Constitution for the Common Man

Background

Like on Facebook.

Imagine dealing with a landlord who not only reinterprets the terms of a rental contract to his advantage, but doesn't even have a clear understanding of what the terms of the contract mean. Who would do business with such a shady character?

Perhaps the only ones to accept such a situation are those who:

• lack enough power to enforce the legitimate terms of the contract;
• have short memories; or
• are unable to understand the contract.

It is the author's contention that a similar situation exists for the people of the United States and their relationship with its Government. Quoting from one of the original opponents of the Constitution: " A Constitution ought to be understood by every one. The most humble and trifling characters in the country have a right to know what foundation they stand upon." [1]

Purpose

The goal of this article is describe WHY the Constitution was setup in the manner that it was and WHY it is important to restore the principles behind it, while simultaneously providing action steps that any of us can take to not only restore it, but to bring it all to proper balance of Federal Government vs. State Government vs. the People.

Note: The author's personal goal in this article was to enhance his own understanding of how the Government works, therefore I would suggest not accepting what I say on face value. Do your own homework in the event that I am misinformed. Please also note, there is a difference between what may be ideal from an interpretation standpoint, and what the officers of the Government may accept.

Using this Article

This article presents information in a way that attempts to balance the length of this article against the needs of today's busy audience. Some readers prefer supporting detail and others would like the summary points without the detail. This site attempts to bring the best of both worlds to the reader. An assertion will be made and there will be expanding levels of support and detail available by clicking the Expand button on the right. The idea is that if the reader already accepts certain ideas, there is no reason to trouble them with additional reading. Click on the Expand link to expand the supporting detail or other supporting points. In general, a principle will be covered, and then supporting detail or examples made available through the Expand link which will be indicated as: "in the expanded text that follows:"

We have tried to gently integrate this technique into the writing, but in some cases it simply doesn't flow well. Try looking in the expanded text that follows:

This is a work in progress. Some things may be out of place and grammar problems abound. There is substance though. Send suggestions or otherwise derogatory comments to the FB messenger account or Like on Facebook.

The current version 0.6.2., additional version and history information is in the expanded text that follows:

• Version 0.6.2 - Added information about definition of unconstitutional
• Version 0.6.1 - Added graphic of Constitutional balance; Added definition of Constitutional
• Version 0.6 - other significant changes and history are captured below, but you need to click expand on the right to view them ->
• Version 0.6.0 - Added more points concerning Judicial review and Immigration vs. Naturalization
• Version 0.5.9: Added State level Federal encroachment reputation success story section - kudos to Peter D, Added placeholders for lightbulbs and marijuana.
• Version 0.5.8: Added excerpts from Thomas Paine's Common Sense Pamphlet, the Kentucky Resolution; and moved images to front of each block; began making each entire block collapsible.

Significant todo items are captured inline or in the expanded text that follows:

• Add discussion of military expansion and calling forth of the militia.
• Add Electoral College vs. Popular Vote including linking to Tara Ross, as well as Fee articles on the topic
• Add excerpt from the Ethiopian Constitution
• Discuss Patent Trolling vs. Original idea of patents at it relates to large NiMH batteries
• Discuss State level successes in repudiating federal encroachment
• Add a transclusion section which discusses the natural laws
• Add a section which discusses fairness in criticism and using honor in order to move the laws
• Add a section which discusses using one's riches either intelligence, money, whatever for service
• Add a section which discussing earning something vs. it being given to you and character development
• Add section re: corruption in state level education bodies and districts
• Add section re: isolated incidents vs. systemic problems.

Where are we?

To determine where to go, we must first determine where we have been and where we are at. To determine where we have been will take some time, so let's first address where we are at, and then we can delve into some areas where we have lost the way, some other areas where we have improved, and some potential paths to get the areas that are off-track, back on-track. Remember the whole idea is to secure our rights, our personal freedoms.

Constitutional Ignorance

First, let's test your knowledge of the Constitution:

• Name one of the enumerated powers delegated to the Congress in the Constitution
• Explain the concept of Federalism
• Name all 5 of your freedoms over which Congress can pass no law
• Explain broad vs. narrow interpretation of the general welfare clause
• Name one of your State's gun laws and how it applies to use of deadly force in your home and distinguish it from the 2nd amendment in the constitution for the United States.
• Describe where is the power of Judicial review indicated in the Constitution
• How many countries are we bombing right now under a formal declaration of War by Congress?

If you can answer the above topics, congratulations - you must be one of the lucky ones, but by and large a quick Internet search or even monitoring the opinions in the news, work place, legal scholariship, and social media sites indicates a wide diversity in viewpoints with respect to applying the Constitution and a great deal of confusion.

Simultaneously, there are also a wide range in views on our personal freedom which the Constitution is supposed to help secure. The fundamental point of disagreement is collectivism vs. individualism. At what point does the good of the many outweigh the good of the few, or ... the one.

There are some declaring tyranny! Some saying, "let's secede"! Some saying, "let's fix this, let's pass that, let's vote so-and-so into office, let's ban the electoral college", and still others saying: "well, I think everything is going to be ... alright." 300 Million voices all screaming for the attention of about 400 representatives, 100 senators, a huge bureaucracy to manage the whole thing, and some supreme court justices. They all want their way and few want to compromise! Whatever are we to do? Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution had some ideas on how to solve these problems.

Open Mind

Before we proceed, it will be important to keep an open mind, which means to suspend your existing belief system and entertain other possibilities. Much of the information in this document may come as a shock to you if you struggled with the Constitutional Ignorance test. That's OK.

If you accept the principle that mankind thinks differently and even a man can think differently depending on the day or hour, it is probably safe to skip over. Let's just consider each way of thinking as but one frequency in a wider spectrum or one part of a greater whole. Additional arguments for how man thinks differently are in the expanded text of this section.

What follows will be a bit esoteric. If that is too much for you, here is the same content in rationalist terms.

The rainbow has millions of colors and also broad categories of Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet and when the three primary colors are combined - the colors become white or black depending on the medium. For as many different subtle shades of color in the rainbow there is an opinion on a given subject. There can be shades of 'red' thinking and shades of 'blue' thinking and some which are combinations and become either white or black. Imagine being the color red and honestly believing that green was incorrect, or vice versa.

If we combine all of the colors in balance, depending on the medium, it either results in black or white. If the medium is mixing light, then the result is white. If the mix is from paint or dye, then the result is dark. Perhaps, by analogy, this says something about our thoughts and if color is not a suitable analogy, perhaps the gist of the point can be seen in music or even food. Some flavors work well together, and others - not so much.

Consider knowledge and experiences as a type of food for the mind. By analogy, when some kids are exposed to new foods relative to their existing experience, the new experience may be rejected. Children exposed to a vast array of foods during pregnancy may be more receptive to a wider variety of foods later on. Children that haven't had a wide variety may not be able to handle as wide a range as others. Parents and children alike are familiar with the experience of offering a child or even some adults a new type of food. Suddenly and with reckless abandon, the new food is rejected and thrown about as an infant or toddler, or if a bit older perhaps candid arguments with parents are made about why such new food is horrible. Is it not similar when we encounter a religion, political system, cultural, scientific, or other view? Yet this does not negate the reality that some "foods" are down right harmful for some and not so much for others. And, of course, there are some substances that if ingested result in severe injury or even death.

A similar phenomena is present in music. Some sequences when played together make us want to cringe - like the "music" played by fingernails scratching a chalkboard. Some combinations then are harmonious and others discordant.

Maybe I can try to think of my perspective, for now, as one of the colors in the rainbow - recognizing that some of us are able to work with the other proverbial colors in the rainbow, and some are not yet ready for that experience - and forcing the issue would be no better than forcing a sweet little baby to eat brussels sprouts when she wasn't ready. If this concept is carried beyond an individual to a group, we may find that some groups have common shades or threads to their way of thinking and there may begin to form natural barriers, some quite violent, between the different groups and ways of thinking. When groups are allowed to live separately, to have their own rules and ways of thinking, we may find that eventually there becomes a type of stagnation in the mental genes. With insufficient diversity, physically, we may see things like birth defects and impacts on the brain causing people to have mental retardation, yet there can also be so much diversity that uniqueness, and by proxy, value is destroyed. Perhaps there is a mental analogy then with ways of thinking and while it is good to have some diversity, there is also 'bad' diversity as anyone who has ever sampled the combined flavors of Orange soda, Coca-Cola, Sprite, and Mountain Dew can attest (the drink is called a suicide by youngsters in America).

Colors can become muddied with too much mixing, but at the same time they can become boring without placement by other colors. In like manner, perhaps genetic diversity results in certain outcomes that are harmonious or discordant. While it is anecdotal, one veterinarian had reported experiences that dogs of breed being more susceptible to disease than mixed-breeds. In human relationships, it is known that in-breeding can result in various deformities. Indeed, lack of genetic diversity in some communities such as the Amish is apparently resulting in genetic diseases. Perhaps this indicates that nature has built-in mechanisms to halt the progress of a lack of physical diversity. At the university level, it is understood that one should not have incestuous thought - therefore grad students are often sent packing to another university besides their alma mater. As an aside, Does Nature also have built-in mechanism to deal with population growth?

Maybe one goal then is to try and see and reason from perspectives opposite of one's own, growing in perspective and knowledge, from the experience. This involves truly getting into someone's way of thinking - perhaps they are not wrong, but not right either and by walking a mile in their shoes an appreciation of other views can be developed. Perhaps one goal is to identify solutions which allow each color to maintain its frequency while simultaneously allowing for the beautiful rainbow which though whole, is also divided. Perhaps there is a faster way to muddle one's way through numerous perspectives? Perhaps we are even intended to think in a certain way for a specific purpose that eludes us. For those wishing to gain some broader perspective, perhaps purposefully walking through potential contradictions in one's mindset may help.

Perhaps individuals can join groups, with each group vetting new comers in its on way, having their own criteria for rejection, in the same way that we may, on an individual basis each of us may reject muddy thoughts or unclear communication.

When we think of thinking in terms of a spectrum, we may begin to see how they all work together to form a beautiful, though often frightening, symphony. In a wonderful dish, if one flavor begins to overpower the others, then the dish may become boring. We have the same problem in politics.

Let's try to cook up some excellent dishes (solutions) that work for as many in our combined communities as possible and allow for as much freedom as possible.

For those that wish to live in ways that some of us would consider odd, let them. That's the cost of freedom!

Perhaps the only 'requirement' we could impose on group mindsets or collectives is that in the event members of such communities or collectives wanted to leave, they could have that option to flee or seek refuge. This is similar to the Amish concept of Rum Springa, where members of that group mindset, the Amish community, go out into the 'world' to find out if they want to remain Amish or stay with the world. The Amish community would seek to preserve its purity and way of thinking, but gives its members the chance to move on if that is their heart's desire.

Now, let's talk about freedom!

Lost Freedom?

If you accept that our freedom is gradually being stripped away by a sort of hidden bureaucratic nightmare, then it is probably OK to skip over the details of this section. If not, a detailed write-up follows is in the expanded text that follows:

Have we really lost our freedoms? At this time, I can generally say or write whatever I want, so long as it is not slander or libel or inciting violence. I carry a firearm in my pocket as I write. I can fire up a blog such as this one in, in minutes, and say whatever I want to basically. I can go to whatever church I want to or not go. This latter freedom wasn't always so in some locales at the forming of our country. For example, some towns mandated attendance at a particular church. Now a days, gay folks can get married, many states allow for concealed or even open carry of weapons, marijuana got somewhat legalized in many states, the Amish don't have to attend school past 8th grade in some states, and people with different pigmentation in their hair and skin are allowed to get married or be sisters (see picture on the right), which wasn't always the case!

That's not so bad, right? But, probably we can make it better. The taxes are relatively high - and nobody likes paying high taxes. As the United States has transitioned to a service based economy, many classes are getting decimated, economically, by the changes. Many of the people complain of a small panel of judges making law for 300 million people. There are numerous other complaints as can be seen in the expanded text section (click expand link on right)

Further, today, there are numerous examples where freedom is gradually being stripped away, though it is more hidden than in previous years. Perhaps because we have become accustomed to it, but also because there other areas where freedom seems to have expanded. Examples of restrictions in freedom do abound:

• the NSA performs an illegal search of your private life with every metadata harvest they perform in violation of the 4th amendment.
• The EPA, BLM, and a whole host of alphabet agencies ignore the 10th Amendment and violate State jurisdiction. For example, In Texas, there is the TECQ - the EPA has duplicated what is Constitutionally the authority of the State of Texas
• One has to ask permission to carry a weapon in many states and aren't allowed to carry in public in many states
• the so-called war on drugs appears to disproportionately impact certain classes of society. [30]
• Zerohedge Article on Government corruption

• List of Abuses note on Facebook with some of the specific points.

• Irresponsible spending. In 2005 dollars, the federal budget has increased from $2.5 trillion dollars to $3.3 trillion dollars in six years. There is no serious solution to pay this off and as more collected tax dollars are going to pay the interest, there is less money to pay for legitimate government expenses, which requires more borrowing, which increases theinterest needed to pay the debt. This is unsustainable. Do we as Texans want to ride this ship down?
• Redistribution of wealth. Washington continually seeks to harvest the wealth of productive individuals and re-directs it to inefficient ventures, such as Solyndra and many other subsidized companies. Government should not force charity giving from a producer and give to penurious individuals. Someone’s ‘needs’ should not give them a right to someone else’s resources, including talents, skills or money. This is feudal mentality, where the nobles would plunder the people through taxation for what they deemed to be best, not necessarily what is most accountable. Recently, there was an Occupy Wall Street demonstration where there were comparisons between the wealth of the top 1% to the other 99%. They should have been looking at this geographically where Washington has our tax monies and decides how it is going to be spent. They have been irresponsible with our money for too long. Are we ready to take our money back, as we are the rightful earners of it?
• Increase in taxes due to the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare). This includes, but not limited to excise tax on uninsured individuals, tax on HSA distributions, fees on health plans, and taxes on medical devices. This has put undue hardship on many individuals and businesses. Did they consider other means of financing healthcare? What about increasing the supply by increasing education or removing some regulations? This was bad legislation that was passed in the middle of the night by one party. It was not even debated on, yet impacted everyone in the United States. Are these the responsible actions of a Republic that was established in 1776?
• Over regulation in the affairs of the people’s financial business (Dodd-Frank Act). This act has created an undue burden upon any individual that have applied for a loan and it has created numerous paperwork requirements that need multiple submissions – once when the loan is submitted and then again before the purchase of the property. We need free markets and free enterprise.
• Irresponsible Use of Fiat Currency. The Federal Reserve has increased the money supply in an attempt to stimulate the economy through quantitative easing at the expense of responsible savers and has put the honest work and representation of a person’s productivity at risk through these reckless policies. Again, the federal government is picking winners and losers in the economy. In the low interest rate environment that is almost a decade long now, this has favored debtors over savers/retirees. The New Republic of Texas should have its own honest currency based on gold or silver and return to free banking.
• Aggressive implementation of environmental rules by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In their overzealous attempt to battle phantom crisis of ‘global warming’, the US has put expensive regulations in place that have increased the cost of utilities. They want to implement a carbon tax. Again, our irresponsible agents are passing legislation based on unsettled science and forcing a one solution. When the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened, the federal government closed down deepwater drilling in the GOM, equivalent of when there is a major accident on the freeway and they close down all freeways in the nation. Much of their enforcement of their laws and regulations are foolhearty and irresponsible.
• As some states, such as California and New York, have been financially reckless, they will eventually look to the federal government to bail them out which will pull resources from financially responsible states through taxation, such as Texas, to support inefficient bureaucracy and policies.
• Political environment in Washington has put excessive burden on the states without consulting with the states. Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are such examples. Resettling of refugees and unescorted minors of immigrants is another. More legislation is passed through backroom deals and not debated in the public. The New Republic of Texas should debate legislation in the open, post it on the internet and get the feedback of her people.
• Recently, Washington has pushed gun control agenda that does not represent true and actual arguments or in line with the cultural understanding in Texas. Why not debate such bills where every Texan over the age of 18 needs to take training and target practice and then require them to carry a gun?
• There has been much talk about minimum wage increase. Abolish the minimum wage. Responsible business models are built using turns of product. Big Cities like New York City and San Francisco (or even Dallas or Houston) will create more turns of product and can support the business model with higher minimum wage; but small towns are dwindling as they cannot compete with the larger economic environments. Washington and the Unions have declared war on small towns and small businesses. Texas can let the free markets determine the balance between the different factors of production.
• Our representatives have been reckless in their legislation and have taken our rights and our powers from us through laws and taxation. We will not tolerate their careless attitude any longer. We are taking back our money, our rights and our Republic! We do not seek the overthrow of any political party or destruction of the United States, only that Texas become its own country with rights to settle its own issues that are in line with our resources, values and morals. This is beneficial to the United States, as well. The US can have a friendly neighbor to the south upon which they can share in a common defense, such as NATO. Although, Texas will have its own currency, the US and Texas can continue to share economic benefits of free trade.

• Article on Federal Usurpation by the State of Texas government

While it is true that this article's existence testifies that there is still freedom left, there is also simply a great deal of room for improvement, even though It may be difficult for us to see anything better since we have no other frame of reference.

When was the last time any one of us had to stand in a breadline?

Consider that for people living under the former Soviet Union, a country that was mostly isolated, standing in bread lines was considered normal and acceptable. Thus, while immersed in a given mindset, one may find it perfectly acceptable if there is no basis for comparison. Perhaps the same is true in our country?

Let's make it better, but before we can do that we must understand how and why government works the way it does - lest we make things worse! Also, it may be worth noting that the "cracks in the Constitution" could be argued to have helped expand rights in many cases. Let's first ask the question: Why Government?

Why Government?

If you accept the principle that government is a necessary evil that should be minimized, then it is probably OK to skip the details available through the expand link.

Why does government exist in the first place? Let's look at the big picture. Does anyone have the right to tell you how to live your life? Do you have the right to tell anyone else how to live their life? The answer seems to be that your rights end right where someone else's rights begin. As long as you're not hurting anyone, then you shouldn't have anyone telling you what to do.

The Declaration of Independence covers this under the topic of natural laws and Nature's god, but this is often ignored by just about everyone. Click the expand link on the right to see the relevant text from the DoI where it explains that the purpose of government is to secure out natural rights.

The text states: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them" (emphasis mine). In other words, our rights are granted by no man!

If we borrow the wording from the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government is to secure OUR natural rights. This sounds good, in principle, but in practice we have struggled with this concept. If you consider the concept illegitimate, note that it is enshrined in the organic laws of the United States - it the point from which the rest of the man made laws originate. (todo: add link)

It is often said: "where your rights end and another's begin"; but, in this grey area, is where the trouble begins. One man's definition of hurting may differ from another's.

For example, smokers may consider their fumes as a pleasing aroma and useful for relaxation, but man non smokers would disagree. Maybe this example of hurting is easily solved by simply not going into places where there are smokers. Yet, there are numerous other areas where the definition of hurting can vary among people. Thus a system of rules was developed to define what is meant by hurting others - with the result being that each of us gives up some of our natural rights, in exchange for ... protection from the lawless.

Milton Friedman offers this: “Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.” [27]

In essence, he is saying that government provides a type of protection racket - you pay the money to it (taxes) and it will make sure everyone plays fair. Playing fair is often called the "rule of law" and is defined roughly as follows: no one is above the law's sanction, and no one is beneath its protection. The richest or most powerful person can be thrown i jail for a crime just as easily as one without a home, in principle! Many have argued that, in practice, the law is only useful for the rich however.

Thomas Paine, a founding father, who provided much of the emotional kindling necessary to spark the American revolution, offers wisdom from some of his pamphlets and excerpts have been placed in the expanded text.

In Common Sense, he wrote:

• "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.*

Continuing he writes:

• "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

Consider also that the reason laws are written is for those who have no law within themselves. Remember what happened to the buffalo when they weren't protected by law? Remember what happened to the Tribes that preceded the Europeans on the Continent called North America? See the Tragedy of the Commons for an example of what can happen in certain lawless situations.

For additional thought and discussion behind the purpose and structure of governments, a mock up of the evolution of our government is discussed in another article The_Land_and_Labor.

Constitutional Basics

Before we proceed, it would be important to understand that while it is true that there are currently many differing views on the Constitution, and it is also true that early on in our nation's history there was much debate about the right way to do things, there are also generally agreed principles which the Constitution is supposed to embody. Among those are limited government, and, of course, let's not forget that the very purpose of government is to SECURE our natural rights. One may question whether the Constitution itself includes a grant of power for such protections, however.

Constitutional Schools of Thought

There are various schools of thought on the Constitution with often conflicting viewpoints. If you accept there are a variety of schools of thoughts, the below may be helpful for reminder, but otherwise move on.

In modern times, some claim that the Constitution is "living document" to be interpreted in accordance with the needs of the times, whereas others offer up what is called an originalist view, saying it is using an understanding of the Constitution from its original design principles. Some view it primarily from a collectivist viewpoint and others from an individualist perspective. Beyond that, some view the Constitution as solely an agreement between the People and their Government at all levels, whereas others view the Constitution as applying solely to the federal government. Some hold that the Constitution was incorporated directly by the people of the United States en mass, and therefore was not a creation of the people of the States.

In more minute detail, some hold that the second amendment applies to the States and to the federal government, to preserve the rights of the people, but try explaining that point of view to a New Jersey State Trooper while his firearm is trained on your person! Others hold that the second amendment only applies to state militias and would exclude private militia and the people unless organized as a state militia under state law. The state of Georgia didn't even bother to put a protection for bearing arms into their earlier constitution, because it was believed that the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution was sufficient to cover the state of Georgia! [21, 25] Another philosophy is perhaps singularly captured in the expression: "The second amendment is my carry permit", which is routinely touted on social media by denizens of Facebook and some Congressmen alike. It seems that the view of the second amendment splintered after the civil war with a wide variety of view points that resulted. Let's take a step back from the Constitutional schools of thought and look at the basic ideas behind the Constitution.

Constitutional Test

One problem of determining what is Constitutional is that even the supreme Court -- those who are supposed to know the Constitution the best, can not agree! Anyone can say that's not Constitutional. Try it - it's easy, just say it: "that's unconstitutional!" Rhetoric! Please explain WHY!

Maybe what is needed is a definition or a method of testing what is Constitutional. Let's see if we can build one:

Everyone who paid some attention during high-school learned that the minimum age to be President of the United States is 35.

If Congress decided to pass a law that allowed the President to be younger, because it was discrimination based on his age, is it ... Constitutional? The quick answer is: of course it isn't! Even if they had the power to do so, could the courts determine that the law Congress made was ... Constitutional? No, of course not!

The Constitution would have to be amended before it could pass a law over this area. This is a clear case. But are there others which are not so clear?

The Prohibition era required an amendment, yet outlawing the substances covered by the Drug Enforcement Agency did not. Did the Constitution change?

Consider that today our political parties are arguing over whether the President has the right to bar entry to the country from otherwise war-torn regions (perhaps rightfully so) over laws passed by Congress, that have nothing to do with Naturalization or would be a stretch to associate with Invasion. Yet fsome have argued that the power to regulate immigration into the United States is derived from a power to ban the importation of slaves? So much for original intent? Perhaps it does make sense to do these things, but is it Constitutional? Is it according to original intent? Does it make sense to do so? Depends on who you ask? Without getting into a debate over naturalization or regulating travel, what if the Congress passed a law over another area where it wasn't given explicit permission or where the language was viewed as ambiguous?

This is the core problem of determining what is meant by Constitutional - lack of definition. Yet, the person known as the father of the Constitution seemed to know the definitions.

Any efforts to reel in the federal government would necessarily require a methodology or definition for determining what is Constitutional that makes sense and is generally irrefutable. Is it possible? In modern times, if I pass a corporate policy I must define my terms for it to be understood, yet there is no definition of terms ... inside ... the Constitution, with perhaps the exception of the crime of Treason. I argue that to find a definition, we must proceed from first principles: the Constitution itself was established limited delegated, but was 'stronger; than the Articles of Confederation.

Further, while it was argued at the time that it was unnecessary, the Bill of Rights was added to address the concerns of those who felt that the powers being delegated to the Constitution would one day be abused.

Their concerns have been vindicated time and time again as this article aims to demonstrate.

Defining the Constitution

Perhaps we should first ask, what IS the Constitution? Consider these words attributed to then Democratic Senator from DE, who while speaking to the President of the United States, while arguing in favor of letting the South secede. He said:

"The Government of the United States is formed by the people of the several States of this Union. It is Federal in the extent of its powers ; Federal in its foundation, but national in the operation of those powers. It is, a mixed Re- public; a Government founded not on the law of the social compact, but on the express contract of separate, independent sovereignties, and it cannot be altered except according to the terms prescribed in the contract, unless by the unanimous consent of the parties.. It is as regards amendments, analogous to a treaty which is the contract of sovereigns incapable of alteration without the consent of both parties. Unless the alteration were made in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, like an infraction by one sovereign of a treaty made with another, the act would justify its entire abrogation. Though a government, it is a government formed by express compact of separate sovereignties, and the infraction of the instrument which forms and is the only evidence of the compact, by attempting to amend or alter it in any other mode than that prescribed, unless with the unanimous consent of all the separate sovereignties, which are parties to it, would destroy the government itself, by destroying the very basis on which it rests. The distinction is, that the Government of the United States is not founded, though the State governments are, on any political axiom, but on the express contract of separate sovereignties." [2]

Imagine if the Governor of Texas today had said what the Governor of Connecticut had said so long ago, I took some liberties and modified a bit: "It must not be forgotten, that the state of Texas is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, “to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent state,” as he is “to support the constitution of the United States,” and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former, with federal supremacy pertaining only to the specific, limited, enumerated powers which had been delegated to it, as described by the Constitution of the United States. it was not so long ago that a proper amendment was required for Congress to regulate something as simple as the product of yeast acting upon sugar and water to make wine, yet now there is near continual federal usurpation of power belonging to the people or the state, by way of creative and broad renderings of terms such as interstate commerce and general welfare, resulting in all manner of usurpation of power including: regulation of fuel containers into unworkable plastic monstrosities fit for only spilling fuel; the amount of water used by automatic dishwashers that no longer wash the dishes; and all other manner of industrial and household products. Someone must ask: Who has granted power over such things? Has the Constitution of the United States changed? While other states may, at their discretion, continue to accept the federal judiciary as the final arbiter in matters of the constitutionality of federal actions, or may reject the express contract of sovereigns, in favor of direct incorporation, we note that the people of Texas, organized themselves, and thereby reserve rights of interpretation over powers not clearly delegated to the federal system as being matters for the people of Texas or the government of Texas.

The first below diagram, not drawn to scale, provides a simplified overview of the original design. As we progress through this article, it will shift to demonstrate the changes that have occurred as indicated by the second diagram.

---

---

Defining Principles of Interpretation

A simple rule for interpretation - in any situation where a term is ambiguous, the interpretation must fall back to one primary principle - that the government was limited to specific delegated powers. If there is any ambiguous term that could, in theory, be interpreted broadly, the very solid foundation upon which the Constitution is built, is removed and replaced with Gummy bears - some form, but easily squeezed into other forms. I leave you with this otherwise insane image so that you may not forget it.

For an example of a more clear definition of constitutionality refer to the Texas Sovereignty Act Discussion and excerpted from the November, 2016 draft of that bill as follows:

Unconstitutional federal action" means a federal action enacted, adopted, or implemented without authority specifically delegated to the federal government by the states through the United States Constitution. Those analyzing a federal action to determine constitutionality shall not rely upon federal judicial precedent in the determination of whether a federal action is unconstitutional. Rather, they shall use in their reasoning the plain meaning of the text in light of the definitions at the time of the framing and the overall structure of the Constitution. Where meaning is ambiguous, they should use contemporaneous understandings of the Constitutional doctrine in question, as evidenced by:

• (1) the ratifying debates in the states;
• (2) the understanding of the leading participants in the Constitutional Convention;
• (3) the understanding of the doctrine in question by the various state constitutions in existence when the

Constitution was adopted;

• (4) the understanding of the first Congress;
• (5) the background understanding of the doctrine in question under the English constitution of the time; and
• (6) statements of support for natural law and natural rights by the framers and the philosophers admired by the framers.

Question: Why should we be bound by the opinions of people who existed 200 years ago? I'll get to some thoughts on that shortly. :)

Constitutional Corruption

Checks and Balances

The basics of Checks and Balances are already well provided for in American schools; however, a brief refresher is in the expansion text that follows.

The simplest way to understand checks and balance is as follows: don't let a fox guard the henhouse. Government could be compared to a dog that has been asked to guard the henhouse. Some dogs may be less apt to kill the chickens, but will scare off the fox, the snake, and the skunk. Depending on its disposition, some level of trust may be placed in the dog - that it won't eat or attack the hens; however, complete trust would be foolish, at best. Imagine placing trust in all dogs to guard the henhouse because there was success with one or two that had a sweet disposition and didn't attack the chickens.

For those without a rural background, this may be easier to see in the mechanics of the financial controls of a small company than for an entire country.

Imagine if you worked for a company and had the job of paying people that the company owed money, such as vendors. Perhaps the company has a dry-cleaning bill to pay. The basic way of paying other companies is for the company that provided service or good to issue an invoice which describes the service(s) or good(s), the timing, and the fee for those goods or services. The company receiving the invoice would verify that it had received the goods or services, and that it wasn't being overcharged. If the company didn't have some checks over the power to pay invoices, someone could have a friend working at the dry-cleaning company create some fake invoices that were purposefully overcharged and then approved payment.

The two thieves would then split the money after leaving the company.

To guard against this behavior, companies implement financial controls. In this area of accounts payable (paying vendors), they may split the duties of processing invoices, verifying the goods or services have been received, and approving payments. This is called segregation of duties. This way no one man has too much control and becomes capable of fraud.

In a similar manner, the Constitution divided up the federal Government such that those who write the laws aren't the ones who would enforce them. These are called checks and balances, but in the financial world they are called controls.

The problem with people is that, power over people, in all its forms, coalesces and eventually attracts those who seek power over people for its own sake. Government is no exception. As seen on the campaign trails in America and in political bickering, government leadership is often composed of the types of people, those drawn to power, that it is trying to protect the people against! To mitigate this tendency in men and to ensure that no one man or group of men ever becomes too powerful, the government had its power split up with a number of checks and balances, most notably, those who execute the laws do not write the laws. Why?

Imagine if you had the job of both writing and enforcing the law. If you were a proverbial fox, you could write a law that said: "Everyone must pay me 10% of their money or go to jail". Perhaps you are the honest sort and would never do this, but perhaps not everyone is as honest as you. Further, there is a tendency of power to corrupt man over time. Men are by their very nature fallible and eventually turn from their first principles without realizing it, all the while holding a belief everything is still on track according to their original principles. In simple terms, this is called rationalization.

A simple example of this principle is seen in the organization that calls itself People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA's purpose is to raise awareness about treating animals with respect i.e., not kill them, but eventually that is precisely the types of activities its members were engaged in - rationalizing the the means justifying the end. It seems that since all men and, by proxy, all organizations, are fallible, it would be best to design a government which accounts for this reality.

Thus, a well designed system would make sure that the people have the power to put the government in its place by making participants in the government limited in what they can do.

Yet, the people themselves can sometimes turn into a lynch mob - so having order in the form of a government can perhaps mitigate this tendency in the people. Thus, the ideal government would somehow limit the lynch mob aspect of the people while limiting the ability of the government to harm the very people it is meant to protect. To achieve this aim, checks and balances were instituted in the government and as exemplified in this quote: "The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power." (See 1992 Supreme Court opinion on the framers’ reasoning behind the state consent requirement (New York v. U.S)) However, over time the balance between the people and the government has been upset. The founding fathers did much to delay this natural tendency for organizations of men to turn from their first principles; however, it didn't take long for the Constitution to become warped against its original design. The road to recovery begins by understanding how we deviated from where we started and actions that can be taken to maximize the freedoms for your grandchildren.

What is not well-covered in American schools are the many other checks and balances especially those over matters of taxation, the balance of power with the States, and ultimately the power retained in the people most notably via the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 9th, and 10th amendments. Perhaps the most important concept that is rarely understood is Federalism.

Federalism

In what follows, federalism is not used in the sense of nationalism, but in the sense of a federation. Unfortunately, through our education process, the term has lost meaning and been muddied over time, let's attempt to clear the cobwebs.

Federalism is simple: the United State Constitution and its Bill of Rights was written to restrain the Federal Government, not the State governments, or the people. Perhaps the only exception is where NOT restraining the states or the people would undermine the very purpose of the power delegated to the Federal government by the United States Constitution.

Let's say I asked you to deliver a package for me. I would have to give you the right to carry the package in order to deliver it. However, to ensure that you don't open the package, I might say that the only rights you have are those which I have delegated to you, namely - delivery, everything else such as opening the package or knowing its contents, is reserved for me. This is similar to how the Constitution for the United States was written.

To keep the federal government in check, there were very specific powers it was granted in the United State Constitution which was ratified by the states using delegates selected by the people. The powers where Congress was authorized to pass laws are called the enumerated powers.They included things like the postal service for delivering messages between states (to facilitate the legal system), declaring war, etc. The general idea was that the Federal government would act on matters outside or in between states such as making treaties, delivering the mail, or going to war, but not IN the states.

Due to concerns that the language of the Constitution would eventually be abused, there were specific limitations placed on the general Government as it was called then, and what we call the federal government, through the Bill of Rights. In essence, the Constitution is a list of specific things the Government CAN do, with the Bill of Rights further limiting the Government while including a very specific requirement that everything not described in the Constitution belongs to the States or the People. The state governments are starting to remember this, but the people have long forgotten. This is why the states have their own constitutions which may seem to contradict the federal government, and why stating that the second amendment IS your weapons carry permit, while in the state of New Jersey, will be irrelevant from the perspective of the NJ state government, and may very well get you arrested or killed if you attempt to assert that the 2nd amendment is your carry permit while in New Jersey.

Consider, that were the federal government not limited, then several of the clauses could be used to mean ... just about anything and overtime, this is EXACTLY what has happened, which has resulted in an upset in the balance of power between the federal government, the states, and the people.

As support of the foregoing, review the following preamble to the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution which is in the expanded text that follows:

"Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. " (emphasis mine).

• In a similar way, one of the principal architects of the Constitution, James Madison, wrote regarding this same topic.

• "The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking that, in all the contemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 12th amendment [became the 10th amendment], now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that 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." (emphasis mine) 20
• In the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any. The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other subjects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity. Were it proposed by the plan of the convention to abolish the governments of the particular States, its adversaries would have some ground for their objection; though it would not be difficult to show that if they were abolished the general government would be compelled, by the principle of self-preservation, to reinstate them in their proper jurisdiction." See Federalist paper #14
• Some say that he did begin to change his tune during the war of 1812, but regardless, that is how the Constitution was sold to the people, as one with limited enumerated powers.

• the Virginia ratification of the United States constitution also supported this view.

• "We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will… " (emphasis mine) [21]
• Patrick Henry expressed concern about general welfare clause being too open ended, and his concerns were ultimately proved correct. Edmond Randolph, first US attorney general, retorted against such concerns: the Constitution provided for a limited government of enumerated powers - no phrase such as that can result in additional powers. He indicated that the Federal government will have only those powers that are expressly delegated. AT least 6 ratifiers stated similarly. (todo: add citations).
• (todo: clarify) If the feds attempt to use any other power, then virginia would be exonerated - was the attorney general of kentucky
• (todo: clarify) sat on the 5 member party for ratifying

So convinced were the states that the federal government had its place, that they routinely nullified what were considered unconstitutional acts by the federal government. What follows is a brief history of nullification by the states (thanks Tom Woods):

• the Virginia ratification of the United States constitution also supported this view.
• Rhode Island, when the embargo was at its end, declared that her legislature possessed the duty “to interpose for the purpose of protecting [the people of Rhode Island] from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power.
• 1790 - Patrick Henry (todo: add details)

• Speech by Governor of Connecticut in 1809, Jonathan Trumbull - it devolves upon the states in the last resort, to be the sentinel for the liberties of the people

“Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task – it is their right – it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.” Connecticut’s General Assembly passed a resolution that, among other things, directed all executive officials in the State not to afford “any official aid or co-operation in the execution of the act aforesaid.”

The General Assembly furthermore declared: “Resolved, that to preserve the Union, and support the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the embargo.”

• 1820s - Ohio (todo: add details)
• 1850s - Wisconsin Supreme Court, notwithstanding the fugitive, appeal to state sovereignty
• 1860s - SC complained that it was sick and tired of the north doing so much nullifying

Take note: Hitler was dead set against States rights - see Mein Kampf

• And Thomas Jefferson described a similar reasoning in the failed (southern states supported, some failed to opine, and others rejected) Kentucky resolution, which was a failed attempt to reel in the corruption of the Constitution. Some excerpts are included in the expanded text below.

"Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party; that the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress" [24]

• "Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,’ therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled ‘An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,’� as also the act passed by them on the__ day of June, 1798, intituled ‘An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States.’� (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory"

• "[W]here powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis]) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them . . ."

• The debates from 39th session of Congress debating the 14th amendment also confirms this view. Some specific quotations support that federal encroachment into state law, would be a "departure from every principle ever dreamed of by the men who framed our Constitution."

"mr. hale. What is the effect of the amendment which the committee on reconstruction propose for the sanction of this House and the States of the Union? I submit that it is in effect a provision under which all State legislation, in its codes of civil and criminal jurisprudence and procedure, affecting the individual citizen, may be overridden, may be repealed or abolished, and the law of Congress established instead. I maintain that in this respect it is an utter departure from every principle ever dreamed of by the men who framed our Constitution."

Continuing:

"... reforms of this character should come from the States, and not be forced upon them by the centralized power of the Federal Government." (emphasis added)

• The Delaware ratifying convention also confirms this view [todo: add reference]

There is an another benefit to Federalism. If we take the concept of free market competition and apply it to the States, we can see there might be a type of competition between the states for citizens (and money they bring) by virtue of the state that best represents a person's values through the state's legal system (thanks Dwayne Stovall for cluing me into this) States could pass or revoke laws designed to attract citizenry. Maybe some states, like New Jersey, would be more restrictive and attract folks that prefer that type of legal environment and other states such as Texas would attract people who prefer less regulation. Why would anyone want more regulation? Well, many companies prefer to use the States of New York and Delaware for homing due to the extensive commercial laws in those states! We can see how this currently works as people are moving to states with better economic conditions such as Texas. Oh, New York won't let me have a pistol? No problem - I'll move to Texas or Kansas. Texas won't let me marry my gay partner while I have a pistol on my hip? No, problem I'll move to New Hampshire where I can have a pistol and marry my gay partner. There is, of course, some inherent logistical challenges to this form of competition.

• For more detailed discussion of this topic, please refer to Get off my State or #getoffmystate #federalismisthesolution on social media.

Judicial Review

Another concept which seems to have resulted in a gradual etching away of the principles in the Constitution is Judicial Review.

The story goes: Judicial Review started when the federal government, via the judicial arm, began to grant itself power through a "little" Supreme court case called Marbury vs. Madison. When I was taught about this in high school, it always seemed quite strange - one day the court decided that they had the power to decide things for the other two branches. "Isn't that sort of like letting the fox guard the hen house?", I said to myself. If true, the result was the federal government basically gave itself the power to interpret the terms of its own 'contract' rather than defer to Article V or some other mechanism, which I will cover shortly. Let that sink in for a moment.

Now, don't get me wrong, Judicial Review may have some historical basis for it that predates the Constitution, and was discussed during various state ratification debates. Consider how a country may have a navy power described in its constitution, which leads to the understanding that the government must be able to build ships, but it would be a stretch to extend that logic, and use an authorization for naval power to build interplanetary exploration probes. In like manner, the constitution says a few things about judicial power, which may very well imply some basic tools to support it. What is judicial power? It is deciding things based on a presentation and counter arguments? It may include backing by members of the other branches for enforcement of the opinions, by having individuals held for contempt of court. Perhaps, and this may be a stretch, it could include trial by combat if Congress passed a law allowing it for the court in question.

One common argument is that judicial review was supported and accepted at the time of ratification and was mentioned in the ratification debates, and the key is here: with no objections to it being an accepted practice. It seems very similar to the idea of jury nullification, covered later in this article. Where is jury nullification ever explicitly mentioned? It's hidden in the not-guilty verdict. But as noted by one commenter on Facebook, jury nullification is exercised by citizens and is not meant to be some sort of limitation on federal power, whereas the very basis for the whole Constitution was explicit authorization for its power. With respect to the earlier mentioned naval power, which is authorized under the Constitution, consider whether the Constitution authorizes the Congress to build airplanes on our aircraft carriers, or spaceships which are clearly out of bounds, unless say, our enemies start building spacecraft. Interplanetary space exploration is still clearly out of bounds, we hope, Elon Musk, unless ... ?

Let's look at where the trouble began. Consider the implications of the opinion written up by Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison: "... The authority, therefore, given to the supreme court, by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States, to issue writs of mandamus to public officers, appears not to be warranted by the constitution; and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction, so conferred, can be exercised."

If you don't already see it, to understand why this is a problem, imagine that a a fox was entrusted to be the judge over a henhouse, and then had a case brought before it whether or not it had the power to eat a hen, then issued a ruling: " ... it appears that I do not have the power to eat any of the hens ..." I wonder how long that would last. Take note also of the careful wording ... he said ... appears! That means he is unsure. Perhaps his words were twisted?

Maybe, because Jefferson had some interesting words to say about this case which may connect with why Judicial Review (over the constitution itself) wasn't included explicitly in the Constitution (click on the expand link to see the quotes) ->

• "The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." Take note of the words "gives the right" for later. We must ask is WHAT that gives the right or WHO?

• "In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please" Take note ... last resort.

• "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." 12 Take note again: to consider as ultimate arbiters. That is the problem right there. It becomes a question of mindset as I will explain.

Despite Thomas Jefferson's objections, Judicial Review, as the ultimate arbiter (and its use in this capacity I disagree with due to the basic conflict of interests already outlined), proceeded, and as time has drawn on it has become quite clear -

that there are numerous examples where the federal government (through the courts) has made some 'adjustments' to the Constitution, these are most especially noted beginning with the New Deal, but examples for the second amendment follow. Click on the expanded link on the far right ->

• In United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."
• In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

• In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

And some of the justices have 'mysteriously' determined that the federal government can do WHATEVER it wants as it applies to the states: "Under the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Government had the power to issue commands to the States. See Arts. VIII, IX. Because that indirect exercise of federal power proved ineffective, the Framers of the Constitution empowered the Federal Government to exercise legislative authority directly over individuals within the States, even though that direct authority constituted a greater intrusion on State sovereignty. Nothing in that history suggests that the Federal Government may not also impose its will upon the several States as it did under the Articles. The Constitution enhanced, rather than diminished, the power of the Federal Government."

• Note: "the constitution enhanced . . . the power of the Federal Government." [29]

Let's give the court system ... some ... credit. Every once in awhile, we find that there is a case where perhaps the court itself might undermine its own credibility if it DIDN'T find something unconstitutional. For example, in 1997, in United States v. Lopez, the supreme court determined that Congress had made a statute which exceeded the power granted it. The Chief Justice, Rehnquist wrote: "We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.". Thanks, Judge!.

Is it entirely the court's fault we are here though? Let me try to shine some light on the problem and I believe it is one of mindset:"to consider as the ultimate arbiter" the supreme court. What can you expect from a system that encourages corruption to run for office, and if they're not corrupted, will be eventually in order to get things done, barring few exceptions?

Moving on, let me propose this assertion: The supreme court should/can not decide matters outside its sphere ... UNLESS ... the two combatting parties, or branches of government, in this case, bring the matter to the court for resolution. Now why would they do that? Again, incompetence, ignorance, perhaps fear of standing up and looking stupid? It is hard to say. Regardless of the reasons, by bringing the issue to the court, the two parties have effectively given up their responsibility (power). Again, there is a reason one branch was given control over the purse strings and another the army, and another over declaring war (making use of the army). If each branch gives its power over to the judiciary, then that is on them for acting like children in the first place.

The problem though, is us commoners who have to live with the aftermath.

Let's continue the analysis.

First, some proponents of Judicial review have argued well that judicial review (judging the merits/sense of the law) though not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, was more or less in there in the same way that the navy could build boats, due to its acceptance during the time period, as explained in the below quotes.

"Nonetheless, academics from both ends of the political spectrum have criticized the Rehnquist Court's exercise of judicial review. From the right, Judge Robert Bork attacks the Court's role in deciding issues such as abortion, and has called for a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to override judicial decisions. From the left, Professor Mark Tushnet criticizes the Court's views on affirmative action and federalism, and has proposed the elimination of judicial review. ... Kramer argues that the Supreme Court's effort to police the boundaries of national power is both unwise and unwarranted. ... Professor Kramer boldly claims that the Constitution itself never authorized any judicial review of federal statutes. In a lengthy historical review, Professor Kramer insists that the Founders' did not expect that the federal and state courts would be able to invalidate unconstitutional federal legislation. In 1787, Kramer claims, judicial review was too novel and controversial for it to be made part of our constitutional order without explicit and clear authorization. Because of the doctrine's novelty and controversiality, the Founders felt the need to explicitly sanction judicial review of state law in the Supremacy Clause. The Constitution's lack of a similarly clear and specific authorization for judicial review of federal legislation signals that such judicial review was never authorized. The unauthorized nature of judicial review not only undermines the Court's current federalism jurisprudence, it also renders Marbury v Madison without constitutional foundation".

"The assault on judicial review is flawed on three levels. First, the recent attack on judicial review ignores the starting point for all constitutional interpretation: the constitutional text. ... academic criticism ignores the manner in which the constitutional text authorizes judicial review and fails to establish that the text prohibits it. ... Second, recent arguments also disregard the Constitution's structure. Much of the recent attack on judicial review is really an effort to undermine judicial supremacy. The two issues, however, are quite distinct. A careful examination shows that the constitutional text and structure allow-indeed require-the federal and state courts to refuse to enforce laws that violate the Constitution. Nowhere do the constitutional text and structure, however, generally compel the other branches of government to accept the judiciary's readings of the Constitution in the execution of their own functions. Rather, each branch must interpret the Constitution for itself in the course of performing its own constitutional duties. Thus, the federal courts must determine the constitutionality of the federal statutes that they interpret and apply in cases and controversies properly brought before them. "

The last two sentences formed Jefferson's view from what I've been able to scrape from his above comments. Let me place the quote again so it is not ignored or lost: "Rather, each branch must interpret the Constitution for itself in the course of performing its own constitutional duties. Thus, the federal courts must determine the constitutionality of the federal statutes that they interpret and apply in cases and controversies properly brought before them." This quotation is not at all in conflict with what Jefferson had said in the earlier quotes.

Continuing, the fine folks at Berkley write:

"Third, there is a wealth of evidence that the Founders believed that the courts could exercise some form of judicial review over federal statutes. Dozens of delegates to the federal and state conventions understood that the proposed Constitution would authorize judicial review of federal legislation. Moreover, in pamphlets and in the popular press, commentators on the Constitution likewise wrote that such review would exist. Finally, in the early years of the new republic, both Congress and the courts understood that the latter could judge the constitutionality of the former's laws. In the face of this widespread consensus-which included both Federalists and Anti-Federalists-it is telling that no one from the founding era apparently ever denied that the Constitution authorized judicial review."

This is a key sentence: "no one from the founding era apparently ever denied that the Constitution authorized judicial review. " Surely this esteemed legal expert from Berkley is aware of Jefferson's quotes and is ALSO aware that making such a bold statement could be easily refuted using Jefferson's words, if they are used to undermine the principle of judicial review itself.

If true, presumably that means Jefferson's words noted earlier, and again for a reminder here are in alignment with the good Berkley professor I've been quoting from. Here are Jefferson's words again: "The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch"

Thus, it seems (remember that word appears used by Justice Marshall earlier - hah) at the minimum, Jefferson's words do NOT contradict the notion that: "no one from the founding era apparently ever denied that the Constitution authorized judicial review", which will be explained by what follows next.

Continuing, here is the where the rubber meets the road:

"Finally, we do not discuss how the other branches must respond to a judicial judgment that a federal statute is unconstitutional. These theories are about the implementation and consequences of judicial review. "

The key is how the other branches ... respond! The court can render an opinion all day long. It is all the folks going along with it that makes matters worse. I tell you, that included me for most of my life! Thanks American schooling system, hah! Perhaps I should have taught myself law on a shovel as honest Abe reportedly did (I jest).

Again, the law is nothing without FORCE. What power (FORCE) does the court have to enforce its decisions? To borrow from honest Abe, IIRC, "Where is its army?"

In my view, it seems to come down to 2 parties agreeing to have a 3rd, presumably neutral party, resolve their dispute, since neither party can come to agreement and would rather not do physical battle with one another (or branch of government). Both bringing the matter to the court are, in effect, agreeing to act with honor and abide by the outcome of the decision.

All of this said, I'm not sure what to do about being dragged into a court case against one's will though. Perhaps force comes into play again. Further, is there a potential for one or both parties to ignore the outcome, if so, who is there to enforce the resolution the 3rd party, supposedly neutral court, attempted to resolve? Force! What happens is if conventional wisdom / popular opinnion holds that the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter, then the branches in conflict risk revolution IF they oppose the court.

It seems to me that the accountability or FORCE comes from neither party wanting to implode the system or resort to physical battle, unless absolutely convicted of its need. This ultimately depends on the direction the political will is blowing at the time, I suspect. The other issue is people may not understand that one or both are acting like children if they take a matter to a court for resolution. It is all explained in the Karpmann drama triangle, which, IMO, underlies more or less all wars and conflicts. The root cause? Humanity is filled with children masquerading as adults.

Let's say you and I decided to behave like children and call each other names or something. It happens to the best of us. Again, we could resolve the matter as adults - that is, resolve it ourselves and apologize, come to see and even appreciate the opposite perspective that is currently opposing us, try to be better men, whatever or -- we could behave like children and take the matter to a court. Both of us are honorable (fair minded) and agree that it is far cheaper for us both to preserve our lives and our property by agreeing to abide by the outcome of the court, than to do battle - have a duel, etc. even if we may not like the outcome, it is better than the alternative of trial by combat.

With the case of branches of government, IF a matter is brought to the independent party, a court, for a decision, then surely both are agreeing to the outcome. Now if one or the other refuses to go to court, or refuses to abide by the outcome, that is another matter. "Where's your army?", they may ask the court. Again though, despite the court's opinion on a matter, what force do the other branches have to compel compliance with the results?

Jefferson said that there would be "No single tribunal" deciding matters outside its sphere -- what does that mean? He also mentioned much about branches being co-equal in interpretation. Does that mean each court - lower level, all the way to supreme court may, for itself, determine what is considered "constitutional", as well as each branch, determine, for itself, what is constitutional? I think it does. If true, Jefferson's words do not reject the concept of judicial review itself, judging the law, RATHER they reject that the court can exercise POWER over the other two branches. Law is of no effect without FORCE!

Could it mean, that unless escalated to the supreme Court, each court decides for itself, independently whether it will rely on supreme Court rationale? What this means is that if someone finds a court that has a difference of opinion from the supreme Court, then unless they appeal the decision, they may be stuck with the court where the matter of controversy brought. Now, if that case is later appealed and makes it up to through the chain, then it means the 'lower' court has just wasted its time in deciding a matter that would be ultimately overruled anyway, so apparently, they often just go with whatever the supreme court said, to save everyone the trouble.

The point in all this is that the court is basically a place where arbitration over matters can be settled. Let's say a branch of government sued another on the basis that the constitution was null and void? What then? Let's say the court agreed with the branch that brought the question to the court. The court not only 'decides' that the constitution is null and void, but also that the other branch should give its army over! What then? So here's the point --

There is nothing in Jefferson's words (that I can see) that precludes the supreme court from making a determination on a matter that has been brought to it? But, the two parties shouldn't have dragged a 3rd party into it, making the 3rd party responsible for reconciliation of their childishness. That's on the two 'children', not the court.

To add some weight to this, I found some interesting words about and from Madison, the oft-championed architect of the Constitution, quoted as follows:

"The second [option to resolve constitutional disputes between branches] was to enable any two departments "to call a plenipotentiary convention whenever they may think their constitutional powers have been Violated by the other Department or that any material part of the Constitution needs amendment."

Taken from a larger quote as follows:

"One other passage in this letter bears, indirectly or one could even say negatively, on Madison's conception of judicial power. Madison answered Wallace's query, "Should there be a periodical review of the Constitution?"" with two possible solutions. One (only alluded to) was the council of censors instituted in Pennsylvania, where the polity remained "much divided" over the radical constitution of 1776; Madison did not seem to think that this expedient was relished "even by those who are fondest of their Constitution."The second was to enable any two departments "to call a plenipotentiary convention whenever they may think their constitutional powers have been Violated by the other Department or that any material part of the Constitution needs amendment."

Here Madison drew, without acknowledgment, on the similar proposal that Jefferson had advanced in his Notes on the State of Virginia.' Madison was not quite so explicit as to suggest that the most likely scenario for such a convention would involve a joint executive and judicial demarche against legislative encroachment, but the thought could not have been distant. But these observations are more noteworthy for implying that fundamental violations of a constitutional scheme would not be amenable to judicial correction in the ordinary course of things. Or to put the point more directly, the judiciary had no special duty or capacity to maintain constitutional norms, beyond seeing to the orderly and conscientious administration of justice."

I read this as - they, the two arguing branches, could simply act like adults and work out their differences, exactly as I suggested earlier. By doing bringing the matter to the court, they have effectively GIVEN up their right to interpretation of the constitution, in favor of the opinion of a neutral (debatable) 3rd party, who can't even unanimously agree within itself most of the time!

The Power to Punish

The places where the Constitution authorizes punishment and/or the definition of crimes are few and limited.

The Constitution explicitly defines certain crimes, and gives the power to punish in only a couple places as follows.

• Article 3 section 3 -- Treason -- Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

• The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The other crime, in article one, section 8, clause 6, is that it is a crime to counterfeit money.

• Article 1, section 8, clause 6 -- Counterfeiting -- To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• Article 1, Section 8 -- Piracies and Felonies --To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

There was, for a time, Prohibition of alcohol according to the eighteenth amendment, "shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation"

Here are some questions for the reader to ask themselves:

• Does concurrent power to enforce include a concurrent power to punish?
• Is there some inherent presumption that the power to make laws over a given topical area includes the power to punish, if so, why was the power to punish explicit?
• Is there some inherent contradiction that is resolved through whatever is the latest incarnation of the common understanding?

Jury Trial

Consider - how would a power or right diminish, without an amendment to the the Constitution? Quoting from the Heritage foundation: "Over time, however, this power eroded. In 1895, the Supreme Court concluded in Sparf and Hansen v. United States that the jury did not have the "right" to decide legal questions. As a result, today judges can—and do—instruct juries that they must accept the judge's view of the law, and lawyers are no longer allowed to argue the merits of the law to the jury. Because the jury possesses authority to issue an unreviewable general verdict of acquittal, the jury nevertheless retains the raw power to check general laws with which it disagrees in individual cases. But because the trial judge does not instruct the jury that it has this authority, the jurors may not know that they have it. In addition, even if the jurors are aware of this power, they must exercise it knowing it is contrary to the judge's instructions. Hence, there will be cases in which the jury does not exercise that power and instead follows the judge's instructions, even when the jury itself disagrees with the law in question, with the judge's interpretation of the law, or with the law's application in the case before it." [3]

The Interstate Commerce Clause

The Interstate Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". For a long time it was interpreted narrowly to involve Congress in commerce in between states, such as if one state wanted to tax the goods of another state. As usual, over time, the government decided that it had the power to expand its own power and did so through creative interpretation of the clause.

• Perhaps the most important usurpation of power can be seen in *Wickard v. Filburn. Wickard v. Filburn was a Supreme Court case that was used in 1942 that greatly expanded the power of Congress. In deciding Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court said that any activity might possibly affect interstate commerce because someone, somewhere in another state might want to do that activity for you and charge you for it. Got that? The text in the expanded section explains in more depth.

Roscoe Filburn grew wheat on his farm for his animals. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 had limited how much wheat farmers could grow in order to increase wheat prices. Filburn was growing more wheat than that law allowed based on the acreage he owned. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though there were no interstate transactions involved with the growing of the wheat and there was no transaction at all. Filburn said that the Constitution did not grant Congress the power tell him how much wheat he could grow. The Supreme Court, taking a broad interpretation (making it say whatever they wanted it to say) of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, said Congress could regulate growing food for personal use because it might affect prices in interstate commerce. The Court concluded that had Filburn not grown the wheat, he would have had to buy it on the open market, which, in theory, would increase the demand for wheat and cause the price to go up. And since the market for wheat also includes interstate transactions, then Congress can make Filburn destroy his crops. Got that? Now just imagine similar logic being applied to the concept of global warming or in the extreme, breathing too quickly. Sounds like a joke, right?

Well, in 1943, during the War, the same Claude R. Wickard in the previous court case, who held the position of Food Administrator, put a ban on sliced bread, explaining that "the ready-sliced loaf must have a heavier wrapping than an unsliced one if it is not to dry out." Interestingly enough, it was also intended to counteract a rise in the price of bread, caused by the Office of Price Administration's authorization of a ten percent increase in flour prices. On January 26, John F. Conaboy, the New York Area Supervisor of the Food Distribution Administration, warned bakeries, delicatessens, and other stores that were continuing to slice bread to stop, saying that "to protect the cooperating bakeries against the unfair competition of those who continue to slice their own bread... we are prepared to take stern measures if necessary." On March 8, 1943, the ban was rescinded. Wickard stated that "Our experience with the order, however, leads us to believe that the savings are not as much as we expected, and the War Production Board tells us that sufficient wax paper to wrap sliced bread for four months is in the hands of paper processor and the baking industry." They tried to ban sliced bread instead of allowing rising prices to draw more bakers into the market.

Justice Thomas Clarence argued that to understand the meaning of interstate commerce, other topics would have to make sense in this sentence:

Congress has the power to regulate ______________ with foreign nations.

Try this for agriculture. Does Congress have the power to regulate what a farmer might plant in Mexico? Rhetorical. Try it now for transportation of goods. Transportation of the goods is clearly connected to an exchange or transactions. What about agriculture? I suggest that agriculture becomes commerce at the moment a ... transaction ... is involved.

Can Congress regulate the growth of the weeds in Texas? How about no, since no money is exchanged. How about can Congress regulate someone shipping cabbage, as a birthday present, to his buddy in Florida? I suggest that since no money is exchanged, Congress is out of the loop. Does Congress have the power to tell people to announce when they are shipping birthday gifts across state lines, or the amount or size of those birthday gifts? If I buy a $150,000 hat from the John Deere store, and they give me a tractor, does sales tax apply to the tractor? It seems to me that the rules on such topics would be arbitrary. Someone might say, well, we have to draw a line in the proverbial sand somewhere. Perhaps, but I think the point is this - the only thing being regulated is the exchange of money. Not prohibition of goods. To do that, Congress had to pass and subsequently repeal the 18th amendment.

Try it now for service delivery. Let's say I type for a living and want to hock my typing skills in Texas to deliver typing service to a farmer in Florida. Can Congress regulate the speed of my typing, or merely the financial transaction that occurs, isn't that the actual commerce?

Let's say that I, living in Texas, decided to type, for free, for a man in Florida, while I was taking a vacation in Canada, stopping by the Mexican embassy?

Does Congress have the power to regulate my typing while sitting in the Mexican consulate in Canada? Or, again, does it merely have the power to regulate the actual transaction - that is, the exchange of dollars for the service provided? Further, let me add - would Congress have the

Meaning that it could, in theory, through its power of taxation apply a tariff or something, on the transaction?

OK, why didn't the Constitution just say Congress has the power to regulate financial transactions? I suspect that wasn't a widely used term at the time, when commerce got the job done.

Perhaps we can turn our attention to the Articles of Confederation.

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and *shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.*"

That seems quite clear, no?

Consider also this paragraph by John Locke which provides some context around the meaning of the term commerce:

"And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so this invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them: for supposing an island, separate from all possible commerce with the rest of the world, wherein there were but an hundred families, but there were sheep, horses, and cows, with other useful animals, wholesome fruits, and land enough for corn for a hundred thousand times as many, but nothing in the island, either because of its commonness, or perishableness, fit to supply the place of money; what reason could any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his family and a plentiful supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced, or they could barter for like perishable, useful commodities with others? Where there is not something, both lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded up, there men will not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it ever so rich, ever so free for them to take: for I ask, what would a man value ten thousand, or an hundred thousand acres of excellent land, ready cultivated and well stocked too with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America, where he had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the sale of the product? It would not be worth the enclosing, and we should see him give up again to the wild common of nature, whatever was more than would supply the conveniencies of life to be had there for him and his family." See John Locke's Second Treatise § 48.

• See the Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause by Jon Roland
• See The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause

Militia and Standing Armies Power

In a recent discussion with a facebook denizen, it was noted that there is some interesting history with the gradual erosion of a balance between the States and the Federal government as it relates to the second amendment.

"There are no prohibitions in the use of the standing army. This was true in the AoC and USC. The check in the AoC was that the national Congress could only appoint officers up the grade of Captain in the standing army, and had to have a state supply officers of Major to Colonel, and 9 states had to agree to the appropriation of funds for the army. The check in the USC is the 2 year funding limit. One of the concerns in the Constitutional debates was how Congress could evade limts on the standing army by using the militia power to cerate a "Select Militia" fully funded and trained by Congress that would have a primary loyalty to Congress rather than their state. This disparity in military force would increas if Congress refeused or prohibited arming and funding of the rest of the militia. The balance of military power and therefore possible tyranny would be decidedly in favor of the national government.

The 2A was designed to prevent the federal government from using the militia power to prevent individuals and states from maintaining militias by prohibiling possession of arms or organizing. In a sense the BoR is designed to enable the success of the type of revolution conducted by the founders by making secure the ability of the population to be armed, organize themselves, and communicate / coordinate their activites. Any attempt to impede those activities being evidence of government tyranny. The last time a privately organized and armed military unit was accepted into United States service was 1898.

Congress is restricted in the use of the militia to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and enforce the laws of the Union. When the US declared war on Great Britain in 1812, four states refused the call of Congress for their militias, as not meeting any of the three Constitutional criteria for use of the militia. In 1820, the SCUS ruled that declaring war was within the power of Congress and the states should have provided the militia. Subsequently, caqlls were made for "volunters" from the militia in order to avoid Constitutional issues relating to when units were called up, and finally, the National Guard is created under the power to aise and suppoert armies in order to evade Constitutional restrictions on the use of the militia. See the paper Federalism and the Military Power of the UNited States for more history and detail [4].

Congress now never uses the militia power, but the almost unlimited power to raise and support armies (thanks to SCUS) to draft, call up and control the National Guard, and prevent states from maintaining their own militias without federal approval. The states have gone along every step of the way because the feds pay for the National Guard and refuse to arm or equip state militias. The 2A was designed to prevent this from happening. Federalist 46 said this wuld never happen, but if it did, the people themselves "Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, .....and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made.A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole."

Or Federalist 28 "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

Note that the need to protect the rights is not limited to against the federal government only in these essays."

Incorporation via the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause

The 14th amendment was basically a tool to provide former slaves with civil rights. After the 14th amendment was passed, there were a number of concerns raised about it being used to circumvent the concept of Federalism. Well, that's what eventually happened. The addition of the 14th amendment allowed the federal courts to gradually force the states to recognize the rights listed in the federal Bill of Rights, but it ALSO allowed the courts to begin forcing the states to follow so-called Federal law, negating the design of the Constitution.

Additional discussion is included in the expanded text:

There are different schools of thought and debate over this amendment. From the wikipedia: "Incorporation started in 1897 with a takings case, continued with Gitlow v. New York (1925), which was a First Amendment case, and accelerated in the 1940s and 1950s. Justice Hugo Black famously favored the jot-for-jot incorporation of the entire Bill of Rights. Justice Felix Frankfurter, however—joined later by Justice John M. Harlan—felt that the federal courts should only apply those sections of the Bill of Rights that were "fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty." It was the latter course that the Warren Court of the 1960s took, although, almost all of the Bill of Rights has now been incorporated jot-for-jot against the states. The latest Incorporation is the 2nd Amendment which made the individual and fundamental right to "...keep and bear arms," FULLY APPLICABLE to the States, see, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. (2010). The role of the incorporation doctrine in applying the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states is just as notable as the use of due process to define new fundamental rights that are not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution's text. In both cases, the question has been whether the right asserted is "fundamental", so that, just as not all proposed "new" constitutional rights are afforded judicial recognition, not all provisions of the Bill of Rights have been deemed sufficiently fundamental to warrant enforcement against the states." In 1947 in "Adamson v California (332 U.S. 46 [1947]) when the Supreme Court began to accept the argument that the 14th Amendment requires the states to follow the protections of the Bill of Rights" [17].

But, such gains are not without a cost -- the same mechanism (the 14th amendment) that is used incorporate (force) federal laws to apply to the states is being used to force one-size-fits-all decisions on the states. This results in fun things like 5-4 decisions affecting 300 million people with specific examples being forcing people to bake cakes that are contrary to their religious beliefs, serve people they don't want to serve, or marry people they don't want to marry. As an aside, don't get me wrong, I think such actions as refusing to bake a cake because someone is gay are cruel, but I also believe that people have a basic right of association, to refuse service for whatever reason they want. Basically, you don't have to bake a "gay cake" if you don't want to, any more than I should be forced to bake a "gay people suck cake" if I don't want to! If it is hard to understand this concept with the word gay, then consider: what about a jewish baker being forced to bake a cake for a neo-nazi? This is the cost of freedom. However, if the system is allowed to function as designed, that is, with competition among bakers, it allows for different shops to emerge that may cater to different belief systems or expressing a desire to be apart from different types of people.

The 14th amendment text is admittedly rather difficult to decipher without the benefit of the 39th session of Congress.

The text is as follows: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

• The 39th session of Congress debating the 14th amendment has some interesting discussion concerning the application of the rules for the federal government, and by proxy, the bill of rights into the states. A short excerpt follows.

"mr. hale. What is the effect of the amendment which the committee on reconstruction propose for the sanction of this House and the States of the Union? I submit that it is in effect a provision under which all State legislation, in its codes of civil and criminal jurisprudence and procedure, affecting the individual citizen, may be overridden, may be repealed or abolished, and the law of Congress established instead. I maintain that in this respect it is an utter departure from every principle ever dreamed of by the men who framed our Constitution."

Continuing:

"... reforms of this character should come from the States, and not be forced upon them by the centralized power of the Federal Government." (emphasis added)

• Ever watched a cop show where they read the rights. They typically say: "You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney ..." Where does speaking these rights, the so-called Miranda rights, originate? Was it the 5th amendment being applied to the states? Or, as determined in the federal supreme court case of Hurtado v. California, was it whether the 14th amendment: "Due Process Clause extended to the states the 5th Amendment's Indictment Clause requiring indictment by grand jury."?

Strict Construction to the General Welfare Clause

A particularly blatant reinterpretation of the Constitution is centered around the general welfare clause. Remember when it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the first part of the 1900s? Then later the Drug Enforcement act didn't require an amendment? Why? Read about the revolution of 1937 where the federal government granted itself even more power by interpreting (through the courts) the general welfare clause to mean just about anything! The governor of Texas recently commissioned a project to analyze where the Federal government has usurped power and came to the same conclusion, but also expanded the conclusion to include the interstate commerce clause and others as being used by the Federal government to usurp power.

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[5]Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 53.

The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.[6][ Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 161–64] Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power,[7][7] but a qualification on the taxing power[5][8][9] which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.[5][10][11] The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position",[5] as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.[12]

Quotes follow:

• “...Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only land-mark which now divides the federalists* from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action: consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. …" ~Thomas Jefferson

Historical debate and pre-1936 rulings

In one letter, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”[14][15]

In 1824 Chief Justice John Marshall described in an obiter dictum a further view on the limits on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden: "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."[16]

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:[Note 1]

James Madison explained his "narrow" construction of the clause in Federalist No. 41: "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases." Madison also advocated for the ratification of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention with this narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.[17][18]

Alexander Hamilton, *only after the Constitution had been ratified*,[19] argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.[20] This debate surfaced in Congress in 1790, when Madison strongly criticized Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing and industry on the grounds that Hamilton was construing his broad interpretation of the clause as a legal basis for his extensive economic programs.[21]

While Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of Presidents Washington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, and helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.[22]

Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.,[23] in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate Justice Joseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national welfare.

Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,[24] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole[25] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

Miller, Jonathan M. (1997). "The Authority of a Foreign Talisman: A Study of U.S. Constitutional Practice as Authority in Nineteenth Century Argentina and the Argentine Elite's Leap of Faith". American University Law Review. Washington, D.C.: American University Washington College of Law. 46 (1483, at 1562). Archived from the original on 2008-09-15. Retrieved 2008-06-20.

^ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Philippines_(1987) ^ Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905) ("Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."). ^ Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 53. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 65–68 (1936). ^ Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 161–64. ^ Story, Commentaries, §919. "A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them." ^ Story, Commentaries, §909. Here Story disproves the Madisonian position holding the clause being a prelude to the subsequent enumeration of powers, stating "the words have a natural and appropriate meaning, as a qualification on the preceding clause to lay taxes." ^ Story, Commentaries, §§919–24. ^ Story, Commentaries, §§972–75. ^ Story, Joseph (1833). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. II. Boston: Hilliard, Gray & Co. pp. 366–458. ^ Story, Commentaries, §§923–24, and footnotes. ^ Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America – Analysis and Interpretation (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 161. The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. ^ Boyd, Julian P., ed. (1950). The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. 19. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 285. ^ Jefferson, Thomas (1791). "Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank". The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy. Yale Law School. Retrieved 8 January 2013. ^ Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 199 (1824). ^ Madison, The Federalist No. 41 General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution, The Independent Journal ^ Madison, James. (3 March 1817) Letter to the House of Representatives, Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817 ^ Woods, Thomas E., Jr. (2008). 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. New York City: Three Rivers Press. ^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961–79) ^ Stephen F. Knott, Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth (2002), pp. 43, 54, 56, 83, 108. ^ Eastman, John C. (2001). "Restoring the "General" to the General Welfare Clause". Chapman Law Review. Orange, CA: Chapman University School of Law. 4 (63). ^ Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922). ^ Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937). ^ South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). ^ 1865 Alabama constitution Archived 2013-04-24 at the Wayback Machine. ^ Jump up to: a b Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Supremacy Clause Applies to Specific Powers

The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution and laws in pursuance thereof are Supreme. It does not say that the federal government, federal laws, or the Supreme Court is supreme.

The supremacy clause, as commonly understood by united states citizens today, is often used as an excuse for the federal government to do WHATEVER it wants, but this understanding does not work when balanced with the concept of a limited federal government as the Constitution was sold.

The United States Constitution authorizes the United States Congress to exercise only those powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, as well as certain other powers delegated to Congress by subsequent amendments to the constitution. Article VImakes supreme the Constitution and only laws in pursuance to the Constitution and requires the individuals at all levels and in all branches of government to support the Constitution.

The key is here: "only laws in pursuance". The Constitution until the late 1800s to mid 1900s was understood as delegating a limited set of powers to the Federal government. Imposing duties or tariffs was one of those powers. However, the state of South Carolina didn't like some of the duties and tariffs and attempted to thumb its nose at the Federal government. In response, president Andrew Jackson wrote regarding SC’s Nullification Act: “The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution — that they may do this consistently with the Constitution — that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional.” See: proclamation-regarding-nullification

Andrew Jackson indicated, "indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured", unconstitutional federal laws/acts are null and void, and should be ignored or punished.

The text of the clause can be found at

under Article VI, Clause 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing [sic] in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

James Madison covers several of the finer points about how the supremacy clause could have worked and the result in each case. Depending on the wording, he demonstrated that the Supremacy clause was needed, otherwise there was basically no point in having a Constitution in the first place. He goes on describe the problems inherent to listing out every single thing the Congress could act on and the problems inherent to each method, ultimately arriving at the way the supremacy clause is worded gives power to the federal government. There is also good discussion of this clause by James Madison under Federalist paper #44, but an excerpt has been included for convenience.

Under Federalist Paper #44, Madison begins by explaining some of the powers delegated to the federal government such as coinage, but then he dives into the matter of the wording of the supremacy clause. Basically he indicates that the way it is worded is the only way to word it for the Constitution to have any power at all. He states:

"There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not EXPRESSLY delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference. "

Continuing, Madison writes:

"Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of Confederation, it is evident that the new Congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "EXPRESSLY" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction. It would be easy to show, if it were necessary, that no important power, delegated by the articles of Confederation, has been or can be executed by Congress, without recurring more or less to the doctrine of CONSTRUCTION or IMPLICATION. As the powers delegated under the new system are more extensive, the government which is to administer it would find itself still more distressed with the alternative of betraying the public interests by doing nothing, or of violating the Constitution by exercising powers indispensably necessary and proper, but, at the same time, not EXPRESSLY granted. Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the PARTICULAR POWERS, which are the means of attaining the OBJECT of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.

Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority. If, to avoid this consequence, they had attempted a partial enumeration of the exceptions, and described the residue by the general terms, NOT NECESSARY OR PROPER, it must have happened that the enumeration would comprehend a few of the excepted powers only; that these would be such as would be least likely to be assumed or tolerated, because the enumeration would of course select such as would be least necessary or proper; and that the unnecessary and improper powers included in the residuum, would be less forcibly excepted, than if no partial enumeration had been made. Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication."

Here again, he basically writes, what's the point of granting power and then rendering it ineffectual:

"No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized; wherever a general power to do a thing is given, every particular power necessary for doing it is included."

The enumerated powers limit where Congress can pass laws, basically limiting it to matters in between states and outside the states. The last clause, "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", narrows the scope of what laws Congress can pass. The list of powers follows.

• The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
• To borrow on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Native American Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Central Banking, Debt, and Deficits

Consider: Taxation before the Income Tax Fiat Money matching the amount needed: http://whatistaxed.com/solution.htm

The Income Tax

The funds the Federal government obtains from the income tax are used as a carrot stick to encourage compliance with the federal laws. While this is not necessarily a bad thing that there may be some standardization across the states, it is not without a cost - standardization and the carrot sticks removes incentives for state governments to compete for citizens - resulting in poor laws, lack of innovation, a one-size-fits-all approach that lacks sufficient flexibility to deal with individual conditions.

"A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny. It condemns the citizen to servitude." -- supposedly Calvin Coolidge said this.

Tender

"The United States Constitution declares, in Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts". This means that no State can make something besides gold or silver a "tender in payment" (which means they cannot "make something else an offer as payment") for any debts, which would include debts owed by and to the State. However, EVERY State in the United States of America HAS made some other "Thing" an offer as payment - they have by law declared that they will accept, and pay out, Federal Reserve Notes for any debts owed by or to them. Therefore, every State is in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution. Thus the need for the "Constitutional Tender Act" -- a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation, returning each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution's actual legal tender provisions. [34]

Representation

The Constitution (specifically Article I Section 2) states that each state should have 1 Representative per 30,000 people. Thus, we should have ~10,000 Electors, and no binding for them. What happened? See here. Currently, each federal congressman represents about 700,000 - 800,000 people. Can he really do this ... effectively? Is this truly, representation?

Gerrymandering

To paraphrase one of my uncles, I ain't ever lost a game while I was scorekeeper. Gerrymandering is where the politicians pick the voters instead of the voters picking the politicians. The Washington Post wrote a great article about this topic.

Shadow Government

Actors in the government favoring one ideology over another - acting to disrupt or subvert the governance process in a manner not visible to the public.

Corporate Influence

• Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad: "One of the points made and discussed at length in the brief of counsel for defendants in error was that “Corporations are per- sons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Before argument Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does." (not validated)
• Abraham Lincoln was concerned, writing in 1864 to his friend William Elkins: "We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood.... It has in- deed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near fu- ture a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, cor- porations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will en- deavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Re- public is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." (not validated).
• In 1870, Henry Adams, the grandson and great-grandson of Presidents, predicted that corporations “will ultimately succeed in directing government itself. Under the American form of society, there is no authority capable of effective resistance...” (not validated) See here: Gangs of America

Naturalization vs. Immigration

• Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen and is distinct from immigration. For some background, consider this article which follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_Act_1740
• Naturalization was a federal function, immigration was state function. Listen here and jump to time index 28:40.
• Jim Babka of downsizedc.org had this to say about the "Doctrine of Enumerated Powers: Based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as the Federalist Papers which pre-date those amendments, ONLY those powers which are explicitly listed in the Constitution belong to the federal government. Application: The Constitution gives Congress the power to set rules for naturalization (but not to limit it). Nowhere is Congress given the power to regulate human travel or the right to work (without warranted probable cause or individualized due process). And the laws they will create, to do these unconstitutional things, will be used to crush the liberty of the citizens already enrolled. Which is why the Congress wasn't given the power to regulate these natural, human behaviors in the first place."
• An excellent writeup regarding naturalization can be found here.
• Naturalization is distinct from Immigration and travel, but the terms have become synonymous. If Congress could not pass a law making it legal for the President to be younger than 35, could it pass a law over immigration or regulate the right of the people to travel when no such power was granted? It is well established that the Bill of Rights was put into place out of concerns that the Federal government would get out of its box. Has it?
• Consider this extract from the Wikipedia: "Major changes to the definition of citizenship were ratified in the nineteenth century following the American Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 granted citizenship to people born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction; but it excluded untaxed Indians (those living on reservations). The Naturalization Act of 1870 extended "the naturalization laws" to "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent." In 1898 the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark granted citizenship to an American-born child of Chinese parents who had a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and who were there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.[4] All persons born in the United States since United States v. Wong Kim Ark have been granted citizenship although the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on the matter of children born to parents who are not legal residents of the United States.

All Native Americans were finally granted citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, whether or not they belonged to a federally recognized tribe; by that date two-thirds of Native Americans were already U.S. citizens. Further changes to racial eligibility for naturalized citizenship were ratified after 1940, when eligibility was also extended to “descendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere,” “Filipino persons or persons of Filipino descent,” “Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent,” and “persons of races indigenous to India.”[5] The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 prohibits racial and gender discrimination in naturalization."

Here's the key - the Constitution says NOTHING about residency or how people get to the North American continent. The only other place in the Constitution where this matter could be remotely covered is either via the general welfare clause if it were stretched to say uniform rules about immigration OR via the power to repel invasions.

Something else to consider is that there are some states which would declare themselves a so-called sanctuary state if given the opportunity. See here.

There is also the matter of reports of alien Indians making slaves of other Indians, apparently.

With the issue of federal, state, and local power out of the way, there is the question of what is the nature of immigration and whether it causes problems or not so much. The below articles are summarized and include some key quotations to help the reader get the gist; however, it is suggested that additional reading inside and considering the nature of the evidence gathering, analysis, etc. be performed.

"As law professor and public-policy expert Michael Tonry puts it: “First-generation economic immigrants are self-selected risk takers who leave their homes, families, and languages to move to a new country to improve their and their children’s lives. They have good reasons to work hard, defer grati cations, and stay out of trouble.” -- [See The Criminalization of Immigration in the United States, American Immigration Council Special Report, July 2015. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/the_criminalization_of_immigration_in_the_united_states.pdf]

On the flip-side of the proverbial coin, the Center for Immigration Studies has a [data portal https://cis.org/Immigration-Statistics-Data-Portal] which notes the nature of criminal and otherwise elements related to immigration.

Endless Wars and Nation Building

The debate is over whether Congress declares war and President executes this declaration, or whether the President, acting as commander in chief can unilaterally take actions of war against other nations. Examples include the decision to enter World War I, the Barbary Pirates issue, and the various conflicts at the latter half of the 20th century such as the Korean and Vietnam war. There are also the Persian gulf wars. Why do some seem to require a declaration of war whereas others do not? While you are contemplating this consider the USS Maine and various so-called false flag operations supposedly designed to incent the American people into sending their sons and daughters abroad.

Note the definition of unconstitutional from the perspective of Nixon: [Nixon's rejection of the War Powers Act http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=4021] and compare with the perspective of Wilson [Wilson's statement to Congress before WWI https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Wilson%27s_War_Message_to_Congress . ] What changed? Did the Constitution change? The Presidency?

Consider also [this writeup https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/pdf/cardozo_fisher.pdf] which discusses some of the more foundational issues into why the Congress had the declaration of war power. Of particular importance is this passage from the aforelinked document, where Louis Fisher writes: "If the framers wanted an expansive doctrine of the executive operating as commander in chief, left unchecked by other branches, they could have adopted the political models fashioned by John Locke and Sir William Blackstone...", continuing: "During the debates at the Philadelphia Convention, the framers vested in Congress many of Locke’s federative powers and Blackstone’s royal prerogatives. The power to go to war was not left to a single executive, but rather to collective decision making through parliamentary deliberations. American democracy placed the sovereign power in the people and entrusted to them the temporary delegation of that power to elected senators, representatives, and presidents. Members of Congress take an oath of office to defend the Constitution, not the president. Their primary allegiance is to the people and to the constitutional principles of checks and balances and separation of power. The breadth of congressional power is evident simply by looking at the text of the Constitution and comparing Article I to Article II. Reading the text underscores the degree to which the framers wholly repudiated the models of Locke and Blackstone. Not a single one of Blackstone’s prerogatives is granted to the president. They are either assigned entirely to Congress (declare war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, raise and regulate fleets and armies)8 or shared between the Senate and the president (appointing ambassadors and making treaties).9 The rejection of the British and monarchical models could not have been more sweeping." Additional articles are available [here https://www.loc.gov/law/help/usconlaw/constitutional_law.php].

Some have argued that to understand the why behind the apparent "interpretative" shift of power from Congress to the Executive as being related to WWI and WW2 and the resulting cold war. The argument is that the power needs to be able to act quickly to move troops around and so forth. This may be a valid, but shouldn't it still be authorized by Congress? Pretending it is Constitutional, let's consider the wording of the War Powers Act as asked by a federal Senate candidate running for office in Texas regarding Trump and Obama's plans for displays of force (acts of war) in Syria:

"This is the question I posed back on September 22nd, 2013:

WAR POWERS ACT OF 1973 PURPOSE AND POLICY SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. SEC. 2. (b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Question of the day: Which of the "imminent" circumstances listed in SEC. 2. (C) is clearly indicated, and would justify placing the life of even one American in harms way in Syria?"

Loose Construction based Agencies

In addition to using loose construction of the General Welfare clause and the like, there have been other ways of bypassing the spirit of the Constitution such as through international treaty. The federal government succeeds at legislating in areas of the environment, education, with example such as the NEA, the FDA and many others. Agencies such as FDA, DEA and the EPA all derive their so-called jurisdiction from international treaties:

FDA EPA NEA

Crimes, Crimes, and more Crimes

• "They have power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations. They have no power to define any other crime whatever." [8]

Extra Constitutional Corruption

Corruption in the Press

Yellow Journalism

todo:

• See: Yellow Journalism
• Editing of sound clips

Internet Search Tampering by Google et al?

Internet search rankings can impact election results by altering which candidate or message appears at the top of the search results.

Some research and incidents have been noted in this area. The expanded text below provides some details:

• "Search rankings have this powerful effect on votes for the same reason that they have one on consumer behaviour: the higher the ranking, the more people believe and trust the content, mistakenly assuming that some impartial and omniscient genie has carefully evaluated each Web page and put the best ones first. (Not so.)

Epstein's team then tried the same technique on 2,000 actual voters in India's recent presidential election. That's right, we deliberately manipulated the voting preferences of more than 2,000 real voters in the largest democratic election in the history of the world," he writes, "easily pushing the preferences of undecided voters by more than 12% in any direction we chose - double that amount in some demographic groups." See: Tampering with Internet based Political searches

Polls

Truth in Polling]

Congressional Oligarchy and Resistance to Change

The problem is that senators and congressmen are locked into a system - they won’t easily give up power either. It could be compared to being in the stage right before a gunfight begins - if anyone flinches or moves a muscle, everyone dies in a gunfight. So Republicans have to keep fighting and Democrats keep fighting otherwise they will give up ground. Unfortunately, the result is that Congressmen who have been in office for some time tend to control the rest of Congress! It has been noted that there are about 30 representatives and Senators who control the whole thing.

The Legal System

todo: the legal blame game stifles innovation. Perhaps our modern legal system arose out of a long-ago need to document agreements - making things clear for all parties to an agreement, but the result has been that over time our Government has gotten so complex, that even the Government doesn't understand how it works. One doesn't have to look very far for the proof of this - over the past 200 years, the Supreme Court has made wildly different interpretations of Constitutional clauses. Basically, the litigious environment in the United States, in general, creates hostile conditions for the emergence of natural leadership.

There are examples.

While the following incident is not directly related to the United States Constitution, it does drive home the point. During the flooding of Louisiana in 2016, some folks went to go help rescue perhaps hundreds of thousands from the floods. The state legislature decided it was a good idea to jump in and limit its own liability by requiring a waiver be signed by any potential good samaritans. Got that?

“At the end of the day, there are going to be two things that are going to be the hurdle when you approach it from the state’s standpoint,” Sen. Perry said. “Liability is going to be number one for them. They don’t want the liability of someone going out to rescue someone and then not being able to find them, and secondly, there’s a cost.” (see: lawmaker licensing for cajun navy)

"Often enough the law can be “a ass — a idiot,” Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist 520 (Dodd, Mead & Co. 1941) (1838) — and there is little we judges can do about it, for it is (or should be) emphatically our job to apply, not rewrite, the law enacted by the people’s representatives. Indeed, a judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels. So it is I admire my colleagues today, for no doubt they reach a result they dislike but believe the law demands — and in that I see the best of our profession and much to admire. It’s only that, in this particular case, I don’t believe the law happens to be quite as much of a ass [sic] as they do. I respectfully dissent." See: gorsuchs dissent

Further, another angle to think of it is this way --

We (people - individuals) go to a court to help us resolve a dispute, because we are too childish to resolve our dispute internally with each other. So we hope to bring the dispute to someone who is independent from the situation - has no stake in it and can reason, see both sides, etc. etc. In other words, is not a child. Therefore, by bringing a court into the equation - we are, in effect, agreeing that we will use the court system to help resolve our dispute and besides, it is cheaper than battle, or in the case of disagreeing branches, having a coup and imploding the whole system.

Corruption in Voting / Political Parties

The recent corruption exposed by the Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns including superdelegates and political parties hijacking legislation further distances the people from their government.

Some research and incidents have been noted as follows:

• [W]e should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good." —John Adams (1797)

See also: the Voter Integrity Project[9]

Corruption in Cash

Citibank in Australia began to stop taking cash

Corruption in Moral Fiber

• "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." —George Washington (1783)

Constitutional Protections

Electoral College

• Why the Electoral College is Great and No One Should Even Think About Abolishing It
• The Accidental Genius of the Electoral College

Constitutional Restoration Challenges

So far this article has covered some of the major problems that have resulted in the gradual erosion of the Constitution, but there is also the problem of restoration. Sometimes the solution can be worse than the problem. We still have plenty of freedom - for example, this article! Further, the system is a huge machine and due to the entropy in the system, it is unlikely it will change for the better on a large scale. This leaves us with actions that we can do as individuals. To guide such a movement, any changes must be carefully weighed out and considered against the principle that they will likely result in their opposite unless the opposite effect is accounted for. In other words, actions taken need to be holistic - considering multiple viewpoints, perspectives, and strive to be the closest approximation of what can be realistically done. Try to think what could happen if everyone does an action taken.

Before proceeding further, we'll cover some of the challenges in implementing change.

Law Retention

Currently, there is a fairly standardized base of rules used for automobile traffic.

Red lights at an intersection indicate the traffic should STOP and green lights indicate that traffic should go. Let's say that for whatever reason, we wanted to change the colors - making Red, GO, and Green, STOP. It could be argued that such a change would cause a number of car accidents, so even if we wanted to change the color of the lights - it is probably unrealistic to try. In like manner, some of the more extreme measures such as an invocation of Article V to convene the state legislatures to redo the Constitution could result in more harm than good when we factor in the amount of confusion present in today's culture concerning the constitution. For a visual, see the below picture taken the morning after Sweden changed from driving on the left side to driving on the right (1967).

Scaling and Division

With a government of our size, some things work better when scaled up - such as national defense, whereas others require more local control. With a nation that has so many diverse backgrounds as our, a one-size-fit-all approach results in failed legislation. National defense may work well on a larger scale, but this also introduces inefficiencies.

Change Control

Even if we were to correct the flaws in understanding and implementation of the Constitution, the usurpations of power, and so forth - this situation has been in 'production' for over 200 years and it is unlikely, perhaps dangerous to attempt to change such things without a real idea of what the outcome might be. It's the only government we have - imagine accidentally triggering a revolution and the resulting loss in life that might occur.

Power Vacuums

We toppled the Iraqi government, then pulled out and the resulting power vacuum is called ISIS? We toppled the Libyan government, then slavery became a thing again?

Historical Performance

todo: Just because something was once done a certain way, doesn't mean it must continue to be done that way. this also doesn’t consider the reality of inheritances - over time money would tend to coalesce. Money buys power.

Tools for Reform

Our founding fathers built in numerous peaceful mechanisms to change the system, but it requires each of to do our part - to become educated on how the system works and perhaps what can be done is to challenge the system at its weak points as individual or as a group of citizens - very similar to how gay people challenge the system to effectively force people to bake cakes for them. Before engaging the system - a careful study of its operation is necessary. This could include understanding the process of obtaining basic legal recognition through documents such as a birth certificate, marriage license, and passport. There is also challenging the state in court via the common law system where the citizenry has an advantage. In some states, this seems to work OK, in others, it has landed many jail time and a slew of protesters who clog up the courts for mostly bogus reasons (IMO)!

The following areas will cover some of the tools available for an individual to challenge the system (via the courts, by writing articles such as this, by educating sons and daughters):

Be the Change

Very difficult to boil an ocean - be the change, Ghandi, etc. Jesus certainly left his mark, but his kingdom is not an earthly one! God knew what He was doing when designing this place, so relax - even though everything is messed up, all is well!

See your own Bias

Bursting the Facebook bubble: we asked voters on the left and right to swap feeds

With movements, watch out for mixed results and outcomes e.g., the work of Sinclair did nothing for the worker, but did inspire legislation for improvements in meat packing plants. Before taking significant action, the most important thing is to recognize that you don't know what you don't know, and from there begin to expand your understanding of how the government, and by proxy, life itself works.

This World and the Divine Laws

The term Natural Laws was used by the framers in a certain sense, and in the modern era the term is used by the scientific community in a certain sense. In this section, the term Natural Divine Laws is used to help distinguish, although, in a slightly different sense, the term is related to both views - sort of.

In jurisprudence, natural law theory refers generally to the view that links law to morality and proposes that just laws are immanent in nature and independent of the lawgiver, waiting to be discovered or found (as opposed to created by humans), usually by means of reason alone.

In science, there are natural laws whose effects we can all observe, such as gravity. But, there are also laws concerning the interactions of people in this world. The consciousness of this world, has in its own way, a type of thought process and and even a memory. It is called the cultural memory. There is also the idea of the collective consciousness, which on a smaller scale, becomes the the concept of group-think. In observing the interactions of various dramas undermining human interaction, there is the concept of the Karpmann drama triangle. In the New Testament of Christendom fame, the collective consciousness may be called the god of this world. While a detailed exploration is well beyond the scope of this writing, one can begin to observe the qualities of one's mindset that were formed from the period in which one has lived, the sex one was born with, and other various immutable traits, and on a personal level, with careful observation one may begin to see how people respond differently depending on their perception of you. Further, there is the issue of personality traits and even one's upbringing that can shape one's view of the world.

One of the simplest ways to understand some of the Natural Divine Laws is in the movement in your own breath. There are cycles in everything ranging from your breath, to the level of energy output by the sun, the movement of the moon around the sun, or the movement of a pendulum and while these examples proceed from a scientific / materialist perspective, consider the same movements occur in ... mindsets. A simple way of stating this is that people can become the very thing they judge!

Moving beyond personal consciousness, there is the reality of what can be called The Laws that control this world. Joe Sixpack might cite one of them stating that: "what goes around comes around". Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. are perhaps good examples of people that learned how to use the power of the Natural Divine Laws through forgiveness and "turning the other cheek", in certain circumstances. Over the course of human history, ways to use the Natural Divine Laws can be found in all sorts of works, but are perhaps singularly captured in Jesus' sermon on the mount or in his summation of the Law. His brother muttered something about the Royal Law of God.

What is the Royal law of God and how does it relate to the laws of nature and Nature's god? The framing founders appeared to have understood some of these timeless principles and may have used this understanding to design the Constitution. They seemed to understand that people are naturally corrupted by power, for example, and thus attempted to mitigate this tendency through division of power.

This becomes relevant in the political process when understanding that movements - where points of consciousness share in a common goal or belief that eventually becomes distorted and turns from its first principles - like being on a mobius strip - it appears that the movement is proceeding on course, but in reality it has began to move the exact opposite of its original ideal, and the very reasoning and rationale that one uses to justifies one's actions will be the basis upon which one's political enemies will justify their agenda, albeit in a different form.

You rightfully ask for examples? Of course, but consider that such movements are much more difficult to see in individuals than they are in groups. The following are examples of movements turning on themselves:

• The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (my whole family is vegetarian and many of my friends have been life-long vegetarians, so don't get the wrong idea here) were found killing animals as part of their ethical treatment. In some cases they euthanized thousands of dogs, in other cases its members were found doing cruel things to animals, in order to make it look like others were doing these acts, thereby gaining public sympathy. Apparently, now they support ending no-kill shelters. Have they come full circle without realizing it?
• As supported throughout this article, the way the Constitution is used today is more or less the exact opposite of where it started. It started as limited power with the states having unlimited power and parties to the Constitution, but now there has been a role reversal with the states basically considered subordinate to the federal government.

Make it your Own

Prove me or yourself wrong and tell me what can be improved in this article.

Share with those that are Receptive

Share the knowledge with receptive others. Arguing with closed minds is a fool's game. Make your AIM to learn from others - to understand and empathize with their perspective, even if you disagree! Often there is a common thread that is hidden from both sides of a disagreement.

Human Nature

Absolute power absolutely corrupts

Economics

To understand government, one might also learn the basics of economics. Mike Rowe offered this: “... Start with “Economics in One Lesson.” Then try Keynes. Then Hayek. Then Marx. Then Hegel. Develop a worldview that you can articulate as well as defend. Test your theory with people who disagree with you. Debate. Argue. Adjust your philosophy as necessary (See A_Reason-ABLE_process. Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.”

Some links to useful primers on economics are available. But let me offer this, economics often likes the use the term, rational person. I'm not convinced it exists, present readership exluded, of course ;)

• Mises Institute
• Economics in One Lesson

Citizenship

What is a passport? What is a birth certificate? Why is it important?

• Obtain "Common Law Driver's License" just 'cause. Is this even possible? Some assert that it is, sort of, while citing a supreme Court opinion: "“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”. Others assert that: "The decisions weren't about the prohibition of states to require licenses to operate a motor vehicle, just a licence to travel. Most driver licenses are certificates of knowledge to operate a car, truck or motorcycle. Laws are as such that operating a motor vehicle without a license is an infraction to a misdemeanor. It doesn't mean you can't travel on a public road"

• Obtain so-called common law passport (see 1215.org) *todo add link*
• Send letter without a zip code (add link)

Petition the Government

• Sign the petition to reel in the federal government.
• Sign appropriate government petitions, see other petitions: Government Petitions
• Try out National Write your Congressman: http://www.nwyc.com

Jurisdiction

todo: Take note that Judicial Review seems to have found its way into the courts despite it not being explicitly mentioned. This tends to imply that there are some concepts which exist OUTSIDE of the Constitution that pertain to the court system. The Term, Jurisdiction, itself seems to have become lost.

Jury Nullification

Jury Nullification is a finding in favor of the defendant despite the facts or law of the case. Borrowing from the wikipedia, "This may happen in both civil and criminal trials. In a civil trial, a jury nullifies by finding a defendant not liable, even though members of the jury may believe the defendant is liable. In a criminal trial, a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, but they do not believe he/she should be punished for it. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case." Jury Nullification is one of the many tools available against usurpation of power; however, few are willing to use it,

though there are exceptions.

• IRS vs. Doreen Hendrickson
• - A Final Rampart Against Tyranny

Challenging the System in Court

• Consider materials at 1215.org while considering pseudo law
• Religious Liberty based challenge to the Seat-belt laws
• Marc Stevens offers a number of tools and success stories for challenging the system in court

Habeas Corpus

todo:

The Education System

todo:the role of home school

Liberty Education

With an open mind- grow your own understanding. Set out to prove concepts right or wrong and harmonize different perspectives. Learn for yourself and instruct your children.

Resources:

• Tuttle Twins
• Lessons for the Young Economist
• How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes
• Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? A Fast, Clear, and Fun Explanation of the Economics You Need For Success in Your Career, Business, and Investments
• Tom Woods' Recommendations
• A list of free home school resources from the Liberty Parent website

The Press

• Monitor governmental announcements - see govdelivery.com, https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSUSCERT/subscriber/network

Fact Checking

But who fact checks the fact checkers?

The Internet

• todo: *in progress discussion point * Requirement to install Kazikstani root certs
• todo: Personal responsibility in sharing things on Facebook

Federal Constitutional Related Changes

Prioritization

• There are a number of proposals to reel in Congress such as Term Limits. While such proposals sound good in principle, but it is unlikely that Congress will ever restrain its own power unless we boot out the incumbents, so treat what follows with a level of priority based on what can be realistically done. Keep pushing for the big items, but note there are many practical things that can be done today.

Court Activism

• Join DownsizeDC . org and support their Amicus Briefs, Read the Bills Act, and One Subject at a Time Act:
• https://downsizedc.org/blog/free-press-amicus-brief-in-citizens-united-case

Activist Judges

• The people of Arizona voted English as their official language, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, Prop. 106, March 3, 1997)
• The people of Arkansas passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
• The people of California voted to stop state-funded taxpayer services to illegal aliens, but federal judges overruled. (Prop. 187, Nov. 20, 1995)
• The people of Colorado voted not to give special rights to homosexuals, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct. Romer v Evans, 1992)
• The people of Missouri defeated a tax increase, but federal judges overruled. (8th Circuit, Missouri v Jenkins, Apr. 18, 1990)
• The people of Missouri limited contributions to State candidates, but a federal judge overruled. (8th Circuit, Shrink Pac v Nixon, Jan. 24, 2000)
• The people of Missouri passed “A Woman’s Right to Know.” Governor Bob Holden vetoed it. Legislators overrode his veto, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright, Sept. 11, 2000)
• The people of Nebraska passed a Marriage Amendment with 70 percent of the vote, but a federal judge overruled. (U.S. District Judge Joseph Batallion, May 12, 2005)
• The people of New York voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (2nd Circuit, April 2, 1996)
• The people of Washington voted against physician-assisted suicide, but federal judges overruled. (9th Circuit, March 6, 1996)
• The people of Washington passed term limits for politicians, but federal judges overruled. (Sup. Ct., Term Limits v Thornton, May 22, 1995)
• The people of Montana voted by an overwhelming 74 percent to define a marriage as between one man and one woman, but federal judge Brian Morris overruled. (Nov. 19, 2014) Republican Rep. Steve Daines stated an “unelected federal judge” had ignored Montanans’ wishes. (Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2014)

Borrowed from THE VERY BEST WAY TO USURP POWER FROM THE STATES

Federal Court Repudiation of Unconstitutional Acts

• "District Court held that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional, but concluded that that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place." See Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Term Limits

• Some have argued that term limits would increase executive power.

• One prominent political activist from Texas states:

"Once a candidate is elected the first time he/she gains the ability to trade political favor for money. Often very big money. Money that an ordinary citizen challenger can't hope to match. Add to that the elected officeholder's ability to garner free publicity by simply scheduling a "press conference" about his support for a do-nothing bill that tickles the ears of his/her constituents and the money advantage is hugely multiplied. If you think this is not true, or only partially true, call up your local media and say "I'm Joe Blow, a local carpenter, and I want to hold a press conference today at 2:00pm to discuss my support for lower taxes." Then see how many media types show up with cameras and microphones at the ready. The idea that elections every two, four, or six years is equivalent to term limits is nonsense. Now ask me how we can get real term limits."

Read the Bills Act

Join DownsizeDC . org and support the Read the Bills Act which alters the passage of laws via Congress.

Representatives have a fiduciary responsibility to read every word of every law they seek to impose on us. RTBA requires that . . .

Any member of Congress who wants to vote YES on a bill must sign an affidavit swearing that he or she has...

Read the entire bill, or Heard the entire bill read. It will always be easy for every member of Congress to hear a bill read because RTBA requires a full reading before a quorum of each chamber of Congress. This one simple requirement will change how Congress operates. As it stands now, too many bills .

20125

One Subject at a Time Act

Join DownsizeDC . org and support the One Subject at a Time Act (OSTA):

OSTA will make you more powerful. Most legislation aims to control you, but OSTA will control Congress. It will . . .

Stop Congressional leaders from passing unwanted laws by attaching them to popular, but unrelated, bills. Require each bill to be about ONLY one subject, and to stand or fall entirely on its own merits.

America Again

• https://americaagain.net

State Constitutional Related Changes

State-level Constitutional Enforcement (Nullification) and Push-back on Federal Encroachment

Official at the state and federal level swear an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution; however, many seem to have forgotten their oaths or the original design of a limited set of powers delegated to the federal government, all others being reserved for the states or the people. They have been trained their whole lives to believe something else, so in many ways they are even victims of our own system. Unfortunately, they are also victims that are armed and could make the citizenry into victims.

Ultimately, the success of any state level attempt to force the federal government to stay in its box will depend on the state's political will. Today, often when challenged the federal government will back down, but there are times when it hasn't such as the Civil war. In order for any state level attempts to uphold the Constitution to have weight, it must be backed by force, which ultimately means putting state officials in the position of arresting federal officials. In the event of a challenge, for there to be state success, it may be best summarized as: "You can remove the case [to federal court], but you will not remove the prisoner." This again depends on political will.

In the absence of will, when a conflict between a federal and state law arises, people often refer to the Supremacy Clause (covered earlier). The problem is that the federal government is so far out of its original scope that it is almost completely alien for it to be supreme in the areas where it had a delegated set of powers! Since it has forgotten its place, via the supreme Court opinion, and as one FB commenter put it: "the problem arises with the concept of "immunity to prosecution" and "removal" of the prisoner. Ignoring the Idaho v. Horiuchi case, there is a long line of settled case law beginning with In v. Neagle that provide immunity to federal officers whose acts were:

• 1.) with in the scope and course of their duties, and
• 2.) reasonably believed their acts were necessary and proper.

The crux is 28 USC 1442, which authorizes removal of a state case to federal court IF the defendant was a federal officer, acting within 1 and 2 above.

Without a significant change in the holdings of the supreme Court the assertion of immunity and the statutory application of removal will essentially nullify state level attempts to enforce the Constitution in accordance with the original principles of a limited federal government as discussed in the ratifying debates and the like. Which again brings us back to political will." -- J. Dalton

There is some history for state level enforcement:

State-level Nullification Successes

• Texas and Incandescent Light Bulbs
• Colorado So-callled Medical Marijuana
• California Marijuana for fun, but not profit

State-level Nullification Challenges

• The Kentucky State Senate unanimously passed the Kentucky Resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts on November 13, in 1798.
  
  but was ultimately not adopted by the majority of the states, though several took it seriously.

• A Kentucky Jury sentences a man to 30 years for weapons charges despite Kentucky nullification laws

State Nullification Framework

• Create a state legislative framework that allows for pushing back on federal encroachment. See here for a more detailed discussion of the Texas Sovereignty Act
• Listen here or read more here.

State Level Citizen Recruitment

• Economic Incentives
• Travel Destinations
• Relocation of Disgruntled People from Other States?

Secession

• Sidenote: the Ethiopian Constitution provides a clear path to secession
• Some have argued that Texas Constitution does as well under Article 1 Section 2.

• Marvin Tyson writes in response to a Houston Chronicle article about secession: "Since WWII 148 States around the world have seceded via a peaceful ballot referendum (150 voted, w/only Scotland and Quebec voting "NO"). The U.S. and UN supported and quickly recognized each and every one of these newly independent States and the vast majority of Americans cheered. Fast forward to today and some (not nearly a majority, thank God) of these same Americans are blinded with rage because their fellow Americans want to exercise this same right they recently cheered. That takes some twisted idea of "patriotism" or morality. Remember the Soviet Union? That monster that every American school student was told for decades was a place in which unwilling masses of people were held in bondage as virtual slaves? Well every one of those "slave States" freely voted in a popular referendum and chose independence and self-government. While we here in "the land of the free" are held up as un-American by the same people and politicians that were fairly dancing in the streets when Georgia, Lithuania et al. voted for local self determination, only because we simply want to have a voice in our children's pathway into the future. After all, that's all any of the Texas Independence groups are asking for, a chance for the people of Texas to make this choice at the ballot box. Isn't that what America once stood for, government by the citizens?"
• The original Articles of Confederation, which the United States Constitution replaced, had the following wording under Article XIII, which stipulated that "their provisions shall be inviolably observed by every state" and "the Union shall be perpetual". Take note that the Constitution for the United States of America had such wording missing. Therefore, there is an implication since similar wording is NOT found in the revised Constitution for the United States of America would mean the states aren't locked into a perpetual agreement. The Article from the Articles of Confederation states: "Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."
• Texas v. White - during a strange period in our nation's history (shortly after the Civil War) - the question of secession was brought to the supreme Court of the United States. The supreme Court said no secession allowed.

Politics Related Actions

Networking

• Find out who is donating to who to who in your area and considering becoming friends:

http://www.campaignmoney.com http://votesmart.org/

State-level Political Education

• Find out about the politics in your state - here is a good resource: http://openstates.org/about/

Bill Tracking

Republic of Texas

• One FB commenter writes: "Every liberty activist needs to know about how to track bills using the Texas Legislature Online website linked below. One of the tabs on the site is MyTLO, which allows you to create an account, then set alerts for bills you are watching to get emails when something happens with the bill. ..." "... I urge you to create a MyTLO account and set up an alert for HB 375 and other bills you care about. Then, you can be educating your friends about what is going on." See: MyTLO

Issue Stances

• Determine where your representatives actually stand on the issues before voting

See:

• On the Issues
• I side with

Metrics

• National Tax Payer's Union
• Personal Freedom Ranking
• Congressional Approval Rating
• Congressional Spending Tracker
• Public trust in government

Incumbent Removal

• Boot out incumbents, see here: http://www.3502018.com
• Learn about marketing, niches, and effective slogans.

Getting your Representative's Ear

Congressional staffer explains how to make congressman listen

Miscellaneous Steps

• Learn about the 10th amendment, see http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com
• Don't let Congress delegate its law-making powers to the Executive Branch bureaucracy.
• The best way to prevent bad laws - Legislative Quality Control.
• Support a Line-item Veto - (has a cost - Senator Rand Paul has used line items quite effectively to stop some legislative packages)
• With rare exception, take note that before your Congressman will listen to you, you must have money!

Idea Stage - Nothing Concrete!

• Virtual Country
• State Level Competition for Citizens - offers of moving bonuses and covering of relocation expenses - similar to how phone companies pay to lift people out of their old contract?

Credits

Personal Credits

Too many to thank, so click the Expand button to view ->

• the Source of Inspiration and the ultimate source of inspiration, what I call the-All-pervading-consciousness-that-is-in-each-of-us-and-that-we-all-are-a-part-of-that-is-often-called-God-by-the-segmented-mindsets-of-man-individuals-and-collective-alike
• My lovely wife, precious children, parents, and brother and sister.
• My friends: S. Jones, S. Warren, A. Cronshaw, G. Meilahn, J. Neely
• On Facebook: Keep Texas Free, Get off my State, Brett Rodgers, Dwayne Stovall, Marvin Tyson, Tom and Kathie Glass, and many others.

Bibliography

Too many, so click the Expand button to view ->

• [1] http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=facpub
• [2] http://constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
• [3] http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am2.html
• [4] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1147764
• [5] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/case.html
• [6] http://www.sheriffbrigadesofpenn.com/2012/09/18/the-victory-for-state-sovereignty-2/
• [7] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/case.html
• [9] http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html
• [10] http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/09/15/0328243/law-professor-genetic-engineering-is-probably-protected-by-the-first-amendment
• [11] http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm
• [12] Thomas Jefferson's Opinion of Marbury v. Madison, see excerpts from his letters on Street Law: http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/284/Thomas_Jeffersons_Reaction
• [13] Judicial review -was it established at the time of the constitution
• [14] On the Revolution of 1937: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=utk_chanhonoproj
• [15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
• [16] http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/03/us/washinton-talk-letters-to-congress-amend-the-constitution-let-us-count-the-ways.html
• [17] http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
• [18] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/a6_2s19.html
• [19] http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401804785.html
• [20] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch8s42.html
• [21] http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/09/03/restoring-the-compact-theory-vital-to-restoring-the-constitution/
• [22] http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1521_PetitionerAmCuSenatorKayBaileyHutchison.authcheckdam.pdf
• [23] http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028&context=robert_natelson
• [24] Kentucky Resolutions of 1798; see also "Reclaiming the American Revolution," Wm. J. Watkins, Jr.,Palgrave MacMillan, 2008, p.165.
• [25] http://www.examiner.com/article/a-history-of-georgia-s-constitutional-right-to-bear-arms
• [26] Keep Texas Free
• [27] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/578626-government-has-three-primary-functions-it-should-provide-for-military
• [29] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/144
• [31] http://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide
• [32] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=390
• [33] http://marcstevens.net/successes
• [34] http://www.constitutionaltender.com/
• [36] https://freedom.press/encryption-works
• [37] https://www.taxhonestyprimer.com