The Commerce Clause Hoax

The other day I hinted that the President and Progressive members of Congress secretly fear the constitutional challenge to the healthcare bill. It has nothing to do with actually negating that healthcare bill per se, but rather the spill over affects of challenging the liberal use of the Commerce Clause that has given, or rather, that has allowed the Federal government to seize powers that were reserved for the States and the People when the Constitution was enacted.

Much of what the Federal government has done over the past one-hundred years has been justified through an interpretation of the Constitution and not what is actually written in the law. Since the Congress and President see fit to invoke the Commerce Clause as their justification lets take a look at that clause.

The United States Constitution
Article One
Section Eight
The Powers of Congress (third paragraph)

“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”

While seemingly innocuous, the Commerce Clause has been intentionally manipulated ever since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. To derive the power needed to create massive agencies and oppressive regulations using this simple statement one must first ignore or conceal the words and intentions of the founding fathers. “To Regulate”, at the time the Constitution was written, simply meant “to make regular” and the authority to regulate was never meant to imply that the Federal government would have any powers beyond those that were enumerated in Article one, Section Eight. There are numerous examples that prove this interpretation in both the Constitution and in the Federalist Papers and it doesn’t take very long to find them.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers three definitions for “regulate” which are”:
1- To govern or direct according to rule: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority: to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)2- To bring order, method, or uniformity (to regulate one's habits)3- To fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)

Congress loves to use the first definition of “regulate” to justify their actions through the use of the Commerce Clause but is that really appropriate? The Commerce Clause gives Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign nations but we all know that foreign nations are sovereign and will only recognize the rule and authority of law within the framework of their own governmental processes. Can Congress claim the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to negate the lawful structure of government in a foreign nation and burden that nation with laws and controlling regulations simply because we have trade with that nation? Of course not! As much as Congress may love that definition of regulate, it is clear that since the Commerce Clause also uses the word regulate in conjunction with commerce between the US and foreign nations; the definition that best applies would be the second “To bring order, method, or uniformity.”

In Article one, Section Eight, Congress also has the authority “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. Money is an object, so clearly one cannot control the actions of money through legislative regulation. The regulation of the value of currency can only make sense in the context of insuring that the value of money was uniform throughout the United States and that the exchange rate with foreign currency was equally uniform; that a dollar in Massachusetts was worth the same as a dollar in Georgia and both of those dollars could be exchanged for an equal amount in British Pounds.

In the Madison debates staged during the August meetings of the Federal Convention of 1787, Representative John Mason of Maryland argued the point of regulating the militia. In fact, his motion was for the “…power to make laws regulating and disciplining the militia...” Since discipline is a rule or system of rules governing conduct or activity using regulation to imply control through legislative regulation would be redundant and redundancy was not something our founders were famous for. Therefore, the word regulate in that case also referred to insuring a basic uniformity of standards for the militia. Many examples exist within the Federalist papers and each time the word “regulate” appeared, it could only have meant to guarantee a degree of uniformity.

Since the inception of the Federal government and most especially, over the last hundred years, Congress has routinely overstepped its authority and in doing so, has slowly diluted the rights of the States that were clearly denied to the Federal government by the Tenth Amendment. The Federal legislation resulting from this seizure of power is now challenging the rights of all American citizens. For the Federal government to assume a power that is not clearly enunciated as one of the enumerated powers, they must first take that power away from the States, the people or both and the Commerce Clause is what has been most often used to achieve that. The President and the Congressional Democrats will fight tooth and nail in the defense of their new healthcare legislation but much of that fight will be waged to prevent the toppling of the healthcare bill from being used as a springboard by a coalition of States intent on restoring their Tenth Amendment rights and the Constitutional balance of power.

In addition to the actions taken by the States to block the individual mandate in the healthcare bill, a number of States have already enacted legislation or have legislation pending, designed to bolster the rights of gun owners in response to the threat of new Federal legislation that would restrict our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. These same States are considering measures to protect the rights of those that hunt and fish now that there are threats of Federal interference with those activities as well. As the Federal government attempts to cultivate more power in Washington, the States have finally realized the danger and are taking action themselves. Eventually the cases questioning the constitutionality of the Healthcare Bill will find their way to the Supreme Court and a defeat for Obama there may open the door for the States to question the authority of the Federal government in other areas where the definition of commerce is in question or where the interstate activity of that commerce has not been firmly established.

This reigning in of the Federal government is long overdue and if these measures fail, there may be no way to restrain the Washington leviathan the States created through their own complacency. If however, the individual mandate to purchase insurance fails to pass muster for constitutionality, the healthcare bill will fall with it and that failure will set the stage for a reevaluation of other, equally intrusive Federal agencies, programs and regulations. Federal law may supersede State law as the law of the land but not if the Federal laws, are themselves, unconstitutional. The Constitution grants the Federal government authority to enact any and all laws needed to fulfill their lawful obligations under the Constitution but those obligations are few and limited. I have a feeling they are about to find out how few and how limited their powers will be and they aren’t going to like it very much.

Paul

Rome Falls and America Follows - part one

Yesterday we covered an abbreviated history of the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Grant it, two and half pages can hardly cover nearly 100 years of history but I was really only using small portions of their history to illustrate a point about our own society and situation. As stated yesterday, the main causes of the collapse of the Roman Empire was:

Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor
Decline in Morals
Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
Fast expansion of the Empire
Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics
Failing Economy
Unemployment of the Working Classes (The Plebs)
The 'Mob' and the cost of the 'Games'
Decline in Ethics and Values
Slave Labor
Natural Disasters
Christianity
Barbarian Invasion

So let’s examine the parallels between ancient Rome and the United States on a point by point basis.

Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor: Because of the absolute power given to the Emperor with the role of the Senate degraded to that of an advisory capacity, the Senate was constantly at odds with the Emperor and that seriously impacted the ability of government to act in the interests of the Empire as a whole.

In the United States, our government has also has descended to a base argument over power. American Presidents since the time of Theodore Roosevelt have had agendas that required the creation of enormous new Federal agencies. These agencies began stealing the State rights supposedly guaranteed under the 10th Amendment through the stated goal of enacting minimum standards for the benefit of all States. This was first seen with food and drug safety under the FDA created by Teddy Roosevelt. Federal regulatory power brought about through new agencies continued ever since and has expanded incrementally; controlling nearly every activity of life in America. Over time, the agencies themselves became enormous and bloated bureaucracies that have diluted the power of Congressional oversight and have assumed unconstitutional control over the electorate by the use of regulations issued by the agencies themselves.

Because of the subversive activities of the Progressive movement, the Congress itself has become ideologically polarized. The very function and Constitutional authority of Congress has been re-written through a serious of small moves only possible by mutating the intent of the enumerated powers. Our government has become as much of an ideological battle ground as the Roman government was at the highpoint of their decline.

Decline in Morals: Because the economy of Rome was based on conquest and the taxation of occupied peoples, there was no real sense of creating sustainable wealth through Rome’s economic activity. With a steady flow of captured wealth, leisure time exploded and leisure activities quickly became boring. Bored people constantly move beyond the norm to find excitement and a Rome plagued with excesses, would eventually descend into a moral abyss. Nothing was off the table. Prostitution, slavery, sloth, gluttony, orgies, incest, sex with children and homosexuality had exploded as the elite chased new forms of entertainment and the elite after all, ruled the land.

Is there any doubt that America has rejected its societal morality? I say societal morality because on average, Americans are still a moral people. There has been a corruption of our courts that have allowed a minority of iconoclasts to justify things that would have tested public sensibilities as little as fifty years ago and would have caused massive civic outrage less than a hundred years ago. The Federal government has not only legislated protections for these questionable activities, circumventing the Constitutional right of the States to determine their own direction, but has even funded some of these moral assaults through agencies like the FCC and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard: The Praetorian Guard was the Emperor’s personal army and would shield the Emperor from any attempt of the Senate to reign in Imperial excesses or to reinstitute Constitutional government. While our President does not have a personal army, he does have a closed circle of advisors and Czars that have not only diluted the Constitutional authority of the Congress but have obviously corrupted the governmental process through their secretive strategies to use agency fiat to affect the President’s agenda.

Fast expansion of the Empire: In order to fund the Empire, Rome launched a military campaign that would eventually stretch the limits of the Empire to over two and half million square miles in area and brought them right to the borders of the Barbarian territories; a mistake that would plague them later as the economic strain of supporting their massive occupation became unsustainable. While we don’t engage in wars of conquest, nor do we have vast areas of militarily occupied territories, we have seen a rapid and massive increase in the size and scope of the Federal government. The spending required to support this monstrosity is equally as devastating and has quickly brought the most vibrant and prosperous economy in the history of the world to the brink of ruin.

Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending: The Roman Empire existed through war and expansion of the Empire was central to feeding the greed of their Imperial economic machine. It was when the wealth of the occupied territories fell flat that the Roman legions became a strain on the Empire. In America, it was just before the turn of the Twentieth Century that the focus of the American Military began to change because of a shift in the ideology of industrial era Presidents. Beginning with the Spanish-American War, America began to flex its newly acquired military muscle under the banner of expanding democracy and fighting foreign, imperial expansion. The role of the military until that point was the protection of the American States. By embarking on a path of global protection we have assumed the burden of funding a military that far exceeds our own need for protection and well beyond our current financial abilities.

Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics: Roman military tactics were rigidly trained and vigorously adhered to. As Barbarian tribes gained more experience in fighting the Roman Legions, they used that mindset of rigid strategy against the Romans. While our modern military has a technological advantage that has yet to be defeated and the initiative based strategy used by our command structure is not nearly as rigid as the Roman style of leadership was, we still have an exploitable weakness.

Since we have civilian control over our military, our enemies have mastered the tactic of using public opinion against us. Just the unsubstantiated accusation of abuses has often been enough to threaten the support of the American people for military action in a foreign land. Civilian control of the military is critical to a democratic Republic and works very well with a defensive force. Once we use the military to enforce an ideological view of what is right and wrong beyond our own borders, civilian control becomes divided because there is no plurality of opinion in the use of military force for that purpose. That division creates civil conflict within our nation and leads directly to revisions of military policy that endangers the mission and the lives of the soldiers charged with carrying out that mission.

I try to keep my ramblings to roughly two and half pages so that my blog articles don’t become oppressively long. We are about halfway through the list of causes for the fall of the Roman Empire and we can already see direct and frightening parallels to each and every one of them. Tomorrow we will continue with some of the more frightening and unfortunately, even more relative items on that list. Please join me tomorrow as we complete this examination.

Paul

A Constitutional Government? What a Concept!

Let’s play a game! I’d like to pretend for a moment that the Progressive movement doesn’t exist; that the subsequent Liberals never discovered Karl Marx or Friedrich Nietzsche. Let’s imagine an America where we had the foresight and courage to block Soviet Russia’s attempts to demoralize America by infiltrating the American press, film industries and educational systems. Let’s ponder the future as if our past had followed a course that more closely resembled the government our founding fathers had meant for us to have. Before we can actually play that game, we must start at the beginning with a review of what that government was supposed to look like. Only then can we remap the last two hundred years and perhaps, speculate on the next two hundred.

The people that founded the American colonies were for the most part, British émigrés, people that sought to escape religious persecution or leave the crowded streets of England’s urban centers and seek new fortunes by settling a vast, new and relatively uninhabited land. There were spacious tracts of land and seemingly limitless resources to be exploited by adventurous men that were fit and industrious. Living in a pre-industrial, agrarian world, uses for many of the “new world’s” resources were still largely unknown but they would certainly come into play later. By the time the British colonies were firmly established in America, the Spanish myths about cities of gold had been disproven and fur trade, fertile lands and natural ports were considered to be America’s greatest assets.

While many still traveled back and forth to England, the American born descendants of the original settlers had mostly taken their father’s places by the turn of the 18th Century. They were beginning to create an identity separate from their British heritage mainly because the British Crown treated them as second class citizens. England had fought several skirmishes with Spain since the inception of the colonies and was actively sparring with France on the borders of the American colonies by the time the mid 1700’s had arrived. England had stationed a number of troops to guard the colonies against French incursion but the British Treasury was under pressure and the cost to maintain a protective force in numbers was becoming prohibitive. The English population was already overtaxed and on the verge of revolt so England turned to her second class citizens in America to carry the financial burden of her own protection.

For many, it may seem proper that the beneficiaries of that protection should pay for it but this story could not be written if Britain had not taken that principal too far. Strict limits were placed on the manufacture of American goods so that British made goods would still be in demand. While one new tax after another was levied on colonial trade, the colonies were continually denied the representation in Parliament that British citizens had enjoyed for centuries. The troops sent by England to guard the colonies were slowly assuming the duties of suppressing the anger that was slowly brewing against the unfair restrictions and tariffs. The troops themselves became the center of the controversy as colonists were forced to house and feed the soldiers at their own expense.

All of this would boil over into open insurrection and finally result in a bloody revolt against British rule. The Declaration of Independence would have had no more historical significance than an advertising poster for fertilizing manure had the colonies not defied all odds and emerged victorious. With their independence from England, the colonies would use their proclamation of natural rights and the list of grievances in that declaration to create an entirely new form of government.

The new government would be founded on the principal that man’s fundamental rights descended directly from God and were irrevocable; that these rights had always existed and were not an act of kindness granted by a beneficent government. The basic structure of the government they created borrowed the most historically successful parts from a variety of cultures. It would contain a body of civilian representatives as found in the British Parliament; a Senate as found in the Roman Empire and a democratically elected leader as part of the experiment. All of these would be restrained by law and for the first time in the history of the planet, the word of law shackled the reach government and the citizens retained supreme rule over all of it.

Central to the formation of the new government was the principal that the States remained sovereign and self governing. The Constitution created a governing body that would unify the States while each retained autonomy and that would not be an easy trick. They achieved this through a “bottom up” strategy. The people retained direct control over State government through the electoral process and the State would govern its citizens by laws enacted with the consent of the governed. The individual States would freely enter into a Union of States whose governing body would be comprised of elected representatives from each State and a President elected by the citizens of all of the States in the Union. It would be a Republic, with the electorate selecting representatives based on their principals and those representatives would vote for or against legislation on their behalf.

Each State would have to agree to abide by the United States Constitution in order to enter the Union. The Constitution is a document that not only reaffirms the State’s sovereign rule but clearly defines the powers that the States would delegate to the Federal government; strictly limiting the Federal government to those powers alone. As part of the Union, the States would agree to obey the laws passed by the Federal government so long as those laws pertained to the responsibilities delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution. A Supreme Court was established that would rule on any Federal law that was challenged by a State or citizen that could prove harm.

Curiously, the Bill of Rights were added as the first ten amendments to the Constitution and not written into the original document. It is not that the Founding Fathers considered those rights as an afterthought; indeed they considered those rights supreme. They did not add them because they did not feel they embodied the Federal government with any power sufficient to threaten those rights. We now know the confidence they had in the Constitutional limits placed on the Federal government was overstated and the Supreme Court spends much of its time hearing cases surrounding those sacred rights. While visionaries, the Founding Fathers saw that power is corruptible and did the best they could to see that the Federal government was correctly restrained. What they did not envision were the future generation of Constitutional scholars dedicated to finding pathways around those restraints and that would inevitably bring us to a point where the Federal government it threatening to become the master and not the servant of the people.

The Founding Fathers were geniuses but alas, they were still mere mortals. If they possessed the powers of clairvoyance perhaps they could have avoided the mess we are in today with a simple table of definitions added as an appendix to the Constitution. That would certainly have taken the wind out of the sails of those prominent Constitutional lawyers and closed the loopholes that they are now driving trucks through. Those definitions already exist in the Federalist Papers, a series of letters and correspondence penned by the founders that clearly detail their intent and place the language contained in the Constitution in context. Unfortunately, since those letters are not part of the actual Constitution they bear no weight in the actual review of the law as it is written. Armies of legalist attorneys now argue each and every word written in the Constitution and assign modern interpretations that shatter what were once considered iron chains on the power of the Federal government.

Tomorrow we begin our experiment in earnest. We will imagine that the Founders did include that table of definitions in the actual Constitution and that there is no longer any question as to the role of the Federal government. Make sure you wear a helmet and elbow pads because it’s going to be one hell of a ride!

Paul

Palin calls for unity at Tea Party Convention

Sarah Palin made her much anticipated speech before the First National Tea Party Convention in Nashville Tennessee on Friday night. For the people that are familiar with Ms. Palin’s credentials, her message contained few surprises but for those that were only exposed to the highly critical coverage of the Tea Party movement through a mostly Liberal press, viewing her speech may have given them their first real look at the core values of this growing wave of Conservative Constitutionalism. Of course, that is assuming they took the time to watch it in its entirety and did not foolishly rely on the carefully selected snippets and caustic analysis of the Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermanns of the world.

The main focus of her speech noted the disparity in the vision that the American people have for the future of the United States compared to the agenda of the current body politic. While the main focus of the Sunday morning “talking heads” was the sharp criticism she had regarding the direction the President has taken our country in the past year, Palin’s criticisms were by no means, limited to one man or even to one Party. She possesses something that has been long lost in Washington; a keen understanding of the factual definition of a Federal system of government. Palin recognizes the root cause of the anger on which the Tea Party movement was founded and she is one of the few political people that have validated the widespread disdain for the Washington machine that has thwarted that rule of law and ignored the will of the governed.

The founders intended to form a union of sovereign states, each possessing the power of self determination and all guided by a Constitution of laws that were mutually agreed upon. The States voluntarily entered into this union and a Federal Government was established to perform the functions of government that would unify the States, provide for the common defense and establish a uniform relationship between the “united” States and foreign governments. The Constitution granted limited powers to the Federal government and only to the degree required for the Federal government to fulfill the duties designated to it under the Constitution. All other powers were to be retained, entirely, by the States and their citizens.

While Sarah Palin did not speak of the political history that mutated the Federal government into this insatiable leviathan, she apparently understands that the government has criminally deviated from these Constitutional directives and has been on a slow, methodical march to usurp State Power under some mystical authority derived from a bastardization of judicial and legislative policy. Palin noted the historical failure of the Federal government to provide even basic services without an enormity of waste and the blatant insensitivity to the crisis’s they have themselves created for main street America while serving the interests of unions, friends and political allies.

Palin spoke quite eloquently of recent Federal blunders and abuses of the Federal Government: the ineptitude of Federal bureaucrats that have not only failed to accurately track the effects the Stimulus bill had on job creation but in fact, have no idea where billions in Stimulus funds have even gone; citing money spent in dozens of Congressional districts that do not exist; the overreach of Congress by assuming authority it does not have to interfere in private corporations, take over auto makers and force its vision of healthcare reform on an unwilling nation; the ignorance of a Justice Department that grants Constitutional rights to foreign combatants that are hell bent on the destruction of America and the arrogance of a President that refuses to hear the voice of the people and still plans to proceed with an agenda that we keep telling him over and over that we do not want. I’m sure if she presented a full list of the past year’s failures, she could have easily spoken for hours but that was not the point of this convention or of her speech.

The main point of her speech was in recognition of the composition of the Tea Party movement itself. While the opposition to Washington has unified a great number of people, those people do have a wide and varied list of concerns that the individual members consider important. The difference in those interests could spell trouble within the movement unless there is a greater goal in mind and Palin tried to narrow the focus of the movement towards a goal they can all agree on. While born out of negativity, she challenged the conference attendees to focus on their hopes for the future. Palin invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan on the anniversary of his birth and reminded the audience of Reagan’s legacy.

Reagan had also inherited a nation in recession and could very well have taken the low road of blaming Jimmy Carter for the country’s financial difficulties but instead, he forged forward with his vision of restoring prosperity by enacting enormous tax cuts; cuts that even his critics admit, did bring a tripling of revenues to the treasury. Of course the recovery could have been far greater if it were not for the last great battle of the cold war that spawned massive increases in military spending and the TEFRA act of 1986, an act that would severely curtail the scope of deductions business could claim as exemptions. While opposed to TEFRA, Reagan was forced to accept this or risk losing his entire tax reduction package. The end result was that TEFRA limited the amount of money that business would invest in itself and in new employees but the cuts did have a spectacular effect on the economy despite that limiting factor.

The important part of Reagan’s legacy was in what his leadership provided for the spirit of America. In what seemed like a single moment, Reagan swept away the depression of Viet Nam, the shame of Nixon’s resignation, the hopelessness of the Ford and Carter economies and the indignity of Iran’s assault on our embassy and our pride. Moments after his inauguration, Reagan stood before the crowd and announced that the American hostages held in Iran for 444 days, had been released and had already crossed into international air space. Iran knew what Libya, the PLO, Hamas and other terror networks and nations would soon learn the hard way; Reagan would not yield to bullies, would not negotiate with terror and would bear any expense to enforce justice anywhere in the world. In that sense, Ronald Reagan truly was the embodiment of hope in America, not the half-hearted campaign rhetoric of a junior Senator whose only real experience in government was how to spend taxpayer money at the local level.

Former Governor Palin reminded people that conservatives united to support Reagan and that support transcended party affiliation. She cautioned the audience and the Tea Party movement in general, not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by letting that unity elude them now. The greatest strength of the movement is that it is focused on the Constitution and not on any one person. That can also be its greatest weakness if this sea of individuals allows the movement to splinter. There is a larger game afoot and people must not let one issue or another confuse the bigger picture of restoring the democratic republic based on the ideals clearly defined in the Constitution. Indeed, our future lies in the past and if we fail to look beyond minor details or become fixated on the foibles of some very human candidates, the Progressives in Congress may win by default as our votes are cast to the four winds. The Tea Party should not become a third party but rather, their future lies in shaping the electoral process as an advocate; lobbyist, if you will, for the Constitution and for the sovereignty of the States.

In a question and answer session after the speech, Palin noted that there are many Conservative Democrats, otherwise known as Reagan Democrats that are equally disenchanted with the direction of Washington. While she sincerely hopes that the Republican Party finds their Conservative roots so they can gain the trust of the Tea Party rather than compete with them, she also hopes that the Tea Party can remain focused on issues and not ideology because that is what is needed to attract and retain the Conservative factions within the Democratic and Independent Parties.

The time for unity is now and the Progressives are already trying to divide the Republican Party between Conservatives and Moderates and are attempting to isolate the Tea Party entirely. We must remain strong, we must remain focused and we must remain united. Remember, one of the first flags flown at the time of the revolution was that of a dismembered snake emblazoned with the words “Unite or Die”. It would do us well to fly that flag again.

Paul

Will we rediscover the tenth amendment in 2010?

2010 is finally here and now the real fun begins. I predict that Congressional Progressives and Barack Obama will engage in a full court press to force as much of their agenda through as possible before the mid-term election throws a roadblock in front of them. Expect even more underhanded, closed door sessions; more legislation crafted in the dark recesses of the Capitol building and passed on weekend nights. Expect Congressman that block Obama’s progress to face more threats and personal attacks and most of all, expect the main stream media and the White House to denigrate and dismiss any public opposition to their relentless march into Socialism.

We already know that once people have become a dependent on the State, they will vote for anyone that promises to keep the benefits coming. As it already stands, only 53% of Americans actually pay taxes leaving 47% that pay no taxes at all and many actually receive money from the government in welfare or earned income credits. As the scale tips and more Americans become recipients instead of tax payers, the prospect of an election that is actually based on what is good for the nation will dwindle as well. If the trend to socialize our nation isn’t stopped now, it will never be stopped and the United States will consume itself with the inevitable debt only to be absorbed into the growing body of formerly great western powers that are embracing Socialist policies just to avoid anarchy.

Europe’s major nations have already created the European Union to try to stave off financial ruin. They have also signed their own death warrants by becoming signatories to a ruinous climate treaty based on the premise of global warming; the same global warming that has been recently been uncovered as a hoax. The IPCC, CRU and extremist environmental groups, all under UN guidance, are apparently partners in this charade to force nations into a global cooperative that will eventually become the governing body of the planet; or at least that is what they had hoped for.

If we fall pray to the fallacy of global warming, we will face the same destructive events within our own economy and industrial base that Europe has. We have already witnessed the real agenda of the global warming crowd. Oh, I almost forgot. They renamed this created crisis “Climate Change” since the predictions of rising planetary temperatures never happened. In fact, the receding ice packs at the polar caps have recovered and the earth has been logging a drop in annual average temperatures since the year 2000. Regardless, the agenda is clear now that the third world has issued its ransom note to the tune of $200 billion a year.

You see, the United Nations master plan for climate change involves the West’s industrial nations shutting down entire industries to cap the production of greenhouse gas while simultaneously contributing to a global fund to help developing nations create their own industries. Curiously, this is a recipe for the redistribution of not only the West’s wealth, but the West’s ability to create wealth. They haven’t been able to describe just how this benefits the environment since the ability to pollute and create greenhouse gasses is not actually curbed, but sold to the highest bidder.

Then there is the unwillingness of the Obama administration to accept that the threat of massive new taxes and government regulations is the straight jacket that brought our economy to a halt. They have proposed and passed a so-called stimulus bill to try to jump start the economy but the abject waste of money that the program is accused of has stimulated little except some cushy little projects in the States of favored Congressmen. In fact, the stimulus spending has been distributed to areas represented by faithful Democrats by a factor of three to one over areas of the country that are represented by Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats. Even though those areas are suffering higher unemployment than those of the Party faithful, they are receiving little or no assistance.

Another little surprise we can expect in 2010 is a push to pass yet another amnesty program for illegal immigrants. Congressman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) proposed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (HR 4321). The bill is sponsored by Representative Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and is co-sponsored by 92 additional Democrats, all of which are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus or both but that really isn’t a surprise, is it?

This bill not only helps with Obama’s little problem that he lied about covering illegal immigrants under the healthcare bill (after all, they aren’t illegal anymore if they have been granted amnesty) but if passed, this bill would make the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country immediately eligible to apply for public education and social service programs previously restricted to American citizens or lawful émigrés. The proponents of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 don’t actually say how this is supposed to provide America with security and prosperity we are already struggling to preserve. In fact, I would bet the rent that granting amnesty to people that have already broken the law just to be illegal immigrants can only bring America additional insecurity and more financial burden.

Consider the eventuality that at least part of those amnestied millions will eventually become registered stooges for the Democratic Party. Add that to the upcoming census that will re-write electoral districts once again in the most blatant display of gerrymandering since the 1960’s and there is a clear movement in progress to stack the political deck for generations to come.

The last opportunity for the people of this nation to seize our Constitutional authority over the civilian government will be the November elections. We must wrest control of at least the House from the hands of this oligarchy or the 2012 elections may be as meaningless as the most recent elections in Afghanistan or Iran. In fact, a divided Congress would restore the intent of the separation of powers and force them to finally work together instead of rolling over each other like steam rollers.

I am not a demagogue nor am I an ideologue. I believe there can be good and beneficial ideas in all political camps of a constitutionally sound America. What I firmly believe is the partisan politics we see now is devastating to the future of our nation and when one Party controls all; nothing of value ever comes out of the monopoly of power. The best recipe to cure our ills is to eliminate the cause of the problem. Let's face it, if the Parties have to win our support to proceed, we all win.

First: career politicians have been corrupted by the D.C. machine and must be retired. We will never have the civilian government the founding fathers envisioned for us if we allow our Representatives and Senators to hold office for decades. There must be term limits imposed on Congress. The power of incumbency is too powerful and the mechanism that ensures unlimited campaign funds for those that are willing to sell their souls to special interests cannot be stopped through the electoral process alone.

Second: meetings and other communication between lobbyists and Congressmen must all be made public. It is the back room discussions and golf course deals that breed corruption and it would be very interesting to see just how much the legislative process can change when the transcripts of those meetings, e-mails and phone calls begin appearing in the Congressional record.

Third: we must elect only those individuals that are willing to prune the Federal tree; cutting away years of public neglect and eliminating the tangled mess of dead branches that have been strangling everything it comes into contact with. Our country cannot recover as long as the Federal government is allowed to grow unchecked and in fact, it must be reduced in size until it fits into the box it came in. The Federal government has exceeding its Constitutional authority in ninety percent of what it has been doing and until the States and the people can reclaim their dominance over our government, nothing good can happen. This is the year we must be clear in our goals and unified in our direction. We cannot divide the vote among factions within our own movement or all will be lost.

Paul

Healthcare Reform and the Constitution

About the only thing that the Democrats and the President have said about the Healthcare Bill that isn’t an outright lie is that it is comprehensive. In fact, that is probably understated since this will give our Federal government unprecedented control over every facet of health, including some very personal decisions.

The bill contains a tax on sugary beverages since sugary beverages have been deemed bad for you. Anything bad for you will raise healthcare costs and this bill gives the government the authority to regulate anything that will affect your health. When government began its crusade to steer behavior under what is widely known know as a “sin” tax on cigarettes, I warned that this was only the beginning. No one argues that cigarettes are bad for one’s health but the same argument can be made for nearly the entire fast food industry. As cigarette taxes climb and people quit smoking, the number of cigarette related illnesses will also decline. When illness related to obesity ranks as the number one cause of death in the United States, the same argument will be used to regulate that behavior too.

We all know the number play in Washington. We saw it all through the debate as some figures were issued in real numbers and some were issued as percentages, whichever made the case for healthcare reform stronger. The industry profits for healthcare insurance were given in real dollars since the amount appeared staggering. Even though the industry-wide profits were stated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, the fact is it represented an industry profit of only two percent. See how that works? Two percent wouldn’t make the people paying high insurance premiums angry but hundreds of billions of dollars would.

Choosing the right set of numbers, the Liberal think tanks can now establish a cause to intervene in our lives. The hundreds of billions of dollars that cheeseburger and fries sap from the health insurance industry is certainly enough to warrant government regulation and that regulation will come in the form of an additional tax. Part of the healthcare bill also requires restaurants to list the caloric content of their meal items. How convenient! That would give us an easy factor by which we can calculate a “progressive” tax on foods that cause obesity. Of course, like any tax it will probably start with some thing barely noticeable as in the sugary beverage tax which was to be one penny per ounce, the last time I looked. But as the paradigm shifts and obesity overtakes cigarettes as the number one killer in the US, they will just have to raise unhealthy food taxes in order to save lives.

Why there are all sorts of things that contribute to skyrocketing healthcare costs; things that progressives would love to eliminate but that the Constitution has prevented until now. Several cities have an incredible amount of healthcare money devoted to treating the victims of weapons related crimes. Using the EPA’s recent announcement that they will being regulating CO2 emissions without Congressional approval using the existing Clean Air Act as a guide, is it really beyond the scope of possibility that our Second Amendment Rights could vanish as a regulatory casualty of controlling healthcare costs? Of course the number crunchers would site the dollar and cents cost for that care as the justification and just ignore the facts that gun related crime is the highest in cities that already possess the harshest gun laws in the nation or that crimes committed with lawfully obtained and owned weapons is less than one half of one percent of all weapons related crimes.

What other rights could be swept away by this bill? Well, we didn’t have to wait for the passage of the bill for our right to free speech to be assaulted. Humana advised its customers about the potential loss of Medicare Advantage under the Healthcare Bill and the White House immediately attacked, threatening legal action even though Medicare advantage was indeed, on the chopping block. Where Humana is concerned, the White House acted with total disregard to the Supreme Court ruling that Corporations are considered individuals where Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment right to Free Speech is concerned. If that wasn't enough, the White House went as far as to establish an Orwellian e-mail account so individuals could report anyone that was spreading lies (opposing information) about the healthcare bill. The apparent message was that Big Brother is indeed watching. Of course that site was dismantled when there was an outcry over this clear abuse of power and the danger it represented.

How about our right to privacy? The administration claims that medical records will be specially secured and kept from prying eyes; really? When Social Security was enacted opponents railed against the loss of privacy and again, the government issued assurances that our privacy would be protected. Social Security numbers were never supposed to be used as a means of identification and the original cards were issued with the statement “For Social Security Purposes, Not for Identification” printed on the face of the card to allay those fears.

So what do we have now? Our Social Security number became our primary form of identification and is needed to secure employment, pay taxes and even to open a bank account. It is the only piece of identity needed in conjunction with your name to get a comprehensive credit report containing all of your financial dealings and as such, has become the primary instrument used by thieves to steal your identity and do irreparable harm to your credit and good name. Considering that the Federal government, with all of the technology and computerization available to them today, could not accurately track the stimulus expenditures with even a modest degree of accuracy, how could we believe that they can secure our medical records any better than they did our Social Security information?

The privacy issue may be further impinged if the final bill contains the same provisions for community based services that were in the House Bill. Under that, community base health providers would come to your home to offer solutions and advice on everything from child rearing to care for the elderly. We already know from past experience that once the government gets a toe in the door, it isn’t long before the whole proverbial 600 lb gorilla is in the living room.

Progressives may be for the most part, a Godless bunch while some Democrats like Ben Nelson are comfortable with placing their religious beliefs and morals on the same auction block with their votes; but American’s are a faithful people with 85% professing belief in one religion or another. The use of public funds for abortion, for many of these people, places them at odds with their faith. Intellectually, there is no difference in using their taxes to pay for abortion as it would be for them to pay for it themselves and that is something their conscience will not allow. Even soldiers have the ability to opt out of fighting in a war if they have a strong and historically verifiable religious objection. Those that object to abortion on religious grounds have no such “opt-out” provision available to them where taxes are concerned. Since tax money all goes into the same pot, if abortion is funded by any provision of the bill no one can offer a reasonable assurance that their money will not eventually end up funding abortion.

Let’s not forget that this is the first time the Federal government has levied a tax on us just because we are alive. The mandate that we purchase health care insurance or else, is as unconstitutional as it gets. There are those that say it’s no different than the mandate to have car insurance, but that mandate only applies if you choose to drive a car. Those that do not own a car are not required to have auto insurance to drive the costs down for those that do. Also, this healthcare bill is not actually insurance, but rather a whole life, cradle to grave intrusion on your life and liberty. It is pre-paid medical care and that is where the outrageous expense comes from. Do you file an insurance claim at every oil change or fill up? Does your auto insurance cover consumable items like brake pads and wiper blades? Does auto insurance cover pre-existent conditions or allow high risk drivers to purchase a low cost policy? No, the comparison to auto insurance is idiotic at best and only confirms the irrational lengths at which these people will go to sell you on this miserable idea.

Paul

The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment
Powers of the States and People.
Ratified 12/15/1791.

“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.”

We are addressing the Tenth Amendment on The Vigilance Project with the same alacrity that we did the First and Second Amendments. Not because of what it is, but rather, because of how badly it has been ignored. This amendment, more than any other, has been diluted and intentionally misinterpreted by many administrations and those administrations have to date found willing coconspirators in the nation’s courts.

Since President Obama has taken the oath of office it appears to anyone outside of his inner circle that they have embarked on a course of massively increasing the scope and power of the Federal Government. The new powers they seek are being highly contested and the speed at which they are attempting to force legislation through Congress suggests that those that are opposed to this “fattening of the Federal hog” do not have the luxury of waiting until the mid-term Congressional elections to seek reasonable restraints. They are seeking to move the agenda forward before the Constitutionality of this power grab can even be determined.

The Tenth Amendment has been looked at by many as the only hope we currently have to restore balance to the union. We created this lumbering giant through our own ignorance and complacency and we are fast approaching a point of no return. If several new and extremely large bills such as the Climate Bill and the Healthcare Bill actually pass, the Federal government will be so big and their powers so all encompassing that the chains of the U.S. Constitution may no longer be strong enough to restrain this super agency.

Why did that just sound like I blamed the average American for this? It sounds like I did because I did. Thomas Jefferson warned that Democracy can only work with an informed and educated electorate. Most of the electorate in this nation are poorly informed and improperly educated. We watched the evening news transform from the daily reporting of important events into a scripted endorsement of the political views of the editor at large and we did nothing. We watched as our schools systems began the teaching of revisionist history and promoted the ignorance of the civil legislative process and we did nothing. We watched as Congress passed one questionable law after another and still did nothing. We did nothing and for our efforts, we got what we paid for.

The Federal Government has been engaged in the practice of siphoning powers from the states through random acts of legislation that were ‘tweaked” into existence through a loose interpretation of the enumerated powers that the Federal Government was originally entrusted with. FDR had sweeping powers granted to the Federal government during the Great Depression to empower his attempts to stabilize the economy during a time of crisis. To gain those powers, FDR and the Supreme Court had to stretch reason and the Constitution to the breaking point.

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only those matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). The Commerce Clause in Article 1 Section 8 is one of the powers specifically delegated to Congress and how it is interpreted is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.

In the twentieth century the complex economic challenges of the Great Depression triggered a reevaluation in both Congress and the Supreme Court. This reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause gave the Federal government the ability to act outside of the enumerated powers in an attempt to correct a faltering national economy. It was after all, a crisis of international proportion. Of course, once you allow a breach of the Constitution for one thing, it sets the stage for further transgressions in the name of precedence.

During the Second World War (1942), the Court ruled that in the case of Wickard v. Filburn, federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm; that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The government’s argument was that a farmer growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers exceeded their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat which justified government regulation under the commerce clause.

After Wickard v. Filburn, many such cases were decided solely on the precedent established in this case. In 2009, the Federal government is confidently using this precedent to declare the constitutionality of its pursuit of regulatory control of the healthcare industry. To say that a man in Peoria visiting a doctor in Peoria to arrange for a medical treatment that will be administered in Peoria somehow falls under the auspices of interstate commerce requires the same stretch of the imagination that was used to regulate wheat grown for personal consumption; wheat that not only did not leave the state, but didn’t even leave the farm it was grown on.

The school of thought that justifies these actions is to say the least, a gross misinterpretation of the commerce clause and to say the most, a criminal attempt on the part of the Federal government to harvest powers that were clearly denied to them in the Constitution. Now that many States are considering or have already passed legislation to reaffirm their status as sovereign States, the first logical step is to revisit the decisions that give precedence to the Federal government’s drive to obfuscate even more powers belonging to the States and the people under the guise of interstate commerce. That is now under way and cases like Wickard v. Filburn are being tested again to determine if the decisions in those cases were in fact, correct and appropriate.

Another method used extensively by the Federal government to garner State participation in Federal mandates is through the use of funding. This tactic is widely used to obtain compliance for federal mandates where there is no Constitutional authority to enact the legislation in question.

The Federal government had issued directives that would change the maximum allowable blood alcohol level to .08 in an effort to create a uniform legal statute for intoxicated driving nationwide. States that would not adhere to this statutory change would lose eligibility for part or all of the Federal highway funds for road maintenance and expansion as the adoption of this standard became a requirement of the application for funds.

The same tactic was used to enforce the national 55 mph speed limit in an effort to conserve fuel after the fuel crisis of the early 70’s. The National Maximum Speed Law was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act signed into law by Richard Nixon. It was revised in 1987 to allow certain highway speeds to rise to 65 mph and was eventually repealed in 1995. During the period of time that it was in force, the maximum allowable speed limit set by the Federal government was written into the requirements for eligibility for any State seeking Federal highway funds.

Now that the Federal government has had such wide ranging success in forcing even unconstitutional legislation upon the States through these tactics they have become bolder through the years. The States are being increasingly burdened by partially funded and even totally unfunded mandates. The legislation may have funding allocated for only the first few years leaving the states to figure out how to pay for the projects after the allocated funds have been exhausted. Some mandates do not even pay the total cost to enact the legislation let alone the operating budget to maintain them. The States, like the people living in them have reached a turning point and are now seeking relief from these unfair and unconstitutional practices.

As of August 2009, 37 states have introduced resolutions in support of "state sovereignty" under the 10th Amendment. In seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). Further, two states (Montana and Tennessee) have passed specific legislation exempting residents from certain federal firearms regulations, while Arizona has a proposed constitutional amendment (to be voted on in 2010) which would nullify a national health care system from operating in the state.

While the Federal ATF has issued a letter to State officials in Tennessee reminding them that Federal law supersedes State law and that has the net effect of rendering the Firearms Freedom act invalid, no court challenges have yet to occur. I am sure that once the Federal government carries through with their threat of enacting restrictive legislation of the retail sale of ammunition, Tennessee and the Federal government will be seeking their day in the Supreme Court to settle the matter.

I pray that Tennessee wins that case because that will be the first swing of the axe that will begin to whittle the Federal government back to an acceptable size. In the end, if we cannot deflate the Federal government until it fits back into the box it came in, the budgets will continue to climb, the deficits will continue to defy logic, and the national debt will eventually attain a weight that will crush this nation.

Paul