. They did not initiate force. The moral superiority of their position could not be denied, and they won.
8. We have Our sacred Constitution. The most important concepts for you to learn are these: (1) ENUMERATED POWERS (2) Why neither the “GENERAL WELFARE“, the INTERSTATE COMMERCE nor the “NECESSARY & PROPER” [see linked paper at para 13] clauses authorize Congress (or the President or the FEDERAL COURTS ) to exceed their enumerated powers (3) The true meaning of the “RULE OF LAW” and how that differs from the “Rule of Men”; (4) What is “FEDERALISM“, and (5) The origin of our Rights and why you must NEVER speak of “constitutional” rights. My papers on RIGHTS explain the moral superiority of our position. You must learn why our position is morally superior to that of the statists. And you must be prepared to explain it at all times.
May God be merciful and grant us national repentance and a peaceful political resolution.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/what-should-states-do-when-the-fe...
http://minnesota.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/12/what-should-state...
2. Federalist No. 46 (7th para) discusses how individual States or several States carry out resistance to the federal government’s unconstitutional encroachments. If a particular State takes an action which the federal government doesn’t like, but which has the support of the People of that State, the federal government can’t do anything about it unless it is willing to use force.
When several States oppose an unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, Madison says they have powerful means of opposition: the disquietude of the people, their repugnance (e.g., baby-killing enshrined into public policy), the Peoples’ refusal to co-operate with the officers of the federal government; the opposition of the State officials; and all those legislative devices State Legislatures can invent to thwart & impede the federal government in its unconstitutional schemes.
So, in para 7, Madison contemplates that not all States will oppose unconstitutional encroachments by the federal government. But he shows that this need not impede the States who do. Such States need not implement in their States the federal government’s lawless usurpations. Have we forgotten how to just say, “NO! You have no authority under the Constitution to do this, and the Sovereign State of X and the Sovereign People of the State of X won’t permit this.” If we have taken the Oath to support the Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3), then we are bound by Honor to support it!
3. Note that Madison doesn’t say the States should file lawsuits in federal court. And WHY would Sovereign States, which formed a federation for the limited purposes enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8, U.S. Constitution; ask one branch of the federal government (judiciary) to opine on whether a “law” approved by the two other branches (legislative & executive) exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress or encroaches on the reserved powers of the States and the People (10th Amendment)? All three branches of the federal government have been unified against The Constitution, the States, and the People for a very long time! Why do States put themselves in the position of supplicants to a Court which has already shown itself to be contemptuous of the Constitution, and of the States’ and The Peoples’ reserved powers?
Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not even the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution! Alexander Hamilton said federal judges may be impeached & removed for usurpations (Federalist No. 81, 8th para); the People are “the natural guardians of the Constitution” as against federal judges “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”; and the People are to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”(Federalist No.16, 10th para).
4. In para 8, Madison discusses a “general alarm” among the States as to encroachments by the federal government. Here, Madison contemplates concerted “plans of resistance” among the States; and Madison says it may come to a “trial of force” if a crazed federal government doesn’t back down. In para 10, Madison says that the federal government’s “schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people”.
5. In para 9, Madison discusses the federal government’s initiation of a “trial of force”. But who would fight for the federal government? Madison spoke of the regular Army as the force used by the federal government. But that has been the Army of our children and neighbors’ children! [We need not fear them unless we permit aliens to serve in our armed forces.] The federal government does have, here & there, those heroic, noble, and brave men who shoot nursing mothers in the forehead, young boys in the back, and gas & apparently incinerate men, women & children. How many are they? Then there is Obama’s personal “civilian national security force”. Has it been established? Even so, would they be honorable men, or another collection of thugs? In any event, Madison said, “…it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”
6. When we quote James Madison and The Federalist Papers on what States may do when the federal government has encroached upon the powers reserved by the States and the People; we quote a high Authority on The Constitution. James Madison is the Father of the Constitution, and the author of many of the Federalist Papers. States act lawfully when they follow such guidance of James Madison. When the federal government descends into lawlessness & tyranny, The States and The People may protect and preserve their Constitution – as they are already sworn to do.
7. Yes, the ultimate authority resides in The People. But this does not mean that The People should – or need to – initiate a show of force. Remember the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King! He put on his clerical collar and went out into the streets with others to protest State LAWS which enforced segregation. They used non-violent civil disobedience: Black people sat down at “white’s only” lunch counters! Black people sat in the front of the buses. They did not initiate force. The moral superiority of their position could not be denied, and they won.
8. We have Our sacred Constitution. The most important concepts for you to learn are these: (1) ENUMERATED POWERS (2) Why neither the “GENERAL WELFARE“, the INTERSTATE COMMERCE nor the “NECESSARY & PROPER” [see linked paper at para 13] clauses authorize Congress (or the President or the FEDERAL COURTS ) to exceed their enumerated powers (3) The true meaning of the “RULE OF LAW” and how that differs from the “Rule of Men”; (4) What is “FEDERALISM“, and (5) The origin of our Rights and why you must NEVER speak of “constitutional” rights. My papers on RIGHTS explain the moral superiority of our position. You must learn why our position is morally superior to that of the statists. And you must be prepared to explain it at all times.
May God be merciful and grant us national repentance and a peaceful political resolution.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/05/what-should-states-do-when-the-fe...
http://minnesota.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/12/what-should-state...
State Sovereignty - A Brief History
STATE SOVEREIGNTY. The doctrine of divided state sovereignty was fashioned by the American revolutionaries. From the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Republicans (primarily in New England and the upper South) and Nationalists (in middle states and the lower South) struggled to define state sovereignty against the backdrop of a weak national government.
The sovereignty question was unresolved when the federal government commenced in 1789. The belief that sovereignty was divided between the several states and the federal government received validation by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that states could be sued by private citizens. This decision led quickly to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, guaranteeing sovereign immunity for states against actions of citizens of another state or a foreign state. Divided sovereignty became the accepted political theory until the 1830s and 1840s.
The South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun became the most prominent advocate for state sovereignty. A former Nationalist, Calhoun returned in the 1830s to the idea that sovereignty was indivisible—the Constitution had been created by the people of the several states, acting as sovereign entities, and not by the Union of the people in those states. During the nullification crisis of 1828–1832, Calhoun led South Carolina to the brink of secession by advocating an ideology of state supremacy to nullify a federal tariff.
During the 1840s and 1850s, Calhoun's doctrine became increasingly tied to the defense of slavery. Abolitionists, however, also used state sovereignty as a weapon. The Southern-supported Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 subverted states' rights by ordering free states to return slaves, and antislavery advocates (usually staunch Nationalists) used state sovereignty to fight the law in Able-man v. Booth (1859). Calhoun's theories ultimately found expression in secession, and in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861).
Although the Union victory in the Civil War (1861– 1865) seemed to secure the triumph of nationalism, the Reconstruction-era ratification of the Fourteenth (1868) and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) transformed the sovereignty debate. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving anyone of the rights of citizenship, denying equal protection of the law, or violating fundamental rights without due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment mandates that federal and state governments shall not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. Although the amendments clearly enhanced federal power to protect individual rights, in the decades that followed, the Supreme Court interpreted them narrowly in order to preserve distinctions between federal and state sovereignty. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Court held that Americans had certain rights as U.S. citizens and others as state citizens—the Fourteenth Amendment only guaranteed the former. Both in U.S. v. Cruikshank and U.S. v. Reese (1876) and in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court held that Congress could enforce the amendments only against state actions; federal law could not punish private citizens who violated civil rights of African Americans.
From the end of Reconstruction until the Great Depression, courts interpreted governance of property, family, morality, public health and safety, crime, education, and religion as police powers reserved to states. One result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a federalism revolution in the 1930s, described by historian Forrest McDonald as an "expansion of federal activity on a scale unprecedented in peacetime." Starting with Nebbia v. New York (1934), the U.S. Supreme Court transformed federal-state relations by upholding many of the programs of the New Deal.
In 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education delivered what many believed was the fatal blow to state sovereignty. Holding that Southern state laws mandating "separate but equal" schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, the Court ordered local school districts to comply "with all deliberate speed" with federal district judges monitoring their desegregation plans. Southern state and local officials resisted compliance, and states' rights theorists denounced the Court in terms reminiscent of those used in the 1850s. The South once again conflated states' rights with racial issues and gave the Supreme Court great moral authority with the rest of the nation as the protector of individual rights from discriminatory state actions. This trend continued throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, as the Court validated federal civil rights laws and President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansive Great Society programs.
Although conservatives and states' rights advocates had denounced the Court since Brown as "judicial activists" and "government by judiciary," the 1980s and 1990s witnessed the resurgence of state sovereignty theories. As Congress enacted laws giving block grants to states for poverty relief and education, the Court shifted toward interpretations of federalism last seen in the 1870s. Legal analysts were stunned by the Court's decision in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), invalidating a federal law prohibiting firearms within one thousand feet of a school, public or private. This decision heralded a new era of judicial activism, this time with an emphasis toward states.
In 2002, the Court reinterpreted state sovereignty immunity with an activist reading of the Eleventh Amendment. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002), a 5-4 majority held that state sovereign immunity prohibits federal agencies from adjudicating an individual's complaint against a state. In the early twenty-first century, state sovereignty is very much alive as a legal and political doctrine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, Michael Les. "Preserving Federalism: Reconstruction and the Waite Court." Supreme Court Review (1978): 39– 79.
Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Knopf, 1996.
Patricia HaglerMinter
See alsoBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka ; Fugitive Slave Acts ; United States v. Cruikshank ; United States v. Reese ; andvol. 9:Congress Debates the Fourteenth Amendment .
STATE SOVEREIGNTY
STATE SOVEREIGNTY. The doctrine of divided state sovereignty was fashioned by the American revolutionaries. From the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Republicans (primarily in New England and the upper South) and Nationalists (in middle states and the lower South) struggled to define state sovereignty against the backdrop of a weak national government.
The sovereignty question was unresolved when the federal government commenced in 1789. The belief that sovereignty was divided between the several states and the federal government received validation by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that states could be sued by private citizens. This decision led quickly to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, guaranteeing sovereign immunity for states against actions of citizens of another state or a foreign state. Divided sovereignty became the accepted political theory until the 1830s and 1840s.
The South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun became the most prominent advocate for state sovereignty. A former Nationalist, Calhoun returned in the 1830s to the idea that sovereignty was indivisible—the Constitution had been created by the people of the several states, acting as sovereign entities, and not by the Union of the people in those states. During the nullification crisis of 1828–1832, Calhoun led South Carolina to the brink of secession by advocating an ideology of state supremacy to nullify a federal tariff.
During the 1840s and 1850s, Calhoun's doctrine became increasingly tied to the defense of slavery. Abolitionists, however, also used state sovereignty as a weapon. The Southern-supported Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 subverted states' rights by ordering free states to return slaves, and antislavery advocates (usually staunch Nationalists) used state sovereignty to fight the law in Able-man v. Booth (1859). Calhoun's theories ultimately found expression in secession, and in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861).
Although the Union victory in the Civil War (1861– 1865) seemed to secure the triumph of nationalism, the Reconstruction-era ratification of the Fourteenth (1868) and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) transformed the sovereignty debate. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving anyone of the rights of citizenship, denying equal protection of the law, or violating fundamental rights without due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment mandates that federal and state governments shall not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. Although the amendments clearly enhanced federal power to protect individual rights, in the decades that followed, the Supreme Court interpreted them narrowly in order to preserve distinctions between federal and state sovereignty. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Court held that Americans had certain rights as U.S. citizens and others as state citizens—the Fourteenth Amendment only guaranteed the former. Both in U.S. v. Cruikshank and U.S. v. Reese (1876) and in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court held that Congress could enforce the amendments only against state actions; federal law could not punish private citizens who violated civil rights of African Americans.
From the end of Reconstruction until the Great Depression, courts interpreted governance of property, family, morality, public health and safety, crime, education, and religion as police powers reserved to states. One result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a federalism revolution in the 1930s, described by historian Forrest McDonald as an "expansion of federal activity on a scale unprecedented in peacetime." Starting with Nebbia v. New York (1934), the U.S. Supreme Court transformed federal-state relations by upholding many of the programs of the New Deal.
In 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education delivered what many believed was the fatal blow to state sovereignty. Holding that Southern state laws mandating "separate but equal" schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, the Court ordered local school districts to comply "with all deliberate speed" with federal district judges monitoring their desegregation plans. Southern state and local officials resisted compliance, and states' rights theorists denounced the Court in terms reminiscent of those used in the 1850s. The South once again conflated states' rights with racial issues and gave the Supreme Court great moral authority with the rest of the nation as the protector of individual rights from discriminatory state actions. This trend continued throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, as the Court validated federal civil rights laws and President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansive Great Society programs.
Although conservatives and states' rights advocates had denounced the Court since Brown as "judicial activists" and "government by judiciary," the 1980s and 1990s witnessed the resurgence of state sovereignty theories. As Congress enacted laws giving block grants to states for poverty relief and education, the Court shifted toward interpretations of federalism last seen in the 1870s. Legal analysts were stunned by the Court's decision in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), invalidating a federal law prohibiting firearms within one thousand feet of a school, public or private. This decision heralded a new era of judicial activism, this time with an emphasis toward states.
In 2002, the Court reinterpreted state sovereignty immunity with an activist reading of the Eleventh Amendment. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002), a 5-4 majority held that state sovereign immunity prohibits federal agencies from adjudicating an individual's complaint against a state. In the early twenty-first century, state sovereignty is very much alive as a legal and political doctrine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, Michael Les. "Preserving Federalism: Reconstruction and the Waite Court." Supreme Court Review (1978): 39– 79.
Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Knopf, 1996.
Patricia HaglerMinter
See alsoBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka ; Fugitive Slave Acts ; United States v. Cruikshank ; United States v. Reese ; andvol. 9:Congress Debates the Fourteenth Amendment .
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804027.html
On site -historical study of American Governmental history,
and how/why the 14th-16th-and 17th Amendments have established federal supremacy over the states, good background for research and study.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/14th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/16th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/17th-amendment.html
On site -historical study of how/why the 14th-16th-and 17th Amendments have established federal supremacy over the states, good background for research and study.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/14th-support.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/16th-support.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/17th-support.html
The sovereignty question was unresolved when the federal government commenced in 1789. The belief that sovereignty was divided between the several states and the federal government received validation by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that states could be sued by private citizens. This decision led quickly to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, guaranteeing sovereign immunity for states against actions of citizens of another state or a foreign state. Divided sovereignty became the accepted political theory until the 1830s and 1840s.
The South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun became the most prominent advocate for state sovereignty. A former Nationalist, Calhoun returned in the 1830s to the idea that sovereignty was indivisible—the Constitution had been created by the people of the several states, acting as sovereign entities, and not by the Union of the people in those states. During the nullification crisis of 1828–1832, Calhoun led South Carolina to the brink of secession by advocating an ideology of state supremacy to nullify a federal tariff.
During the 1840s and 1850s, Calhoun's doctrine became increasingly tied to the defense of slavery. Abolitionists, however, also used state sovereignty as a weapon. The Southern-supported Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 subverted states' rights by ordering free states to return slaves, and antislavery advocates (usually staunch Nationalists) used state sovereignty to fight the law in Able-man v. Booth (1859). Calhoun's theories ultimately found expression in secession, and in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861).
Although the Union victory in the Civil War (1861– 1865) seemed to secure the triumph of nationalism, the Reconstruction-era ratification of the Fourteenth (1868) and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) transformed the sovereignty debate. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving anyone of the rights of citizenship, denying equal protection of the law, or violating fundamental rights without due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment mandates that federal and state governments shall not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. Although the amendments clearly enhanced federal power to protect individual rights, in the decades that followed, the Supreme Court interpreted them narrowly in order to preserve distinctions between federal and state sovereignty. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Court held that Americans had certain rights as U.S. citizens and others as state citizens—the Fourteenth Amendment only guaranteed the former. Both in U.S. v. Cruikshank and U.S. v. Reese (1876) and in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court held that Congress could enforce the amendments only against state actions; federal law could not punish private citizens who violated civil rights of African Americans.
From the end of Reconstruction until the Great Depression, courts interpreted governance of property, family, morality, public health and safety, crime, education, and religion as police powers reserved to states. One result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a federalism revolution in the 1930s, described by historian Forrest McDonald as an "expansion of federal activity on a scale unprecedented in peacetime." Starting with Nebbia v. New York (1934), the U.S. Supreme Court transformed federal-state relations by upholding many of the programs of the New Deal.
In 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education delivered what many believed was the fatal blow to state sovereignty. Holding that Southern state laws mandating "separate but equal" schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, the Court ordered local school districts to comply "with all deliberate speed" with federal district judges monitoring their desegregation plans. Southern state and local officials resisted compliance, and states' rights theorists denounced the Court in terms reminiscent of those used in the 1850s. The South once again conflated states' rights with racial issues and gave the Supreme Court great moral authority with the rest of the nation as the protector of individual rights from discriminatory state actions. This trend continued throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, as the Court validated federal civil rights laws and President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansive Great Society programs.
Although conservatives and states' rights advocates had denounced the Court since Brown as "judicial activists" and "government by judiciary," the 1980s and 1990s witnessed the resurgence of state sovereignty theories. As Congress enacted laws giving block grants to states for poverty relief and education, the Court shifted toward interpretations of federalism last seen in the 1870s. Legal analysts were stunned by the Court's decision in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), invalidating a federal law prohibiting firearms within one thousand feet of a school, public or private. This decision heralded a new era of judicial activism, this time with an emphasis toward states.
In 2002, the Court reinterpreted state sovereignty immunity with an activist reading of the Eleventh Amendment. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002), a 5-4 majority held that state sovereign immunity prohibits federal agencies from adjudicating an individual's complaint against a state. In the early twenty-first century, state sovereignty is very much alive as a legal and political doctrine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, Michael Les. "Preserving Federalism: Reconstruction and the Waite Court." Supreme Court Review (1978): 39– 79.
Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Knopf, 1996.
Patricia HaglerMinter
See alsoBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka ; Fugitive Slave Acts ; United States v. Cruikshank ; United States v. Reese ; andvol. 9:Congress Debates the Fourteenth Amendment .
STATE SOVEREIGNTY
STATE SOVEREIGNTY. The doctrine of divided state sovereignty was fashioned by the American revolutionaries. From the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Republicans (primarily in New England and the upper South) and Nationalists (in middle states and the lower South) struggled to define state sovereignty against the backdrop of a weak national government.
The sovereignty question was unresolved when the federal government commenced in 1789. The belief that sovereignty was divided between the several states and the federal government received validation by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that states could be sued by private citizens. This decision led quickly to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, guaranteeing sovereign immunity for states against actions of citizens of another state or a foreign state. Divided sovereignty became the accepted political theory until the 1830s and 1840s.
The South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun became the most prominent advocate for state sovereignty. A former Nationalist, Calhoun returned in the 1830s to the idea that sovereignty was indivisible—the Constitution had been created by the people of the several states, acting as sovereign entities, and not by the Union of the people in those states. During the nullification crisis of 1828–1832, Calhoun led South Carolina to the brink of secession by advocating an ideology of state supremacy to nullify a federal tariff.
During the 1840s and 1850s, Calhoun's doctrine became increasingly tied to the defense of slavery. Abolitionists, however, also used state sovereignty as a weapon. The Southern-supported Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 subverted states' rights by ordering free states to return slaves, and antislavery advocates (usually staunch Nationalists) used state sovereignty to fight the law in Able-man v. Booth (1859). Calhoun's theories ultimately found expression in secession, and in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America (1861).
Although the Union victory in the Civil War (1861– 1865) seemed to secure the triumph of nationalism, the Reconstruction-era ratification of the Fourteenth (1868) and Fifteenth Amendments (1870) transformed the sovereignty debate. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving anyone of the rights of citizenship, denying equal protection of the law, or violating fundamental rights without due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment mandates that federal and state governments shall not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race. Although the amendments clearly enhanced federal power to protect individual rights, in the decades that followed, the Supreme Court interpreted them narrowly in order to preserve distinctions between federal and state sovereignty. In the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), the Court held that Americans had certain rights as U.S. citizens and others as state citizens—the Fourteenth Amendment only guaranteed the former. Both in U.S. v. Cruikshank and U.S. v. Reese (1876) and in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court held that Congress could enforce the amendments only against state actions; federal law could not punish private citizens who violated civil rights of African Americans.
From the end of Reconstruction until the Great Depression, courts interpreted governance of property, family, morality, public health and safety, crime, education, and religion as police powers reserved to states. One result of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal was a federalism revolution in the 1930s, described by historian Forrest McDonald as an "expansion of federal activity on a scale unprecedented in peacetime." Starting with Nebbia v. New York (1934), the U.S. Supreme Court transformed federal-state relations by upholding many of the programs of the New Deal.
In 1954, the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education delivered what many believed was the fatal blow to state sovereignty. Holding that Southern state laws mandating "separate but equal" schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, the Court ordered local school districts to comply "with all deliberate speed" with federal district judges monitoring their desegregation plans. Southern state and local officials resisted compliance, and states' rights theorists denounced the Court in terms reminiscent of those used in the 1850s. The South once again conflated states' rights with racial issues and gave the Supreme Court great moral authority with the rest of the nation as the protector of individual rights from discriminatory state actions. This trend continued throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, as the Court validated federal civil rights laws and President Lyndon B. Johnson's expansive Great Society programs.
Although conservatives and states' rights advocates had denounced the Court since Brown as "judicial activists" and "government by judiciary," the 1980s and 1990s witnessed the resurgence of state sovereignty theories. As Congress enacted laws giving block grants to states for poverty relief and education, the Court shifted toward interpretations of federalism last seen in the 1870s. Legal analysts were stunned by the Court's decision in U.S. v. Lopez (1995), invalidating a federal law prohibiting firearms within one thousand feet of a school, public or private. This decision heralded a new era of judicial activism, this time with an emphasis toward states.
In 2002, the Court reinterpreted state sovereignty immunity with an activist reading of the Eleventh Amendment. In Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority (2002), a 5-4 majority held that state sovereign immunity prohibits federal agencies from adjudicating an individual's complaint against a state. In the early twenty-first century, state sovereignty is very much alive as a legal and political doctrine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict, Michael Les. "Preserving Federalism: Reconstruction and the Waite Court." Supreme Court Review (1978): 39– 79.
Cushman, Barry. Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
McDonald, Forrest. States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000.
Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. New York: Knopf, 1996.
Patricia HaglerMinter
See alsoBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka ; Fugitive Slave Acts ; United States v. Cruikshank ; United States v. Reese ; andvol. 9:Congress Debates the Fourteenth Amendment .
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804027.html
On site -historical study of American Governmental history,
and how/why the 14th-16th-and 17th Amendments have established federal supremacy over the states, good background for research and study.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/14th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/16th-amendment.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/17th-amendment.html
On site -historical study of how/why the 14th-16th-and 17th Amendments have established federal supremacy over the states, good background for research and study.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/14th-support.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/16th-support.html
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/17th-support.html
The Democrats' Plan
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-kkk-began-within-the-demo...
No matter your ideological views, few Americans today would claim that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined” and that the states’ powers are “numerous and indefinite.” Federal laws, rules, and regulations constrain states from freely acting on virtually every subject matter. Free markets completive state regulations and taxes is what keeps our country strong. The progressive view of one size fits all is contrary free enterprise and capitalism. The centralization of government will end all competition between states. Citizens of one state be forced to subsidize the poor domestic policy decisions of other states. States are being seduced by the Federal governments deep pockets giving up their sovereignty over their schools, health care, laws, morality, and all manner of intrusions into affaires of their states at the expense of their citizens..
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-kkk-began-within-the-demo...
No matter your ideological views, few Americans today would claim that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined” and that the states’ powers are “numerous and indefinite.” Federal laws, rules, and regulations constrain states from freely acting on virtually every subject matter. Free markets completive state regulations and taxes is what keeps our country strong. The progressive view of one size fits all is contrary free enterprise and capitalism. The centralization of government will end all competition between states. Citizens of one state be forced to subsidize the poor domestic policy decisions of other states. States are being seduced by the Federal governments deep pockets giving up their sovereignty over their schools, health care, laws, morality, and all manner of intrusions into affaires of their states at the expense of their citizens..
American Entitlement vs. American Exceptionalism
J.J. Colagrande
Professor at Miami-dade Wolfson;
We're supposed to be a country of American Exceptionalism. A country molded from a tough we-can-do-it attitude. A spirit that lifted us from the Great Depression -- through hard work, teamwork and sacrifice. We defeated Nazis -- women wiggled away from patriarchal assigned gender roles and built tanks and bomber planes. And post-war, during the Fifties, through manufacturing and a hardening of the industrial military complex, we were truly exceptional.
But somewhere along the line, American Exceptionalism morphed into American Entitlement.
When mentioning entitlement, this does not mean welfare, social security, Medicaid, food stamps -- safety net programs -- entitlement refers to an attitude, a false swagger, if you will. It's funny how Americans feel entitled to things, like good paying jobs, or shallow egocentricities like fame or celebrity. Everybody wants to be rich without working for it.
Everybody wants the best, no matter what the cost, but they want it given to them. One can blame reality television. You can point to stars like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian who've become famous basically through sex tapes. You can point to our modern day social networking lives with a vain ethos of: follow me, re-tweet me, tag-me, upload-me, me, me, me.
You can also point to the size of our military -- we spend more on defense than every other country in the world combined. That gives us a superiority complex. You can also point to culture: our sports, fashion, music, and film industries are exported around the world, making us look and feel cool. Our sense of American entitlement comes from all of these, plus a work ethic that deteriorated sometime during the eighties. There was a whole generation -- children and grandchildren of Baby Boomers -- who were basically spoiled and given everything they wanted.
The consumerism of the eighties created the apathy and entitlement of the nineties, which only deteriorated into the Millennials. We are at a time in history when we need to be truly exceptional; we need the same we-can-do-it spirit that lifted us from the Great Depression--we need to work harder than ever and we need to realize that we are not entitled to anything.
Yet we're nowhere near there. We're lazier than ever. And it's only getting worse.
Professor at Miami-dade Wolfson;
We're supposed to be a country of American Exceptionalism. A country molded from a tough we-can-do-it attitude. A spirit that lifted us from the Great Depression -- through hard work, teamwork and sacrifice. We defeated Nazis -- women wiggled away from patriarchal assigned gender roles and built tanks and bomber planes. And post-war, during the Fifties, through manufacturing and a hardening of the industrial military complex, we were truly exceptional.
But somewhere along the line, American Exceptionalism morphed into American Entitlement.
When mentioning entitlement, this does not mean welfare, social security, Medicaid, food stamps -- safety net programs -- entitlement refers to an attitude, a false swagger, if you will. It's funny how Americans feel entitled to things, like good paying jobs, or shallow egocentricities like fame or celebrity. Everybody wants to be rich without working for it.
Everybody wants the best, no matter what the cost, but they want it given to them. One can blame reality television. You can point to stars like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian who've become famous basically through sex tapes. You can point to our modern day social networking lives with a vain ethos of: follow me, re-tweet me, tag-me, upload-me, me, me, me.
You can also point to the size of our military -- we spend more on defense than every other country in the world combined. That gives us a superiority complex. You can also point to culture: our sports, fashion, music, and film industries are exported around the world, making us look and feel cool. Our sense of American entitlement comes from all of these, plus a work ethic that deteriorated sometime during the eighties. There was a whole generation -- children and grandchildren of Baby Boomers -- who were basically spoiled and given everything they wanted.
The consumerism of the eighties created the apathy and entitlement of the nineties, which only deteriorated into the Millennials. We are at a time in history when we need to be truly exceptional; we need the same we-can-do-it spirit that lifted us from the Great Depression--we need to work harder than ever and we need to realize that we are not entitled to anything.
Yet we're nowhere near there. We're lazier than ever. And it's only getting worse.
RIGHTS WHAT ARE THEY???
I think that it is an important part of educating ourselves to the Progressive mind set so I would like to introduce you to Dr. Singer.
Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher and now teaches at Princeton and the University of Melbourne, espouses utilitarianism, an ethics that seeks to minimize suffering and maximize wellbeing.”
Sounds benign, even beneficent until you see how this plays out in the philosophy of the man The New Yorker calls “the most influential living philosopher.”
“He has a knack for pushing people out of their moral comfort zone,” Horgan writes. “Although his positions—especially on mercy killing of severely disabled infants and adults–have sparked public protests both in the U.S. and abroad, Singer is disarmingly cool on the page and in person, even when talking about the hottest topics. He is clearly motivated by compassion, and the desire to make the world a better place, but he appeals to reason rather than emotion, a rare trait these days. Reading and listening to him, I envy him, because when I argue my emotions—and my conviction that I’m right–often get the better of me.”
Let’s bypass a discussion of the obvious—sugarcoating what Singer espouses with what is intended to be flame-retarding language like “mercy killing.” He’s tip-toed around some of his most infamous statements, but still adheres to the position that a child does not attain “full moral status” until somewhere between one and two, which makes infanticide in some cases (actually many cases) acceptable.
As we have discussed before Singer believes a baby with disabilities can be killed if the death “will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
He’s even spoken in favor of using the disabled in medical experimentation, those who are in “vegetative states.” And so and on and on.
Note the really scary subtext of Horgan’s remarks: Singer can espouse the most dreadful policy prescriptions but he does coolly, using reason, and, in any event, is motivated by “compassion,” the all-purpose excuse.
One other note from the lecture Singer gave that Horgan paraphrased and from which he quoted. Horgan was wowed by something Singer said in the abortion context. Problem is Horgan had misunderstood Singer—he didn’t say the “fetus even at six weeks is a living human being.”
Singer corrected him after the blog post ran: the unborn is a member of the species Homo sapiens but not a “person” because “the idea of a person involves the capacity to see oneself as existing over time.” This “[in]ability to see oneself as existing over time” is why so many categories of vulnerable people are endangered by Singer’s philosophy. That and not having “desires and plans” (see below).
Horgan writes that having shown slides of “fetuses” (Singer said we should not “run away from what abortion is”), “Singer nonetheless believes that abortion is ethical, because even a viable fetus is not a rational, self-aware person with desires and plans, which would be cut short by death; hence it should not have the same right as humans who have such qualities. Abortion is also justified, Singer added, both as a female right and as a method for curbing overpopulation.
If Mr. Horgan thinks that highly of Singer than I am sure he would think Wilhelm Shallmayer, Ernst Rudin and Harry Laughlin were geniuses, after all, these three men were motivated by 'compassion, and the desire to make the world a better place' as well.
http://psychandholocaust.umwblogs.org/eugenics/sterilization/
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Sterlization.htm
THE TIME OF CONFLICT AND ISSUES THAT BRING US TO THE CONFLUENCE OF PRINCIPLES-LAW-AND OPINION OF RIGHTS AND WORTH.
Rights what are they
Moral rights are justified by moral standards that most people acknowledge, but which are not codified in law, and therefore have been interpreted differently by different people.
One of the most important and influential interpretations of moral rights is based on the work of Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century philosopher. Kant maintained that each of us has a worth or a dignity that must be respected. This dignity makes it wrong for others to abuse us or to use us against our will. Kant expressed this idea in a moral principle: humanity must always be treated as an end, not merely as a means. To treat a person as a mere means is to use a person to advance one's own interest. But to treat a person as an end is to respect that person's dignity by allowing each the freedom to choose for himself or herself.
Kant's principle is often used to justify a fundamental moral right, the right to freely choose for oneself, and rights related to this fundamental right, sometimes called negative or liberty rights. Negative rights, such as the right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right to do what one wants with one's property, are rights that protect some form of human freedom or liberty. These rights are called negative rights because each one imposes a negative duty on us -- the duty to not interfere with a person's activities in a certain area. The right to privacy, for example, imposes on us the duty not to intrude into the private activities of a person.
Kant's principle is also often used to justify positive or welfare rights. Many people argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom. A right to freedom, then, implies that every human being also has a fundamental right to what is necessary to secure a minimum level of well being. Positive rights, therefore, are rights that provide something that people need to secure their well being, such as a right to an education, the right to food, the right to medical care, the right to housing, or the right to a job. Positive rights impose a positive duty on us -- the duty to actively help a person to have or to do something. A young person's right to an education, for example, imposes on us a duty to provide that young person with an education. Respecting a positive right, then, requires more than merely not acting; positive rights impose on us the duty to help sustain the welfare of those who are in need of help.
Whenever we are confronted with a moral dilemma, we need to consider whether the action would respect the basic rights of each of the individuals involved. How would the action affect the basic well-being of those individuals? How would the action affect the freedom of those individuals? Would it involve manipulation or deception? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals.
Sometimes the rights of individuals will come into conflict and one has to decide which right has priority. We may all agree, for example, that everyone has a right to freedom of association as well as a right not to be discriminated against. But suppose a private club has a policy that excludes women from joining. How do we balance the right to freedom of association against the right not to be discriminated against? In cases such as this, we need to examine the freedoms or interests at stake and decide which of the two is the more crucial for securing human dignity. For example, is free association or equality more essential to maintaining our dignity as persons?
Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher and now teaches at Princeton and the University of Melbourne, espouses utilitarianism, an ethics that seeks to minimize suffering and maximize wellbeing.”
Sounds benign, even beneficent until you see how this plays out in the philosophy of the man The New Yorker calls “the most influential living philosopher.”
“He has a knack for pushing people out of their moral comfort zone,” Horgan writes. “Although his positions—especially on mercy killing of severely disabled infants and adults–have sparked public protests both in the U.S. and abroad, Singer is disarmingly cool on the page and in person, even when talking about the hottest topics. He is clearly motivated by compassion, and the desire to make the world a better place, but he appeals to reason rather than emotion, a rare trait these days. Reading and listening to him, I envy him, because when I argue my emotions—and my conviction that I’m right–often get the better of me.”
Let’s bypass a discussion of the obvious—sugarcoating what Singer espouses with what is intended to be flame-retarding language like “mercy killing.” He’s tip-toed around some of his most infamous statements, but still adheres to the position that a child does not attain “full moral status” until somewhere between one and two, which makes infanticide in some cases (actually many cases) acceptable.
As we have discussed before Singer believes a baby with disabilities can be killed if the death “will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
He’s even spoken in favor of using the disabled in medical experimentation, those who are in “vegetative states.” And so and on and on.
Note the really scary subtext of Horgan’s remarks: Singer can espouse the most dreadful policy prescriptions but he does coolly, using reason, and, in any event, is motivated by “compassion,” the all-purpose excuse.
One other note from the lecture Singer gave that Horgan paraphrased and from which he quoted. Horgan was wowed by something Singer said in the abortion context. Problem is Horgan had misunderstood Singer—he didn’t say the “fetus even at six weeks is a living human being.”
Singer corrected him after the blog post ran: the unborn is a member of the species Homo sapiens but not a “person” because “the idea of a person involves the capacity to see oneself as existing over time.” This “[in]ability to see oneself as existing over time” is why so many categories of vulnerable people are endangered by Singer’s philosophy. That and not having “desires and plans” (see below).
Horgan writes that having shown slides of “fetuses” (Singer said we should not “run away from what abortion is”), “Singer nonetheless believes that abortion is ethical, because even a viable fetus is not a rational, self-aware person with desires and plans, which would be cut short by death; hence it should not have the same right as humans who have such qualities. Abortion is also justified, Singer added, both as a female right and as a method for curbing overpopulation.
If Mr. Horgan thinks that highly of Singer than I am sure he would think Wilhelm Shallmayer, Ernst Rudin and Harry Laughlin were geniuses, after all, these three men were motivated by 'compassion, and the desire to make the world a better place' as well.
http://psychandholocaust.umwblogs.org/eugenics/sterilization/
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Sterlization.htm
THE TIME OF CONFLICT AND ISSUES THAT BRING US TO THE CONFLUENCE OF PRINCIPLES-LAW-AND OPINION OF RIGHTS AND WORTH.
Rights what are they
Moral rights are justified by moral standards that most people acknowledge, but which are not codified in law, and therefore have been interpreted differently by different people.
One of the most important and influential interpretations of moral rights is based on the work of Immanuel Kant, an eighteenth century philosopher. Kant maintained that each of us has a worth or a dignity that must be respected. This dignity makes it wrong for others to abuse us or to use us against our will. Kant expressed this idea in a moral principle: humanity must always be treated as an end, not merely as a means. To treat a person as a mere means is to use a person to advance one's own interest. But to treat a person as an end is to respect that person's dignity by allowing each the freedom to choose for himself or herself.
Kant's principle is often used to justify a fundamental moral right, the right to freely choose for oneself, and rights related to this fundamental right, sometimes called negative or liberty rights. Negative rights, such as the right to privacy, the right not to be killed, or the right to do what one wants with one's property, are rights that protect some form of human freedom or liberty. These rights are called negative rights because each one imposes a negative duty on us -- the duty to not interfere with a person's activities in a certain area. The right to privacy, for example, imposes on us the duty not to intrude into the private activities of a person.
Kant's principle is also often used to justify positive or welfare rights. Many people argue that a fundamental right to freedom is worthless if people aren't able to exercise that freedom. A right to freedom, then, implies that every human being also has a fundamental right to what is necessary to secure a minimum level of well being. Positive rights, therefore, are rights that provide something that people need to secure their well being, such as a right to an education, the right to food, the right to medical care, the right to housing, or the right to a job. Positive rights impose a positive duty on us -- the duty to actively help a person to have or to do something. A young person's right to an education, for example, imposes on us a duty to provide that young person with an education. Respecting a positive right, then, requires more than merely not acting; positive rights impose on us the duty to help sustain the welfare of those who are in need of help.
Whenever we are confronted with a moral dilemma, we need to consider whether the action would respect the basic rights of each of the individuals involved. How would the action affect the basic well-being of those individuals? How would the action affect the freedom of those individuals? Would it involve manipulation or deception? Actions are wrong to the extent that they violate the rights of individuals.
Sometimes the rights of individuals will come into conflict and one has to decide which right has priority. We may all agree, for example, that everyone has a right to freedom of association as well as a right not to be discriminated against. But suppose a private club has a policy that excludes women from joining. How do we balance the right to freedom of association against the right not to be discriminated against? In cases such as this, we need to examine the freedoms or interests at stake and decide which of the two is the more crucial for securing human dignity. For example, is free association or equality more essential to maintaining our dignity as persons?
Progressivism? Not so fast, folks
By: Rep. John Linder October 7, 2009 07:24 AM EDT>
The progressive movement in the United States is generally traced back to Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, but he took his lead from predecessor Teddy Roosevelt and expanded on it.
The intellectual foundation of the progressive movement, though, can be traced farther back — to the French Revolution inspired by Rousseau and Robespierre. The central faith was that the “collective” was more important than the “person.” Robespierre said, “The people is always worth more than individuals. ... The people is sublime, but individuals are weak.”
Following the progressivism of Wilson were communism, fascism and Nazism. All believed in the state and tried to marginalize religion. (These leaders desired that the least feel comforted only by the generosity of the state.)
Progressivism and its progeny all believed in the fairness and wisdom of decisions made by the state — often at the expense of the individual, who, it was believed, made selfish decisions. All demanded that the state have an increased role in raising children. Adolf Hitler scoffed at those who remained opposed to him, saying he already had control of their children.
All believed in the minimum wage, state control of private property for the public good, unionization and environmentalism. And they believed in eugenics to purify the gene pool.
It is now fair to wonder whether we are returning to a belief that only a powerful central government can fix all of our problems. Victor Davis Hanson wrote in the National Review that President Barack Obama is governing as though the United States were a university and he its president. Governing by czars fits that example. A diversity czar, environment czar, pay czar, science czar, manufacturing czar and, of course, health czar could deal with the “whole” of an issue rather than looking at it piece by piece. This is not unlike the women’s studies, black studies, diversity studies, environmental studies and other obsequious studies in most academic settings.
And with the Obama administration, just as in Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy and Wilson’s America, the leaders of major corporations are falling in line. Whether it is climate change, executive pay, automobile manufacturing or bank buying, CEOs step right up and wait for the tax benefits to surely follow their pandering. And the CEOs stood mute while bondholders saw their investments given to the unions. David Broder recently quoted an article by William Schambra of the Hudson Institute. Schambra writes that “Obama is emphatically a ‘policy approach’ president. ... Long-term, systemic problems of health care, education and the environment cannot be solved in small pieces. They must be taken on in whole.”
Broder notes that Schambra traces the roots of this approach back to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries — when progressives believed that social sciences should instruct government. Broder compares Obama’s approach to governing with that taken by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
And just as was the case with Wilson, Carter and Clinton, Obama blames selfish individuals or corporations for the problems he seeks to redress. Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with their health care, and Obama blames greedy insurance companies for this huge failure, which he seeks to correct by taking over 16 percent of our economy.
The principal sin in politics is overreaching. Americans have in the past repeatedly voted for freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the state. It will happen again. Maybe!!
The progressive movement in the United States is generally traced back to Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, but he took his lead from predecessor Teddy Roosevelt and expanded on it.
The intellectual foundation of the progressive movement, though, can be traced farther back — to the French Revolution inspired by Rousseau and Robespierre. The central faith was that the “collective” was more important than the “person.” Robespierre said, “The people is always worth more than individuals. ... The people is sublime, but individuals are weak.”
Following the progressivism of Wilson were communism, fascism and Nazism. All believed in the state and tried to marginalize religion. (These leaders desired that the least feel comforted only by the generosity of the state.)
Progressivism and its progeny all believed in the fairness and wisdom of decisions made by the state — often at the expense of the individual, who, it was believed, made selfish decisions. All demanded that the state have an increased role in raising children. Adolf Hitler scoffed at those who remained opposed to him, saying he already had control of their children.
All believed in the minimum wage, state control of private property for the public good, unionization and environmentalism. And they believed in eugenics to purify the gene pool.
It is now fair to wonder whether we are returning to a belief that only a powerful central government can fix all of our problems. Victor Davis Hanson wrote in the National Review that President Barack Obama is governing as though the United States were a university and he its president. Governing by czars fits that example. A diversity czar, environment czar, pay czar, science czar, manufacturing czar and, of course, health czar could deal with the “whole” of an issue rather than looking at it piece by piece. This is not unlike the women’s studies, black studies, diversity studies, environmental studies and other obsequious studies in most academic settings.
And with the Obama administration, just as in Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy and Wilson’s America, the leaders of major corporations are falling in line. Whether it is climate change, executive pay, automobile manufacturing or bank buying, CEOs step right up and wait for the tax benefits to surely follow their pandering. And the CEOs stood mute while bondholders saw their investments given to the unions. David Broder recently quoted an article by William Schambra of the Hudson Institute. Schambra writes that “Obama is emphatically a ‘policy approach’ president. ... Long-term, systemic problems of health care, education and the environment cannot be solved in small pieces. They must be taken on in whole.”
Broder notes that Schambra traces the roots of this approach back to the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries — when progressives believed that social sciences should instruct government. Broder compares Obama’s approach to governing with that taken by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
And just as was the case with Wilson, Carter and Clinton, Obama blames selfish individuals or corporations for the problems he seeks to redress. Eighty-five percent of Americans are happy with their health care, and Obama blames greedy insurance companies for this huge failure, which he seeks to correct by taking over 16 percent of our economy.
The principal sin in politics is overreaching. Americans have in the past repeatedly voted for freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the state. It will happen again. Maybe!!
A LESSON IN PROGRESSIVE HISTORY
On February 12, 2008, Barack Obama won the Maryland, District of Columbia, and Virginia Democratic primaries, putting him on a glide path to the nomination. That night, he held a massive rally at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “Where better,” Obama asked, “to affirm our ideals than here in Wisconsin, where a century ago the Progressive movement was born?”
Where better indeed.
There’s a special irony to Obama’s question given that the “Wisconsin School” progressives he invoked were almost uniformly racists and eugenicists who would have blanched at the suggestion that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama could be president of the United States.
President Obama is hardly alone in unreflective reverence for the progressives. For decades, leading Democratic politicians—and some Republican ones—have invoked the progressives as their inspiration. In a Democratic primary debate in 2007, then-senator Hillary Clinton was asked if she was a liberal. She responded, “I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.” David Obey, Wisconsin Democrat and—until recently—longtime chair of the House Appropriations Committee, titled his memoir Raising Hell for Justice: The Washington Battles of a Heartland Progressive. In it, he makes the case that he is, well, a heartland progressive. One could go on like this for a while.
The point isn’t simply to note that leading liberal politicians call themselves “progressive.” That should be obvious. Sometimes it seems everyone does that. “Progressive” is one of those words that means “good,” “advanced,” and “enlightened.” Oh, it’s progressive coffee? Well, it must be good coffee then. It’s a progressive rock band? Gee, I better listen to the lyrics more closely. We say “progressive” as a placeholder for all current trends. Today, products are progressive if they are sustainable or organic or fair trade. Tomorrow, progressive might mean “not made by robots.” Who knows?
Even leading liberals acknowledge their indebtedness to the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century. The question is whether they understand and appreciate what that acknowledgement means.
http://wethepeoplehq.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WTP_Vol1_Episod...
SUMMARY OPINION
Nearly every progressive political theorist and intellectual agreed that the vision of the founders had outlived its relevance. In their minds, the evidence was overwhelming. The forces pushing the old order into the dustbin of history were too numerous to count (and are certainly too numerous to discuss at any length here). Evolutionary theory, relativity, the internal-combustion engine, eugenic "science," economic central planning, the superiority of military mobilization, industrialization, urbanization: these and many other ideas and trends were simply things the founders could not have envisioned, and, therefore, the founders’ Constitution had exceeded its expiration date.
Woodrow Wilson was the foremost popularizer of this view. He believed the old notion that we are born with inalienable rights amounted to little more than corny "Fourth of July sentiments." In a speech dedicated to honoring Thomas Jefferson, Wilson told an audience that "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface." Never mind that it is the preface that proclaims that our natural, inalienable rights are the rock upon which the whole American experiment rests. "We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence," he explained. Rather, when we celebrate the Fourth of July it should be a "time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to affect our safety and happiness."
Wilson was the first president to speak of imposing a "vision" on the United States. At the core of that vision was the belief that the individual must "marry his interests to the state." Wilson was the first president to openly disparage the Bill of Rights as irrelevant. He preferred a "living constitution" whose meaning was always open to the interpretations of progressive judges, bureaucrats and politicians.
Broadly speaking, the progressives were united by their shared status as members of the cult of unity. They believed all the problems of the mass age required mass solutions. Jane Adams insisted in 1902, "We must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement and shall be content to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many." Walter Rauschenbusch, the leading progressive religious leader of his day, declared, "New forms of association must be created. . . . Our disorganized competitive life must pass into an organic cooperative life." Elsewhere, Rauschenbusch put it more simply: "Individualism means tyranny."
World War I is the great landmark in the history of progressivism. It provided the progressives a great opportunity to put into practice the ideas they’d been developing for a quarter century. In 1906, philosopher William James delivered a speech—which became an essay by the same name—arguing that society needed a new "moral equivalent of war." James argued war is terrible, but it brings out what is best in us. What we need is a replacement for war that allows men to drop their petty associations and interests and rally around the state for big causes. Politicians have spoken of treating this or that as the "moral equivalent of war" since, though these days "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste" is the more popular version of the idea.
What appealed to the progressives about war was not war per se, but the ability to mobilize society (though there was no shortage of war lovers, such as Teddy Roosevelt). War fomented a conception of the general will that encouraged the sort of social cooperation and coordination for which progressives yearned.
This is why so many progressives supported the war not for reasons of national security, foreign policy or even morality, but because it would finally grant them the power to tear down the old order of liberal democratic capitalism and replace it with a new one of planning and social control. In the words of John Dewey, the leading progressive philosopher of the early 20th century, these were the "social possibilities of war." Dewey hoped the war would require Americans "to give up much of our economic freedom. . . .
There’s one last point to be made about FDR’s project, beginning with the election of 1932. The word "progressive" had taken on a very negative connotation with the American people during the 1920s, for understandable reasons. The progressives under Wilson delivered social chaos, war and misery, even as they preached order, peace and prosperity. Also, the hard pro-Communist left had taken over the label as its own. So progressives like FDR needed a new label. FDR shrewdly began referring to himself not as a progressive but as a modern "liberal."
Today the term liberal has lost favor so, it is ironic liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are trying to reclaim the word "progressive." When Clinton says she prefers "progressive" to "liberal" because the word "progressive" "has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20 th century," she’s right.
It was at the beginning of the 20th century when intellectual craftsman started importing the tools they needed to dismantle the idea of American exceptionalism.
http://wethepeoplehq.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WTP_Vol1_Episod...
"THE NEW DEAL IS WHAT GAVE AMERICA A ‘STATE’ RATHER THAN A MERE GOVERNMENT THAT DEFERRED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE."
Where better indeed.
There’s a special irony to Obama’s question given that the “Wisconsin School” progressives he invoked were almost uniformly racists and eugenicists who would have blanched at the suggestion that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama could be president of the United States.
President Obama is hardly alone in unreflective reverence for the progressives. For decades, leading Democratic politicians—and some Republican ones—have invoked the progressives as their inspiration. In a Democratic primary debate in 2007, then-senator Hillary Clinton was asked if she was a liberal. She responded, “I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive.” David Obey, Wisconsin Democrat and—until recently—longtime chair of the House Appropriations Committee, titled his memoir Raising Hell for Justice: The Washington Battles of a Heartland Progressive. In it, he makes the case that he is, well, a heartland progressive. One could go on like this for a while.
The point isn’t simply to note that leading liberal politicians call themselves “progressive.” That should be obvious. Sometimes it seems everyone does that. “Progressive” is one of those words that means “good,” “advanced,” and “enlightened.” Oh, it’s progressive coffee? Well, it must be good coffee then. It’s a progressive rock band? Gee, I better listen to the lyrics more closely. We say “progressive” as a placeholder for all current trends. Today, products are progressive if they are sustainable or organic or fair trade. Tomorrow, progressive might mean “not made by robots.” Who knows?
Even leading liberals acknowledge their indebtedness to the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century. The question is whether they understand and appreciate what that acknowledgement means.
http://wethepeoplehq.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WTP_Vol1_Episod...
SUMMARY OPINION
Nearly every progressive political theorist and intellectual agreed that the vision of the founders had outlived its relevance. In their minds, the evidence was overwhelming. The forces pushing the old order into the dustbin of history were too numerous to count (and are certainly too numerous to discuss at any length here). Evolutionary theory, relativity, the internal-combustion engine, eugenic "science," economic central planning, the superiority of military mobilization, industrialization, urbanization: these and many other ideas and trends were simply things the founders could not have envisioned, and, therefore, the founders’ Constitution had exceeded its expiration date.
Woodrow Wilson was the foremost popularizer of this view. He believed the old notion that we are born with inalienable rights amounted to little more than corny "Fourth of July sentiments." In a speech dedicated to honoring Thomas Jefferson, Wilson told an audience that "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface." Never mind that it is the preface that proclaims that our natural, inalienable rights are the rock upon which the whole American experiment rests. "We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence," he explained. Rather, when we celebrate the Fourth of July it should be a "time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to affect our safety and happiness."
Wilson was the first president to speak of imposing a "vision" on the United States. At the core of that vision was the belief that the individual must "marry his interests to the state." Wilson was the first president to openly disparage the Bill of Rights as irrelevant. He preferred a "living constitution" whose meaning was always open to the interpretations of progressive judges, bureaucrats and politicians.
Broadly speaking, the progressives were united by their shared status as members of the cult of unity. They believed all the problems of the mass age required mass solutions. Jane Adams insisted in 1902, "We must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement and shall be content to realize his activity only in connection to the activity of the many." Walter Rauschenbusch, the leading progressive religious leader of his day, declared, "New forms of association must be created. . . . Our disorganized competitive life must pass into an organic cooperative life." Elsewhere, Rauschenbusch put it more simply: "Individualism means tyranny."
World War I is the great landmark in the history of progressivism. It provided the progressives a great opportunity to put into practice the ideas they’d been developing for a quarter century. In 1906, philosopher William James delivered a speech—which became an essay by the same name—arguing that society needed a new "moral equivalent of war." James argued war is terrible, but it brings out what is best in us. What we need is a replacement for war that allows men to drop their petty associations and interests and rally around the state for big causes. Politicians have spoken of treating this or that as the "moral equivalent of war" since, though these days "a crisis is a terrible thing to waste" is the more popular version of the idea.
What appealed to the progressives about war was not war per se, but the ability to mobilize society (though there was no shortage of war lovers, such as Teddy Roosevelt). War fomented a conception of the general will that encouraged the sort of social cooperation and coordination for which progressives yearned.
This is why so many progressives supported the war not for reasons of national security, foreign policy or even morality, but because it would finally grant them the power to tear down the old order of liberal democratic capitalism and replace it with a new one of planning and social control. In the words of John Dewey, the leading progressive philosopher of the early 20th century, these were the "social possibilities of war." Dewey hoped the war would require Americans "to give up much of our economic freedom. . . .
There’s one last point to be made about FDR’s project, beginning with the election of 1932. The word "progressive" had taken on a very negative connotation with the American people during the 1920s, for understandable reasons. The progressives under Wilson delivered social chaos, war and misery, even as they preached order, peace and prosperity. Also, the hard pro-Communist left had taken over the label as its own. So progressives like FDR needed a new label. FDR shrewdly began referring to himself not as a progressive but as a modern "liberal."
Today the term liberal has lost favor so, it is ironic liberals like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are trying to reclaim the word "progressive." When Clinton says she prefers "progressive" to "liberal" because the word "progressive" "has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20 th century," she’s right.
It was at the beginning of the 20th century when intellectual craftsman started importing the tools they needed to dismantle the idea of American exceptionalism.
http://wethepeoplehq.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WTP_Vol1_Episod...
"THE NEW DEAL IS WHAT GAVE AMERICA A ‘STATE’ RATHER THAN A MERE GOVERNMENT THAT DEFERRED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE."
Tyranny of the Majority
Is the concept of liberty and freedom in a democracy reduced to little more than tyranny of the majority, when only one party is in control? It would seem when one or the other of our two parties is in total control of our government, there is no compromising of ideas, no discourse of thought, or no freedom of decent. Tyranny of the majority prevails and our freedom and liberty are in peril.At one time, the men who served our country would seek out dissenting views when it appeared that there was insufficient opposition in the Legislature to offer proper debate. The very idea that a monolithic view of any law which had questionable Constitutional authority could be expedited through congress for any reason was unthinkable. To men of principle the very idea to do so out of fear, that after the elections the bill would have no chance passing, would have been considered outrageous. If the bill was that bad it certainly could not be good for the nation or the people they represented.
James Madison view on bills like our recent health care law.
Federalist Papers #62, 15th paragraph:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Our government is completely out of balance. It’s like a badly bent rim on a car. It threatens to shake the country to pieces. Not only are the Republicans in congress angered by the rush to action in the passing of these bills by the Democrats, but so are the people of both parties. We feel betrayed by our representatives. They no longer respect our opinions. In fact they are belligerent to those opinions. They say that we do not comprehend how wonderful these bills are. They say we should trust them. We should believe them when they say that they are looking after our best interest.
What we do know is our country is hopelessly in debt. Unemployment is out of control. We have to import virtually everything we consume. To sell our treasury notes we kowtow to nations that have no respect for human rights. Criminals control many of our cities, because the cities are so broke, they can not provide adequate law enforcement. Many of our States are on verge of bankruptcy. Our schools rank near the bottom when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Our representatives are so drunk with power they will do anything, or sell out to anyone, to get reelected. Congress totally ignores the limitations of our Constitution as though its meaning is strictly symbolic. Our President openly lies to the public to get their admiration, and then does the opposite once he’s back in Oval office. Our boarders are being overrun, there are now tens of millions of illegal aliens, taking our jobs, spending our resources, and mobbing our schools. And they expect us to believe that everything is ok? After all they are looking out for us. How much longer will we stand for this traitorous deceit, corruption, and contempt for our liberty and freedom?
Hard decisions will have to make in the coming years. If we as a nation are to survive men and women of integrity and honor must be elected to the congress. Men and women that respect the Constitution, the Nation, and the Constituents they represent are desperately needed. They will have to get our government out of debt, and get spending under control. This will require painful cuts in many government programs and agencies.
We cannot expect that our government can or should be the ultimate insurance company for every disaster. We must be self reliant providing for our selves and our families. We must save for our own retirements because the government no longer has the resources to provide for us. We must arm our selves to defend our property and families because the government cannot. We must insure that our children get the best possible education to help rebuild this nation. There is hope but it is fading.
James Madison view on bills like our recent health care law.
Federalist Papers #62, 15th paragraph:
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Our government is completely out of balance. It’s like a badly bent rim on a car. It threatens to shake the country to pieces. Not only are the Republicans in congress angered by the rush to action in the passing of these bills by the Democrats, but so are the people of both parties. We feel betrayed by our representatives. They no longer respect our opinions. In fact they are belligerent to those opinions. They say that we do not comprehend how wonderful these bills are. They say we should trust them. We should believe them when they say that they are looking after our best interest.
What we do know is our country is hopelessly in debt. Unemployment is out of control. We have to import virtually everything we consume. To sell our treasury notes we kowtow to nations that have no respect for human rights. Criminals control many of our cities, because the cities are so broke, they can not provide adequate law enforcement. Many of our States are on verge of bankruptcy. Our schools rank near the bottom when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Our representatives are so drunk with power they will do anything, or sell out to anyone, to get reelected. Congress totally ignores the limitations of our Constitution as though its meaning is strictly symbolic. Our President openly lies to the public to get their admiration, and then does the opposite once he’s back in Oval office. Our boarders are being overrun, there are now tens of millions of illegal aliens, taking our jobs, spending our resources, and mobbing our schools. And they expect us to believe that everything is ok? After all they are looking out for us. How much longer will we stand for this traitorous deceit, corruption, and contempt for our liberty and freedom?
Hard decisions will have to make in the coming years. If we as a nation are to survive men and women of integrity and honor must be elected to the congress. Men and women that respect the Constitution, the Nation, and the Constituents they represent are desperately needed. They will have to get our government out of debt, and get spending under control. This will require painful cuts in many government programs and agencies.
We cannot expect that our government can or should be the ultimate insurance company for every disaster. We must be self reliant providing for our selves and our families. We must save for our own retirements because the government no longer has the resources to provide for us. We must arm our selves to defend our property and families because the government cannot. We must insure that our children get the best possible education to help rebuild this nation. There is hope but it is fading.
Acts of Tyranny
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day. But a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." - Thomas Jefferson
Has the systematic debasing of our currency by the banks since they took control of it in 1913, when the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, and placed control of this nation's money into the hands of a government corporation that conveniently separated itself from direct political control. Been a deliberate act to reduce us to slaves?
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Re Charter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)
In 1792 the U. S. Coinage Act was passed by Congress. It invoked the death penalty for anyone debasing money and provided for a U.S. Mint where silver dollars were coined along with gold coins beginning in 1794. The text of Coinage Act of 1792 states: “The Dollar or Unit shall be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current,” that is, running in the market, “to wit, three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver.” and it cannot be changed by constitutional amendment.
During the first half of the 20th century, each of four world leaders did the exact same thing within ninety days of their ascension to power. Each made it illegal for the citizens of their respective countries to own gold. Those leaders were: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. All four were acutely aware of the restrictions that a gold standard imposed on their abilities to wage war because of its restrictive nature would not allowing their nations to create unlimited supplies of money to further their political agenda.
From that point on our country has been on a slow but systematic move toward debasing the value of the American dollar by decoupling it from any precious metal that would prevent the printing of unlimited amounts of coinage that is backed only by the good faith of the United States Government. Today we are in a monetary crisis through debt that threatens to destroy any remaining value of the US Dollar. This debasement is the result of our government leader’s unwillingness to conduct the business of government in a prudent way preserving the balance between income and expenses.
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Our government has departed from our Constitution and is continuing to do so every day. The result of this is as apparent as day is to night. The willingness of our leadership from state representative’s governors and senate to house members is appalling. Mean while the people just sit back and allow these things to happen with out protest trusting our government will do what’s right. We deserve what we get unless we take a stand and demand accountability and return to the foundation of democracy the Constitution.
Some of the information taken for this article is from:
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/natureofmoney.html
The Nature of Money and our Monetary System By Johnny Silver Bear
Has the systematic debasing of our currency by the banks since they took control of it in 1913, when the U.S. Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, and placed control of this nation's money into the hands of a government corporation that conveniently separated itself from direct political control. Been a deliberate act to reduce us to slaves?
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson -- The Debate Over The Re Charter Of The Bank Bill, (1809)
In 1792 the U. S. Coinage Act was passed by Congress. It invoked the death penalty for anyone debasing money and provided for a U.S. Mint where silver dollars were coined along with gold coins beginning in 1794. The text of Coinage Act of 1792 states: “The Dollar or Unit shall be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current,” that is, running in the market, “to wit, three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver.” and it cannot be changed by constitutional amendment.
During the first half of the 20th century, each of four world leaders did the exact same thing within ninety days of their ascension to power. Each made it illegal for the citizens of their respective countries to own gold. Those leaders were: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. All four were acutely aware of the restrictions that a gold standard imposed on their abilities to wage war because of its restrictive nature would not allowing their nations to create unlimited supplies of money to further their political agenda.
From that point on our country has been on a slow but systematic move toward debasing the value of the American dollar by decoupling it from any precious metal that would prevent the printing of unlimited amounts of coinage that is backed only by the good faith of the United States Government. Today we are in a monetary crisis through debt that threatens to destroy any remaining value of the US Dollar. This debasement is the result of our government leader’s unwillingness to conduct the business of government in a prudent way preserving the balance between income and expenses.
“There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.
Our government has departed from our Constitution and is continuing to do so every day. The result of this is as apparent as day is to night. The willingness of our leadership from state representative’s governors and senate to house members is appalling. Mean while the people just sit back and allow these things to happen with out protest trusting our government will do what’s right. We deserve what we get unless we take a stand and demand accountability and return to the foundation of democracy the Constitution.
Some of the information taken for this article is from:
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/natureofmoney.html
The Nature of Money and our Monetary System By Johnny Silver Bear
LBJ's Great Society
In the Great Society, we had more explicit and direct an application of the Progressive commitment to rule by social science experts, largely unmitigated initially by political considerations.
That was precisely Daniel Patrick Moynihan's insight in Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. Almost overnight, an obscure, untested academic theory about the cause of juvenile delinquency -- namely, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin's structure of opportunity theory -- leapt from the pages of the social science journals into the laws waging a war on poverty.
Indeed, the entire point of the Great Society was to reshape the behavior of the poor -- to move them off the welfare rolls by transforming their behavior according to what social sciences had taught us about such undertakings. It was explicitly a project of social engineering in the best Progressive tradition. Sober liberal friends of the Great Society would later admit that a central reason for its failure was precisely the fact that it was an expertise-driven engineering project, which had never sought the support or even the acquiescence of popular majorities.
The engineering excesses of the Great Society and the popular reaction against them meant that the 1960s were the beginning of the first serious challenge to the Progressive model for America -- a challenge that the New Deal hadn't precipitated earlier because it had carefully accommodated itself to the Founders' political system. Certainly the New Left took aim at the Great Society's distant, inhumane, patronizing, bureaucratic social engineering; but for our purposes, this marked as well the beginning of the modern conservative response to Progressivism, which has subsequently enjoyed some success, occupying the presidency, both houses of Congress, and perhaps soon the Supreme Court.
Curiously, for Mr. West, this is precisely the moment -- he settles on the year 1965 -- at which Progressivism achieves near complete dominance of American politics.
** The Critique of Pure Reason. By Immanuel Kant In it he argued that there were fundamental problems with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of all possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the human soul.
**The first citation of the term "progressivism" in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated to 1892, in England. At that time the St. James Gazette used it as a term of derision, equating it with "radicalism".
That was precisely Daniel Patrick Moynihan's insight in Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. Almost overnight, an obscure, untested academic theory about the cause of juvenile delinquency -- namely, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin's structure of opportunity theory -- leapt from the pages of the social science journals into the laws waging a war on poverty.
Indeed, the entire point of the Great Society was to reshape the behavior of the poor -- to move them off the welfare rolls by transforming their behavior according to what social sciences had taught us about such undertakings. It was explicitly a project of social engineering in the best Progressive tradition. Sober liberal friends of the Great Society would later admit that a central reason for its failure was precisely the fact that it was an expertise-driven engineering project, which had never sought the support or even the acquiescence of popular majorities.
The engineering excesses of the Great Society and the popular reaction against them meant that the 1960s were the beginning of the first serious challenge to the Progressive model for America -- a challenge that the New Deal hadn't precipitated earlier because it had carefully accommodated itself to the Founders' political system. Certainly the New Left took aim at the Great Society's distant, inhumane, patronizing, bureaucratic social engineering; but for our purposes, this marked as well the beginning of the modern conservative response to Progressivism, which has subsequently enjoyed some success, occupying the presidency, both houses of Congress, and perhaps soon the Supreme Court.
Curiously, for Mr. West, this is precisely the moment -- he settles on the year 1965 -- at which Progressivism achieves near complete dominance of American politics.
** The Critique of Pure Reason. By Immanuel Kant In it he argued that there were fundamental problems with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of all possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the human soul.
**The first citation of the term "progressivism" in the Oxford English Dictionary is dated to 1892, in England. At that time the St. James Gazette used it as a term of derision, equating it with "radicalism".
Foreign and Domestic Policy and Progressivsim
For the Founders, foreign and domestic policy were supposed to serve the same end: the security of the people in their person and property. Therefore, foreign policy was conceived primarily as defensive. Foreign attack was to be deterred by having strong arms or repulsed by force. Alliances were to be entered into with the understanding that a self-governing nation must keep itself aloof from the quarrels of other nations, except as needed for national defense. Government had no right to spend the taxes or lives of its own citizens to spread democracy to other nations or to engage in enterprises aiming at imperialistic hegemony.
The Progressives believed that a historical process was leading all mankind to freedom, or at least the advanced nations. Following Hegel, they thought of the march of freedom in history as having a geographical basis. It was in Europe, not Asia or Africa, where modern science and the modern state had made their greatest advances. The nations where modern science had properly informed the political order were thought to be the proper leaders of the world.
The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all. Political scientist Charles Merriam openly called for a policy of colonialism on a racial basis:
[T]he Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized. They must have a colonial policy. Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away…. On the same principle, interference with the affairs of states not wholly barbaric, but nevertheless incapable of effecting political organization for themselves, is fully justified.
Progressives therefore embraced a much more active and indeed imperialistic foreign policy than the Founders did. In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale: "every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness." Thus, the American occupation of the Philippines, T.R. believed, would enable "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace."
Woodrow Wilson advocated American entry into World War I, boasting that America's national interest had nothing to do with it. Wilson had no difficulty sending American troops to die in order to make the world safe for democracy, regardless of whether or not it would make America more safe or less. The trend to turn power over to multinational organizations also begins in this period, as may be seen in Wilson's plan for a League of Nations, under whose rules America would have delegated control over the deployment of its own armed forces to that body.
AND....
The Founders thought that laws should be made by a body of elected officials with roots in local communities. They should not be "experts," but they should have "most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society" (Madison). The wisdom in question was the kind on display in The Federalist, which relentlessly dissected the political errors of the previous decade in terms accessible to any person of intelligence and common sense.
The Progressives wanted to sweep away what they regarded as this amateurism in politics. They had confidence that modern science had superseded the perspective of the liberally educated statesman. Only those educated in the top universities, preferably in the social sciences, were thought to be capable of governing. Politics was regarded as too complex for common sense to cope with. Government had taken on the vast responsibility not merely of protecting the people against injuries, but of managing the entire economy as well as providing for the people's spiritual well-being. Only government agencies staffed by experts informed by the most advanced modern science could manage tasks previously handled within the private sphere. Government, it was thought, needed to be led by those who see where history is going, who understand the ever-evolving idea of human dignity.
The Progressives did not intend to abolish democracy, to be sure. They wanted the people's will to be more efficiently translated into government policy. But what democracy meant for the Progressives is that the people would take power out of the hands of locally elected officials and political parties and place it instead into the hands of the central government, which would in turn establish administrative agencies run by neutral experts, scientifically trained, to translate the people's inchoate will into concrete policies. Local politicians would be replaced by neutral city managers presiding over technically trained staffs. Politics in the sense of favoritism and self-interest would disappear and be replaced by the universal rule of enlightened bureaucracy.
GREAT SITE LINK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRESSIVISM http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics
The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics
By Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra July 18, 2007
The Progressives believed that a historical process was leading all mankind to freedom, or at least the advanced nations. Following Hegel, they thought of the march of freedom in history as having a geographical basis. It was in Europe, not Asia or Africa, where modern science and the modern state had made their greatest advances. The nations where modern science had properly informed the political order were thought to be the proper leaders of the world.
The Progressives also believed that the scientifically educated leaders of the advanced nations (especially America, Britain, and France) should not hesitate to rule the less advanced nations in the interest of ultimately bringing the world into freedom, assuming that supposedly inferior peoples could be brought into the modern world at all. Political scientist Charles Merriam openly called for a policy of colonialism on a racial basis:
[T]he Teutonic races must civilize the politically uncivilized. They must have a colonial policy. Barbaric races, if incapable, may be swept away…. On the same principle, interference with the affairs of states not wholly barbaric, but nevertheless incapable of effecting political organization for themselves, is fully justified.
Progressives therefore embraced a much more active and indeed imperialistic foreign policy than the Founders did. In "Expansion and Peace" (1899), Theodore Roosevelt wrote that the best policy is imperialism on a global scale: "every expansion of a great civilized power means a victory for law, order, and righteousness." Thus, the American occupation of the Philippines, T.R. believed, would enable "one more fair spot of the world's surface" to be "snatched from the forces of darkness. Fundamentally the cause of expansion is the cause of peace."
Woodrow Wilson advocated American entry into World War I, boasting that America's national interest had nothing to do with it. Wilson had no difficulty sending American troops to die in order to make the world safe for democracy, regardless of whether or not it would make America more safe or less. The trend to turn power over to multinational organizations also begins in this period, as may be seen in Wilson's plan for a League of Nations, under whose rules America would have delegated control over the deployment of its own armed forces to that body.
AND....
The Founders thought that laws should be made by a body of elected officials with roots in local communities. They should not be "experts," but they should have "most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society" (Madison). The wisdom in question was the kind on display in The Federalist, which relentlessly dissected the political errors of the previous decade in terms accessible to any person of intelligence and common sense.
The Progressives wanted to sweep away what they regarded as this amateurism in politics. They had confidence that modern science had superseded the perspective of the liberally educated statesman. Only those educated in the top universities, preferably in the social sciences, were thought to be capable of governing. Politics was regarded as too complex for common sense to cope with. Government had taken on the vast responsibility not merely of protecting the people against injuries, but of managing the entire economy as well as providing for the people's spiritual well-being. Only government agencies staffed by experts informed by the most advanced modern science could manage tasks previously handled within the private sphere. Government, it was thought, needed to be led by those who see where history is going, who understand the ever-evolving idea of human dignity.
The Progressives did not intend to abolish democracy, to be sure. They wanted the people's will to be more efficiently translated into government policy. But what democracy meant for the Progressives is that the people would take power out of the hands of locally elected officials and political parties and place it instead into the hands of the central government, which would in turn establish administrative agencies run by neutral experts, scientifically trained, to translate the people's inchoate will into concrete policies. Local politicians would be replaced by neutral city managers presiding over technically trained staffs. Politics in the sense of favoritism and self-interest would disappear and be replaced by the universal rule of enlightened bureaucracy.
GREAT SITE LINK FOR INFORMATION ABOUT PROGRESSIVISM http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-movement-and-the-transformation-of-american-politics
The Progressive Movement and the Transformation of American Politics
By Thomas G. West and William A. Schambra July 18, 2007
The Progressive Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson in an unpublished writing. A society like the Founders' that limits itself to protecting life, liberty, and property was one in which, as Wilson wrote with only slight exaggeration, "all that government had to do was to put on a policeman's uniform and say, 'Now don't anybody hurt anybody else.'" Wilson thought that such a society was unable to deal with the conditions of modern times.
Wilson rejected the earlier view that "the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible."
A government of this kind is unjust because it leaves men at the mercy of predatory corporations. Without government management of those corporations, Wilson thought, the poor would be destined to indefinite victimization by the wealthy. Previous limits on government power must be abolished. Accordingly, Progressive political scientist Theodore Woolsey wrote, "The sphere of the state may reach as far as the nature and needs of man and of men reach, including intellectual and aesthetic wants of the individual, and the religious and moral nature of its citizens."
However, this transformation is still in the future, for Progress takes place through historical development. A sign of the Progressives' unlimited trust in unlimited political authority is Dewey's remark in his "Ethics of Democracy" that Plato's Republic presents us with the "perfect man in the perfect state." What Plato's Socrates had presented as a thought experiment to expose the nature and limits of political life is taken by Dewey to be a laudable obliteration of the private sphere by government mandate. In a remark that the Founders would have found repugnant, Progressive political scientist John Burgess wrote that "the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood" was "the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-mo...
Founders tried to promote the moral conditions of an independent, hard-working citizenry by laws and educational institutions that would encourage such virtues as honesty, moderation, justice, patriotism, courage, frugality, and industry. Government support of religion (typically generic Protestantism) was generally practiced with a view to these ends. One can see the Founders' view of the connection between religion and morality in such early laws as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which said that government should promote education because "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind."
In Progressivism, the domestic policy of government had two main concerns.
First, government must protect the poor and other victims of capitalism through redistribution of resources, anti-trust laws, government control over the details of commerce and production: i.e., dictating at what prices things must be sold, methods of manufacture, government participation in the banking system, and so on.
Second, government must become involved in the "spiritual" development of its citizens -- not, of course, through promotion of religion, but through protecting the environment ("conservation"), education (understood as education to personal creativity), and spiritual uplift through subsidy and promotion of the arts and culture.
I would like to add a third item progressives believe that personal discipline is detrimental to child development. It stifles creativity and empathy toward for needs others.
Wilson rejected the earlier view that "the ideal of government was for every man to be left alone and not interfered with, except when he interfered with somebody else; and that the best government was the government that did as little governing as possible."
A government of this kind is unjust because it leaves men at the mercy of predatory corporations. Without government management of those corporations, Wilson thought, the poor would be destined to indefinite victimization by the wealthy. Previous limits on government power must be abolished. Accordingly, Progressive political scientist Theodore Woolsey wrote, "The sphere of the state may reach as far as the nature and needs of man and of men reach, including intellectual and aesthetic wants of the individual, and the religious and moral nature of its citizens."
However, this transformation is still in the future, for Progress takes place through historical development. A sign of the Progressives' unlimited trust in unlimited political authority is Dewey's remark in his "Ethics of Democracy" that Plato's Republic presents us with the "perfect man in the perfect state." What Plato's Socrates had presented as a thought experiment to expose the nature and limits of political life is taken by Dewey to be a laudable obliteration of the private sphere by government mandate. In a remark that the Founders would have found repugnant, Progressive political scientist John Burgess wrote that "the most fundamental and indispensable mark of statehood" was "the original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject, and all associations of subjects."
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/07/the-progressive-mo...
Founders tried to promote the moral conditions of an independent, hard-working citizenry by laws and educational institutions that would encourage such virtues as honesty, moderation, justice, patriotism, courage, frugality, and industry. Government support of religion (typically generic Protestantism) was generally practiced with a view to these ends. One can see the Founders' view of the connection between religion and morality in such early laws as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which said that government should promote education because "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge [are] necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind."
In Progressivism, the domestic policy of government had two main concerns.
First, government must protect the poor and other victims of capitalism through redistribution of resources, anti-trust laws, government control over the details of commerce and production: i.e., dictating at what prices things must be sold, methods of manufacture, government participation in the banking system, and so on.
Second, government must become involved in the "spiritual" development of its citizens -- not, of course, through promotion of religion, but through protecting the environment ("conservation"), education (understood as education to personal creativity), and spiritual uplift through subsidy and promotion of the arts and culture.
I would like to add a third item progressives believe that personal discipline is detrimental to child development. It stifles creativity and empathy toward for needs others.
The Soul of Man Under Federalism
Wilfred M. McClay
Writers from Aristotle to Montesquieu insisted that a republic had to stay relatively small, because only a small polity could possess sufficient social and moral commonality to be self-governing. And though James Madison argued that an “extended republic” could more effectively control the tendency toward faction in popular governments, he also insisted that the jurisdiction of the central government be “limited to certain enumerated objects,” with the states and localities retaining “their due authority and activity.
” Indeed, he speculated that were the Constitution to abolish the states, the general government would soon be “compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them.”
He did not assume that a large and diverse nation could offer the same sense of moral community as a small and relatively homogeneous republic (though he did assume that the national perspective would usually be the more elevated and dispassionate one). Rather, he assumed that “a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle“ could combine the advantages of both.
For today's politicians to fulfill the spirit of Madison's words, they may now have to move in the opposite direction—away from the relentless centralizing trends of the past century and toward institutional arrangements that seek to multiply the opportunities for public association. Acts of public association take place within a sphere that is clearly delimited and contained, making of citizenship a sustained and reciprocal activity. The challenge is to find ways of restoring the sense of accountability and belonging offered by smaller, more human-scale institutions, institutions that can serve as schools of citizenship while retaining the benefits of national government.
This is precisely the promise of federalism. It does not require us to renounce a national government, only to specify and enforce its limits. And it does so not only to limit the power of national government—though that was clearly one of the Framers' chief intentions—but to preserve kinds of association, and therefore qualities of soul, that are beyond the power of nationalism to sustain.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/001-the-soul-of-man-unde...
Writers from Aristotle to Montesquieu insisted that a republic had to stay relatively small, because only a small polity could possess sufficient social and moral commonality to be self-governing. And though James Madison argued that an “extended republic” could more effectively control the tendency toward faction in popular governments, he also insisted that the jurisdiction of the central government be “limited to certain enumerated objects,” with the states and localities retaining “their due authority and activity.
” Indeed, he speculated that were the Constitution to abolish the states, the general government would soon be “compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them.”
He did not assume that a large and diverse nation could offer the same sense of moral community as a small and relatively homogeneous republic (though he did assume that the national perspective would usually be the more elevated and dispassionate one). Rather, he assumed that “a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle“ could combine the advantages of both.
For today's politicians to fulfill the spirit of Madison's words, they may now have to move in the opposite direction—away from the relentless centralizing trends of the past century and toward institutional arrangements that seek to multiply the opportunities for public association. Acts of public association take place within a sphere that is clearly delimited and contained, making of citizenship a sustained and reciprocal activity. The challenge is to find ways of restoring the sense of accountability and belonging offered by smaller, more human-scale institutions, institutions that can serve as schools of citizenship while retaining the benefits of national government.
This is precisely the promise of federalism. It does not require us to renounce a national government, only to specify and enforce its limits. And it does so not only to limit the power of national government—though that was clearly one of the Framers' chief intentions—but to preserve kinds of association, and therefore qualities of soul, that are beyond the power of nationalism to sustain.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/10/001-the-soul-of-man-unde...
Mentioned in the United States' Preamble to the Constitution, "Welfare" means health, happiness, prosperity or well-being.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that nothing in the preamble grants legislative power.
"Welfare" should not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole preamble - the idea of the preamble is simply that the founders of our nation think that the proposed system of governance would naturally result in the items listed in the preamble. Be very cautious to not confuse result and causation.
"General welfare" is one of the ostensible results of our system of governance.
Turning the tables around and saying that "general welfare" is a legislative goal is entirely corrupt and against what the founders were saying.
The founders defined "welfare" as a result - a natural consequence. Those who would incorrectly have you believe that it is a legislative objective try to rewrite history by making a consequential result into an active cause.
Perhaps the previous would be true if the "general welfare" were only mentioned in the preamble. Thankfully it is included in the text where "general welfare" is surely a legislative goal (as is the whole preamble--the articles and amendments merely spell out the HOW we get what the preamble guarantees) "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"
That surely points out that congress shall tax and spend on "health, happiness, prosperity or well-being".
However if you consider the meaning of general welfare as it was understood in 1776 you would understand what the framers meant. To them general meant everyone welfare meant good.For the good of everyone's is something like a road or the docks in a harbor and today would be the FAA or NOAA on an interstate highway that gives us safe skies and weather forecasting and commerce. It was never meant to provide for an individuals prosperity.
"Welfare" should not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole preamble - the idea of the preamble is simply that the founders of our nation think that the proposed system of governance would naturally result in the items listed in the preamble. Be very cautious to not confuse result and causation.
"General welfare" is one of the ostensible results of our system of governance.
Turning the tables around and saying that "general welfare" is a legislative goal is entirely corrupt and against what the founders were saying.
The founders defined "welfare" as a result - a natural consequence. Those who would incorrectly have you believe that it is a legislative objective try to rewrite history by making a consequential result into an active cause.
Perhaps the previous would be true if the "general welfare" were only mentioned in the preamble. Thankfully it is included in the text where "general welfare" is surely a legislative goal (as is the whole preamble--the articles and amendments merely spell out the HOW we get what the preamble guarantees) "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States"
That surely points out that congress shall tax and spend on "health, happiness, prosperity or well-being".
However if you consider the meaning of general welfare as it was understood in 1776 you would understand what the framers meant. To them general meant everyone welfare meant good.For the good of everyone's is something like a road or the docks in a harbor and today would be the FAA or NOAA on an interstate highway that gives us safe skies and weather forecasting and commerce. It was never meant to provide for an individuals prosperity.
Human Nature
"We have science fiction, and science follows it. We imagine it, and it comes true. Yet we don't have social fiction, so nothing changes." --Muhammad Yunus, Skoll Forum 2013
Human nature is predictable even with all the "outliers". People who study human behavior are rarely surprised by the things people do. The framers of the Constitution got their advice from philosophers of the time, who studied human nature. What made our Constitution different is that it attempted to anticipate human nature, and they put controls to prevent the government from fallowing a path that has brought ruin to those governments in the past who gave self-determination to the people. This Progressivism that so many are pushing is social fiction it does not control human nature it is a dream of how things should be in a perfect world with out consideration of the science of known human nature. "If men were Angels no government would be necessary" If governments were perfect there would be no need of a Constitution.
About The 5000 Year Leap
337 pages
Author: W. Cleon Skousen
Discover the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers which they said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desired peace, prosperity, and freedom.
These beliefs have made possible more progress in 200 years than was made previously in over 5,000 years.
The following is a brief overview of the principles found in The Five Thousand Year Leap, and one chapter is devotes to each of these 28 principles.
Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "There are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God."
Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin
Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams
Principle 4 - Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." - George Washington
Principle 5 - All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .
The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation.
Principle 6 - All mankind were created equal.
The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as:
1. Equal before God.
2. Equal before the law.
3. Equal in their rights.
Principle 7 - The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.
The Founders recognized that the people cannot delegate to their government any power except that which they have the lawful right to exercise themselves.
Principle 8 - Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.
"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." - William Blackstone
Principle 9 - To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.
"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found by comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity." - William Blackstone
Principle 10 - The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority." - Alexander Hamilton
Principle 11 - The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ... but when a long train of abuses and usurpations ... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." - Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence
Principle 12 - The United States of Americashall be a republic.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America And to the republic for which it stands...."
Principle 13 - A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers.
"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.... [But lacking these] you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." - James Madison
Principle 14 - Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure .
John Locke reasoned that God gave the earth and everything in it to the whole human family as a gift. "Therefore the land, the sea, the acorns in the forest, the deer feeding in the meadow belong to everyone "in common." However, the moment someone takes the trouble to change something from its original state of nature, that person has added his ingenuity or labor to make that change. Herein lies the secret to the origin of "property rights."
Principle 15 - The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.
Prosperity depends upon a climate of wholesome stimulation with four basic freedoms in operation:
1. The Freedom to try.
2. The Freedom to buy.
3. The Freedom to sell.
4. The Freedom to fail.
Principle 16 - The government should be separated into three branches.
"I call you to witness that I was the first member of the Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my Thoughts on Government ... in favor of a government with three branches and an independent judiciary. This pamphlet, you know, was very unpopular. No man appeared in public to support it but yourself." - John Adams
Principle 17 - A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government.
"It will not be denied that power is of an encroaching nature and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it." - James Madison
Principle 18 - The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution. The structure of the American system is set forth in the Constitution of the United States and the only weaknesses which have appeared are those which were allowed to creep in despite the Constitution.
Principle 19 - Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.
The Tenth Amendment is the most widely violated provision of the bill of rights. If it had been respected and enforced America would be an amazingly different country than it is today. This amendment provides:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Principle 20 - Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
"Every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded [bound] by it." - John Locke
Principle 21 - Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent [to perform best]." - Thomas Jefferson
Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.
"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence of others, which cannot be where there is no law." - John Locke
Principle 23 - A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
"They made an early provision by law that every town consisting of so many families should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people, ancient or modern. The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day [written in 1765]. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare ... as a comet or an earthquake." John Adams
Principle 24 - A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.
"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." - George Washington
Principle 25 - "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none." - Thomas Jefferson, given in his first inaugural address.
Principle 26 - The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.
"There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America , or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated." Alexis de Tocqueville
Principle 27 - The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.
"We are bound to defray expenses [of the war] within our own time, and are unauthorized to burden posterity with them.... We shall all consider ourselves morally bound to pay them ourselves and consequently within the life [expectancy] of the majority." - Thomas Jefferson
Principle 28 - The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God's law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.
The Founders sensed from the very beginning that they were on a divine mission. Their great disappointment was that it didn't all come to pass in their day, but they knew that someday it would. John Adams wrote:
"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
Is Freedom Lost?
In 2010, for the first time ever, the United States has fallen from the ranks of the economically “free” as measured by the Index of Economic Freedom, published annually by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. With a score of only 78.0 on the Index’s 0–100 scale, the United States has fallen below the cutoff (an average score of 80 or above) that earns countries the right to call themselves truly “free.” The United States’ current status? “Mostly free.”
How did this happen? What can be done to address the problem and allow Americans to reclaim the economic freedoms they have lost?
The United States is the 8th freest economy in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Its score is 2.7 points lower than last year, reflecting notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index. Overall, the U.S. suffered the largest decline in economic freedom among the world’s 20 largest economies. The United States has fallen to 2nd place in the North America region, trailing Canada.
The U.S. government’s intrusive responses to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 have significantly undermined economic freedom and long-term prospects for economic growth. Uncertainties caused by ongoing regulatory changes and politically influenced spending have discouraged entrepreneurship and job creation, slowing recovery. Leadership in free trade has been undercut by “Buy American” provisions in stimulus legislation and failure to pursue previously agreed free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
How did this happen? What can be done to address the problem and allow Americans to reclaim the economic freedoms they have lost?
The United States is the 8th freest economy in the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom. Its score is 2.7 points lower than last year, reflecting notable decreases in financial freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights. Economic freedom has declined in seven of the 10 categories measured in the Index. Overall, the U.S. suffered the largest decline in economic freedom among the world’s 20 largest economies. The United States has fallen to 2nd place in the North America region, trailing Canada.
The U.S. government’s intrusive responses to the financial and economic crisis that began in 2008 have significantly undermined economic freedom and long-term prospects for economic growth. Uncertainties caused by ongoing regulatory changes and politically influenced spending have discouraged entrepreneurship and job creation, slowing recovery. Leadership in free trade has been undercut by “Buy American” provisions in stimulus legislation and failure to pursue previously agreed free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea.
As Hamilton emphasized general welfare
As Hamilton emphasized over and over again, the national government cannot promote the general welfare unless it has the power to do so. This was not a settled issue in the early years of the Republic--indeed, to some, it is still yet not a settled issue today.
It fell to John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, to ensure that the Hamiltonian view was established as our fundamental law. Marshall's 1819 opinion in the case involving the National Bank, {McCulloch v. Maryland,} is a milestone for the confirmation of the national government's exercise of its power to promote the general welfare--and, it is also clear, to carry out its Manifest Destiny as a Continental Republic, ``from sea to shining sea.''
The background of the case was as follows. The second Bank of the United States was created in 1816, after the refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank on the eve of the War of 1812. But the bank was horribly mismanaged, and the Monroe administration pursued free trade and a veto of internal improvements. By the beginning of 1819, the Bank of the United States had collapsed, insolvencies and bankruptcy fraud were rampant, and the credit system and the economy as a whole were in utter chaos.
The case before the Supreme Court grew out of the attempts by the state of Maryland (among others) to tax the operations of the Bank. In his ruling reaffirming the power of Congress to establish a national bank--and repudiating the attempt of Maryland to destroy it--Marshall drew directly on Hamilton's arguments in the ``Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank.''
Marshall began in the logical place--the Preamble to the Constitution. Remarking on the conditions under the Confederation, Marshall wrote, the states themselves were competent to form the Confederation. ``But when, `In order to form a more perfect union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance in to an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly upon the people; the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its power directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.
``The government of the Union, then ... is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from then, its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.''
(If this has a familiar echo, it should. By some accounts, Abraham Lincoln's ``of the people, by the people, for the people'' is derived directly from Marshall's opinion in the bank case.)
Also take a look at.
REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF MANUFACTURES
by Alexander Hamilton, December 5, 1791
Hamilton's Report on Manufactures shows him for the liberal progressive socialist that he was, and the reason that Jackson wanted nothing to do with him. IMO
Read the last paragraph:
"In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals;
but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In
what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry? All which is humbly submitted."
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Secretary of the Treasury
It fell to John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801 to 1835, to ensure that the Hamiltonian view was established as our fundamental law. Marshall's 1819 opinion in the case involving the National Bank, {McCulloch v. Maryland,} is a milestone for the confirmation of the national government's exercise of its power to promote the general welfare--and, it is also clear, to carry out its Manifest Destiny as a Continental Republic, ``from sea to shining sea.''
The background of the case was as follows. The second Bank of the United States was created in 1816, after the refusal of Congress to recharter the Bank on the eve of the War of 1812. But the bank was horribly mismanaged, and the Monroe administration pursued free trade and a veto of internal improvements. By the beginning of 1819, the Bank of the United States had collapsed, insolvencies and bankruptcy fraud were rampant, and the credit system and the economy as a whole were in utter chaos.
The case before the Supreme Court grew out of the attempts by the state of Maryland (among others) to tax the operations of the Bank. In his ruling reaffirming the power of Congress to establish a national bank--and repudiating the attempt of Maryland to destroy it--Marshall drew directly on Hamilton's arguments in the ``Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank.''
Marshall began in the logical place--the Preamble to the Constitution. Remarking on the conditions under the Confederation, Marshall wrote, the states themselves were competent to form the Confederation. ``But when, `In order to form a more perfect union,' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance in to an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly upon the people; the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its power directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.
``The government of the Union, then ... is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from then, its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.''
(If this has a familiar echo, it should. By some accounts, Abraham Lincoln's ``of the people, by the people, for the people'' is derived directly from Marshall's opinion in the bank case.)
Also take a look at.
REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF MANUFACTURES
by Alexander Hamilton, December 5, 1791
Hamilton's Report on Manufactures shows him for the liberal progressive socialist that he was, and the reason that Jackson wanted nothing to do with him. IMO
Read the last paragraph:
"In countries where there is great private wealth, much may be effected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic individuals;
but in a community situated like that of the United States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private resource. In
what can it be so useful, as in prompting and improving the efforts of industry? All which is humbly submitted."
ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Secretary of the Treasury
The New Modern Laissez-faire Constitutionalism
The ideology reflects classical economic freedom, with its commitment to market control of the economy, a preference for entrepreneurial liberty, and a concomitant hostility to governmental regulation.
The embrace of traditional American values, including individualism, access to opportunity, and hostility to restraints on competition by government regulation;
A view that progressivism, socialism, organized labor, open and unregulated international trade, is a threat to individual liberties and is contrary to traditional concepts of capitalism.
A vigorous pursuit of equality of justice, and opportunity, for all citizens and legal residents, without ethnic or economic constraints on personal freedom.
A strong sense that the seventeenth amendment has corrupted the natural checks and balances designed into the Constitution to minimize the viral influence of special interest groups and has minimized state ability to retain its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States Government by its Constitution and therefore needs to be repealed.
A separation from Gold and Silver coinage has lead to this governments unrestrained and uncontrolled spending and has placed the United States in jeopardy of loosing its national security and sovereignty. A return to the constitutionally mandated gold standard is needed to place a constraint on government spending.
The secular nature of our courts today makes necessary for a Constitutional Amendment to codify into legal statutes, the unalienable and natural rights of men to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness this is necessary because the courts no longer recognizes rights given by God to be law.
Due to the recent view that the Constitution is merely symbolic by our congress it is necessary to require a comprehensive review of all government laws and regulations to ensure compliance to strict Constructional principles all other laws need to be summarily dismissed as unconstitutional.
We need immigration but we do not need open borders. We need international trade but we need to have fair and equal trade regulations with nations that we are trading with.
A REPLY:
I would agree with most but the Gold/silver is just not workable in a economic system the size of America; even without international trade. Next we do not need new amendments - the Original Constitution will serve us very well if we just use the actual and real limits of the Articles. The courts have no power over States in Article III nor can they act on intrastate legal issues.
What we need is a REPEAL AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT - repeal the 14th amendment ending the Federal supremacy and enforcing the Bill of rights on the States . . repeal the 16th amendment ending the Unconstitutional "TAKING OR PROPERTY" protected under the 5th amendment - this will take away all the money from DC they use to bribe voting blocks and even States. Lastly is the 17th amendment must be repealed as it takes away the Equal Seats at the table concept to protect State Legislatures and the people from tyranny and oppression - like we see everyday now a Senator that votes for items that actually harm their home state; that would bring them home to the State legislature and instructed that is not proper representation they are not acting as fiduciaries for the State legislature.
The embrace of traditional American values, including individualism, access to opportunity, and hostility to restraints on competition by government regulation;
A view that progressivism, socialism, organized labor, open and unregulated international trade, is a threat to individual liberties and is contrary to traditional concepts of capitalism.
A vigorous pursuit of equality of justice, and opportunity, for all citizens and legal residents, without ethnic or economic constraints on personal freedom.
A strong sense that the seventeenth amendment has corrupted the natural checks and balances designed into the Constitution to minimize the viral influence of special interest groups and has minimized state ability to retain its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States Government by its Constitution and therefore needs to be repealed.
A separation from Gold and Silver coinage has lead to this governments unrestrained and uncontrolled spending and has placed the United States in jeopardy of loosing its national security and sovereignty. A return to the constitutionally mandated gold standard is needed to place a constraint on government spending.
The secular nature of our courts today makes necessary for a Constitutional Amendment to codify into legal statutes, the unalienable and natural rights of men to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness this is necessary because the courts no longer recognizes rights given by God to be law.
Due to the recent view that the Constitution is merely symbolic by our congress it is necessary to require a comprehensive review of all government laws and regulations to ensure compliance to strict Constructional principles all other laws need to be summarily dismissed as unconstitutional.
We need immigration but we do not need open borders. We need international trade but we need to have fair and equal trade regulations with nations that we are trading with.
A REPLY:
I would agree with most but the Gold/silver is just not workable in a economic system the size of America; even without international trade. Next we do not need new amendments - the Original Constitution will serve us very well if we just use the actual and real limits of the Articles. The courts have no power over States in Article III nor can they act on intrastate legal issues.
What we need is a REPEAL AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT - repeal the 14th amendment ending the Federal supremacy and enforcing the Bill of rights on the States . . repeal the 16th amendment ending the Unconstitutional "TAKING OR PROPERTY" protected under the 5th amendment - this will take away all the money from DC they use to bribe voting blocks and even States. Lastly is the 17th amendment must be repealed as it takes away the Equal Seats at the table concept to protect State Legislatures and the people from tyranny and oppression - like we see everyday now a Senator that votes for items that actually harm their home state; that would bring them home to the State legislature and instructed that is not proper representation they are not acting as fiduciaries for the State legislature.
Freedom
What is freedom? “Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression. The members of a free society would have full dominion over their public and private lives. The opposite of a free society would be a totalitarian state, which highly restricts political freedom in order to regulate almost every aspect of behavior. In this sense ‘freedom’ refers solely to the relation of men to other men, and the only infringement on it is coercion by men.”
The literal definition of freedom is to be unencumbered by government. Free to live your life to achieve your potential without the government imposing it’s will upon you through law or taxes. Our Founding Fathers gave us the Constitution to protect us from our government, and gave the responsibility to our government to provide us with security from governments both foreign and domestic that would deny freedom. Yes that means our own government that is why there are checks and balances built into the Constitution. And why any challenge to Constitution needs to be taken seriously.
Are you truly free if you are mired in debit? Or are you enslaved to your creditors? How much of your income is consumed by debit? How much is your’s to freely spend as you want? All these things should be considered as our government takes us deeper into debit.
Our government should send every man woman and child an invoice for the $60,000.00+ that each of us owes just to balance the Obama budget, with maybe two or three easy payment programs to choose from. Then maybe we would stop and think before we stand at the trough with our hand out. Maybe we will think before demanding that our representatives get more and more money for special interest pet projects. Maybe we will demand accountability and prudence when our government spends our money. Maybe we would demand that just as we have to live within our means and balance our budgets that our government must do likewise.
Why doesn’t our government send us an invoice? Because they are afraid to, they fear the revolution it would cause. They fear what might happen to them if we truly thought about the freedom they are steeling from us and our children.
Our nation is in deep trouble we can not accept representatives that promise anything less than a balanced budget and they must do anything necessary to reduce the national debt. I care less about their Party affiliation then I do to their devotion to the Constitution and Conservative principles and their elect-ability. This does not mean that they are Conservatives when they tell us that they have saved billions by spending trillions. It may require rifting many thousands of federal employees, it may mean closing government agencies, but I am willing to bet that unless you are federal employee you will not even notice the change in your daily life.
The literal definition of freedom is to be unencumbered by government. Free to live your life to achieve your potential without the government imposing it’s will upon you through law or taxes. Our Founding Fathers gave us the Constitution to protect us from our government, and gave the responsibility to our government to provide us with security from governments both foreign and domestic that would deny freedom. Yes that means our own government that is why there are checks and balances built into the Constitution. And why any challenge to Constitution needs to be taken seriously.
Are you truly free if you are mired in debit? Or are you enslaved to your creditors? How much of your income is consumed by debit? How much is your’s to freely spend as you want? All these things should be considered as our government takes us deeper into debit.
Our government should send every man woman and child an invoice for the $60,000.00+ that each of us owes just to balance the Obama budget, with maybe two or three easy payment programs to choose from. Then maybe we would stop and think before we stand at the trough with our hand out. Maybe we will think before demanding that our representatives get more and more money for special interest pet projects. Maybe we will demand accountability and prudence when our government spends our money. Maybe we would demand that just as we have to live within our means and balance our budgets that our government must do likewise.
Why doesn’t our government send us an invoice? Because they are afraid to, they fear the revolution it would cause. They fear what might happen to them if we truly thought about the freedom they are steeling from us and our children.
Our nation is in deep trouble we can not accept representatives that promise anything less than a balanced budget and they must do anything necessary to reduce the national debt. I care less about their Party affiliation then I do to their devotion to the Constitution and Conservative principles and their elect-ability. This does not mean that they are Conservatives when they tell us that they have saved billions by spending trillions. It may require rifting many thousands of federal employees, it may mean closing government agencies, but I am willing to bet that unless you are federal employee you will not even notice the change in your daily life.
It’s a Matter of Principle.
As young men, preparing for training in the art of warfare swore an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, from enemies both foreign and domestic. We thought it was our duty just as it was our father’s duty during World War II to fight to preserve freedom. Little did we know President Lyndon Johnson a Democrat the father of the Great Society welfare program who sent us way to fight communism, had no intention of wining the war. He was too occupied building his “Great Society" and too afraid of the communist to unleash his military for victory, he was the one who sacrificed fifty-five thousand American young men for nothing, he was the one who is the shame of the Vietnam War.
Richard Nixon brought the war to doorstep of Ho Chi Minh he brought the North to peace table in Paris. It was congress being lead by communist inspired students who stole the will to defend that peace treaty, won by our armies, and gave North Vietnam Victory at such a terrible cost of lives.
These same liberal socialist students who were so proud that they managed to secure victory for the Communist of North Vietnam and too cowardly to declare what their true intensions, of socializing the United States now hiding in the cloak of the Democrat Party and in the name of “Social Justus” are in power and in control of many of our schools, universities, and State and Federal governments.
These are the guys that spit on us, called us baby killers, and had total contempt for the military. The very people showed no remorse as the invading armies of Ho Chi Minh caused eleven million refugees to flee their home lands, and turned a blind eye to murder of another three million. Now they are seeking to destroy this nation with debt, taxes, and social entailments that would have made Soviets blush. They expect that we will march in an Orwellian lockstep into the Socialist utopia of equality that has failed through out the rest of the world. They think that because it’s America somehow the outcome will be different.
Those of us took the Oath put our lives on the line have one more battle to fight to save the Constitution Save our Country. John F Kennedy the last of the Conservative Democrats to be President said that we should not ask what our government can do for us but what can we do for our government. That statement is so strong in its meaning it inspired the self proclaimed socialist Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate not only the President but the entire Democratic Party. The time has come to put Kennedy’s statement into practice. Our government is in danger we must stand and vote to restore the Conservative values of our fathers and the principles that built this nation.
After Vietnam we thought we would never get an opportunity to get our revenge on the liberal socialist scum who spit on us as we returned home from that war. That opportunity is now. This is the chance we have to standup and fight for freedom, dignity and self reliance and the Constitution.
Get out and vote, be part of this Tea Party movement, Support Conservative candidates, study the Constitution so you can freely speak out when it is being desecrated. Force our leaders to make Constitution the cornerstone of all laws being passed by congress. The time to fight is now. Not with bullets not with guns but with words of principle, words of courage, words from our Constitution. Defend the oath, defend our way of life, defend the flag, defend our honor, and defend our pride as Americans Citizens. We are the greatest Nation the world has ever known now stand and be counted.
Richard Nixon brought the war to doorstep of Ho Chi Minh he brought the North to peace table in Paris. It was congress being lead by communist inspired students who stole the will to defend that peace treaty, won by our armies, and gave North Vietnam Victory at such a terrible cost of lives.
These same liberal socialist students who were so proud that they managed to secure victory for the Communist of North Vietnam and too cowardly to declare what their true intensions, of socializing the United States now hiding in the cloak of the Democrat Party and in the name of “Social Justus” are in power and in control of many of our schools, universities, and State and Federal governments.
These are the guys that spit on us, called us baby killers, and had total contempt for the military. The very people showed no remorse as the invading armies of Ho Chi Minh caused eleven million refugees to flee their home lands, and turned a blind eye to murder of another three million. Now they are seeking to destroy this nation with debt, taxes, and social entailments that would have made Soviets blush. They expect that we will march in an Orwellian lockstep into the Socialist utopia of equality that has failed through out the rest of the world. They think that because it’s America somehow the outcome will be different.
Those of us took the Oath put our lives on the line have one more battle to fight to save the Constitution Save our Country. John F Kennedy the last of the Conservative Democrats to be President said that we should not ask what our government can do for us but what can we do for our government. That statement is so strong in its meaning it inspired the self proclaimed socialist Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate not only the President but the entire Democratic Party. The time has come to put Kennedy’s statement into practice. Our government is in danger we must stand and vote to restore the Conservative values of our fathers and the principles that built this nation.
After Vietnam we thought we would never get an opportunity to get our revenge on the liberal socialist scum who spit on us as we returned home from that war. That opportunity is now. This is the chance we have to standup and fight for freedom, dignity and self reliance and the Constitution.
Get out and vote, be part of this Tea Party movement, Support Conservative candidates, study the Constitution so you can freely speak out when it is being desecrated. Force our leaders to make Constitution the cornerstone of all laws being passed by congress. The time to fight is now. Not with bullets not with guns but with words of principle, words of courage, words from our Constitution. Defend the oath, defend our way of life, defend the flag, defend our honor, and defend our pride as Americans Citizens. We are the greatest Nation the world has ever known now stand and be counted.
Historically Speaking - History Speaks Volumes!
As a group, Article V students and our welcomed visitors are seeking knowledge of the history of our government, working to educate ourselves and share; understanding of the persons and the principles that established the greatest government of freedom the world has ever known.
We see ourselves at our place in history, where our Nation faces many perils, and as we all do in our personal lives when faced with challenges, we look to the knowledge and the example of history to help guide us through difficult times. Historical perspective is the window that has removed the blinders from my eyes and has shown us a true vision. An Article V amendment convention and our 28th amendment proposal can save our Nation.
This thread brings a slightly different perspective of thought. When our Founders were designing this government and the documents that they would eventually base it upon; they took from the lessons of history. They created something “new and completely unique” to the annuals of representative government and free people.
They were men with failings and imperfections, set upon accomplishing a great work, from many different backgrounds and opinions - joined in a common purpose. As we continue to study all of the great documents and our history, may we remember that ordinary people can together accomplish “extraordinary” things?
This project is one of the most worthy projects we can chance upon in a lifetime. Few opportunities of this magnitude come our way. Keep in mind that every great masterpiece; was at a time, messy-incomplete - and imperfect for both the artist and the canvas - before it was ready for public unveiling…..historically speaking-history speaks volumes!
We will continue to offer in the future, "history" as the teacher - and the lesson. Together we can discover truths we may have forgotten...truths we all need to remember.
Rhode Island, the thirteenth state, declined to send delegates. Thomas Jefferson characterized the 55 men, who showed up in Philadelphia as "demi-gods," who created a Constitution that would last into remote futurity. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the work of the American Founders: never before in the history of the world had the leaders of a country declared the existing government to be bankrupt, and the people, after debate, calmly elected delegates who proposed a solution, which, in turn, was debated up and down the country for nearly a year, and not a drop of blood was spilled.
Madison, in Federalist 37, indicates the uniqueness of the Founding: never before had there been a democratic founding; all previous founding’s had been the work of a single founder like Romulus. Hamilton, in Federalist 1, suggested that this was a unique event in the history of the world; finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud. And what is also unique is the fact that the framers were relatively young, well educated, and politically experienced.
Like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was written by delegates immersed in:
1) The writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu, and
2) A world of political experience at both the state and continental level.
Both basic documents were written in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, and thirty signers of the Declaration in 1776 played a vital part in the creation and adoption of the Constitution, 1787-1789.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/intro.html {Link}
We see ourselves at our place in history, where our Nation faces many perils, and as we all do in our personal lives when faced with challenges, we look to the knowledge and the example of history to help guide us through difficult times. Historical perspective is the window that has removed the blinders from my eyes and has shown us a true vision. An Article V amendment convention and our 28th amendment proposal can save our Nation.
This thread brings a slightly different perspective of thought. When our Founders were designing this government and the documents that they would eventually base it upon; they took from the lessons of history. They created something “new and completely unique” to the annuals of representative government and free people.
They were men with failings and imperfections, set upon accomplishing a great work, from many different backgrounds and opinions - joined in a common purpose. As we continue to study all of the great documents and our history, may we remember that ordinary people can together accomplish “extraordinary” things?
This project is one of the most worthy projects we can chance upon in a lifetime. Few opportunities of this magnitude come our way. Keep in mind that every great masterpiece; was at a time, messy-incomplete - and imperfect for both the artist and the canvas - before it was ready for public unveiling…..historically speaking-history speaks volumes!
We will continue to offer in the future, "history" as the teacher - and the lesson. Together we can discover truths we may have forgotten...truths we all need to remember.
Rhode Island, the thirteenth state, declined to send delegates. Thomas Jefferson characterized the 55 men, who showed up in Philadelphia as "demi-gods," who created a Constitution that would last into remote futurity. Alexis de Tocqueville marveled at the work of the American Founders: never before in the history of the world had the leaders of a country declared the existing government to be bankrupt, and the people, after debate, calmly elected delegates who proposed a solution, which, in turn, was debated up and down the country for nearly a year, and not a drop of blood was spilled.
Madison, in Federalist 37, indicates the uniqueness of the Founding: never before had there been a democratic founding; all previous founding’s had been the work of a single founder like Romulus. Hamilton, in Federalist 1, suggested that this was a unique event in the history of the world; finally government was going to be established by reflection and choice rather than force and fraud. And what is also unique is the fact that the framers were relatively young, well educated, and politically experienced.
Like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution was written by delegates immersed in:
1) The writings of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Montesquieu, and
2) A world of political experience at both the state and continental level.
Both basic documents were written in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, and thirty signers of the Declaration in 1776 played a vital part in the creation and adoption of the Constitution, 1787-1789.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/intro.html {Link}
17th Amendment
Thanks for asking about the 17th Amendment. Here is the information that you will need in order to see the bird's eye view concerning major problems with the 17th Amendment. I will present the "dots" concerning the problems with that amendment, connecting them as I go along. So please bear with me.
First, the Founders established the federal Senate to be the voice of the constitutionally-powerful state legislatures in the constitutionally-humbled federal government. This is evidenced by Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 (1.3.1).
1.3.1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
So the Founders had intended for the Senate to protect the interests of the state legislatures in the federal Congress, including state revenues. The Senate's job to protect state revenues is important for the following reason. Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored by both federal and state lawmakers, that Congress cannot lay taxes is the name of state power issues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So not only did the Founders reserve the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress, but also greater power to lay taxes associated with unique state powers.
So not only is healthcare, for example, a state power issue, the 10th Amendment automatically making healthcare a state power issue because of the Constitution's silence about healthcare, but corrupt Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund federal healthcare.
Also, why have citizens been paying more in federal taxes than in state taxes for the last several decades? After all, the federal Senate should have killed legislation like Obamacare since this legislation not only wrongly usurps unique state power to regulate healthcare, but as Justice Marshall had officially indicated, also robs state revenue associated with such power.
The problem is that the state legislatures foolishly ratified the 17th A. in 1913, unthinkingly giving up their voice in the federal government. Doing so essentially turned Congress into a single house, the Senate no longer putting a check on unwanted or illegal federal taxes as the Founders had intended.
In fact, a part of the reason that California is broke, IMO, is because Californians are getting backstabbed by the lawmakers that they are electing to the Senate, senators who ultimately end up using their legislative votes in favor of higher federal taxes instead of protecting California state revenues.
Finally, regarding the pro-17th A. argument that enabling voters to vote for federal Senators is what taxation with representation is all about, consider the following. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 (1.7.1) indicates that only the House of Representatives has the power to initiate legislation which raises revenue.
1.7.1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
So not only did voters actually gain nothing where representation for their taxes is concerned by being able to vote for senators, but the 17th A. arguably took the USA a giant step from being the republic that the Founders had intended, to a mob-ruled democracy that they had worked so hard to avoid.
Finally, the reason that voters need to replace Constitution-impaired state lawmakers with pro-constitutional process lawmakers in November if they want a chance at repealing the 17th Amendment is this. It is the states, not Congress, who have the power to amend the Constitution. And incumbent federal Congressmen who wouldn't be willing to help the states get rid of the 17th A. need to be replaced as well.
The Senate has become an extension of the House of Representatives they are elected by the same Political Action Committees and Special interest groups they Kowtow to same people that is why they do not send bills back to the House if they are not constitutional or if the bill has unfunded mandates that the states have to pay. Their appointment by the State was intended as one of the check and balances that was to protect the people and the states from the over exuberance's of congress. Now congress is one large body with the same agenda. Tax and Spend.
Here is my humble opinion: Aricle 1, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that senators will be Chosen by the legislatures of each state. Not elected. The state legislature is composed of those elected by the people of each state, and therefore the people have the power to put the legislators of their state out on the street.
The legislators would choose individuals to sent to the US Senate, and it is presumed that the same state legislators could call a senator back for failing to secure the rights of the state from which he or she came. Thus, there is no way in hell that the Senate would ever vote for anything that took away the rights of the states under the tenth amendment.
Therefore the people of a state, had control over who served in the legislature of the US Senate.
First, the Founders established the federal Senate to be the voice of the constitutionally-powerful state legislatures in the constitutionally-humbled federal government. This is evidenced by Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 (1.3.1).
1.3.1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
So the Founders had intended for the Senate to protect the interests of the state legislatures in the federal Congress, including state revenues. The Senate's job to protect state revenues is important for the following reason. Chief Justice Marshall had established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored by both federal and state lawmakers, that Congress cannot lay taxes is the name of state power issues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Chief Justice Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So not only did the Founders reserve the lion's share of government power to serve the people to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress, but also greater power to lay taxes associated with unique state powers.
So not only is healthcare, for example, a state power issue, the 10th Amendment automatically making healthcare a state power issue because of the Constitution's silence about healthcare, but corrupt Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund federal healthcare.
Also, why have citizens been paying more in federal taxes than in state taxes for the last several decades? After all, the federal Senate should have killed legislation like Obamacare since this legislation not only wrongly usurps unique state power to regulate healthcare, but as Justice Marshall had officially indicated, also robs state revenue associated with such power.
The problem is that the state legislatures foolishly ratified the 17th A. in 1913, unthinkingly giving up their voice in the federal government. Doing so essentially turned Congress into a single house, the Senate no longer putting a check on unwanted or illegal federal taxes as the Founders had intended.
In fact, a part of the reason that California is broke, IMO, is because Californians are getting backstabbed by the lawmakers that they are electing to the Senate, senators who ultimately end up using their legislative votes in favor of higher federal taxes instead of protecting California state revenues.
Finally, regarding the pro-17th A. argument that enabling voters to vote for federal Senators is what taxation with representation is all about, consider the following. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 (1.7.1) indicates that only the House of Representatives has the power to initiate legislation which raises revenue.
1.7.1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
So not only did voters actually gain nothing where representation for their taxes is concerned by being able to vote for senators, but the 17th A. arguably took the USA a giant step from being the republic that the Founders had intended, to a mob-ruled democracy that they had worked so hard to avoid.
Finally, the reason that voters need to replace Constitution-impaired state lawmakers with pro-constitutional process lawmakers in November if they want a chance at repealing the 17th Amendment is this. It is the states, not Congress, who have the power to amend the Constitution. And incumbent federal Congressmen who wouldn't be willing to help the states get rid of the 17th A. need to be replaced as well.
The Senate has become an extension of the House of Representatives they are elected by the same Political Action Committees and Special interest groups they Kowtow to same people that is why they do not send bills back to the House if they are not constitutional or if the bill has unfunded mandates that the states have to pay. Their appointment by the State was intended as one of the check and balances that was to protect the people and the states from the over exuberance's of congress. Now congress is one large body with the same agenda. Tax and Spend.
Here is my humble opinion: Aricle 1, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that senators will be Chosen by the legislatures of each state. Not elected. The state legislature is composed of those elected by the people of each state, and therefore the people have the power to put the legislators of their state out on the street.
The legislators would choose individuals to sent to the US Senate, and it is presumed that the same state legislators could call a senator back for failing to secure the rights of the state from which he or she came. Thus, there is no way in hell that the Senate would ever vote for anything that took away the rights of the states under the tenth amendment.
Therefore the people of a state, had control over who served in the legislature of the US Senate.
A New Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events it again becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with a failed authority and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God as well as our original, properly constituted laws entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of we the people; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to repair to their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President, his Congress, and our recalcitrant federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
It has abused its role over the law and instituted fiat rules that are detrimental to the common good — welfare, cap and trade, oppressive taxes, onerous regulation on business are recent examples.
It has forbidden governors of states to pass laws useful to local needs and has interfered in state business.
It has refused the right of local government to govern at home and has as a matter of course caused local legislators to carelessly assume they have no power.
It has defacto dissolved the authority of state governments so that the representatives of the people constantly defer to rule from Washington.
It has refused to secure the borders so that all manner of foreigners of the lowest station might flood these shores without hesitation while refusing to allow those foreigners with useful skills and education to enter and apply for citizenship.
It has allowed capricious courts to usurp proper legislative duties and to rule from the bench.
It has seated judges with no opposition or investigation and has not required judicial candidates to express an interest in the true meaning of the law of the land.
It has erected a multitude of new regulatory offices few of which have any basis in the Constitution and has as a form of graft filled them with friends, lobbyists, and placemen.
It has refused to properly fund our armies in times of peace without including graft and monies unconnected to the needs of our armed forces.
It has therefore interfered with the military stopping it from operating at peak efficiency.
It has conspired with powers outside our duly constituted authority to take away our constitutional rights, to subvert our national laws, and has given assent to forces such as the UN to rule us from afar without accountability. These outside forces are hateful of our system and desire it’s end. Therefore we accuse our government of attacking us from inside.
For positing that UN forces are superior in authority to our own:
For signing treaties inimical to our national interests:
For cutting off free trade with worthy countries such as Colombia, yet opening trade with evil countries such as China:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us of our constitutional rights of property, life, and self-protection at every opportunity:
For creating rules that encroach on freedom of religion:
For increasing the size of government to never before seen size and power in a manner against our founding principles and for purposefully creating chaos in business, banking, and every other area of the private sector with never ending regulations that strangle, confuse, and stifle American growth:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
And for corrupting our legislatures with federal largess and assuming unto the federal government all powers to rule from Washington D.C.
It has abdicated its Constitutional role and essentially come to see the people as an enemy and waged philosophical war against us.
It has plundered our businesses with overweening regulations, capriciously outlawed entire fields of business, and burdened the lives of the people with oppressive taxes.
It has created an army of police, taxmen and regulators to fan out across the land to assault and imprison our citizens, to confiscate lands to federal ownership and to lay waste the economy and bring our people into a form of dependency akin to slavery.
It has often sent our armed forces to foreign nations without a proper mission, held back necessary funding, and burdened it with untenable “rules of engagement” which has limited our troop’s ability to fight to win, and has allowed barbarous enemies to gain the upper hand on the battle field.
It has attempted to separate the citizenry into warring factions yet has allowed our enemy to easily enter the country and perpetrate a merciless Muslim warfare which is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, religions and American institutions and intends enslavement of us all.
In every stage of these violations millions of citizens have gathered in the streets to protest these government outrages yet no heed has been paid to the agony of the people in its hallowed halls.
Nor have we been heard by our Democrat brethren. We have warned them of the destruction of the American rule of law, yet they are uninterested in this plight. We have appealed to their love of country and we have reminded them of the glorious history of our great nation to no avail. They have turned a deaf ear to Constitutionality, a cold shoulder to our American character, and our law and we find their sympathies lie with Europeans instead of their fellow Americans. We must, therefore, consider them enemies of our national interests, safety, health, and welfare.
We, therefore, the representatives of the American tradition and character assemble as citizens proud of our history and institutions, and in the tradition of our national power being held in the hands of the people, assert our loyalty to our true American system. We hold this government to be illegitimate by its usurpation of power and its obviation of our laws. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence that has been rejected by our enemies, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
…Now, let the new political revolution of free men by free men begin!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24955
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of we the people; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to repair to their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President, his Congress, and our recalcitrant federal government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
It has abused its role over the law and instituted fiat rules that are detrimental to the common good — welfare, cap and trade, oppressive taxes, onerous regulation on business are recent examples.
It has forbidden governors of states to pass laws useful to local needs and has interfered in state business.
It has refused the right of local government to govern at home and has as a matter of course caused local legislators to carelessly assume they have no power.
It has defacto dissolved the authority of state governments so that the representatives of the people constantly defer to rule from Washington.
It has refused to secure the borders so that all manner of foreigners of the lowest station might flood these shores without hesitation while refusing to allow those foreigners with useful skills and education to enter and apply for citizenship.
It has allowed capricious courts to usurp proper legislative duties and to rule from the bench.
It has seated judges with no opposition or investigation and has not required judicial candidates to express an interest in the true meaning of the law of the land.
It has erected a multitude of new regulatory offices few of which have any basis in the Constitution and has as a form of graft filled them with friends, lobbyists, and placemen.
It has refused to properly fund our armies in times of peace without including graft and monies unconnected to the needs of our armed forces.
It has therefore interfered with the military stopping it from operating at peak efficiency.
It has conspired with powers outside our duly constituted authority to take away our constitutional rights, to subvert our national laws, and has given assent to forces such as the UN to rule us from afar without accountability. These outside forces are hateful of our system and desire it’s end. Therefore we accuse our government of attacking us from inside.
For positing that UN forces are superior in authority to our own:
For signing treaties inimical to our national interests:
For cutting off free trade with worthy countries such as Colombia, yet opening trade with evil countries such as China:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us of our constitutional rights of property, life, and self-protection at every opportunity:
For creating rules that encroach on freedom of religion:
For increasing the size of government to never before seen size and power in a manner against our founding principles and for purposefully creating chaos in business, banking, and every other area of the private sector with never ending regulations that strangle, confuse, and stifle American growth:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
And for corrupting our legislatures with federal largess and assuming unto the federal government all powers to rule from Washington D.C.
It has abdicated its Constitutional role and essentially come to see the people as an enemy and waged philosophical war against us.
It has plundered our businesses with overweening regulations, capriciously outlawed entire fields of business, and burdened the lives of the people with oppressive taxes.
It has created an army of police, taxmen and regulators to fan out across the land to assault and imprison our citizens, to confiscate lands to federal ownership and to lay waste the economy and bring our people into a form of dependency akin to slavery.
It has often sent our armed forces to foreign nations without a proper mission, held back necessary funding, and burdened it with untenable “rules of engagement” which has limited our troop’s ability to fight to win, and has allowed barbarous enemies to gain the upper hand on the battle field.
It has attempted to separate the citizenry into warring factions yet has allowed our enemy to easily enter the country and perpetrate a merciless Muslim warfare which is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, religions and American institutions and intends enslavement of us all.
In every stage of these violations millions of citizens have gathered in the streets to protest these government outrages yet no heed has been paid to the agony of the people in its hallowed halls.
Nor have we been heard by our Democrat brethren. We have warned them of the destruction of the American rule of law, yet they are uninterested in this plight. We have appealed to their love of country and we have reminded them of the glorious history of our great nation to no avail. They have turned a deaf ear to Constitutionality, a cold shoulder to our American character, and our law and we find their sympathies lie with Europeans instead of their fellow Americans. We must, therefore, consider them enemies of our national interests, safety, health, and welfare.
We, therefore, the representatives of the American tradition and character assemble as citizens proud of our history and institutions, and in the tradition of our national power being held in the hands of the people, assert our loyalty to our true American system. We hold this government to be illegitimate by its usurpation of power and its obviation of our laws. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence that has been rejected by our enemies, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
…Now, let the new political revolution of free men by free men begin!
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24955
America's Particular Patriotism
by Edward L. Hudgins
Edward L. Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on July 3, 2000
This article appeared on cato.org on July 3, 2000.
With individuals voluntarily taking up arms to secure the liberties that the new nation promised them, America had an inspirational start. But the country's real glory lies in the spectacle of millions of citizens working hard to make happy lives for themselves, creating in the process the most prosperous land of opportunity the world has ever known.
Perhaps it is no surprise that Americans have seen themselves and their country as possessing a special moral dignity. Americans have viewed their country as an exemplar for the world, as a shining city on a hill that stands to inspire and attract millions of like-minded individuals. But what is the basis of America's particular patriotism and civic virtues? Why have millions loved this country enough to fight and die for its preservation?
It is first necessary to discuss the nature of any value, and perhaps it is appropriate to start with something that millions of Americans own or aspire to own: a house. When something is of special importance to you, you take extraordinary measures to acquire and maintain it. Your future house is worth the price of your current entertainment and leisure, so you forgo lots of less important luxuries such as dinners at pricey restaurants, a new car, or an expensive vacation. Whether you succeed in securing a house is inexorably tied to your virtues. Do you have the self-discipline and dedication to resist immediate temptations, to overcome indolence, to struggle for something that you value above other things? And, of course, if you succeed, you win a triple benefit: 1) you will have your house; 2) you will create and strengthen in your own soul those virtues necessary to secure the house; and 3) you will consequently enjoy a deserved pride and a sense of achievement.
To acquire and maintain nonmaterial values also requires work and tests our virtues. A marriage and a family certainly fall into that category. Parents must prioritize to raise a child from a cute but crying and helpless baby to a self-sufficient adult one can be proud of. Forgoing some luxuries along the way is only a seeming self-sacrifice, for parents keep the best for themselves: a wonderful family, strong moral character and the knowledge that they did their best.
So what about the United States? Why should we value it so highly? The answer is found in our country's creed, the Declaration of Independence. We are "endowed . . . with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." What a wonderful statement! The government will accord each of us the respect and freedom to live our lives as we see fit; indeed, protecting such freedoms is the purpose of government.
And what will be our natural feelings toward the institutions meant to preserve liberty? It is hoped, a proper patriotism. We appreciate this republic because it protects us from violence and otherwise leaves us alone to build our houses, raise our families and live our own lives. And living in such a system fosters in us certain civic virtues. For example, we are tolerant of our fellow citizens, even if their ways of living are not our ways. We try to solve our problems, meet life's challenges, enjoy ourselves and flourish in private institutions like families, churches, the Freemasons, the PTAs, bowling leagues and book clubs. A glory of the American system is that it makes private pursuits and private virtues work for the good of the county, because the country is not principally the government but rather the private institutions and individuals that compose it.
Unfortunately, in the 20th century the government became more master than servant and now treats us like subjects who cannot tie our shoes without its help. And the more government taxes and controls us, the more it undermines the civic institutions that constitute this country, which in turn erodes the moral character and civic virtues in which our patriotism is rooted. Why love a regime that plunders rather than protects us?
Many Americans now understand the errors of the past and appreciate that this republic, for which our Founders risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, is truly a valuable treasure worth preserving. In the future, only a restoration of individual liberty, with its challenges and opportunities, will guarantee a strong, moral America.
Edward L. Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on July 3, 2000
This article appeared on cato.org on July 3, 2000.
With individuals voluntarily taking up arms to secure the liberties that the new nation promised them, America had an inspirational start. But the country's real glory lies in the spectacle of millions of citizens working hard to make happy lives for themselves, creating in the process the most prosperous land of opportunity the world has ever known.
Perhaps it is no surprise that Americans have seen themselves and their country as possessing a special moral dignity. Americans have viewed their country as an exemplar for the world, as a shining city on a hill that stands to inspire and attract millions of like-minded individuals. But what is the basis of America's particular patriotism and civic virtues? Why have millions loved this country enough to fight and die for its preservation?
It is first necessary to discuss the nature of any value, and perhaps it is appropriate to start with something that millions of Americans own or aspire to own: a house. When something is of special importance to you, you take extraordinary measures to acquire and maintain it. Your future house is worth the price of your current entertainment and leisure, so you forgo lots of less important luxuries such as dinners at pricey restaurants, a new car, or an expensive vacation. Whether you succeed in securing a house is inexorably tied to your virtues. Do you have the self-discipline and dedication to resist immediate temptations, to overcome indolence, to struggle for something that you value above other things? And, of course, if you succeed, you win a triple benefit: 1) you will have your house; 2) you will create and strengthen in your own soul those virtues necessary to secure the house; and 3) you will consequently enjoy a deserved pride and a sense of achievement.
To acquire and maintain nonmaterial values also requires work and tests our virtues. A marriage and a family certainly fall into that category. Parents must prioritize to raise a child from a cute but crying and helpless baby to a self-sufficient adult one can be proud of. Forgoing some luxuries along the way is only a seeming self-sacrifice, for parents keep the best for themselves: a wonderful family, strong moral character and the knowledge that they did their best.
So what about the United States? Why should we value it so highly? The answer is found in our country's creed, the Declaration of Independence. We are "endowed . . . with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." What a wonderful statement! The government will accord each of us the respect and freedom to live our lives as we see fit; indeed, protecting such freedoms is the purpose of government.
And what will be our natural feelings toward the institutions meant to preserve liberty? It is hoped, a proper patriotism. We appreciate this republic because it protects us from violence and otherwise leaves us alone to build our houses, raise our families and live our own lives. And living in such a system fosters in us certain civic virtues. For example, we are tolerant of our fellow citizens, even if their ways of living are not our ways. We try to solve our problems, meet life's challenges, enjoy ourselves and flourish in private institutions like families, churches, the Freemasons, the PTAs, bowling leagues and book clubs. A glory of the American system is that it makes private pursuits and private virtues work for the good of the county, because the country is not principally the government but rather the private institutions and individuals that compose it.
Unfortunately, in the 20th century the government became more master than servant and now treats us like subjects who cannot tie our shoes without its help. And the more government taxes and controls us, the more it undermines the civic institutions that constitute this country, which in turn erodes the moral character and civic virtues in which our patriotism is rooted. Why love a regime that plunders rather than protects us?
Many Americans now understand the errors of the past and appreciate that this republic, for which our Founders risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, is truly a valuable treasure worth preserving. In the future, only a restoration of individual liberty, with its challenges and opportunities, will guarantee a strong, moral America.
