ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091013

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"Daily Motivations"

Housework can't kill you, but why take a chance? -- Phyllis Diller



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

"Look up into the heavens. Who created all the stars? He brings them out one after another, calling each by its name." (Isaiah 40:26)

As a young man, I was a materialist and humanist. To me at that time, success in life was measured by the accumulation of material possessions, honors, applause, and the praise of men.

The idea of God, or a Savior, or the Bible, had little place in my life. All through high school, college and in graduate school, on the extension faculty of Oklahoma State University, and later as a businessman in Hollywood, California, where as a young man I developed my own business, I was motivated by selfish goals and materialistic pursuits.

Then one day I sensed that unseen hand of God in my life. I can only describe it as a sovereign visit from God. God and my mother's prayers caught up with me. I was drawn to the First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood.

It was there that I heard about the great Creator God of the universe. Simultaneously, I discovered that my head had been in the sand -- the sand of mundane, selfish interests and temporal pursuits.

But there at that wonderful church in Hollywood, I was moved to look up, beyond my microscopic world, at the wonder of creation, behind which was an obvious Creator. And one day I met this One who, according to the Bible, came to this earth in the greatest act of love the world would ever has ever known. He is Jesus of Nazareth, God's only Son.

My life has never been the same since I surrendered my life to Him.



"The Patriot Post"

"The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy." -- Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, 1774

"We lay it down as a fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782



Not Yours To Give

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents..." -- James Madison

David CrockettMy paternal ancestors settled in East Tennessee about 10 years before it was admitted to the Union (1796). Not far from where they settled lived a fellow who was the region's most famous frontiersman.

David Crockett was his name.

He has been immortalized as a folk hero, known for his battles with the Red Stick Creek Indians under Andrew Jackson, and his last stand at the Alamo with fellow Patriots James Bowie from Kentucky and William Travis from South Carolina.

Crockett battled the Creek side-by-side with fellow Tennessean Sam Houston, but both men were friends to the Cherokee clans, which were composed of highly civilized native peoples living in the border regions between Tennessee and North Carolina.

At the end of his formal service as a soldier, he was elected Lieutenant Colonel of the Tennessee Militia.

Crockett is less known for the several terms he served in Congress between 1827 and 1835 during the presidency of his old commander, Andrew Jackson. Crockett's friend, Sam Houston, had been elected governor of Tennessee. (Houston, who would later become governor of Texas, is the only American in history to serve as governor of two states.)

Though he had little formal education, Crockett exuded a commanding presence and was feared, if not loathed, by his more refined congressional colleagues for his backwoods rhetoric.

In one of his more legendary orations, Crockett proclaimed: "Mr. Speaker ... the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Everett] talks of summing up the merits of the question, but I'll sum up my own. In one word I'm a screamer, and have got the roughest racking horse, the prettiest sister, the surest rifle and the ugliest dog in the district. I'm a leetle the savagest crittur you ever did see. My father can whip any man in Kentucky, and I can lick my father. I can out-speak any man on this floor, and give him two hours start. I can run faster, dive deeper, stay longer under, and come out drier, than any chap this side the big Swamp. I can outlook a panther and outstare a flash of lightning, tote a steamboat on my back and play at rough and tumble with a lion, and an occasional kick from a zebra."

Crockett continued, "I can take the rag off -- frighten the old folks -- astonish the natives -- and beat the Dutch all to smash, make nothing of sleeping under a blanket of snow and don't mind being frozen more than a rotten apple. I can walk like an ox, run like a fox, swim like an eel, yell like an Indian, fight like a devil, spout like an earthquake, make love like a mad bull, and swallow a Mexican whole without choking if you butter his head and pin his ears back."

What I wouldn't give to hear a tad more of that on the floor of the House these days!

Though his rhetoric may have been unorthodox, Crockett was a man of principle.

His fervent opposition to Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act of 1830 (forcing removal of the peaceful Cherokee tribes along the infamous "Trail of Tears") cost Crockett his congressional seat, but he declared, "I bark at no man's bid. I will never come and go, and fetch and carry, at the whistle of the great man in the White House no matter who he is."

But it was Crockett's stalwart opposition to unconstitutional spending that is most worth noting given today's congressional penchant for such spending in the trillions.

According to the Register of Debates for the House of Representatives, 20th Congress, 1st Session on April 2, 1828, Crocket stood to challenge the constitutionality of one of the earliest welfare spending bills.

While the exact text of his speech was not recorded in full (as that was not the practice of the time), the spirit of his words was captured years later under the heading "Not yours to give" in the book "The Life of Colonel David Crockett" by Edward Ellis.

Ellis wrote, "One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose...."

According to Ellis, Crockett said, "Mr. Speaker; I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased.. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

Though the measure was expected to receive unanimous support, after Crockett's objection, it did not pass.


Be sure you are right...Ellis recounts that Crocket was later asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, and he replied: "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done."

Crocket explained, "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and..."

His constituent interrupted, "Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

Crockett replied, "This was a sockdolager ... I begged him to tell me what was the matter."

The farmer said, "Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

Crocket responded, "Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

But the farmer fired back, "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man. ... So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people."

Thus, Crockett explained of his opposition to support the widow of that distinguished naval officer: "Now, sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday."

Today, there are but a handful of Senate and House incumbents who dare support and defend the Constitution as Crockett did. But there are candidates emerging around the nation who, with our support, will deliver orations as brazen and eloquent, and stand firm behind those words.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US



"The Web"

SEIU Wants Illegal Aliens Counted in Census

http://video.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/VideoGallery/SEIU-Wants-Illegal-Aliens-Counted-in-Census



Martin Gross: Govt. Bankrupting Middle Class For Socialist Revolution

http://video.newsmax.com/?bcpid=20972460001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=44301696001&s=al&promo_code=8BA5-1



Obama, health care, and the insurance industry, down to the wire

The Senate Finance Committee is scheduled to vote today, October 13, on ObamaCare. This vote will indicate which US Senators on the Senate Finance Committee intends to cram ObamaCare down our throats, and being indifferent to the America's Health Insurance Plans, which released its' own report over the weekend showing an extreme added cost of healthcare premium cost. - oyh

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/68500813/1
Slowly but surely, the health care debate is getting down to cases.

Consider tomorrow's vote of the Senate Finance Committee.

And consider the reaction to what the insurance industry did on the eve of that vote: Release a study saying the proposed committee bill will wind up costing more than advertised.

The White House and other allies spent the day trying to knock down the report, challenging its methodology. "This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.

Republican opponents used the study to bolster their case against what some Obamacare. "Higher premiums, higher taxes, and more government," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "That's not reform."

Supporters of a health care reform blasted the insurance industry, saying they blindsided the White House. "Health insurance companies have been laughing all the way to the bank for generations while people suffer," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia. "The industry stands today as the greatest impediment to real health care reform."

The industry's trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, stood by the report it commissioned. "We don't see comprehensive cost control in any piece of legislation," said Karen Ignagni, the AHIP president.

Stay tuned for the next big turning point, the Senate Finance Committee's vote.



Thank you Pat Thomason of: Texan2driver's Blog

The Purpose Of The Constitution: What the Constitution Does

Posted on October 4, 2009 by texan2driver

Uncle Joe sent me this link which very succinctly sums up the purpose of the Constitution and its role in our lives. It’s definitely worth the read. I’ve highlighted/colored some of the sections which I thought were especially poignant


The Purpose Of The Constitution

by Warren Michelsen

http://constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html

What the Constitution Does

The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:

Establish a federal government for the United States of America

Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers.

The Constitution was written by the thirteen original states. The federal government created by the states, via the Constitution, exists to serve the states. Until the states delegated some powers to the new federal government, those powers belonged to the states. The states, of course, delegated only some of their powers to the federal government while retaining most of their powers for themselves.

It is important to recognize that the states are the "boss" of the federal government! The states "hired" the federal government and set forth the rules as to how it should operate. The Constitution is a list of those rules. Just as a manager is expected to enforce company rules to manage employees, it is the responsibility of the states to enforce the Constitution to manage the federal government. The Supreme Court, being itself part of the federal government, has an obvious conflict of interest. Yes, it pretends to enforce the Constitution against the Executive and Legislative branches, but who will "manage" the Supreme Court? Who will watch the watchers? The states are the rightful and logical enforcers of the Constitution. It helps to keep this in mind in the discussion which follows.

What the Constitution Does Not Do

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)

Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.

The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).

So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.

Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

Steiger's Law

Sam Steiger is a former Congressman from Arizona. At a talk given July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party "CANDIDATE'S CONVENTION" in Las Vegas, Nevada, he suggested what he called "Steiger's Law": "People involved in a structure spend more time and energy maintaining that structure than in working toward its goals."

How is Steiger's Law applicable to the Constitutionality Crisis? The federal government, having been created to serve the states and the people, has degraded to the point that it is more concerned with perpetuating itself than with carrying out its constitutionally delegated duties. Rather than serving you by protecting your rights, as charged by the Constitution, the government has goals and objectives of its own, often in conflict with your rights. While you may have all the rights (the Constitution specifically says so), the government has all the power. When your rights and the government's goals are in conflict, you lose.

We the People created the government of the United States to serve us, not the other way around. Today it would be difficult for an outsider to determine that We the People don't exist to serve the government.

In order to carry out its grandiose plans and achieve its goals, government has to exercise powers well outside those limited powers granted it by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been a willing accomplice, permitting gradual but continuous expansion of government power. As soon as We the People become accustomed to living with the latest power grab, powers are expanded yet again. The government sees no practical limits on its power. In the rare event that some law or part of a law, is found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, Congress just reworks the text a little and then passes essentially the same (unconstitutional) law again.

In its practice of Judicial Review, too often the Supreme Court is not asking: "Are this citizen's rights being violated by this law?" Instead the question is: "Is the violation of this citizen's rights justified because of overriding government goals and objectives?" Too often the answer the court delivers is "yes." When your rights get in the way of a government objective, you lose.

Government created to protect your rights should have no goal higher than the protection of those rights. When government's own goals override your rights, government is acting unconstitutionally. Government often states that these violations of citizens' rights are necessary "for the good of society." Society is ill served by laws which violate the rights of the citizens making up that society.

An (imperfect) Analogy

The Constitution (and the federal government it brought into existence) was created by the states to serve the states. It sets forth the rules for how the government must behave and says, in effect (in the tenth amendment) "Any powers that we did not give to you are ours; we're still the boss."

This is like exercising parental control. You tell your child how to act, with whom he (or she) may associate and what time he must be home. You assign household chores and responsibilities. In short, you establish rules of proper conduct.

Suppose that this works fine for a while, but as your child grows, he begins testing the boundaries you had set and breaking the rules, but you do nothing to prevent it. One day you realize that your child is making his own rules, even telling you what to do and what you cannot do. If you object that he is not acting within the rules you set down, he says that he knows better than you what your rules mean. If you try to assert your own rights, you are punished — your child is now bigger and stronger than you are. Your child's allowance demands are ever increasing. If you don't do something to correct the situation soon, you'll be declared incompetent and your child will control all aspects of your life.

It's time to remember who's the boss, time for the states to regain control of a government which thinks the states are subordinate to it. The federal government exists to serve the states, not the other way around. The states have the right and the duty to restrain the federal government. Unfortunately, most state governments don't seem to understand this!

Government Without Limits

Government Gone Wild

Although the current government of the United States seems to know no limits to its powers, it wasn't always so. For about the first 150 years of the republic, the U.S. was much closer to the country envisioned by the founding fathers. The congress understood what the Constitution does and does not allow and mostly confined its legislation to those areas in which the congress is empowered to act.

Powers of Congress

Count them. Article 1, Section 8 lists just 18 specific areas over which the Congress was given legislative authority. The final provision of Article 1, section 8 empowers the Congress "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..." Once upon a time, the congress knew its limits and, much as the congress would have liked to do more, congressmen were restrained by the Constitution. Some examples of former congressional restraint:

Prohibition

When the country, or at least those in power, decided to ban alcoholic beverages, they had to do it by means of a constitutional amendment. They understood that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to simply legislate a ban on alcohol. More recently, of course, when the government decided to ban some drugs, they simply passed laws. These laws are just as unconstitutional as a law banning alcoholic beverages would have been in 1920. So, why have these drug prohibition laws been passed if the congress is not empowered to do so? And why has the Supreme Court upheld these unconstitutional laws? The Constitution has not changed, but the attitudes of the congress and government have.

National Firearms Act

Just as the more recent drug prohibition in force today caused an escalation of violent crime related to competing gangs who realize substantial income from dealing drugs, so too the alcohol prohibition of 1920-1933 led to much violence between competing gangs of bootleggers.

Because of prohibition era violence, in 1934, the congress passed the National Firearms Act (NFA). What they really wanted to do was simply ban certain kinds of weapons. Of course, they could not impose an outright ban — the second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. But imposing taxes is a power constitutionally granted to the congress Article 1, section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."). The NFA does not therefore ban any weapons, but it does impose a tax on certain weapons and "destructive devices" which the congress thought to be the primary weapons used by the gangs — machine guns, sawed off shotguns and the like.

More recently, of course, the congress has enacted an "assault weapons" ban prohibiting the manufacture of certain, scary-looking guns. A ban on the manufacture of machine guns (except for law enforcement) has also been enacted. The Second Amendment has not changed. These bans are just as unconstitutional now as they would have been in 1934. What has changed is the willingness of the congress to legislate in areas where it is not empowered to do so. Experience has taught the congress that it can ignore the constraints of the Constitution with impunity because the Supreme Court will uphold these unconstitutional laws.

The Commerce Clause

The powers granted to congress are listed in Article I, Section 8. Paragraph 3 gives Congress authority "To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This power "to regulate commerce" is probably the most abused part of the entire Constitution. When the founders granted congress the power to "regulate" trade, they did so to correct a deficiency that existed in the then current Articles of Confederation.

In 1778, during the American Revolutionary war, the states formed a union under the Articles of Confederation which ensured that: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

The states' sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation resulted in states which erected protectionist trade barriers. A state might heavily tax a commodity from out of state while not taxing the same commodity produced within the state. Land-locked states would be at the mercy of states with coastal access and good harbors, if those states decided to tax imports leaving their states.

It was therefore with the intention of promoting trade and removing trade barriers that the congress was granted the power to regulate trade. The Founding Fathers did not mean "regulate" in the sense of restricting but rather they wanted to promote trade among the states and prevent barriers to trade.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #22 notes that "The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States..." were "contrary to the true spirit of the Union" and thus Congress was empowered to regulate trade so as to prevent "interfering and unneighborly regulations." Had the founding fathers imagined how the commerce clause would later be used to micro-manage and intrude into every aspect of our daily lives, they would have doubtless been more explicit in explaining this particular power of congress.

The Beginning Of The End

The end of federal restraint came with FDR and his New Deal. Among the many unconstitutional acts implemented as part of the New Deal was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, intended to prop up food prices by keeping production low. The law provided that farmers could be fined if they produced more than their allotment of various crops. Since crops very often cross state lines in commerce ("Commerce ... among the several States ...."), congress felt that such regulations were constitutional.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) was the Supreme Court ruling which upheld extending congress' regulation even to items that do not cross state lines in commerce, or, for that matter, which are not involved in commerce.

Filburn was a farmer in Ohio. The Department of Agriculture had set production quotas for wheat. Filburn, aware of the quotas and receiving subsidies for limiting his wheat production, nonetheless harvested more wheat than his government allotment permitted. He reasoned that the excess wheat, since it was for his own use — it never even left his farm — was unrelated to commerce and therefore shouldn't be counted toward his allotted production. The Department of Agriculture fined him anyway. Filburn filed suit against the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, three members of the County Agricultural Conservation Committee for Montgomery County, Ohio, and a member of the State Agricultural Conservation Committee for Ohio.

The case ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In its ruling against Filburn, the court, ignoring more than 120 years of commerce clause jurisprudence, reasoned that, had he not grown the extra wheat for his own use, he would have had to purchase wheat. He was therefore affecting interstate commerce, albeit indirectly. This was the first case in which the Supreme Court upheld regulation of something that was not itself involved in interstate commerce.

This new power to regulate anything that merely affects interstate commerce means that, practically speaking, congress can legislate regarding just about anything — just be sure to mention "interstate commerce" in the legislation. There is little you can do which does not "affect" interstate commerce. You can't brush your teeth or flush your toilet without doing so.

If even the raw materials used to manufacture a product have moved in interstate commerce, that is sufficient justification for the Congress to feel it can regulate the manufactured product, even if the product does not move in interstate commerce itself. The "affects" expansion of Congress' power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states" is a blank check; there is little with which the federal government cannot meddle using this broad, unconstitutional interpretation of the commerce clause.

In the rare event that the Supreme Court declares a law or practice of government unconstitutional, the other branches simply find a way around Constitutional restrictions, often by paying lip service to the Constitution and passing the same legislation again, perhaps after adding some boilerplate text mentioning "interstate commerce."

We have gotten to the point where we are today by increasingly broad interpretations of the powers actually delegated by the Constitution. There is no reason to believe that the federal government will rein itself in (and no precedent exists demonstrating that any government, anywhere has ever done so without the application of external pressure).

The "Benefit of Doubt" always accrues to the federal government, never to the states and the people, as regards issues of Constitutionality. That is, all legislation proposed at the federal level is assumed to be constitutional. Likewise, the courts go out of their way to interpret laws as being constitutional, if they possibly can. The Judicial branch of the federal government has made this a rule that courts must follow.

Two hundred years of Judicial Review — letting the Supreme Court decide if laws are constitutional — have further demonstrated that the courts will not act to restrain government. It is therefore up to the people and the states to take responsibility for, and exercise the power of determining what is and is not constitutional.

James Madison warned of an overly broad interpretation of the General Welfare clause: "There are consequences, sir, still more extensive which as they follow clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union, they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.""

Madison continued: "... In short, sir, without going further into the subject, which I should not have here touched on at all, but for reasons already mentioned, I venture to declare it as my opinion, that were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America: and what inferences might be drawn or what consequences ensue from such a step, it is incumbent on us all well to consider."

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.

Powers of the Supreme Court

Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.

"Well," you might say, "someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?" Some possible answers:

First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.

It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of "the fox guarding the hen house."

The Constitution's "checks and balances" were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.

Justices are appointed for life. If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

It is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even the Supreme Court should be accountable for overstepping Constitutional limits on federal power.

There are only nine Justices and, under the current system, it takes only a simple majority — five votes — to determine a case. Given the supermajority requirement mandated by the Constitution to pass Constitutional amendments, a simple majority requirement by the Supreme Court, to uphold a suspect law, defies the spirit of the Constitution. If 44.44% of the Supreme Court justices (four of nine) think a law is not constitutional, we should err on the side of caution and declare it unconstitutional.

The people and the states have little control over the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Officials in all three branches of government take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court Justices, Senators, Congressmen, and Vice President, and other federal officers, all take an oath of office to "support and defend" the Constitution. (The president's oath of office in Article II, Section 1, requires that he "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") Why is the Supreme Court's version of "constitutional" considered more authoritative? Is the Judicial branch more to be trusted than the Executive or Legislative branches? Prudence dictates that we be wary of all three branches (and especially wary of the one unaccountable branch).

Given that it was the people and the states which established the Constitution, it is the states who should settle issues of constitutionality. The Constitution is a set of rules made by the states as to how the government should act. The "judicial review" paradigm allows the government to make its own rules with no say by the original rule-makers — the states.

The Constitution was created by the states and any question as to the meaning of the Constitution is rightly settled by the states. When you make rules for your children, do you permit your children to interpret your rules in any manner they like? Of course not. Yet, the states are permitting the federal government — the "child" of the states — to do exactly that.

Since the power of Judicial Review is not expressly granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, this power, per the tenth amendment, is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Read that last listed reason above again, for it contains the key to this site's being. The Constitution is very clear; any power to review laws to see if they are constitutional belongs to the states and to the people. Therefore, the Supreme Court is itself acting unconstitutionally when it exercises the power of 'Judicial Review.' It would require a Constitutional Amendment specifically granting this power to the court in order for 'Judicial Review' to be constitutional!

And just how should the determination of "constitutionality" be handled? For that answer, it helps to understand how the Constitution is (supposed to be) amended.

Amending the Constitution

Amending, The Right Way

Article V explains how the Constitution may be amended. It states (emphasis added):

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As you can see, the constitution may be amended by The People (in the form of the congress) and by The States (state legislatures or state constitutional conventions). Large majorities (called a "supermajority") are required both to bring a proposed amendment to a vote (two-thirds) and to approve a new amendment (three-fourths). It is clear that the founders did not want amending the highest law of the land to be easy or trivial.

Amending, The Wrong Way

The Constitution is routinely, and easily 'amended' by the congress. When the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it has the very same effect as if the Congress had amended the Constitution without the consent of the states — government assumes powers not granted to it by the states in the Constitution. Passing unconstitutional laws is very easy. Once passed, repealing unconstitutional laws is very, very hard.

Forget Civics Class

If you took a high school civics class, you probably learned "How A Bill Becomes A Law" or something similar. The process, as explained, involved some legislator with a Good Idea who writes a proposed bill and sends it to committees who review and ponder it and, if it's a Really Good Idea, it gets voted out of committee. Bad Ideas are tabled or pigeon-holed. The bills that make it to the full legislature and pass, go to the president to be signed or vetoed. You were probably taught something like that.

You were not told about the back-room deals, the vote trading ("I'll vote for your stinky bill if you'll vote for mine.") and the arm twisting ("If you want to keep your committee chairmanship, you'll vote this out of committee with a favorable recommendation.")

And you likely never heard how the congress scrupulously ensures that the legislature is in fact empowered by the Constitution to legislate in the particular area which is the subject of the proposed bill. You never heard about it because it doesn't happen.

The Real World

In the real world, the President receives the 4,000-page Omnibus Tax Everything And Spend The Loot Act of 2009 and can either veto the entire package or let it become law. The Omnibus package includes all manner of pork-barrel, wasteful provisions and is likely to include many, many provisions which are simply unconstitutional.

In fact, it is often the case that no one knows the entire contents of a bill when it comes up for a vote. Each legislator has made sure that their own pet projects have been included, sometimes at the last minute and without others' knowledge, so that when the vote actually occurs, any particular legislator may have very little knowledge of the entire bill.

Since the President does not have line-item veto power (the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional) the President has only two choices: either veto the entire package, which may result in "shutting down the government," or accepting the bad with the good. Pragmatism usually wins out.

Another way to get bad legislation enacted into law is to attach it to another bill for which there is strong support. There are often riders attached to popular legislation which have nothing at all to do with the main legislation. To stop the bad legislation requires killing or vetoing the entire bill. It doesn't happen nearly often enough.

There was a legislative attempt some years back to require that each new bill state the Constitutional provision which permitted Congress to legislate in the particular area addressed. It was defeated. Despite having sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, most legislators do not feel constrained by the limited powers granted to the congress by the Constitution. Since most anything can pass for 'constitutional' with a broad enough reading of the Commerce Clause, legislators are more concerned with how voting for particular legislation will affect their chances of reelection, than they are about the legislation's constitutionality.

"The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." — Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison

The problem with the precedent of Judicial Review is that the the impediments to challenging an unconstitutional law are numerous and difficult to overcome while the passing of laws of questionable constitutionality is just as easy as passing the constitutional ones. Hence, the various rules and mechanisms put into effect by the federal government do indeed place the Constitution "on a level with ordinary legislative acts" changeable "by ordinary means" for all practical purposes.

Err On The Side Of Caution

There is an old adage that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man. New physicians have, for centuries, sworn to adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, the principal ethic of which is "First, do no harm." In fact, "First, do no harm" has been used in many, many contexts outside the field of medicine. "Do no harm" would be a good principle for legislators to adopt.

There is no question that passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws does harm to the Constitution, to the States, and to the people of the United States. I would contend that it is better to defeat 100 Constitutional laws than to pass one unconstitutional law. First, do no harm. We must make it harder for the congress to pass unconstitutional laws.

Since passing an unconstitutional law and enforcing it has the same effect as amending the Constitution, legislation of questionable constitutionality should be handled in a special way — more like proposed amendments, than as regular legislation. Such legislation should require approval by two thirds of each house of congress to bring it up for a vote, and such legislation should require a three fourths vote of each house to enact it into law. This would stem the flood of new, unconstitutional laws and would be a good first step on the road to restoring Constitutional government.

How do we go about this? Who has the power to impose such a super-majority requirement on congress?

Proposal For A Return To Constitutional Government

A Summary of the Problem

If you have followed the links to the left which precede this page ('A Proposal'), then you have read my thoughts on the Constitutionality Crisis facing the United States of America. I have explained that:

There are many unconstitutional laws on the books

It is far too easy to pass unconstitutional laws. We must make it harder to do.

It is practically impossible to repeal or overturn unconstitutional laws. We must make it easier to do.

The Supreme Court has been a willing accomplice to the federal government's unceasing expansion of power. As a branch of the federal government itself, permitting the Supreme Court to review laws for constitutionality is letting the fox guard the hen house.

The power of Judicial Review is a power that was usurped by the Supreme Court; it is not a power granted to the court by the Constitution.

Reviewing laws for constitutionality, upholding the constitutional ones and striking down the unconstitutional ones, is a power retained by The States and the people, per the Tenth Amendment.

Unconstitutional laws are, in effect, unauthorized amendments to the Constitution which have not had to undergo the rigorous scrutiny and debate which would accompany proper, proposed amendments before adoption nor have they been approved by the states. Because unconstitutional laws have the very same effect as unauthorized constitutional amendments, legislation of questionable constitutionality should be given close scrutiny and review, and require super-majorities to pass, much like actual proposed amendments.

The Constitution and the federal government are creations of the states. It's time for the states to regain control of the Constitution and therefore, the federal government.

What's Needed

The rationale of the Supreme Court for assuming the power of Judicial Review (See Marbury v. Madison) is that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases ... arising under this Constitution..." The more obvious problems with this are:

Under the rules established by the Judiciary, only a very tiny fraction of constitutional challenges ever reach the Supreme Court.

The rules themselves have a strong bias in favor of the federal government — laws must be considered constitutional if, by any interpretation, they can be.

Who is to rule on whether the Judicial branch of the federal government has itself overstepped its Constitutionally imposed limits? Shouldn't it recuse itself from such deliberations?

The Supreme Court assumes that the only way to challenge laws is through the courts (thereby giving it jurisdiction).

What is needed is a mechanism, outside of the court system, to review and invalidate laws which are repugnant to the Constitution. The states, as the authors of the Constitution and therefore the "boss" of the federal government, should provide this mechanism.

The Restoration of Constitutional Government

There are two broad objectives to be achieved to restore constitutional government:

We must stop the passage of new, unconstitutional laws.

We must strike down unconstitutional laws that are already on the books.

Stopping the passage of new, unconstitutional laws will require some changes in the way laws are passed. There is no indication that stemming the tide of unconstitutional laws and regulations has any support at all within the government itself. The states will have to exert pressure on the federal government to make that happen.

As stated previously, legislation of questionable constitutionality should require approval by two thirds of each house of congress to bring it up for a vote, and such legislation should require a three fourths vote of each house to enact it into law. This could be implemented within the congress by simply adopting a rule to that effect. Unfortunately, the congress is unlikely to rein itself in. A constitutional amendment may be required. Such an amendment would set forth:

What portion or percentage of each house's legislators would have to question the constitutionality of the subject legislation in order to trigger the super-majority requirement for passage; and

The super-majority requirement itself. I propose a three-fourths (of the senate and house of representatives) requirement, as three fourths is the requirement for the portion of states which must approve a constitutional amendment.

Of course, if any portion of the subject legislation is challenged on constitutional grounds, the super-majority requirement will have to apply to the entire bill. This might put an end to pork-barrel riders routinely attached to popular bills.

I can already hear cries of "Anarchy!" from those who prefer an overbearing federal government. To which I can only say: Pass the necessary Constitutional amendments delegating those powers to the federal government.

It seems unlikely that two thirds of both Houses of the Congress shall ever "deem it necessary" to propose such an amendment, so it may require that two thirds of the states call for a constitutional convention to propose such an amendment.

Constitutional conventions have been proposed before and, as always, therein lies great danger. It may be that "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution" is the safer choice, albeit not very likely. How do we encourage the Congress to limit its own ability to legislate? The author of this site is open to suggestions.

Proposal For A Return To Constitutional Government — continued

The Restoration of Constitutional Government

Item (1) below was addressed on the previous page.

We must stop the passage of new, unconstitutional laws.

We must strike down unconstitutional laws that are already on the books.

As for item (2) above, it is again up to the states to take the initiative; the federal government will not reform itself. The first step is to make the states realize that they, not the federal government, not the Supreme Court, "own" the Constitution.

At this point, I'm not sure what needs to be done by the states to get the federal government's attention. Strategy is yet to be worked out. I'm open to suggestions.

Money is, of course, the key. Without it, the federal Department of Meddling in Business That's None of Ours couldn't function. Perhaps the states will wake up one day and realize that to regain some autonomy and return to true Federalism, we need to repeal the sixteenth amendment.

It might take one or more very gutsy states to pass a state law mandating that federal withholding taxes collected within the state are to be sent to the state treasury, not to the feds.

States are routinely coerced by the feds. All it takes to restore power to its rightful owners is one hot button issue in each state and the awareness of the state legislatures that they — not the Supreme Court — are the rightful arbiters of what is and is not Constitutional.

The States Must Enforce The Constitution

Does there exist a state legislature with enough backbone to stand up and assert State's Rights?

This is just so much pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking on my part, but here's what I see as needing to happen. One state, just one, needs to decide that it is mad as hell and not going to take it any more. Nevada, for example, does not want a nuclear waste facility within its borders, but the feds are determined to put one there anyway. What would happen if the state legislature of Nevada decided that the federal law under which the waste site was being built was unconstitutional and refused to allow it? Suppose that the state of Nevada passed a resolution barring it and stating that the laws in question were unconstitutional? Would that get the feds' attention?

Surely, each state has one or more issues of contention with the federal government. Why not assert them? Why not scrutinize federal laws affecting states (remember the "unfunded mandates" issue?) and, in each case where states' rights are being trampled, assert themselves? Ignore precedents from the federal courts; they are all predicated on a belief that the Supreme Court is the rightful arbiter of issues regarding constitutionality. They are not. The states are.

The current Supreme Court / Judicial Review paradigm must be abandoned. The Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is the supreme Law of the Land and that supreme law says that "The powers not delegated to the United States [federal government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The right to judge the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations belongs to the states and to the people.

Challenging Unconstitutional Laws

The states need to develop a mechanism for challenging existing unconstitutional laws to replace the existing system, which requires, among other things, that you first become a criminal. Any citizen of any state should be free to challenge the constitutionality of any federal enactment.

The current paradigm, in which one must bring a lawsuit as an injured party and prove harm in order to have "standing" to bring the suit was concocted by the Judiciary and is a substantial impediment to mounting a challenge. We the People need a mechanism by which we can challenge unconstitutional laws on principle. It is up to the various states to establish mechanisms by which federal laws and regulations may be challenged and to respond to those bringing the challenges. I submit that it is the responsibility of the legislatures, not the courts, to answer constitutional challenges to federal laws. In keeping with the "Of the People and By the People" spirit, I would hope that the legislatures provide a way for ordinary citizens to initiate challenges.

I envision a system much like the Initiative and Referendum mechanism used in many states. Petitioners wishing to challenge an existing federal law or regulation would collect signatures of the state's citizens on a petition to the state legislature. The state legislature would determine the petition signature requirements. When these requirements were met, the state legislature would issue a declaration that the law or regulation had been found to be unconstitutional.

Additionally, the state legislature would be free to declare a federal law or regulation unconstitutional by whatever other mechanisms it adopted — a simple majority vote, for example — without receiving petitions, if it saw fit to do so. Each state is within its rights to determine for itself, by whatever mechanism(s) it chooses to employ, whether any federal enactments, laws, rules and regulations are unconstitutional.

When the legislatures of greater than one-fourth of all the states had found that a given law or regulation is unconstitutional, that law or regulation would be considered null and void, inasmuch as it had not passed the three-fourths test required of constitutional amendments.

The petition/state legislature mechanism described would return this reserved power to the states and to the people, as is required by the Constitution.

A Proposed Amendment to the Constitution

Returning Power To The States

Federal power has been expanding constantly for over two hundred years, aided and abetted by increasingly broad interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. The founders would scarcely recognize the current behemoth as a creature of their Constitution. One method of returning power to the states is contained in the proposed Constitutional Amendment below.

I have mixed feelings about restraining the federal government by means of an amendment primarily because, as noted elsewhere, I believe that the States already have the reserved power to do so, though, demonstrably, have failed to exercise that power for more than 200 years. That being the case, here is the amendment that I propose:

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Philosophy

As authors of the the Constitution and therefore creators of the Federal government of the United States of America, the states are the rightful arbiters of issues regarding questionable constitutionality. For more than 200 years, however, the federal Supreme Court, in an obvious conflict of interest, has been passing judgement on the constitutionality of federal enactments. The states, apparently, do not recognize this as a power reserved to them by the tenth amendment which has been unconstitutionally usurped by the federal government.

Much as I would like to see the states remove this power from federal control, the current Judicial Review system has been in place for more than 200 years and I can understand reluctance on the part of the States to suddenly, after more than 200 years, assert this right. A Constitutional Amendment, duly proposed and ratified, however, would have obvious legitimacy. It is for that reason that I offer this proposed amendment as an alternative to the Just Do It approach promoted elsewhere on this site.

Unconstitutional laws and regulations are, in effect, unapproved amendments to the Constitution. Laws of questionable constitutionality should therefore be subject to super-majority requirements, just like actual amendments. This is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution.

I have chosen the figure of more than 25% because it requires three-fourths, 75%, of the states to ratify a proposed amendment before than amendment becomes part of the Constitution. If more than 25% of the states find a federal enactment to be unconstitutional, it follows that less than 75% of the states would have approved the enactment, had it been an amendment. In this way, enactments of questionable constitutionality are subjected to a super-majority requirement and, failing it, rendered invalid.

The amendment, as stated above, would provide a mechanism for invalidating existing and future unconstitutional enactments. History has shown us that unconstitutional laws and regulations will continue to be enacted. It is therefore desirable to make it harder to pass laws of questionable constitutionality. Such legislation should require approval by two thirds of each house of congress to bring it up for a vote, and such legislation should require a three-fourths vote of each house to enact it into law. This is, once again, very much in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution. Additional language might be added to the above proposed amendment

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.

Save the Constitution

What You Can Do to Save the Constitution

Assuming that you'd like to see the United States federal government adhere to the Constitution, here are some things you can do.

Read the Constitution and become familiar with it and the limited powers it conveys to the federal government.

Challenge politicians when they overstep the Constitution's bounds: "Congressman, where in the Constitution is congress empowered to legislate in this area?".

If you know of a particularly egregious example of the federal government trampling on the rights of your particular state, contact this site's author with the details.
Since this site is in its infancy, suggestions on how best to accomplish its goal are always appreciated. Contact this site's author with your suggestions.

Publicize this web site.

Bring it to the attention of your state's legislators and other state government officials. (See the sample letter below.) Ultimately, it is the state governments which must act to wrest the usurped powers from the federal government.

If you have a web site of your own, please link to constitutionality.us from it.
Include a link to constitutionality.us in your email signature.

Talk about the issue with your friends. Chances are, they mistakenly believe that the Constitution gives to the Supreme Court the power to judge the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations.

Join the Const-Talk mailing list to brainstorm with us on ways to make the state governments become aware of their obligation to protect the Constitution on behalf of the people.

One thing is certain: The states must regain control of the federal government. How they can do this is anyone's guess. If you have suggestions or theories as to how this might be effected, by all means, share these thoughts with me. It is not for the federal government to make its own rules or to decide what the Constitution's provisions mean. The states created the Constitution and should, rightfully, be the arbiters of any questions about its meaning.

It is up to us, the people, to motivate our respective states to realize where the power to determine constitutionality rightfully belongs.

Sample Letter to State Officials

Dear State Official:

When the thirteen original states established the Constitution, they delegated a limited number of their powers to the federal government and set forth the rules for the operation of that government. Those delegated powers and rules are all listed in the Constitution.

The states did not empower any branch of the federal government to interpret the Constitution as it pleases, yet for over 200 years, the Supreme Court "fox" has been guarding the states' "henhouse" and reporting that all is well. The unceasing expansion of both the scope and power of the federal government is ample evidence that things are not as they should be.

Since the Constitution does not empower the federal government to judge the constitutionality of its own laws and regulations, this is a power that is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" by the Tenth Amendment. I do not know what the states have to do to regain control of this and other "reserved rights" but, as with many other things, the first step to solving a problem is recognizing that there is a problem. The state governments have not only a right, but also a duty to rein in an unconstitutional federal government.

A more thorough explanation of the problem can be found at

http://constitutionality.us/.

The states are the "boss" of the federal government and must regain control of the it. The federal government exists to serve the states and the people, not the other way around. I believe that it is time to restore the proper relationship between the states, the people and the federal government. As my representative in the state government, I urge you to defend our state against encroachments by the federal government.

Respectfully,

Copyright 2004-2008 by Warren Michelsen
about the author | contact the author



"The e-mail Bag"

One day, there was this lawyer who had just bought a new car, and he was eager to show it off to his colleagues, when all of a sudden an eighteen wheeler came out of nowhere and took of the driver's side door with him standing right there.

"NOOO!" he screamed, because he knew that no matter how good a mechanic tried to fix it, it never would be the same.

Finally, a cop came by, and the lawyer ran up to him yelling. "MY JAGUAR DOOR WAS JUST RUINED BY SOME FOOLISH DRIVER!!!" he exclaimed.

"Your a lawyer aren't you?" asked the policeman.

"Yes, I am, but what does this have to do with my car?!?!" the lawyer asked.

"HA! Your lawyers are always so materialistic. All you care about is your possessions. I bet you didn't even notice that your left arm is missing did you?" the cop said.

The lawyer looked down at his side and exclaimed "MY ROLEX!"