Dismantling America (part I)

Dismantling America

By Dr. Thomas Sowell

"We the people" are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States-- the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge-- to this day-- to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.

The Constitution of the United States is the biggest single obstacle to the carrying out of such rampaging presumptions, so it is not surprising that those with such presumptions have led the way in denigrating, undermining and evading the Constitution.

While various political leaders have, over the centuries, done things that violated either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution, few dared to openly say that the Constitution was wrong and that what they wanted was right.

It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call "the needs of the times." Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed.

The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting "the needs of the times"-- as they choose to define those needs.

The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times," were made by Woodrow Wilson.

It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people?

To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to pubic scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.

Now there is leaked news of plans to change the immigration laws by administrative fiat, rather than Congressional legislation, presumably because Congress might be unduly influenced by those pesky voters-- with their Constitutional rights-- who have shown clearly that they do not want amnesty and open borders, despite however much our betters do. If the Obama administration gets away with this, and can add a few million illegals to the voting rolls in time for the 2012 elections, that can mean reelection, and with it a continuing and accelerating dismantling of America.

The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars

While I am not in total agreement with Dr. Ron Paul's foreign policy vision, he is correct that our deviation from constitutional protocols regarding warfare have led to our disastrous
conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These protocols were put in place by the Founding Fathers, to avoid having the United States getting trapped in the endless wars and foreign entanglements that have lead many nations to tyranny and penury. For good reason, the constitution does not allow the president to arbitrarily launch wars, rather wars must be formally declared by the Congress. Although the Congress is not immune to militarism, its decisions are generally subject to greater scrutiny and debate than the "police actions" launched by the executive branch. A war on terrorism may be necessary, but it cannot be open ended and ill-defined, it must be be conducted in conformity to the letter and spirit of the constitution.

The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars

August 04, 2010

by Dr. Ron Paul

Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration's disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That's why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.
Many are saying that the Wikileaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, immoral and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don't even know about them.

We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.

The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people – the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.

Why is James Madison Angry?

Why is James Madison Angry?

Because House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D - Md) and so many other politicians have so thoroughly abused and distorted the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

When asked where in the constitution does the federal government derive the authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, Hoyer responded:

“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end...The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”



The General Welfare Clause is a component of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which grants the government the power to tax and spend. In the following verse, the great James Madison clearly expressed his belief that the General Welfare Clause was not a carte blanche for politicians to pursue whatever actions they claimed promoted the general welfare but is inseparably tied to other specifically enumerated powers granted to the federal government:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

In other words, the General Welfare clause does not grant the federal government the authority to force its citizens to purchase health insurance. Only through woeful ignorance or the intentional misrepresentation of the letter and spirit of the constitution can politicians such as Mr. Hoyer justify the unprecedented expansion of the federal government.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55851

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

Distortion of the Commerce Clause

We can argue about the projected costs and benefits of having the federal government mandate that citizens purchase health insurance, however the constitutionality of the said policy is very dubious. When asked where in the constitution is the federal government granted the power to coerce Americans to purchase a good or service, they cite the Commerce Clause. This is clearly a willful distortion of the letter and spirit of the Commerce Clause which was primarily crafted by the founding fathers to prevent state governments from impeding interstate commerce.

Health-Care Reform and the Constitution

Why hasn't the Commerce Clause been read to allow interstate insurance sales?

By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

Last week, I asked South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, where in the Constitution it authorizes the federal government to regulate the delivery of health care. He replied: "There's nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do." Then he shot back: "How about [you] show me where in the Constitution it prohibits the federal government from doing this?"

Rep. Clyburn, like many of his colleagues, seems to have conveniently forgotten that the federal government has only specific enumerated powers. He also seems to have overlooked the Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution.

One of those powers—the power "to regulate" interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.

Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.

James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept "regular."

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.

The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined "to keep regular" the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.

That's right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.

What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.

Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "Dred Scott's Revenge: A Legal History of Race and Freedom in America" (Nelson, 2009).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574412793406386548.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

Think Locally!

The debate on health care has focused on questions of national policy; in other words what reforms should be uniformly imposed by the federal government on the economically, politically and culturally diverse states of the union. But, I have yet to hear a sound explanation of why the people of the 50 states should not be allowed to debate and decide the health care policies that best suit their needs, values and desires. In other words, if the people of California desire a single payer plan - let them enjoy its benefits and bear its costs. And if the people of Texas desire market driven reforms - them enjoy its benefits and bear its costs. These principles also apply to education and a host of other issues. Here are but a few of the many benefits of a less centralized approach to governance:

1. It's inherently more democratic and respectful of diversity. At the very least, if you don't like a policy, you can move to a state that better represents your values, but federal mandates traps citizens by to not allowing them to "vote with their feet."

2. It allows for greater domestic tranquility. For example, if the people of each state can only influence their own educational policies, they have little reason to engage in divisive policy and cultural wars on a national level.

3. State and local governments can serve as a "laboratory for democracy." In other words, we can learn from the successes and failures of the initiatives of other states.

4. The connection between a local policy and end result is almost always more apparent than it is between a federal policy and end result. For example, it's very difficult to determine which, if any, national policies are responsible for changes in the rate of crime. However, the connection between the sharp drop in crime that New York City experienced and Rudolph Giuliani's policies is strong and apparent. This allows the public to better assess what works and what does not.

5. It fosters greater individual and community participation and power. For example, parents have greater opportunities to influence the policies of their local schools via PTA and town hall meetings, than they have to influence national educational policy.

6. The larger and more distant a center of power is, the less responsive to the needs and desires of its people it tends to be. As inept or corrupt as a local politician may be, they almost always possess more detailed, up-to-date information about the nature and needs of their community than a federal bureaucrat does.

7. The true cost of policies are almost always more apparent on a local level. For example, the federal government was able to spend over a trillion on the War In Iraq while simultaneously cutting taxes. In contrast, the rising cost of government in Chicago and Cook County have quickly lead to rising property taxes. This helps explain why the people of Chicago vigorously protest costly new initiatives, such as Mayor Daley's push to host the Olympics, yet largely remain silent in the face of out of control federal spending.

8. State and local governments are limited in their power to plunge the public into debt, because of they are unable to print money and limited in their ability to borrow it. So, states and local governments are forced to face fiscal reality much faster than their federal counterpart.

9. Many federal initiatives violate the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The powers of the powers of the federal government are limited to functions specifically enumerated in the constitution, the powers of states and communities are broad and plentiful. To justify the expansion of the size and scope of federal government, politicians and their judicial enablers have resorted to willful misrepresentations of the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.

10. A federal government that focuses on the functions assigned to it by the Constitution, will be more effective in achieving them. For example, the federal government has greatly expanded its areas of responsibility, while failing to secure the border.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

The Constitution: It's not just for Conservatives

Josh Eboch wrote a wonderful essay that should be more titled: "Federalism & States' Rights: Are Also For Progressves." Although the majority of groups and individuals who champion

states' rights and seek to limit the power of the federal government are conservatives, these values and causes should be of equal importance to progressives. The authors emanently reasonable points should resonate with intelligent progressives and conservatives alike, such as:

"America was built on individualism and freedom of choice, and what’s right for one person or one state is not necessarily right for them all."

"There is no way to make everyone happy with every law, but abandoning the futile and divisive quest for a “one size fits all” centralized government, and returning the states to their rightful role as competing laboratories of democracy is a good start."

"Before America can rediscover the promise of her founding, people on both sides of the aisle must come to grips with the fact that the federal government does not exist to impose on the nation either the Right’s or the Left’s vision of freedom, morality, or social justice."

To view the author's concise audio clip, click here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDAwQaL22K8

The Constitution: It’s not just for Conservatives

by Josh Eboch

Anyone who desires a constitutionally limited federal government should remember and celebrate that its limitations would necessarily cut both ways. Because if federal policy actually adhered to the letter of the Constitution, no single ideological camp could wield sufficient power to impose a set of beliefs on the entire country.

Which was exactly the point of our federalist system, and of the 10th Amendment. Beyond specific, enumerated federal powers, an infinite number of issues were intentionally left to the authority of the people through their state governments. And it is to the states that liberals, conservatives, and even libertarians must address all questions extending beyond the constitutional purview of federal authority.

Questions involving but not limited to:

Health Care: If the framers had intended the federal government to establish and manage hospitals and Alms Houses within the states, they would no doubt have given it the explicit authority to do so. To misconstrue the general Welfare Clause in such a way as to conjure that authority out of thin air is to commit a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty.

In fact, regarding those words, “general welfare,” James Madison himself said: “To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

This also includes Medicare and Social Security, both of which are preparing to default on a massive scale thanks to the sort of bureaucratic mismanagement and fiscal shell games at which governments excel.

Of course, nowhere does the Constitution say that states cannot establish and bankrupt their own socialized medicine or retirement schemes. See: Massachusetts and California.

Drugs: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers, and drugs themselves have existed in various forms for thousands of years. They were certainly not unknown to the framers of our national government. Yet, excepting the (repealed) 18th Amendment, there is no mention of drugs or prohibition in the Constitution.

It is thanks to an expansive and unlimited interpretation of the Commerce Clause that the federal government now claims the power to ban certain substances. But in 1787, the Commerce Clause was worded to make trade regular between the states by preventing protectionist tariffs, not to give Congress the power to impose national standards of morality on the marketplace.

In recent years, some states have tried to reassert their authority on this issue, but a senselessly violent war continues to be waged by the federal government against the personal purchasing decisions of people in every state.

Marriage: The positive impact of creating social and financial bonds between consenting adults was likely as obvious in the eighteenth century as it is now. But the framers had a much healthier distrust of the federal government than we do today. They gave it no power to define marriage because the framers did not feel compelled to ask or grant the blessing of the federal government in forming private religious unions.

Neither do we need it today to legitimize private unions, religious or otherwise. But as long as both parties seek to engineer social policy through the federal income tax code, the issue of marriage will needlessly divide our country, and state governments will remain unable to fully implement their citizens’ will.

The list goes on and on, but the point remains the same: America was built on individualism and freedom of choice, and what’s right for one person or one state is not necessarily right for them all.

There is no way to make everyone happy with every law, but abandoning the futile and divisive quest for a “one size fits all” centralized government, and returning the states to their rightful role as competing laboratories of democracy is a good start.

Before America can rediscover the promise of her founding, people on both sides of the aisle must come to grips with the fact that the federal government does not exist to impose on the nation either the Right’s or the Left’s vision of freedom, morality, or social justice.

Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/01/the-constitution-its-not-just-for-conservatives/

Dismantling America by Dr. Thomas Sowell

I understand that temptation that leads many people to bend the clearly intended meaning of the constitution; we see vexing social and economic problems and we want to expand the power of the federal government to decisively and rapidly address them. To rely on the limited resources of state and local governments, of civil society and individual initiative to seems almost criminal when we have more powerful federal tools at our disposal. Most progressives and some conservatives are so convinced of the moral imperative of their positions that they cannot bear to allow "ignorant" states and localities the right to pursue contrary policies. So, they seek to use the power of the federal government to advance their agenda across the land. This is seen in issues as diverse as health care, the war on drugs, immigration and gay marriage. But, we must resist the temptation of bending the constitution in order to "achieve the greater good."

The authors of the constitution were aware that throughout the history of mankind, the tyranny of rulers over individuals and communities was the general rule. Even wisely governed republics and democracies had degenerated into anarchy or despotism. Accordingly, they placed clear
limits on the power of politicians and the power of the central (federal) government. And they understood that the expanded powers that you grant the federal government in order to achieve your "enlightened" policies, one day will be used to impose the "backwards" policies of your opponents on you and your community. So, even with its foibles and its frustrating pace of progress, we would be wise to accept limited, constitutional governance as the lesser of all evils.

Jewish World Review August 17, 2010 / 7 Elul, 5770

Dismantling America

By Thomas Sowell

"We the people" are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States-- the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge-- to this day-- to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.

The Constitution of the United States is the biggest single obstacle to the carrying out of such rampaging presumptions, so it is not surprising that those with such presumptions have led the way in denigrating, undermining and evading the Constitution.

While various political leaders have, over the centuries, done things that violated either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution, few dared to openly say that the Constitution was wrong and that what they wanted was right.

It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call "the needs of the times." Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed.

The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting "the needs of the times"-- as they choose to define those needs.

The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson. Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times," were made by Woodrow Wilson.

It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government. How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people?

To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America. This has been going on piecemeal over the years but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to pubic scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.

Now there is leaked news of plans to change the immigration laws by administrative fiat, rather than Congressional legislation, presumably because Congress might be unduly influenced by those pesky voters-- with their Constitutional rights-- who have shown clearly that they do not want amnesty and open borders, despite however much our betters do. If the Obama administration gets away with this, and can add a few million illegals to the voting rolls in time for the 2012 elections, that can mean reelection, and with it a continuing and accelerating dismantling of America.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment on JWR contributor Thomas Sowell's column by clicking here.

Thomas Sowell Archives


© 2006, Creators Syndicate


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell081710.php3

Yes, We Are Serious!

At a press conference, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)was asked where in the constitution is the federal government granted the authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, to which she responded "Are You Serious?!?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APUhVXImUhc&feature=related

At a town hall meeting, when Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) was presented a similar question, to which he responded "the federal government can do most anything in this country."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE

Clearly, their responses demonstrates that they and most politicians choose to ignore the fact that they are not free to do anything they want, the congress only has powers carefully enumerated in the Constitution. Rather, they implicitly believe that the federal government is entitled to do virtually anything that the majority desires.

And on a deeper level their statements and actions demonstrate that they (and the citizens who prescribe to their political vision) do not hold the constitution in high regards and certainly do not view it as a document created to limit their power. In a sense, we cannot blame them, because the founding fathers understood that few politicians would willingly subscribe to limitations on their power. Jefferson believed that only a vigilant, educated citizenry could hold politicians in check and maintain a republic (not a democracy). But with the growing number of people who have come to view the state as their provider, fewer citizens are exercising vigilance over their politicians. Dependency always breeds complacency.

There are those who will respond: "but, times have changed, our world is so different than the one that the Founding Fathers resided in. The size and scope of the state must grow to address the needs of today's Americans..."

I am open top the idea that in theory some of Pelosi's policies may be necessary. However, rather than use cheap sophistry and a willingful misinterpretation of the Constitution to justify these measures, ammend it to the Constitution. Even if the end result were the same, it is essential to force politicians to submit to the processes laid down in the constitution. Why? Because, this would force politicians and the general public to carefully consider and debate the wisdom of the fundamental changes they are proposing, rather than push them through by hiding them in a 3,000 page bill that virtually no one has read. I would consider it a disaster if the left were able to ammend the constitution to grant the federal government the right to mandate the purchase of health insurance. But, at least this would still mean that the republic was still run by the rule of law and not through obfuscation and that the power of politicians was still held in check, as the Founding Fathers intended.

The uproar caused by Pelosi's statement led her to issue a constitutionally based justification of her desired programs. Enclosed is an article that explores and successfully challenges her arguments.

Pelosi’s Misleading Statement on the Constitutionality of Government Health Care

by Rob Natelson

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has issued a press release in which she purports to rebut those of us who have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of some health care reform plans.

Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) claims:

“The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

For several reasons, this is a highly misleading statement.

First, it fails to mention a concern expressed by many constitutional scholars, including those on the Left: Substantive due process.

“Substantive due process” is the doctrine by which the Supreme Court strikes down laws it deems unacceptably interfere with personal privacy or autonomy. Health care laws that, for example, limit one’s ability to fund and control one’s own health care could well run afoul of substantive due process rules.

Second, the statement fails to mention that, while the Supreme Court has upheld many delegations of power from Congress to executive branch agencies, the Court has affirmed repeatedly that there are limits. Some health care proposals involve wider delegations of authority than any since the New Deal’s National Reconstruction Adminisration (NRA) — which was invalidated by a unanimous Court.

Third, the Pelosi release disregards the fact that on several occasions the modern Supreme Court has struck down overreaching federal legislation, supposedly adopted under the Commerce Power. Also, on several occasions, the Court has interpreted congressional acts narrowly to avoid constitutional conflicts.

Fourth: Pelosi (or her speechwriter) clearly misstate the current Supreme Court’s test for laws under the Constitution’s Commerce Power. The statement that Congress can regulate “activities that have an effect on interstate commerce” should be that Congress can regulate “economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Non-economic activities, such as some health care decisions, would have to meet a much stricter test. This may seem to be a minor mistake, but for legal purposes it is an important one, and one that, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives, is not easily excusable.

Finally, Pelosi (or her ghostwriter) commits the mistake of failing to look at wider judicial trends. One of these trends is the long-term movement by the Supreme Court toward interpreting the Constitution according to its real meaning – the original understanding of the Founders and Ratifiers.

And virtually no knowledgeable person thinks government health care is constitutional under that standard.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/pelosis-misleading-statement-on-the-constitutionality-of-government-health-care/

Yes, he is a radical.

To listen to this 2001 NPR interview with Obama, click on the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Abolish the Federal Department of Education?

This may sound radical, but the more I analyze the facts, the more reasons I see for abolishing the Federal Department of Education. I have provided some questions and answers that lead me to this conclusion. If you can come up with answers that prove that the benefits outweigh the costs of the Department of Education outweigh th I encourage you to post them.

Question 1: Is the the existence of the Federal Department of Education constitutional?

Answer 1: The federal role in education is a violation of the 10th amendment of the United States Constitution which states, “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.” Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to regulate or fund elementary or secondary education.

Question 2: But isn't the promotion of education a historic role of the federal government?

Answer 2: No, it was founded in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, douchebag extraordinaire.

Question 3: Has the American public received a good return on its investment?

Answer 3: Between 2000 - 2008, under the "conservative" George W Bush, the Department of Education's budget increased from $37,524, 346 to $68,574,594, a whopping 54.72%. This represents a large increase in per-capita spending, coupled with little or no improvements in the academic performance of American students.

Question 4: Are there any good examples of federal government mandates improving the quality of public education at state and local levels?

Answer 4: I do not know of a good example. But, federal programs like"No Child Left Behind" have by most indications burdened cities and states with additional bureaucracy and hindered their autonomy, while offering few if any real improvements in the performance of students.

Question 5: What are some other possible consequences of the federalization of education?

Answer 5: Increased federal control of any activity usually leads to less local involvement of parents and teachers in addressing the educational ills that face their communities.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/edhistory.pdf

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000063.asp

Who Dunnit?

Thomas Woods asks the question - who killed the constitution? As usual an insightful and amusing presentation from Mr. Woods.

Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ83x9rn2o4

Part II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKAq3sXwXeM

Part III

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSlRZuZsI14

Part IV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJP19RLalMA

Part V

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfbJlCCDhA

Pelosi's Interpretation of the Constitution

At a recent press conference, a very revealing exchange occurred between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D - Calif) and CNSNews.com. When Pelosi was asked where in the constitution is she and the federal government granted the power to mandate that Americans purchase health insurance she responded "Are You Serious?" After that Pelosi's press secretary Nadeam Elshami added "you can put this on the record. That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

No, Ms. Elshami, regardless of the answer we arrive at, the questions of a law's constitutionality is of dire importance to the people of the United States.

Clearly Pelosi, Obama and most "progressives" do not take the constitution's clear limits on the power of the federal government seriously. For Pelosi the constitution is not treated as a guiding document that serves to protect individual liberty, but as an impediment that they seek to erode through legal sophistry.

Later on, CNSNews.com followed up with an e-mail to Pelosis Nadeam Elshami, in which they reiterated the question:

“Where specifically does the Constitution authorize Congress to force Americans to purchase a particular good or service such as health insurance?” CNSNews.com asked the speaker's office.

“If it is the Speaker’s belief that there is a provision in the Constitution that does give Congress this power, does she believe the Constitution in any way limits the goods and services Congress can force an individual to purchase?" CNSNews.com asked. "If so, what is that limit?”

Elshami responded by sending CNSNews.com a press release from the Speaker’s office that states that Congress has “broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

What Elshami is referring to is the grossly abused Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the constitution which grants Congress the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...” The said authority was granted to allow Congress to regulate foreign trade and trade between the fledgling states of the Union. The underlying purpose of this clause was to bar individual states within the Union from constructing barriers to commerce between their fellow states. Tragically this clause has been grossly misconstrued by some to serve as an authorization of the federal government to vastly increase its powers to regulate and mandate the social and economic activities of individual citizens and states. Anyone who believes that the Commerce Clause grants the federal government nearly unlimited coercive powers should refer to the 10th Amendment which clearly states:

"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."

In other words, individual states and communities may have the power to regulate social and economic affairs, but the federal government does not. State and local assemblies may have the right to pursue a public option, but the congress does not.

To politicians and pundits like Pelosi and Obama who so blatantly disregard and distort the
10th Amendment in particular and the constitution in general, I refer to a quote from Thomas Jefferson that specifically regards to the said amendment.

"To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

In other words, once you cross clearly defined limits set by the constitution, you open the way to an expansion of government power that knows no ends. This has allowed the federal government to pursue unsustainable spending that has led to multi-trillion dollar debt. State and local governments can be just as inept and corrupt, but in contrast to the federal government they face natural limits: they cannot endless print and borrow money. And those who tire of entrenched, corrupt and abusive local governments, can flee to better governed localities. But, the heavy hand of the federal government reaches to every corner of our great nation, usurping the wealth and liberty of its citizens.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/17/pelosis-misleading-statement-on-the-constitutionality-of-government-health-care/

Happy Polish Constitution Day!

Did you know that Poland was the 1st country in Europe and the 2nd country in the world to have a constitution?

The Constitution introduced political equality between townspeople and nobility (szlachta) and placed the peasants under the protection of the government,[4] thus mitigating the worst abuses of serfdom. The Constitution abolished pernicious parliamentary institutions such as the liberum veto, which at one time had put the sejm at the mercy of any deputy who might choose, or be bribed by an interest or foreign power, to undo legislation passed by that sejm. The Constitution sought to supplant the existing anarchy fostered by some of the country's magnates with a more democratic constitutional monarchy.[5] The document was translated into Lithuanian.[6]

Russia, Prussia and Austria were threatened by this political liberalization and jointly invaded, forcing Poland to retract the constitution. Some lose their constitution through invasions, others permit their politicians to slowly erode it. How sad.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_May_3,_1791

Constitutional Karma...

It's always amusing for me to hear (so called) conservative supporters of the invasion of Iraq complain about Obama's radical expansion of the size and scope of government. And I am equally amused to hear "progressives" complain about the war on drugs.

The reason for this is that both sides inadvertently made their predicaments possible through the erosion of boundaries set by the letter and the spirit of the constitution.

In the 1st example, supporters of the invasion of Iraq ignored the constitutional mandate that only congress has power to declare war. And they ignored the wise exhortations of the founding fathers to avoid foreign conflicts and costly entanglements. The same sophistry they use to justify unconstitutional warfare is used by "progressives" to justify unconstitutional welfare.

In the 2nd example, "progressives" have aggressively pushed for greater government control in virtually every facet of economic and social life, with little regards for the letter or spirit of the constitution. The very same regulatory powers and disregard for individual freedom that they granted to the state is now being used against them or at least against behavior that they believe should not be criminalized.

Now that's what I call Constitutional Karma!

The 10th Amendment (of that pesky constitution)

A common misconception about conservatives is that their reservations against federal government intervention stems from a general antipathy towards government.

The reality is that most conservatives are opposed to the federal government overstepping its constitutional boundaries, especially when it impinges on self government by local communities and states. This is seen in the 10th amendment of the constitution, which states:

"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."

In this amendment we see that one of the main concerns of the founding fathers was guarding against tyranny of an overly active federal government. This is also the driving force behind the reservation of some governors against accepting funds from Obama's "stimulus plan."

Republican governors, such as Bobby Jindal (R-LA), as well as some democrat governors, like John Lynch of New Hampshire and Phil Bredesen of Tennessee are declining some or all of the federal funds because of provisions attached in which the federal government mandates that they expand and alter state and local laws. Not only is the constitutionality of this highly questionable, but it is also fiscally unsound, because federal funding would expire after two years, leaving the states with the burden of added entitlements without federal aid.

Rarely, if ever do we see an acknowledgement of the wisdom of the founding fathers who sought to guard against tyranny via clear and defined limitations on the size and scope of the federal government. Most "progressives" have shown indifference or even hostility to the fundamental American principles of limited government. From FDR to Obama "progressives" seem to view that "pesky constitution" as an impediment to their dream of expanding the size and scope of the federal government.

And as I read the following quote from Thomas Jefferson, I am quite certain that the constitution was written to guard against the power and ambition of politicians like Obama:

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ...The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,500785,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2190174/posts