The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution.

By Publius Huldah.

The English Puritans who came here in the 1630s knew that the Old Testament has a great deal to say about civil government. And they came to build that shining city on a hill.

They did not come here to escape from the World, to wait for the end of the World, and to surrender it to evil.

And so – we became a shining city on a hill. The fundamental act of our Founding, the Declaration of Independence, recognizes the Creator God as the Source of Rights;¹ and acknowledges that the purpose of civil government is simply to “secure” the Rights God gave us. The Constitution we subsequently ratified was based on God’s model of civil government as set forth in the Bible.

That is why our Country was so much better than what the rest of the World has been.  For the most part, we followed God’s model for civil government; other countries didn’t.

The blessing which flows from God’s model is limited civil government which is under The Law. That is why our Liberty Bell quotes Lev. 25:10 – “Proclaim LIBERTY throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants thereof.”

In this paper, I will show you Six Principles which come from the Bible and how our Framers applied them. In a future paper, I will show you Six Biblical Principles Thomas Jefferson listed in the Declaration of Independence, and how those Principles are also incorporated into our Constitution.

1. The Civil Authorities are under the Law.

The Bible: God is The Lawmaker – the kings are to apply God’s Law. ²

• Deut. 17:18-20: The king is to write out a copy of God’s Law. He is to have it by him and read from it all his life so that he may keep, observe, and apply it.
• 1 Kings 2:1-4:  King David on his deathbed tells Solomon he must conform to God’s ways, and observe his statutes, commandments and judgments, as written in the Law of Moses.

The parallel in our Constitution is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law which the civil authorities are to obey.

Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary defines “constitution”:

“…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.” [boldface added]

Our Constitution is the Standard by which the validity of all Acts of Congress, all acts of the Executive Branch, all judicial opinions, and all Treaties is measured and judged (Art. VI, cl. 2).

Do you see?  Law comes from a higher source than the civil authorities. The “Rule of Law” prevails when the civil authorities obey that higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution.

Tyrants, on the other hand, claim that they are the source of law.  The Roman Caesars, Stalin, Hitler, the dictator of N. Korea and Obama all claim that their  will is “law”. Consider Obama’s usurpatious executive orders and rules made by his executive agencies. This is the “Rule of Man” – when the civil authorities deny they are subject to a higher law (be it God’s Law or the Constitution), and hold that their will is “law”.

2. Civil Government has only limited and defined Powers:

The Bible: When you read through the Old Testament, you see that civil government is limited to:

• Military matters
• Enforcement of only a few of God’s Laws – the laws to which a penalty for violation is attached (laws against murder, theft, bearing false witness, negligence, etc.).
• Judges are available to decide disputes between the people.

Most of God’s Laws are a matter of individual and family self-government (e.g., charity, family welfare, education, don’t drink too much, work hard).

The parallel in our Constitution is that it is one of enumerated powers only:

• Congress’ Enumerated Powers are listed and explained here.
• The President’s Enumerated Powers are listed and explained here.
• The Judicial Branch’s enumerated powers are listed and explained here.

All other powers (except those listed at Art. I, §10) are retained by the States or the People. “Self-government” means that as individuals, we govern ourselves in accordance with the laws of God [or the “Natural Law”].  It doesn’t mean that we elect representatives to manage our lives for us!

Tyrants claim the power to do whatever they want.

3. Civil Government is divided into Three Parts:

The Bible: Isaiah 33:22 says The Lord is our “judge”, “lawgiver”, and “king”!

The parallel in our Constitution is that the federal government is divided into three branches: Judicial, legislative, and executive.

No human can be trusted with all three functions, so our Constitution separates them into three branches, with each branch having checks on the powers of the other branches.

Tyrants seek to exercise all three functions. Obama is making Congress irrelevant: When they refuse to pass a law he wants, he implements it by “executive order” or “agency regulation”.  He’s making the judicial branch irrelevant by ignoring their decisions which go against his will.

4. The Civil Authorities promise to obey the Higher Law.

The Bible: The king promises to obey God’s Laws and to apply God’s Laws in the kingdom; and the people pledge themselves to this promise:

• King Josiah’s covenant at 2 Kings 23:1-3:  King Josiah called all the people together and in their presence, read aloud to them the Book of the Law which had been found in the temple. Then King Josiah entered into a covenant with God that he would obey him and keep his commandments and statutes as written in the Book of the Law.  And all the People pledged themselves to this covenant.
• Joash’s (via the priest Jehoiada) covenant at 2 Kings 11:17 and 2 Chron 23:16.
• David’s covenant at 2 Sam 5:1-4 and 1 Chron 11:1-3.

Our Constitutional Oaths of Office:

• Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause: The President promises to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”.
• Art. VI, last clause: All other federal and State officers and judges promise to “support” the Constitution.

5.  When the Civil Authorities violate the Higher Law, We must Rebuke them!

The Bible: The prophets rebuke the kings when they forsake God’s Law:

• Samuel rebuked King Saul (1 Samuel 13:10-14)
• Nathan rebuked King David (2 Samuel 12)
• A Man of God rebuked King Jeroboam (1 Kings 13)
• Elijah rebuked King Ahab (1 Kings 16:29 – 1 Kings 17:2; 1 Kings 18:16-20; 1 Kings 21:17-29)
• Elijah rebuked King Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:1-18)
• Elisha rebuked Jehoram, King of Israel (2 Kings 3:1-14)
• The prophets warned of the pending destruction of Jerusalem because of the sins of King Manasseh (2 Kings 21:10-16)
• The book of Micah.

The Black Robed Regiment of Our Revolution: Some 237 years ago, our pastors were leaders in bringing about our Revolution.  They understood that the English king and Parliament were imposing tyranny on us in violation of God’s Law.

In the Declaration of Independence, we rebuked the British Crown when we itemized our grievances and recited how we had petitioned for redress and had warned that if they didn’t stop the usurpations, we would separate from them.

But today, we don’t have enough clergy with the knowledge and the spine to rebuke the federal government. Many don’t know what the Bible says about civil government,³ and they don’t know our Founding Principles and documents. Too many of our clergy just want to escape or withdraw from the World, avoid controversy, and preserve their 501 (c) (3) tax exemption.

The Catholic Priests are speaking out about being forced to provide contraception and abortion pills as violations of their religious freedom. But they should be denouncing the HHS rules as unconstitutional exercises of undelegated powers. 

Their goal should not be to carve out an exemption for themselves from rules they don’t agree with; but to enforce The Constitution for everyone.

“Rebuke” does not consist in saying, “I don’t agree” or “It violates my beliefs.”

A proper rebuke points out the Higher Law being violated, and demands compliance with that Higher Law – not with one’s personal views. 

Because the Priests have focused on their religious beliefs, instead of on biblical/constitutional principles; the discussion in the media has been about the percentage of Catholics who use birth control – the implication being that since most Catholics use it, the Priests are out of touch.

But if the Priests would say:

• Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated to Congress – the medical care of the People not being one of the enumerated powers; and
• The HHS rules are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to the Executive Branch, and as in violation of Art. I, § 1 which provides that only Congress  may make laws; ⁴

Then, they would make a proper Rebuke.  And the discussion would be where it should be: on the enumerated powers of Congress and the unconstitutionality of rule-making by executive agencies.

So! The purposes of Rebuke are to Warn and Teach:

• To warn the civil authorities of their violations of the Higher Law, and
• To educate the civil authorities and The People about the Higher Law.

The Constitution is a theological document! It is the job of our clergy – Catholic, Protestant and Jewish – to know this. And to defend God’s Word as expressed in our Constitution. God requires our clergy to take an active role in protecting the People from a civil government which violates the Higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution which is based on God’s Law.

We The People must also rebuke the federal government when they violate our Constitution. We do it by posting on line, talking to friends, family, and everyone else within our spheres of influence. Stick to Principles – avoid personal opinions. Cite the provision of our Constitution they violated; or as is usually the case, show that what they have done is not an enumerated power. When they have town hall meetings, rebuke them there. Watch this magnificent woman and see how it is done!

6.  The Peoples’ Obligation to obey the Civil Authorities is conditional upon the Civil Authorities obeying the Higher Law.

The Bible: As shown by the Scripture at Principle 4, civil government is a covenant between God, the king, and the People.  God makes the Laws; the king promises to obey and apply those Laws; and the people pledge themselves to the Covenant.

Out of this relationship between God, the king and the people, arises the peoples’ obligation to protest lawlessness on the part of the king.  If they don’t protest, God punishes the people because of the misdeeds of their kings – the people will suffer if they go along with the unlawful acts:

• God sent a 3 year famine because Saul put the Gibeonites to death (2 Sam 21).
• God sent a pestilence which killed 70,000 Israelites because David took the census (1 Chron 21 & 2 Sam 24).
• God (via Elijah) sent a famine because Ahab & his house forsook the commandments of the Lord (1 Kings 16:29-33, 17:1, 18:1, 18:17-19).
• God struck a heavy blow at Joram’s people because of Joram’s wickedness (2 Chron 21:1-14).
• God visited 4 dooms upon Jerusalem & the Southern Kingdom because of the sins of Manasseh (2 Kings 21:10-17 & Jer 15:3-4).

The parallel in our Constitution is this: When Congress makes a law which is outside the scope of its enumerated powers, it is no “law” at all, but is void; and we have no obligation to comply.  Alexander Hamilton says this over and over in The Federalist Papers.  Here are a few examples:

“…If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify…” (Federalist No. 33, 5^th para). [boldface added]

“…acts of … [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers … will [not] become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such…” (Federalist No. 33, 6^th para). [boldface added]

“…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act …contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm … that men … may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.” (Federalist No. 78, 10^th para). [boldface added]

Hamilton also tells us that Congress can’t usurp powers unless the People go along with it! In Federalist No.16 (next to last para), he points out that because judges may be “embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature”, the People, who are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, must be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.”

So!  Hamilton applies the Biblical model of what WE are supposed to do when the federal government acts outside of the Constitution. We are to recognize that their acts are “void”, and We are to take whatever prudent measures are necessary to enforce the Constitution.

What can We do?

Hamilton tells you to LEARN the Constitution; demand that federal and State officials obey it; and don’t go along with them when they violate it!

READ our Declaration of Independence and Constitution until you become familiar with them.  Stick to original sources (e.g., The Federalist Papers) and beware of the ignorant know-it-alls with their crazy theories.

REBUKE officials and judges who violate the Constitution! Specify the violation.  Usually, the violation is that what they did is not an enumerated power.

ELECT State & County officials who will nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, & judicial opinions.  Here are Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures.

TALK to your pastor, priest or rabbi – we all share the Old Testament. We must dust off our copies and read them; renounce escapism & defeat; renounce the unbiblical doctrine of socialism (listen to Fr. Andrew!); renounce the unbiblical doctrine of divine right of kings – the false doctrine that God granted autonomy to the civil authorities; declare independence from the federal government and throw off the chains of the 501 (c) (3) tax exemption!  Start being the Salt & Light we are called to be – the Watchmen on the Wall. PH.

Endnotes:

¹ Here are express references to God in our Declaration of Independence:

• …The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…
• …endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…
• …appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…
• …with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence…

Our Constitution at Art. VII, last clause:

• …in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven…

² “Lex, Rex” – the Law is above the king!  Not “Rex, Lex”.

³ Romans13 must be read in pari materia with everything the Bible says about civil government! The false doctrine of “divine right of kings” is based on ignoring the numerous Old Testament provisions addressing civil government. Romans13 actually says that the civil authorities are God’s ministers and agents, and if we are “good” we have no cause to fear them; but if we do “evil” we do have cause to fear them.

So! When reading Romans 13, Titus 3:1 & 1 Peter 2:13-14, we must keep in mind that it is God who decides what is “good” and what is “evil”. God never gave civil authorities the power to define “good” and “evil”; and God never gave them autonomy. Bad theology is, and has long been, the cause of much evil.  And Pride keeps it going.

⁴ Article I, §1 says:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Only elected Senators (Art. I, §3, cl. 1) & popularly elected Representatives (Art. I, §2, cl. 1) may exercise legislative powers. Our Constitution doesn’t permit unelected bureaucrats to make laws. Federal judges have disgraced the Bench by permitting rule-making by executive agencies. PH.

June 23, 2012

Why Congress May Lawfully Require Citizens to Buy Guns & Ammunition, But Not To Submit To Obamacare.

By Publius Huldah.

Harvard Law School was embarrassed recently when one of its graduates, the putative President of the United States, demonstrated that he was unaware that the supreme Court has constitutional authority to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional.¹

And after reading a recent paper by Harvard law professor Einer Elhauge, one wonders whether the academic standards (or is it the moral standards?) of that once great school have collapsed.

Professor Elhauge says in “If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?” (The New Republic, April 13, 2012), that Congress may force us to buy health insurance   because in 1792, our Framers required all male citizens to buy guns; and in 1798 required ship owners using U.S. ports (dock-Yards) to pay a fee to the federal government in order to fund hospitals for sick or disabled seamen at the U.S. ports.

Oh! What tangled webs are woven when law professors write about Our Constitution!

I have already proved that Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last clause (which grants to Congress “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over dock-Yards and the other federal enclaves) is what authorizes Congress to assess the fee from ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards. See: Merchant Seamen in 1798, Health Care on Federal Enclaves, and Really Silly Journalists.

Now I will show you where the Constitution grants authority to Congress to require adult citizens to get armed!

The Constitution Authorizes Congress To Require Citizens to Buy Guns and Ammunition.

In 1792, Congress passed “An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defense by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States”.² This Act required all able-bodied male citizens (except for federal officers and employees) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to enroll in their State Militia, get a gun and ammunition, and train.

Does Congress have authority in the Constitution to require this?  Yes!  Article I, Sec. 8, clause 16 says Congress has the Power:

“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;” [boldface mine]

That is what authorizes Congress to require adult male citizens to buy guns and ammunition.

As Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1792 reflects, the “Militia” is the citizenry!  Our Framers thought it such a fine idea that The People be armed, that they required it by law!  See, e.g., the second half of Federalist Paper No. 46 where James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, speaks of how wonderful it is that the American People are armed – and why they need to be. ³

So!  In the case of Congress’ requiring adult citizens to buy guns and ammunition, Congress has specific authority under Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.16.

In the case of Congress’ requiring ship owners who use the federal dock-Yards to pay the fees to fund the marine hospitals at the dock-Yards, Congress is granted by Art. I, Sec.8, next to last clause, a general legislative power over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards.⁴

But for the country at large, Congress has no broad grant of legislative powers. There, Congress’ powers are few, limited, and strictly defined.  See: Congress’ Enumerated Powers.

Now, let us look at obamacare.

What Clause in The Constitution Authorizes Congress to Force Us into Obamacare?

Nothing! Over the Country at large (as opposed to the federal enclaves), Congress has only enumerated powers.  These enumerated powers are listed in Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16 and in the Amendments addressing civil and voting rights. No enumerated power authorizes the federal government to force us into obamacare.

So, Professor Elhauge introduces a nasty bit of poison.  He says:

“Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases.”

Do you see what he is doing? Surely he knows that obamacare is not authorized by any enumerated power.  So!  He asserts that nothing in the commerce clause says Congress can’t force us into obamacare.  He thus seeks to pervert Our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only, to an abomination which says the federal government can do whatever it pleases as long as the commerce clause doesn’t forbid it.

Furthermore, what he says is demonstrably false.  The Federalist Papers & Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention show that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to prevent the States from imposing tolls & tariffs on articles of merchandize as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling. For actual quotes from Our Framers and irrefutable Proof that this is the purpose of the interstate commerce clause, see: “Does the Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress to Force Us to Buy Health Insurance?”.

Obamacare is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. And it does much more than force us to buy medical insurance. Obamacare turns medical care over to the federal government to control. Bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services will decide who gets medical treatment and what treatment they will get; and who will be denied medical treatment. If you think the federal government is doing a great job feeling up old ladies and little children at airports, wait until they are deciding whether you get medical care or “the painkiller”.

Folks! The Time has come that we must recognize that social security and Medicare are also unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress by Our Constitution. We must confess that it is wicked to seek to live at other peoples’ expense! And when a People renounce Personal Responsibility – as we did when we embraced social security & Medicare – the federal government takes control.

Social security and Medicare are fiscally bankrupt. Obamacare, which will prevent old people from getting medical care, is the progressives’ way of dealing with the unfunded liabilities in these programs: Kill off old people by preventing them from getting medical care!

The Piper will be paid. Shall we pay him by killing off old people?

Or, shall we return to Personal Responsibility and dismantle (in an orderly fashion) the wicked, unconstitutional, and fiscally unworkable social security and Medicare programs?

Endnotes:

¹ Our Framers gave us an elegant system of Checks & Balances: Each branch of the federal government has a “check” on the other two branches.  This is expressed primarily in the Oath of Office (Art. VI, cl. 3 & Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause) which requires each branch to obey the Constitution and not the other branches! The supreme Court’s check on Congress is to declare their Acts unconstitutional:   See (in addition to the Oath) Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1; Federalist No. 78 (8^th -15^th paras); and Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Congress’ check on the judicial branch is to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp power (Federalist No. 81, 8^th para).

² Here is the URL for the Militia Act of 1792:  Read it! And note how short it is.  
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=394

³ In “The Patriot”, Mel Gibson’s character commanded a South Carolina Militia – civilians who took up arms against the British. Everyone knew that “the Militia” was the armed citizenry – farmers, trappers, shopkeepers, clergy, etc.  It still is.

⁴ Attorney Hal Rounds provides fascinating additional information on this issue: “Ships will dump sick sailors wherever they may make landfall, and the locals have the burden of dealing with the victim. Their care then raises the legal right to compensation for their services, which the law of nations allows to be levied against the nation, not just the owners, of the ship.” For Mr. Round’s full comment see the Postscript of April 7, 2012 here. PH

May 3, 2012

A Progressive Perverts the Commerce Clause; but O’Reilly Gets it Right!

By Publius Huldah.

Bill O’Reilly (Fox News) made our Framers proud when, on March 26, 2012, he correctly explained [probably for the first time ever on TV] the genuine meaning of the interstate commerce clause.  O’Reilly’s guest was Big Government Progressive Caroline Fredrickson, Esq., of the inaptly named “American Constitution Society”.  In trying to defend obamacare, she said that our Framers intended to grant to Congress extensive powers over the “national economy”:

“When the Founding Fathers adopted the Constitution, they put in the commerce clause ah specifically so that Congress could actually regulate interstate commerce.  They envisioned a national economy, and we really have one now, and to the tune of over two trillion dollars, health care makes up a big big part of that and so it’s completely within the power of ah Congress to pass this legislation [obamacare] and to attempt to provide some reasonable regulation…”

But what she said is not true! Accordingly, O’Reilly responded:

“The interstate commerce clause was put in so individual States could not charge tariffs [for] going from one state to another.  So, for example, Pennsylvania would say to New Jersey, ‘Hey, you can’t bring in anything here from New Jersey unless you pay us 2% on it.’ ”

Bravo, O’Reilly!  That is precisely the purpose of the interstate commerce clause.  James Madison, Father of our Constitution, wrote in Federalist No. 42 (9^th para):

“… A very material object of this power [to regulate interstate commerce] was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State … ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former…”

And Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22 (4^th para):

“…’ The commerce of the German empire … is in continual trammels from the multiplicity of … duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories, by means of which the … navigable rivers [of] … Germany … are rendered almost useless.’ Though the … people of this country might never permit this … to be … applicable to us, yet we may … expect, from the … conflicts of State regulations, that the citizens of each would … come to be … treated by the others in no better light …”

So!  What our Framers  said was that the purpose of the interstate commerce clause is to authorize Congress to prevent the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling.¹ 

But Fredrickson apparently has no idea what our Framers said.  She dug deeper:

“Actually this was a major issue at stake in the adoption of the Constitution was the ability of our national government to deal with national issues and, let’s look a little bit at what’s happened in the 20^th century…”

What?  Our Framers made a “major issue” of their determination to grant to Congress power over whatever it might in the future deem to be a “national issue”?

Rubbish!   What Fredrickson said is demonstrably false.  Our Framers said the exact opposite of what she represented. In Federalist No. 45 (9^th para), Madison identified the “national issues” Congress would be dealing with:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people….” [boldface mine]

In Federalist No. 39 (3^rd para from end):

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects.” [boldface mine]

and in Federalist No. 14 (8^th para):

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects.…” [boldface mine]

Do you see?  Our Framers drafted a Constitution which established a Federation of Sovereign States united only for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. The powers of each of the three branches of the federal government are carefully limited and defined.  See:  Congress’ enumerated powers, the President’s enumerated powers, and the Judicial Branch’s enumerated powers.  Our Constitution does not delegate general legislative powers over the Country at large to Congress!  Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only.  And nothing – nothing – in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to control the provision – or denial – of medical care to The People.  Thus, obamacare is altogether unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers delegated to Congress by Our Constitution.

Folks! Do not believe what you hear people saying about Our Constitution on TV or the Radio.  Most of them don’t know what they are talking about, or they are lying. Only rarely does anyone get it right as O’Reilly did. So you must check things out for yourself. And always demand Proof! PH

End Note:

¹ For a more definitive explanation of the genuine meaning of the interstate commerce clause, and more irrefutable proof from primary sources, see: Does The Interstate Commerce Clause Authorize Congress To Force Us To Buy Health Insurance?  Progressives!  Read it and rebut it, if you can. PH

April 17, 2012

Merchant Seamen In 1798, Health Care On Federal Enclaves, And Really Silly Journalists.

By Publius Huldah.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; and no one illustrates this Principle better than Forbes’ writer Rick Unger in his article, “Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance – In 1798”,  Washington Post writer Greg Sargent and Georgetown University history professor Adam Rothman.

In 1798, Congress passed An Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen which required the master of every American ship arriving from foreign ports to any port of the United States, and American ships engaged in the coastal trade using those ports, to pay a small fee to the federal government for every seaman employed on his ship. The funds so raised were used to care for sick and disabled seamen in the marine hospitals established in the ports of the United States.

So!  Unger cited this 1798 Act and chortled with glee that our Framers supported “socialized medicine”; and so the “political right-wing” should stop “pretending” that our Founding Fathers would oppose obamacare.

Greg Sargent chimed in to the same effect, and quoted history professor Adam Rothman for the idiotic propositions that

“…the post-revolutionary generation clearly thought that the national government had a role in subsidizing health care … that in itself is pretty remarkable and a strong refutation of the basic principles that some Tea Party types offer … This defies a lot of stereotypes about limited government in the early republic.”

But Unger’s, Sargent’s and Rothman’s statements are so transparently ignorant they can be disposed of in a few paragraphs:

Congress’ Three Categories of Legislative Powers

One:  Congress has only limited legislative powers over the Country at large. These legislative powers are restricted to war, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system:  weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. Various Amendments granted to Congress certain powers over civil rights. These enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has lawful (constitutional) authority over The States and The People in The States.  In all other matters [except those listed at Art. I, Sec. 10] the States and The People retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty.

Two:  Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17, U.S. Constitution, says:

“The Congress shall have Power 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 Legislatures of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;”  [boldface mine]

“Exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over “dock-Yards”. Do you see?  It is this clause which grants to Congress authority to establish marine hospitals on dock-Yards belonging to the United States.  Congress has a general legislative authority over the federal enclaves, such as dock-Yards. That legislative authority is limited only by the Bill of Rights.

In Federalist Paper No. 43 at 2., James Madison explains in three short paragraphs [read them!] why the federal government must have “complete authority” over the federal enclaves listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.17.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 32 (2^nd para), comments also on the grant of “EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATION” over the federal enclaves [capitals are Hamilton’s] in “The last clause but one in the eighth section of the first article…”

Do you see?  That grant of “exclusive legislation” is restricted to the federal enclaves.

Three:  Article IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2,  grants to Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States…”  Madison shows in Federalist No. 43 at 5. that “the Territory” referred primarily to the Western Territory before it was formed into States.

That’s it, Folks!

So!  While Rick Unger crowed in his article,

“While I’m sure a number of readers are scratching their heads in the effort to find the distinction between the circumstances of 1798 and today, I think you’ll find it difficult.”

It’s not difficult at all!  All one has to do is read Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17, which permits Congress to make such a law for American ships using the dock-Yards belonging to the United States. That’s what “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” means.  Do you see?

Congress has no such legislative authority for the Country at large. There, it is limited and   enumerated. PH

April 5, 2012

Postscript Added April 7, 2012:

Attorney Hal Rounds (Memphis, TN), gave me the following fascinating information:

“My GGrandfather was a U.S. Consul, his last post was in Nova Scotia. Among his records is a series of reports regarding how he arranged for the isolation, shelter, and nursing in Nova Scotia of an American sailor ill with smallpox. The ship left, after disembarking the now useless – and contagious – victim. This care necessitated local expenses and hiring. I do not know what, if any, of the cost was borne by the ship owner, and what portion was by the U.S. Government. (The sailor survived, and eventually was sent on his way.)

But the duties of a nation extend to some services to its citizens abroad. These are, of course, governed by treaties and customary traditions. So, a law requiring a ship operator to insure his crew fits in with the federal authority to regulate “commerce with foreign nations” and its jurisdiction over U.S. flag shipping outside, or traveling between, state jurisdictions. Because ships will dump sick sailors wherever they may make landfall, and the locals have the burden of dealing with the victim. Their care then raises the legal right to compensation for their services, which the law of nations allows to be levied against the nation, not just the owners, of the ship.

The requirement in 1798 addressed these concerns. It was not a requirement to subsidize health care for the citizenry at large, but to indemnify the federal government against claims that would arise in the course of the U.S. being a nation engaged in international trade, and, under the law of nations, responsible for the burdens its commerce threw upon foreigners; and to accommodate the demands the foreign vessels would dump on us.”

THANK YOU, Hal!  I showed how Congress had the authority to make the law; you explained why Congress needed to make the law, and provided additional constitutional authority for Congress to make the law.  PH

Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures.

The Proposed Tennessee Resolutions of 2012

PLEASE NOTE:  I have revised these model resolutions.  The revised version is better organized and reads better.   You can find the revised resolutions by clicking on the following hyperlink:

Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare?  Nullify It!

Do use the revised model for your study, instead of the one below.

The revised version – which you can find at the link – sets forth in a nutshell all one needs for a basic understanding of our Constitution – and how the supreme Court destroyed it.

As always, feel free to post your questions.  PH

Proposed by Publius Huldah.

1. Resolved, That the States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only.  That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.

That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

That to these Principles, each State agreed as a State, and as the Parties to the Constitution.

That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution; and as the mere creature, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; since that would have made the creature’s will, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.  That as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each State has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether the creature has committed infractions, and as to the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of The State of Tennessee acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

3. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States ordained and established a Federation of Sovereign States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce and relations; and domestically the creation of an uniform commercial system:  Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery.  That the 10^th  Amendment to the Constitution also 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.”

That nowhere in the Constitution of the United States was any power granted to Congress to make laws respecting agriculture, farming operations, labor and employment, or children and families; and that nowhere in the Constitution are powers over these matters prohibited to the States. These matters are altogether outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government. Therefore, power over these matters is reserved solely and exclusively to the respective States and THE PEOPLE, each within its or their own territory.

4. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative Powers granted by that Constitution are vested in CONGRESS; therefore, Departments within the Executive Branch are forbidden to make any “rules” or “laws” of general application whatsoever.  That administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Labor, one of the Executive Departments of the federal government, set forth at 29 CFR Part 570, and which pretend to regulate child labor throughout the several States; are altogether void, and of no force,  as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, of the federal Constitution.

5. Resolved, That child laborers, including agricultural workers and children who work on family and other farms, are under the jurisdiction and protection of the Constitution and laws of the State wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States. 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, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; the rules of the federal Department of Labor set forth at 29 CFR Part 570, which assume powers not delegated by the federal Constitution over child laborers, including agricultural workers and children who work on family and other farms, is not “law”, but is altogether void, and of no force.

6. Resolved, That since children and their parents or employers are under the protection of the State Constitution and laws of the State where they are; in cases of any violations of the Laws of such State, they are entitled to have their cases handled by the duly convened Courts of such State.  That transferring power of defining, prosecuting, and judging any such violations from the three branches of the State Governments to bureaucrats within one of the federal executive departments, is altogether unlawful and an intolerable usurpation of power.

7. Resolved, That the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government to the so-called “taxing”, “general welfare”, “interstate commerce”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, to the effect that these clauses bestow unlimited powers on the federal government, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the federal Constitution. That the true and genuine meaning of those clauses is as follows:

a) The “taxing” and “general welfare” clauses:  Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.1, employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. It is “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; thus, to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” is “an absurdity” (Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras).

The federal Constitution declares that “the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases.  This specification of particulars…excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended…” (Federalist No. 83, 7^th para).

b) The “interstate commerce” clause: “Commerce” is the buying and selling of goods – only that and nothing more. Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) says “commerce” is:

“an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals… by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick… inland commerce…is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.”

Federalist No. 22 (4^th para), Federalist No. 42 (9^th  &10^th  paras), Federalist No. 44 (at 2.), and Federalist No. 56  (5^th & 6^th paras), explain the two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause: (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.

Article I, Sec. 8, cl.1; Art. I, Sec. 9, cls. 5 & 6; and Art. I, Sec.10, cls. 2 & 3, of the federal Constitution give express effect to these two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause.

c) The “necessary and proper” clause:  This clause merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4^th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3^rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2^nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a  “tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3^rd para).  Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, at 1.).

The clause merely permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the federal Constitution.  No additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

That contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”  (Federalist No. 45 , 9^th para)

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” (Federalist No. 39, 3^rd para from end)

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8^th para)

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [those made by Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…”[caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para).

That The Federalist Papers – and not the U.S. supreme Court – is the highest authority and evidence “of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning”. The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 1) – usurp powers, they must be impeached and removed from office (Federalist No. 81, 8^th para).

8. Resolved, That to take from the States all the powers of self-government and to transfer all powers to a general and consolidated national government, in defiance of the Constitution which was ordained and established by THE PEOPLE, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of THE PEOPLE.

Therefore this State is determined to refuse to submit to undelegated powers exercised over them by the federal government; and rejects altogether the notion that the federal government may exercise unlimited powers over them.

That in cases of an abuse of the delegated (enumerated) powers, the members of the federal government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy.

But, where powers are usurped which have not been delegated to the federal government – when the federal government acts outside of, and in defiance of, the federal Constitution by exercising powers not delegated to it by that Constitution; then a nullification of the unlawful act is the rightful remedy.

Thus every State has a natural right – which pre-dates & pre-exists the federal Constitution – to nullify of their own authority all such lawless assumptions of power within the boundaries of their State.  That without this pre-existing natural and original right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whoever in the federal government chooses to exercise tyrannical powers over them.

The States alone are The Parties to the compact; and thus are solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it.  Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch are not parties to the contract; but are merely the creatures of the compact (Federalist No. 33, 5^th para).  As mere creatures, they may exercise no powers other than those enumerated powers specifically delegated to them.

9. Resolved, That matters pertaining to “labor”, “employment”, “farms”, “children” and their employers or parents, are nowhere delegated to the federal government by the federal Constitution; but are among the countless multitudes of matters reserved to the States or THE PEOPLE.

Therefore, the federal Department of Labor is itself an unlawful department, and its mere existence an affront to the Constitution; and all of the powers it exercises are usurped powers as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by our Constitution.

That if the pretended “rules” of this spurious federal Department of Labor should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that unelected bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of the federal government may force upon The States and THE PEOPLE their own ideas of what children and their employers or parents may and may not do; that they may place any act they think proper on a list of prohibited activities, that they will send out swarms of officers to trespass upon private farms and places of business, to harass employers, children and their parents;  and then prosecute and punish violations of their pretended “rules” in their own pretended “administrative courts” with their own pretended “administrative judges”.

That the federal departments within the Executive Branch of the federal government have established a pattern of unlawfully functioning as legislators, when they write “agency rules”; as executives, when they investigate and prosecute violations of “agency rules”; and as judges and juries when they decide whether violations of their “agency rules” have occurred.  Thus the Executive Branch unlawfully functions as legislator, accuser, judge & jury, in violation of the Constitution and of the Principles of Separation of Power and of Checks and Balances.

To this abomination is added the additional affront that the objects of these pretended “rules” are altogether outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government in our Constitution.

That in this way, those within the Executive Branch of the federal government are sweeping away all the barriers of our Constitution; and that no ramparts now remain between their unbridled and insatiable lust for power over THE PEOPLE except for the several States.

10. Resolved, That if the States do not now resist all such blatantly unlawful usurpations of power, THE PEOPLE of their States will be delivered into abject slavery subject to the unbridled control of whosoever occupies the office of President.  Our Representatives in Congress have shirked their constitutional obligation to support the Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3), by acquiescing in the blatant usurpations by the Executive Branch; and  have failed in their duty to impeach and remove those within the Executive Branch who usurp powers (Federalist No. 66, 2^nd para, and No. 77, last para).  That the supreme Court long ago took the side of those who seek to exercise unlimited control over the States and THE PEOPLE; and that Congress has failed in their duty to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp powers (Federalist No. 81, 8^th para).

That pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 of our federal Constitution, all State legislators, State Officers and State Judges take a solemn Oath to support our federal Constitution. Therefore, they are bound to protect THE PEOPLE of their States from the usurpations of the federal government whose clear object is the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States and the People.

That our Framers anticipated the dangers we now face and provided wise counsel for such a time as this.  Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras) states that when “the representatives of the people betray their constituents”, the people have no recourse but to exert “that original right of self-defense” [The Declaration of Independence, 2^nd para], against “the usurpations of the national rulers” (5^th para from end).

That in a Federation of States united under a federal government for only limited purposes,

“…the people… are…the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…” (4^th para from end)

Thus, THE STATE LEGISLATURES are the ultimate bulwark of The People and The Ultimate Human Protectors of our Constitutional Republic:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.”  (3^rd para from end)

The last paragraph of Federalist No. 28 recognizes that when the federal government seeks

“… a despotism over the great body of the people … [the people] are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”

11. Resolved, That because men may not be trusted with power, the federal Constitution fixed the limits to which, and no further, the federal government may go.  Would we be wise if we permit the federal government to destroy the limits the Constitution places upon its powers? Would we be wise if we permit unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Departments of the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives?

That if those who administer the federal government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal Constitution, by disregarding the limits on its powers set forth therein, then annihilation of the State Governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated  government, will be the inevitable consequence.

That the several States, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of infractions to the federal Constitution; and that nullification by those sovereign States of all unauthorized acts of the federal government is the rightful remedy.

THEREFORE, this State, recurring to its natural rights in matters outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government, declares these acts void, and of no force, and will take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the federal government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within this State.

Notes:

1. The above is patterned on the relevant portions of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson in response to the alien and sedition acts passed by Congress which purported to grant to the President tyrannical powers with respect to aliens & “seditious” words.

2. These proposed Resolutions focus on administrative “rules” made by a Department within the Executive Branch of the federal government. This Model may be easily adapted to address acts of Congress which are outside the scope of its enumerated powers; Executive Orders which are outside the scope of the President’s enumerated powers; and supreme Court opinions which exceed their enumerated powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14^th Amendment in order to undermine the morals of the People and to destroy the residuary sovereignity of The States.

3. Several attorneys, historians, and others who claim special knowledge on this subject have asserted that States have no right to nullify anything the federal government does; that the States and The People must submit to the federal government no matter what it does; that only the federal government may question the federal government; thatthe federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five supreme Court judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Such people may not understand the distinction between abuses of delegated powers (e.g., unwise bankruptcy laws – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), for which election of better Representatives is the answer; and usurpations of powers which have not been delegated and are thus outside the lawful reach of the federal government (e.g., obamacare), for which nullification is the proper answer. When any branch of the federal government steps outside of the Constitution to make laws or “rules” or issue “opinions” which exceed their delegated powers; the States must resort to those original rights which pre-date & pre-exist Our Constitution to nullify such usurpations by the federal government of undelegated powers.

Such people also do not seem to understand our Founding Principles: Our Declaration of Independence says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”  (2^nd para)

In that one paragraph, we learn the five foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

• Our Rights are unalienableand come from God;
• The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;
• Civil government gets its powers from THE PEOPLE;
• Civil government is legitimate only when it stays within the powers WE delegated to it; and
• When civil government becomes destructive of the purposes for which WE created it, WE may throw it off.

The Constitution is the formal expression of our Consent for the federal government to exist; and it is our formal statement of which specific powers WE agreed to delegate to the three branches of that government. Look atthe opening words:

“WE THE PEOPLE … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The federal government operates with our consent only when it restricts itself to the powers WE delegated to it – when it obeys the Constitution. When it exercises usurped powers which have not been delegated to it, it becomes illegitimate. 

When the federal government loses its legitimacy – as it now has – it is the sworn duty of the States, pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, of our Constitution, to resist.

4. Others who claim special knowledge on this subject insist that a single State may not nullify any act of the federal government; that only a majority of the States acting in concert may do so.

But they overlook the nature of the laws protested in the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions. Those Resolutions addressed laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President certain dictatorial powers and jurisdiction over “aliens” and “seditious words”. The States have no means of stopping the President from enforcing such laws since the President has the raw power to send out armed thugs to arrest people by night; and then to prosecute, convict, & execute them in secret tribunals and chambers. The States may object – but they can’t stop it. The supreme Court may denounce it, but can’t stop it. Only Congress can put an end to it by impeaching & removing such a usurping President (Federalist No. 66, 2^nd para & No. 77, last para).

But when Congress by means of a law (which is outside the scope of its delegated powers); or the President by means of an executive order (which is outside the scope of his delegated powers); or federal executive departments by means of administrative rules (which they are altogether prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 1 from making); or the supreme Court by means of opinions which contradict Our Constitution; purport to require THE STATES to do something, or stop doing something, then of course THE STATES – on an individual basis – have both the POWER and the DUTY (imposed by their Art. VI, cl. 3 Oaths of Office) to nullify such usurpatious acts within the boundaries of their States.   The proper battle cry in such events is, “Not in my state!”

Do you see? PH
Posted March 13, 2012

Postscript Added March 15, 2012:

The federal government is not God.  It is merely our “creature”. We The People created the federal government when We ordained and established Our Constitution. And when We enumerated the powers We delegated to each branch of the federal government, We told the federal government what We were giving it permission to do.

But we have now come to believe that the federal government may do whatever it wants; and we must obey it.  And because we have believed this for so long, a totalitarian fascist dictatorship is right now being imposed on us.

So what should we do?  Revolution and bloodshed? No!  There is a better way, and our Framers show us:  On behalf of The People of their States, The State Legislatures must now resort to that original right of self-defense which pre-exists & pre-dates The Constitution; and must nullify those acts of the federal government which are outside the scope of the powers We delegated to it in Our Constitution.

The Model Resolutions  set forth the Authorities on which they are based, so that State Legislators may propose them in their State Legislatures with complete confidence that Our Framers “have their backs”. PH

National Popular Vote: Goodbye, Sweet America.

By Publius Huldah.

Our Constitution is under constant attack.¹   One of the most pernicious attacks is being waged by those who seek to override the constitutional provisions under which The States, as political entities, elect the President; and to replace it with a national popular vote (NPV) under which inhabitants of major metropolitan areas will choose the President.

What Form of Government Did We Create In Our Constitution?

Before you can see why it is so important that The States elect the President, and why the NPV is so execrable, you must understand how our “federal” government was structured and intended to operate. “Federal” actually referred to the form of the national government created in our Constitution, and to the division of powers between the national government and The States.

The “Federation” created by our Constitution is an alliance of independent and sovereign States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY(national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the creation of an uniform commercial system:  weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery). Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government has lawful (constitutional) authority over The States.  In all other matters, the States retained supremacy, independence, and sovereignty. ²

So that The States – The Members of the Federation – could maintain their independence and sovereignty, ³ our Framers wrote these provisions into our Constitution:

• State Legislatures were to choose the two U.S. Senators for their State (Art. I, Sec. 3, cl. 1); and,
• The States, as separate political entities, were to elect the President (Art. II, Sec. 1, cls. 2 & 3).

The People were to elect only their Representatives to the House (Art. I, Sec. 2, cl.1).

James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, explains in Federalist No. 45 (7^th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the national government:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them…[boldface mine] ⁴

State Legislatures Were To Choose The U.S. Senators!

So! The appointment of Senators by State Legislatures was to “secure the authority” of the State governments in the federal government, and to preserve “the sovereignty remaining in the individual States” (Federalist No. 62, 3^rd & 5^th paras).  ⁵

Federalist No. 62 goes on to show that another advantage of State Legislatures appointing U.S. Senators is

…the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States … (6^th para) [boldface mine]

Do you see?  Since Representatives to the House were chosen by popular vote of the People, and U.S. Senators were to be chosen by the State Legislatures, no law could get passed by Congress unless it was approved by the People (via their Representatives) and by The States (via the State appointed U.S. Senators).

This is what our Framers gave us to protect us from a usurpatious Congress.

 “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President!

Article II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 provides that each State is to appoint, in such Manner as the State Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the total number of Senators and Representatives for that State. These Electors were supposed to be the ones who actually voted for President and Vice President!

Our Framers never intended for the President to be elected by popular vote. While they recognize in Our Declaration of Independence (2^nd para) that The People are the source of political authority, ⁶  they knew that all history demonstrates that The People lack the knowledge, wisdom and judgment to make wise choices when voting for politicians.

In Federalist No. 64 (3^rd & 4^th paras), ⁷ John Jay recognizes that People are ignorant and easily manipulated by small groups who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by the small groups.

Accordingly, the Electors would be “select assemblies” “composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens” who would vote for those men who were “the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue”. Furthermore, Electors would not likely “be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism” which “sometimes mislead as well as dazzle”.

In all of Federalist No. 68, Hamilton explains the wisdom of having specially selected Electors who were “most likely to possess…information and discernment” elect the President. He also warns of

… the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? … (5^th para)

and shows why specially selected Electors in each State could best protect us from such scheming foreign powers. ⁸

Now that we see why Our Framers provided that Electors from the Member States were to choose the President of The Federation, let us see how the voting was – and is – to be conducted.

The 12^th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.

The long ignored 12^th Amendment (ratified 1804) sets forth binding procedures for taking and counting Electors’ votes. This is what it requires:

The Electors in each State are to meet and cast their votes for President; and then vote separately for Vice President.  Say a State has 13 Electors, and the voting goes like this:

For President:

Mr. Falconer – 6 votes

Mr. Lossie – 5 votes

Mr. Bell – 2 votes

For Vice President:

Mr. Cross – 5 votes

Mr. Duncan – 5 votes

Mr. Nichols – 3 votes.

The Electors sign and certify this list and send it to the President of the Senate. On the appointed day, and in front of a joint session of Congress, the President of the Senate counts the Electors’ votes from The Member States. The person with the greatest number of votes for President becomes the President (if he has a majority).  The person with the greatest number of votes for Vice President becomes the Vice President (if he has a majority). If one or both don’t have a majority – well, here’s a novel idea: read the Amendment to find out what happens.

THIS is how Our Constitution – which all those in the political process took SWORN OATHS to obey – requires the elections of President and Vice President to be conducted.

So! THE STATES, as political entities and as THE MEMBERS of the Federation, are the ones who were to choose the President. This is what our Framers gave us to protect us from a usurpatious President.  It also gave the smaller States a voice in the selection of President.

The Purpose Of Our Framers’ Two Gifts.

So!  Do you see?  The result of The State Legislatures choosing the U.S. Senators and controlling the election of the President would be that The States would be able to control the national government and keep it in line.

The 17^th Amendment.

But we threw one of Our Framers’ Gifts away when, in 1913, we foolishly ratified the 17^th Amendment and the popular election of U.S. Senators. This is how The States - The Members of the Federation – lost their representation in Congress and their control over that body.

And the Legislative Branch of the national government became a body for sale to campaign donors. U.S. Senators now answer to their campaign donors, not to their States.

Ignoring The 12^th Amendment.

We threw away Our Framer’s second Gift when we foolishly accepted a new system where national political parties handle the elections of President and Vice President. Thus, instead of being the small bodies of specially chosen wise and prudent men who actually made the selections; Electors became rubber stamps for the popular vote in their States. Instead of the Electors choosing the Vice President, party bosses – then party nominees – chose the “running mates”. Instead of the Electors’ votes being transmitted to the President of the Senate with the total votes listed for each person receiving votes, States began awarding all their “electoral votes” to the person who won the popular vote in their State.

This is how The States - The Members of the Federation – lost their control over the President.

The President became a person for sale to campaign donors. Presidents now answer to their donors, not to The Member States.  And the small groups and “foreign powers” who got the President elected call the shots.

How The National Popular Vote Will Work.

Here is the nefarious 888-word interstate compact. It is written in the bureaucratic style favored by those who seek to confuse, confound and conceal. Their Explanation of National Popular Vote Bill expressly discloses, however, that

Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In other words, if the popular vote in Virginia is for James Madison, but the total national popular vote favors Adolf Hitler, then all of Virginia’s 13 Electoral Votes are given to Adolf Hitler.

Indeed, the winner of the national popular vote will end up with all the electoral votes for every State.  Do you see?  And do not think that the winner will fail to claim a “Mandate” for whatever he wants to do.

The States Can’t lawfully Enter Into A Compact Which Violates The U.S. Constitution!

1. Every aspect of the NPV violates Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 2 and the 12^th Amendment.  So it’s altogether unconstitutional. Compare the detailed procedures set forth in Our Constitution with the proposed NPV!  It sets up a method of electing the President and vice-President which is altogether repugnant to what Our Constitution requires.

2. Article V sets forth the exclusive methods of amending the Constitution. “Compact among the States” is not one of the authorized methods of amending the Constitution. So the NPV Compact also violates Article V.

3. Furthermore, Article I, Sec. 10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress”.  So, whether the NPV Compact also violates Art. I, Sec. 10, last clause, depends on whether Congress consents to it. But Congress may not lawfully consent to unconstitutional compacts of the States!

Under The National Popular Vote Scheme, Votes From Major Metropolitan Areas Will Decide Presidential Elections.

Most of the Population of these United States is located in a few major metropolitan areas. Under the NPV scheme, these major metropolitan areas would decide the elections for President!

Please look at this 3D map showing how these major metropolitan areas actually voted in the last presidential election:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html

They all voted for Obama.

The NPV is not about “making every vote count”. The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is won by a Democrat.

Who Is Behind This Plot To Impose The National Popular Vote?

The organizations who have endorsed the NPV  include four organizations (Common Cause, NAACP, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, and Public Citizen) which, according to this website, have received funding from George Soros and his Open Society Institute.

Our public school educated People are so woefully ignorant that they are incapable of making wise decisions in presidential (or senatorial) elections. Google ignorant stupid americans – you will get 65,000,000 hits.

This review of Historian Rick Shenkman’s book, “Just How Stupid Are We?”, points out that

…Only 2 of 5 voters can name the three branches of the federal government. And 49 percent of Americans think the president has the authority to suspend the Constitution ….

These are the ones who are manipulated to vote the Will of the few, and of the “foreign powers” Hamilton warned us about, who fund and control the hard left.

Oh, State Legislators! Awake! The progressive leftists behind the NPV want a national popular vote for the same two reasons that our Framers opposed having Presidents elected by popular vote.

What Should We Do?

Repeal the 17^th Amendment. We must henceforth elect to Congress only those who are committed to repealing the 17^th Amendment. This is the only way The States can regain control of Congress.

Return to the 12^th Amendment. We must dismantle the present unconstitutional and corrupt system and return to the method of electing the President and Vice President established in our Constitution. State Legislators could restore to their States right now the power to control the President! All States have to do is obey the 12^th Amendment! Also, specially chosen Electors are far more likely to choose good Presidents than are the ignorant masses which fill our major cities.

No State primaries. No national conventions. No expensive advertising which enriches liberal progressive TV networks, and excludes the man who is not wealthy. No tampered with voting machines. No cartoon characters or dead people voting. No Black Panthers intimidating white voters with impunity. No unconstitutional federal laws (e.g. McCain-Feingold) which unlawfully restrict political speech. No promises of future favors made by candidates to donors for campaign contributions. In short, the corruption which permeates our present system would be gone.

But in the meantime, even in its present perverted form, the “Electoral College” serves two important purposes. (1) It balances the influence of the heavily populated urban areas (which vote Democrat) with the more sparsely populated rural areas (which vote Republican). (2) And it gives the smaller States a voice in the election of President. PH

Endnotes:

¹ E.g., those clamoring for a con con and the Balanced Budget Amendment, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and other judges and politicians who despise Our Constitution.

² In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison says,

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [boldface added]

Yet anarchists who have infiltrated libertarian groups maliciously assert that Our Constitution is a “statist document”!

³ Alexander Hamilton warned that we must not permit the States to be merged into one national government.  In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), he writes,

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…. [caps are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

See also Federalist No. 39, 6th para (Madison).

And from Thomas Jefferson’s letter of Feb. 2, 1816 to Joseph C. Cabell (1^st para)

…the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body… [boldface mine]

⁴ See also Federalist No. 39 (4^th & 11^th paras) and Federalist No. 60 (3^rd para).

⁵ Federalist No. 62:

… on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed…is recommended by … giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems. (3^rd para at II) [boldface mine]

…the equal vote allowed to each State is …a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty… [in order to guard] … against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. (5^th para) [boldface mine]

⁶ As opposed to the State itself being the source of political authority, as with the Western European “divine right of  kings” model (which is based on a perversion of Scripture), and the German statists, such as Hegel and his progeny.

⁷ Federalist No. 64  (4^th para):

As the select assemblies [Electors] for choosing the President … will … be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume that their … votes will be directed to those men … who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue. … the electors … will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which … sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. … it is fair to argue, that as an assembly of select electors possess …the means of extensive and accurate information relative to men and characters, so will their appointments bear at least equal marks of discretion and discernment…

⁸ Federalist No. 68:  If the appointment of the President depended on any preexisting body of men, they “might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes” in favor of the foreign powers.  Accordingly,

… the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government…(7^th para) PH

February 9, 2012

Postscript Feb. 14, 2012:  In this article,  Phyllis Schlafly  of the National Eagle Forum takes a different approach in showing why the NPV is a BAD idea and basically dishonest.

Why Republican Politicians Sell Us Out.

By Publius Huldah.

It is a cliché to speak of “spineless Republicans”-google spineless republicans and you will see.  They talk “conservative” when they campaign; but once in office, they go along with the progressive agenda. That agenda is to grow the federal government until it controls every aspect of our lives.

Why don’t they oppose the progressive agenda? ¹

Rush Limbaugh says they don’t oppose it because they want to be invited to the right parties and praised in the liberal media.

But on this, our Rush is wrong. Rush is a man of Principles; but he doesn’t understand the Constitution. So he doesn’t see that the spineless ones also don’t understand it; and that their failure to oppose the progressives stems from their lack of any Standard to guide them.

In other words, the spineless Republicans don’t know what the alternative is to the progressive agenda. They don’t know that Our Constitution created a Congress with limited and enumerated powers.  They don’t know that the President’s powers are “carefully limited; both in … extent and …duration” ²  They don’t understand that  limited civil government is morally superior to a fascist dictatorship. Since they don’t understand these things, they are buffeted here and there by winds which progressives blow.

Spineless Republicans are “nice”. They are “patriotic”.  And that’s it.  But they are men of straw because they stand for nothing. They have no Standard to guide them.  So they go with the flow.

There IS a Chart and Compass for Us to Embrace Which would Make Us Strong & Bold!

Daniel Webster ³ reportedly said:

We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution.

The Bible, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are the Rock on which Our Country was built. Courage and Strength arise from faithfulness to Fixed Principles. It is the man with no Principles who is blown here and there by prevailing winds. ⁴   Strong People – people who are able to stand alone and speak Truth – are strong because of their uncompromising adherence to Principles.

Anyone who is willing to make the modest effort required to obtain a working knowledge of the Constitution would become able to stand up to the progressives and defeat them. But we must first root out of ourselves the false notion that our own ideas on what the federal government should do are “important”! We must learn that in such matters, we must adhere to a Standard – the Constitution – which transcends our own precious selves with our “views”, “opinions”, and “thoughts”. This is what Daniel Webster is telling us.

Politicians May Not Substitute Their Personal Views for The Constitution!

This is what our Framers said:

“…whensoever the general government [federal government] assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…” Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 1^st Resolution.

“…On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed…” Thomas Jefferson’s letter of June 12, 1823 to William Johnson (6^th para from end)

“…the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body…” Thomas Jefferson’s letter of Feb. 2, 1816 to Joseph C. Cabell (1^st para). [boldface added]

The Economics Department at George Mason University provides these quotes (among others) on its page, Constitutional Limitations on Government:

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

“We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.” — James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress, 489

“[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” — James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 6, 1788

“The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond,1821.

Do you see?  Politicians, judges and officers have NO RIGHT to implement their own ideas of what the federal government should do.

But Today, Everyone Does What is Right in his Own Eyes. ⁵

Today, it doesn’t occur to us that we must look to the Constitution to see what the federal government is permitted to do.  This was illustrated on Greta van Susteren’s show (Fox News) when she asked her guests whether a legislator should vote his conscience or the way his constituents tell him to vote.

On December 18, 2009, Dick Morris mentioned that Sen. Ben Nelson (D.) was under pressure from his constituents to oppose the healthcare bill. Greta (a lawyer) asked Dick whether Nelson was “elected to exercise his judgment as to what is the best thing to do, or was he elected … to carry out what the voters want”.

Dick answered that if it is an issue “where … the voters are not as … informed as he might be … he might say, I’m going to exercise my better judgment. But when you’re dealing with something as intimate as … health care … when your constituents … are saying … don’t do this, you ought to listen.”

On February 26, 2010, Greta asked Charles Krauthammer  whether people we send to Congress should “vote their conscience or ours?” Krauthammer answered, “that’s the great question since Edmund Burke. He thought you should represent your conscience or your conception of what the national need is.”  Krauthammer went on to say that he thinks Obama is “allowed to go ahead” with health care, and that he respects “the president’s right or ability or notion that he needs to act in the national interests as he sees it”.

Do you see?  None of them understand that it is a politician’s sworn duty to obey the Constitution regardless of what he thinks or his constituents want.  Van Susteren, Morris and Krauthammer thus display the existentialist mindset: That there is no objective standard outside of our own subjective “views”; and the one with the power gets to decide for all of us on the basis of his subjective views.

But that is precisely what Our Constitution was designed to protect us from: individual men imposing their subjective views on the rest of us.  That is why the powers which Our Constitution does grant to the three branches of the federal government – legislative, executive, and judicial – are strictly limited and defined.

In Federalist No. 78 (5th para from the end), Alexander Hamilton addresses the precise issue raised by van Susteren. After stating the principle that the people have the right to change the established Constitution, he says:

…yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act…

Do you see?  But those threedon’t see; and with their words, they undermine Our Constitution, the concept of Enumerated Powers – that the federal government may do only what the Constitution permits them to do, and the Rule of Law  – that the people in the government must obey The Constitution, not the “momentary inclination” of their constituents or their own “conception” of what is right.

Ignorance is destroying us. PH

Endnotes:

¹ Some Republicans are not spineless – they are committed Progressives.

² James Madison, Federalist No. 48 (5^th para).

³ The quote is generally attributed to Daniel Webster. If you see it in an online scholarly collection, please send the link.

⁴ Senator Bob Dole (R) illustrates this.  He carried the Tenth Amendment in his pocket; yet one of his proudest achievements was passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act! Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to make that law?

Speaker John Boehner doesn’t know that the Constitution sets the agenda for the Country; and that it is the enumerated powers which limit Congress’ spending. That is why he can’t control the spending even though the House Republicans have the power to do it now.

⁵ See Judges 17:6 & 21:25. This part of the history of the Israelites shows that when there were no judges to teach and enforce The Law, everybody did that which in his own eyes seemed right, and the Israelites suffered dreadfully. But when they had a good judge who enforced The Law (e.g., Deborah), they were able to defeat their enemies and then enjoy peace (5:31). Do you see the parallel? PH

January 28, 2010

Erratum:  I originally stated that Krauthammer is a lawyer.  That may be incorrect.  Thanks to the kind reader who pointed this out.  Jan 31, 2012.

Marco Rubio and the Anti-constitutionalism and Intellectual & Moral Bankruptcy of Our Time.

By Publius Huldah.

In a previous paper, I explained the shift from the philosophy of our Framers, which was based on Logic, Fixed Principles & Judeo/Christian Morality, to the pragmatist/existentialist mindset of today.  With our mindset of today, we are “freed” from the notion that some things are True, other things are False; some things are Right, other things are Wrong; and that there exist fixed Standards and Principles – such as the U.S. Constitution and the moral laws – to which we must conform.

Today, we have nothing to guide us but our own feelings: “I like it”, “I don’t like it”, “I agree”, “I don’t agree”, I “believe” or “I don’t believe”. That is the essence of the existentialist mindset: we make “choices” on the basis of no standard except for what we “like”. Or don’t like. When people disagree, those with The Power decide – on the basis of what they like.

Our politicians ignore Our Constitution. They do whatever they want. Every day, the President violates the Constitution he swore to protect; and Congress does nothing about it.  How could Congress do anything about it?  Since they too abandoned the Constitution, they have no Objective Standard by which to judge the President.  All they can say is, “I don’t agree”.

And WE THE PEOPLE don’t hold our politicians accountable for their violations of Our Constitution.  We keep re-electing them! Why?  Because we too have abandoned the Standard by which to judge their acts: Have you read Our Declaration of Independence and Our Constitution?  Do you understand the concepts of “enumerated powers”, “federalism” and “rule of law”?

Our Existentialist U.S. Senator, Marco Rubio

All our politicians fall short of the mark. None of them seem to understand that they are obligated to obey Our Constitution; and that they have no right to elevate into law their own personal views. They all illustrate the intellectual and moral collapse of our time – even the charismatic Tea Party darling, Sen. Marco Rubio (R, Fl).  Consider his speech of August 2, 2011 before the Senate. ¹ You can read it here, and watch it here.

A few paragraphs into his speech, Rubio says:

I would remind many like myself that were elected in the last election cycle, tightly embracing the principles of our Constitution… [boldface added]

Oh!  A tea party candidate who will “tightly embrac[e] the principles of our Constitution”! We in the Tea Party are all for that, aren’t we?

But then, Rubio goes on to speak of the dispute “between two very different visions of America’s future”.

One group, Rubio tells us, “believe that the job of government is [to] deliver us economic justice, which basically means: an economy where everyone does well or as well as possibly can be done.”

The other group believes “it’s not the government’s job to guarantee an outcome but to guarantee the opportunity to fulfill your dreams and hopes.”

He’s doing OK so far.  But then, he goes on to say, respecting the two views: “By the way, one [is] not more or less patriotic than the other.”  And, “One is not more moral than the other.” ²

No Moral Distinctions?

WHAT?  He sees no moral distinction between, on the one hand, a government which takes – by force – property from one group of people and gives it to other people to whom it does not belong; and, on the other hand, the free country with a federal government of limited and enumerated powers created by Our Constitution?  No moral distinction between legalized plunder and a federal government which respects the private property of The People? ³

When one abandons the moral Principle, “Thou shalt not steal”; then there is no impediment to stealing – assuming you have the power to do it.  So, stealing is just fine when the federal government does it – because they have the power to do it.

Making a Choice – By What Criteria?

Rubio goes on to say:

…America is divided on this point … we must decide …what kind of government do we want to have and what role do we want it to have in America’s future.

Folks! WE THE PEOPLE have already decided this issue: Our decision is enshrined in Our Constitution – the Constitution whose Principles Rubio promised to “tightly embrace”. Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Besides, on what basis would we decide?  Rubio has already told us that there are no moral distinctions between a government which robs Peter to pay Paul, and a government which respects the private property of Peter.  Rubio has already told us that those who advocate legalized plunder are “patriots” to the same extent as those who oppose such plunder.

So!  If there are no moral distinctions between the two “very different visions”, and we all go along with Rubio’s abandonment of his promise to “tightly embrace” the Principles of the Constitution, then on what basis do we decide?  We have no basis for making a decision other than our own “likes” and “dislikes”.

And THAT is the existentialist mindset.  A mind “freed” from all standards other than, “I want” or “I don’t want”.  “I like” or “I don’t like”.

So!  Now that Rubio has come to the point where the only standard is what we “like” and “don’t like”, he tells us what he likes:

I believe and we believe in a safety net program, programs that exist to help those who cannot help themselves and to help those who have tried but failed to stand up and try again, but not safety net programs that function as a way of life…

WHERE does the Constitution permit the federal government to redistribute peoples’ private property?  WHO can lay his finger on that Provision of the Constitution which authorizes the safety net programs Rubio “believes in”? ⁴

Rubio told us near the beginning of his speech that he was elected on the basis that he would “tightly embrace” the principles of the Constitution.  Doesn’t “morality” require him to live up to his promise?   Well, if stealing is OK, then breaking your Word must be OK as well.

And who decides whether we continue these “safety net programs” Rubio “believes in”?  People in Congress like Rubio and Rep. Pete Stark (D. Ca.) voting for what they “believe in” – the Constitution be damned? ⁵

And as to THE PEOPLE who don’t want to be robbed to pay for other peoples’ handouts, and who object to being enslaved so that Rubio can continue safety nets he “believes in”: Rubio has stripped them of any moral or legal basis for objecting.

How to Fix This

I do not accuse Rubio of being a bad person. But he has absorbed the prevailing dogma of our time – existentialism – and may not even be aware of it. The first task of man is this: Ask yourself, “What do I believe, and why do I believe it?”  You may find that you believe it for no other reason than that you have always believed it. ⁶

And as a People, we have lost the ability to think and to analyze.  Rubio’s speech [like the speeches of all politicians] reflects this inability to think and to analyze, as well as an existentialist mindset.  If he had argued from Principle – if he had applied the Constitution he promised to embrace – he would have said that Our Constitution prohibits Congress from spending money on anything other than its enumerated powers. If he understood “federalism”, he would have understood that the power to create “safety nets” is reserved to The States or to THE PEOPLE. If he understood “the rule of law”, he would have understood that the obligation of people in Congress is to obey the Constitution.      

And WE THE PEOPLE must return to our Founding Principles.  We must start choosing our candidates on the basis of their conformity to our Founding Principles – not good looks and charm.  We in the Tea Party are every bit as silly as the foolish Democrats & Independents who voted for Obama for the reason that he too was good-looking and charismatic. PH

Endnotes.

¹ I focus on Marco Rubio because he – like all other politicians – illustrates the philosophical problems of which I write; and some are presenting him as the “ideal” running mate for the winner of the Republican nomination.

² Rush Limbaugh understands that Rubio’s words reveal his moral blindness. I first heard of Rubio’s speech on Rush’s show.

³ Frederic Bastiat’s essay, “The Law”, explains the evil of legalized plunder and the moral superiority of limited civil government.  It is one of the masterworks of Western civilization, and the best thing to ever come out of France.  It is clear, and easy to understand. Someone! Give Rubio a copy!

⁴ Our beloved James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution, couldn’t find the provisions either. He said:

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. — James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794 [boldface added].

The Economics Department at George Mason University provides this quote (among many wonderful others) on its page, Constitutional Limitations on Government.

⁵ Watch this magnificent woman point out to Congressman Pete Stark that obamacare makes SLAVES – in violation of the 13th Amendment – of those who are forced to provide medical care to others.  And watch Stark ignore her moral and constitutional argument against slavery and tell his constituents that “the federal government can do most anything”.

⁶A bit of personal history illustrates this point: I was raised a secular humanist by parents who were secular humanists. When not much older than Rubio, I asked a Christian pastor, “How can you believe all that stuff?”  He answered, “I have preconceptions; you have preconceptions.  Examine yours.”  I did. And discovered that I was a secular humanist simply because I had always been a secular humanist.  I had never examined it.  When I examined it, I found there was no evidence to support my world view.  So!  I abandoned it and learned a new world view based on Fixed Principles – those laws which are woven into the Fabric of Reality.

Let us pray that Sen. Rubio will do the same, and consign his existentialist worldview to the trashcan (where it belongs). The Laws of Morality and the Laws of Logic are among those Laws woven into the Fabric of Reality. And he promised to “tightly embrac[e] the principles of our Constitution”! PH

January 10, 2012; revised Jan. 12, 2012

 

Recess Appointments by the President: What Our Constitution Really Says.

By Publius Huldah.

Much misinformation about The Constitution is put out by those who seek to circumvent its clear provisions.  In Peter Schroeder’s recent article in The Hill, he reports that David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division, makes two arguments which Arkush claims permit the President to make a “recess” appointment of someone (Richard Cordray) whose nomination has already been blocked by the Senate.

Arkush reportedly claims that Art. 2, Sec.3, U.S. Constitution, allows the President to force the House and Senate to adjourn; and then, pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2, last clause, he would be permitted to make a “recess” appointment of his rejected nominee. ¹

Arkush’s next claim is this: The 20^th Amendment states that Congress shall assemble at least once a year, with each session beginning on Jan. 3.  Arkush says that in order to be able to start a session on Jan 3; Congress would have to have stopped a previous session – and between the stopping of the old and the starting of the new, the President may slip in there and make a “recess” appointment of his rejected nominee!

Rubbish.

So!  Let us see how easy it is to look things up in Our Constitution.  You do not have to settle for the rubbish spewed by others and uncritically reported by journalists. You can find out for yourself what Our Constitution really says.

Look It Up In Our Constitution!

FIRST: What does Our Constitution say about presidential “appointments”?  Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, says:

…he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone…[emphasis added]

Do you see?  The constitutional scheme is that the President nominates – the Senate confirms or rejects the President’s nomination.  This is the “check” which Our Constitution imposes on the President’s nominations.  The purpose is to protect us from the loons, incompetents, or toadies whom various presidents have, from time to time, nominated.

NOW let us see what Our Constitution says about recess appointments. Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, says:

   The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. [emphasis added]

Do you see?  The Vacancy must have happened at a time when the Senate was already in Recess!

So!  The President may not properly circumvent the Senate’s constitutionally granted power to reject his nominations by means of cheap gimmicks such as forcing the Congress to adjourn, or by waiting until Congress is in recess, to “recess appoint” someone whom the Senate has already refused to approve!

Check It Out In The Federalist Papers!

The Federalist Papers are authoritative on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution, ²  so you always want to see what they say about any clause in Our Constitution. Here is an online edition of The Federalist Papers with a searchable text.  If you type in “recess”, you will get hits for The Federalist Papers which use that term.

Throughout Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton explains the reasons for the constitutional provision requiring nominations by the President to be submitted to the Senate for their approval or disapproval. In the last 3 paras, Hamilton points out that the Constitution “requires” the cooperation of the Senate in appointments in order to “check” the President and “to prevent the appointment of unfit characters”; and that “the necessity of its [the Senate’s] co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate [the President].”

Now, let us see what The Federalist Papers say about “recess” appointments. In Federalist No. 67 (next to last para) Hamilton is very clear that Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, means what it says:

…The ordinary power of appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments “during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”… [caps are Hamilton’s]

Do you see?  Article II, Sec. 2, last clause, means exactly what it says. Before this clause even kicks in, the vacancy must have happened while the Senate was in “recess”.

So!  The Constitution requires the President to submit his nominations to the Senate for their approval. A President who disbands Congress so that he can circumvent the constitutional provisions which grant to the Senate the power to reject the President’s nominations, is a usurper & a tyrant who should be promptly impeached and removed from office. ³

If the Senate rejects any nomination, the President may not circumvent that rejection by unconstitutional gimmicks such as those proposed by Arkush.

If people wish to show how clever, creative, or original they are, then they should write a novel. When applying Our Constitution, we must display only Obedience.

Now you know how to look things up in Our Constitution and check it out in The Federalist Papers.  Political consultants, journalists, TV pundits, talk show hosts, candidates for office, people in Congress, in the Executive Branch, and sitting on Federal Benches don’t know how to do this.  So you must do it and spread the Word if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic. PH

Endnotes:

¹ Article II, Sec. 3 authorizes the President to adjourn Congress only when there is a “Disagreement” between the Houses “with Respect to the Time of Adjournment”. He is not permitted to adjourn Congress so that he may then circumvent the constitutional provisions which grant to the Senate the Power to reject the President’s nominees!

² See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia  (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they voted to make The Federalist Papers one of the texts books for the Law School. They said:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83)  [emphasis added]

³  On impeaching the President for usurpations of power – i.e., acting outside the few enumerated powers granted to the President by Our Constitution – see Federalist No. 66 (2^nd para) & Federalist No. 77 (last para). PH

Posted Dec. 17, 2011

 

Postscript added Jan. 28, 2013:

 I just skimmed “Noel Canning v. NLRB” (D. C. Cir. 2013)    http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf

HENCEFORTH:  When I heap scorn on federal judges for not knowing Our Constitution and The Federalist Papers, I will exempt from criticism Judges Sentelle (Chief Judge), Henderson, and Griffith. 

I never thought I would see the day when federal judges know and apply The Federalist Papers to Our Constitution, and actually follow The Constitution!

Well done, Your Honors!  PH

The President’s Enumerated Powers, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, & Executive Orders.

By Publius Huldah.

On election night, November 2, 2010, Rep. John Boehner said in his victory speech:

…While our new majority will serve as your voice in the people’s House, we must remember it is the president who sets the agenda for our government. … [emphasis added]

Next morning, Ezra Klein commented in the Cult of the President lives on:

I’d like Boehner to show us where in the Constitution it says that the president sets the agenda for the government.

But Boehner is not as astute as Ezra Klein, and does not know that it is our Constitution which sets the “agenda” for the federal government.  The agenda the Constitution sets restricts the federal government to war, international relations & commerce; and domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: a monetary system based on gold & silver, weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a bankruptcy code, and mail delivery (Art. I, Sec. 8, cls.1-16). ¹

And because none of the House Republicans seem to know that our Constitution sets the agenda, and don’t know that our Constitution also enumerates the powers delegated to the President, they are allowing Obama to carry out his “agenda” to transform our Country into a fascist dictatorship.

What are the Enumerated Powers of the President?

The powers of the President are “carefully limited” and precisely defined by our Constitution.  In Federalist Paper No. 71 (last para), Alexander Hamilton asks,

…what would be … feared from an elective magistrate of four years’ duration, with the confined authorities of a President of the United States?…[emphasis added] ²

The answer to Hamilton’s question is this: There would be nothing to fear if Presidents obeyed the Constitution. But they don’t obey it because the dolts in Congress don’t make them obey it!

Well, then!  Here is the complete list of the President’s enumerated powers:

Art. I, Sec. 7, cls. 2 & 3, grants to the President the power to approve or veto Bills and Resolutions passed by Congress.

Art. I, Sec. 9, next to last clause, grants to the executive Branch – the Treasury Department – the power to write checks pursuant to Appropriations made by law – i.e., by Congress.

Art. II, Sec. 1, cl.1, vests “executive Power” [see below] in the President.

Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause, sets forth the President’s Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”.

Art. II, Sec. 2, cl.1:

• makes the President Commander in Chief of the armed forces when they have been called by Congress into the actual service of the United States. ³

• authorizes the President to require the principal Officers in the executive Departments to provide written Opinions upon the Duties of their Offices.

•  grants the President power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, ⁴  but he can not stop impeachments of any federal judge or federal officer.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 2 grants to the President the power:

• to make Treaties – with the advice and consent of the Senate. ⁵

• to nominate Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, federal judges, and various other officers – with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Article II, Sec. 2, cl. 3 grants to the President the power to make recess appointments, which expire at the end of Congress’ next session.

Art. II, Sec. 3:

• Imposes the duty on the President to periodically advise Congress on the State of the Union, and authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems wise.

• Authorizes the President, on extraordinary Occasions, to convene one or both houses of Congress [e.g., when he asks Congress to declare War]; and if both houses can not agree on when to adjourn, he is authorized to adjourn them to such time as he deems proper.

• Imposes the duty upon the President to receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.

• Imposes the duty upon the President to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and

• Imposes the duty upon the President to Commission all the Officers of the United States.

That’s it! Anything else the President does is unlawful and a usurpation of powers not granted.

 What is the “executive Power”?

So!  The granting of the “executive Power” to the President is not a blank check giving him power to do whatever he wants.  The “executive Power” is merely the power to put into effect – to implement – those Acts of Congress which are within Congress’ enumerated powers.  Thus, if Congress establishes “an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), it is the President’s duty to implement and enforce the law Congress makes. The President is to carry out – to execute – Acts of  Congress.

But note well:  His Oath of Office – to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, shows that the President must use his independent judgment ⁶  as to which acts of Congress are and are not constitutional.  Thus, as shown in this paper, “The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges“, the President has the duty, imposed by his Oath, to act as a “check” on Congress (and on federal courts, as well).

Accordingly, when Congress makes a “law” which is not authorized by the Constitution, it

…would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution”… Federalist No. 33 (last two paras); ⁷

and since the President’s Oath requires him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution“, the President must refuse to enforce an unconstitutional “law” made by Congress.  Otherwise, he’d be in collusion with the legislative branch to usurp power over The People. ⁸

So, then!  Acting as a check on Congress (and federal courts) by refusing to enforce unconstitutional “laws” (and opinions), as well as the duty of entertaining foreign dignitaries, are the only occasions where the President may act alone. His prime responsibility is to do what Congress tells him.

Article I, Sec. 1 & The Unconstitutional Administrative Law State

Now, you must learn of “administrative law” – i.e., rulemaking by Executive Agencies. ⁹

Article I, Sec.1, U.S. Constitution, says:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.

That little phrase is of immense importance. It means what it says, that only Congress may make laws: laws are to be made only by Representatives whom we can fire every two years, and by Senators whom we can fire every six years.

But in Joseph Postell’s “must read” paper, “Constitution in Decline“, he shows that during the administration of the nefarious Woodrow Wilson, Congress began delegating its lawmaking powers to agencies within the Executive Branch.  Since then, Congress passes an overall legislative scheme, and delegates the details to be written by un-elected, un-accountable bureaucrats in the various Executive Agencies.  They write the “administrative rules” which implement the Legislation. The result is the execrable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which is accepted, by the indoctrinated members of my profession, as “law”. Go here to see the abominable CFR.

May the President Lawfully Make “Executive Orders”?

The Guiding Principle is this:  The President has no authority to do ANYTHING apart from constitutional authority or statutory authority (assuming the statute itself is constitutional).

1.    So!  Respecting those matters within his constitutional authority & duties, and authority & duties imposed by constitutional statutes, the President may make “orders” – call them “executive orders” if you like.

For example: It is the President’s constitutional duty “to take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. Thus, he has the duty to enforce [constitutional] laws made by Congress.  How does he enforce the laws?  Sometimes, by means of “orders”.

To illustrate: Say Congress makes a law, as authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 6, making it a felony to counterfeit the Securities and current Coin of the United States.  If U.S. Attorneys are not prosecuting counterfeiters, the President should “order” them to do it. Or fire them.

But say Congress makes a law which purports to make possession of shotguns shorter than 18 inches a crime.  Since the President’s Oath requires him to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, he is obligated to “order” the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorneys to refuse to prosecute anyone for possession of sawed-off shotguns. Why?  Because such a “law” is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress in Our Constitution.  It also violates the Second Amendment.

Clearly, such an order to refuse prosecution falls within the President’s constitutional duties (enforce the Constitution), and he is giving an order to people within the Executive Branch. The President is the one who is charged with carrying out the Acts of Congress – he has the “executive Power”.  But because of his Oath, he may not carry out unconstitutional “laws”. That is one of the checks on Congress.

The President may also properly make orders addressing housekeeping issues within the Executive Branch:  Dress codes, no smoking or drinking on the job, he may encourage executive agencies to hire qualified handicapped people, and the like.  Just as if you have a business, you may make orders addressing such matters.

So! Do you see?  The President may lawfully make orders to carry out his constitutionally imposed powers and duties, and powers bestowed by statutes which are constitutional; and he may address “housekeeping” issues within the Executive Branch.

2.   But a President may not lawfully, by means of “orders”, exercise powers not delegated to him by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress.

Yet Obama has issued various executive orders which are unlawful because they are not authorized by the Constitution or by (constitutional) Acts of Congress. Here are two executive orders which are particularly pernicious because they undermine our foundational Principle of “Federalism”, and have as their object the “improper consolidation of the States into one … republic.”: ¹⁰

E.O.13575 – Establishment of the White House Rural Council: This E.O. provides for over 25 federal departments & agencies to run every aspect of rural life!

E.O. Establishing Council of Governors: The effect of this E.O. is to erase the Independence and Sovereignty of the States and consolidate us into a national system under the boot of the Executive Branch.

Joseph Stalin couldn’t do better than this.  These E.O.s are blatantly unconstitutional as usurpations of powers not granted in The Constitution!  So,  Nullify them!

3.   Likewise, executive agencies may not, by means of “administrative rulemaking”, usurp the powers of Congress. (Remember, because of Art. I, Sec.1, all rulemaking by executive agencies is unconstitutional)!

Here are several cases of such unconstitutional rulemaking:

a)  When Congress refused to pass the DREAM ACT, which provided a path to citizenship for certain categories of illegal aliens, ICE had no authority to implement it, in whole or in part, by executive “memo”!  Power over Rules of Naturalization (i.e., who qualifies for citizenship and what are the procedures) is expressly granted to Congress by Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4, which grants to Congress alone the Power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

The President has no constitutional power over immigration & naturalization except to enforce the Acts of Congress respecting those subjects.  Article II, Sec. 3, which imposes upon the President the duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, requires the President to enforce such constitutional Acts of Congress.

But if Congress refuses to make a law respecting naturalization, a President who enacts it anyway,  via “executive order”, or “administrative regulation”, or “administrative memo” by his underlings in the various executive agencies, is acting lawlessly.  His unlawful acts should be nullified, and he should be removed from office for his usurpation.

b) Congress recently did not pass three sinister and grotesquely unconstitutional bills Obama wanted: “Card check“, “Cap and Trade“, and the Disclose Act.  These bills are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted by our Constitution to Congress. Nowhere does our Constitution give Congress authority to make laws about labor unions (“card check”), or to regulate carbon emissions – CO², the stuff humans and animals exhale, and plants & trees need for photosynthesis (“cap and trade”), or requiring people with federal contracts to report their personal political activities to the Executive Branch (“Disclose Act”)!

Since Congress may not lawfully make laws on such subjects, no one can. Yet, Obama is circumventing the Constitution and implementing these three failed & unconstitutional bills by agency rulemaking or executive order!:

The National Labor Relations Board, is implementing “card check” by agency regulation.  Read this.

The Environmental Protection Agency is implementing “cap and trade” by agency regulation. Read this.

And it appears that Obama – in furtherance of his “agenda” to reward his supporters and punish non-supporters – is considering signing an executive order to implement the Disclose Act. Read this.

So! Let us sum this up:  The President must always uphold our Constitution. When Congress makes an unconstitutional law, the President must refuse to implement it; and he may, by means of executive orders, instruct people in the Executive Branch not to comply.  E.g., if a President orders the U.S. Attorneys to decline to prosecute persons for possession of sawed-off shotguns, he would be acting lawfully because Congress has no authority to ban them. But the President is violating the Constitution when he implements “card check” by agency rules made by the NLRB; when he implements “cap & trade” by agency rules made by the EPA; and the “Disclose Act” by executive order, because the President and executive agencies (as well as Congress) do not have authority over these objects; and further, no one in the Executive Branch has authority to make “laws”!

What Should we do about illegal Executive Orders & Rules made by Executive Agencies?

A Congress filled with he-men and she-women, instead of ignorant cowards, wusses, and wimps, would impeach obama for his usurpations in signing unconstitutional executive orders, and in circumventing Congress by having executive agencies implement, by means of administrative rules, legislation which Congress did not pass.  In Federalist Paper No. 66 (2nd para), Hamilton expressly states that impeachment is an essential check on a President who encroaches on the powers of Congress; and in Federalist No. 77 (last para), points out that impeachment is the remedy for “abuse of the executive authority”.

But since the people in Congress are too ignorant and weak to rid us of the abomination in the White House, the States and Counties must nullify unconstitutional executive orders and administrative rules, or submit to slavery and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic. Since State and County officials have taken the Oath to support the U.S. Constitution (Art. VI, last cl.), they are bound by Oath to refuse to submit to illegal executive orders and illegal agency rules.

And of course, WE THE PEOPLE and our businesses must also spit on such illegalities by the Executive Branch. Our “creature” (Federalist No. 33, 5th para, Hamilton), has turned into Frankenstein, and has lost all legitimacy. PH

Endnotes:

¹  In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, says,

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [boldface added]

²  In Federalist No. 48, Madison points out that in our representative republic,

…the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power… (5th para) [i.e., limited & enumerated powers and 4 year terms]

…the executive power being restrained within a narrower compass [than that granted to the legislative branch], and being more simple in its nature… (6th para)

In Federalist No. 75 (3rd para), Hamilton says,

…The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of the society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate… [boldface added]

In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton says,

…The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules … The judiciary … has no influence over … the sword or the purse …and …must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm … for the efficacy of its judgments. [boldface added].

Read the list of the President’s enumerated powers!  The President’s powers really are “confined” and “carefully limited” to carrying out laws made by Congress and enforcing certain judicial decisions, military defense (a power shared with Congress), appointing officials (subject to Congress’ approval), and entertaining foreign dignitaries. That’s it!

³ Only Congress has the power to declare war (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11)!  See clauses 12-16 showing that Congress has the power to determine the funding for the military, and to make the Rules for the discipline & training of the military and the Militia.

⁴ Re “Offenses against the United States”: I explain here the criminal laws Our Constitution permits Congress to make.  It’s a short list.  Take note, you federal criminal defense lawyers.

⁵ I explain the treaty making power of the United States in two papers here

⁶ During the Terri Schiavo case, Alan Keyes spoke on the radio about the constitutional powers of the President.  I seem to recall that Dr. Keyes spoke of the President’s obligation to exercise his “independent judgment” as to whether an act of Congress or a federal court opinion is constitutional. Whatever he said, he opened my eyes, and enabled me to see the elegant beauty of our Constitution.

⁷  Hamilton also says in Federalist No. 33 (6^th para)

…it will not follow…that acts of …[the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of … [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [T]he clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union [Art. VI, cl. 2]…EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [caps are Hamilton's, boldface mine]

⁸ Madison says in Federalist No. 44 (last para before 2.):

…the success of the usurpation [by Congress] will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; … [boldface added]

The President must not collude with the legislative  or judicial branches to usurp power over The People!  He must honor his Oath!

⁹ Most of the existing “federal” executive agencies are unconstitutional.  They meddle in matters which are not the business of the federal government, as power over the matters is not granted by our Constitution to the federal government.  Here are a few of the unconstitutional federal agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Education, Transportation, and Homeland Security.  Likewise for the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of National Drug Control Policy,  the National Economic Council, the Small Business Administration, the Council on Environmental Quality, etc., etc., etc.

¹⁰  Progressives have erased the concept of “federalism” from our minds. “Federalism” refers to the form of our government & the division of powers between the national government and the States. A “Federation” (which is what our Constitution creates) is an alliance of independent States associated together in a “confederation” with a national government to which is delegated authority over the States in specifically defined areas ONLY (i.e., the enumerated powers granted to Congress by our Constitution).  Those enumerated powers are the only areas wherein the national government is to have authority over the States.  In all other matters, the States have supremacy, are independent, and sovereign!  Learn more of “federalism” here and here.

Our Framers warned against the consolidation of the sovereign States into one national sovereignty:   In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), Hamilton writes,

An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…. [caps are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

Federalist No. 62 (5th para) says,

… the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty.  So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic. [boldface mine]

And in Federalist No. 39  (6th para), Madison says,

“But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision….[caps are Madison's]

Madison then gives a brilliant exposition of the “national” and “federal” aspects of Our Constitution.  More than any other Paper, No. 39 addresses the primary political problem of our Time:  The  destruction of “federalism” by eradicating all vestiges of sovereign & independent States. 

We are a trusting People easily lead astray.  Make something sound “patriotic”, and we are all for it.  Since 1892, American public school children have been indoctrinated with the statist Lie that ours is an indivisible national government.  This was done by means of the Pledge of Allegiance:  “….one nation … indivisible…”.  Is it any wonder that the author of this nasty bit of poison, Francis Bellamy, was a socialist who worked with the National Education Association to institute this statist indoctrination into the public schools?  This pernicious pledge is why you don’t know, and no one knows, that our Constitution created a “federation” of sovereign & independent States, united only for the limited purposes enumerated in the Constitution. Wikipedia has good info on Bellamy. PH

August 30, 2011