There is a lot at stake in the American experiment. Ours is a nation founded on an ideal and nothing else. Whether that grand ideal will survive depends on whether the American experiment is successful or not. What is that ideal? It is the notion that individuals are sovereign and that they are endowed with Natural rights that are "self-evident" and "inalienable" which are an integral part of their very humanity. Since these rights come from our Creator, they cannot be deemed to be granted by government. Hence government is powerless to take them away or violate them. In fact, governments are instituted to serve the People and to protect those rights.
It was from that ideal that our Founders understood the great challenge that would be presented: How to keep the role of government strictly limited in order that liberty is enlarged and that government is prevented from growing into a new form of tyranny. They studied history and were well-aware that the nature of any government is to control and gain more power from those it governs. And that in that challenge, we understand why the Constitution is still relevant. At one time it defined a limited government and it offered numerous protections against those governmental intrusions which they knew would come eventually. The Constitution still holds the power of limited government and still defines the proper relationship between the People, the States, and the federal government. The key is to put that document, with its original meaning and its original intent, back to work for the American people and for the protection of their inalienable rights.
The Tea Party summoned the spirit of the Revolution to resurrect the Constitution. They went back to the days of peaceful civil disobedience, ownership of their rights and destiny, engagement of their government in their civil liberties, and robust discussion of what it means to be a "free" people.
They took the name "Tea Party" because of its rich historical significance. The Boston Tea Party occurred on December 16, 1773 as a protest against the tax on tea imposed by a government in a far-off land that did not permit its representation in the legislative process (Parliament). Earlier that year, the British government passed the Tea Act, which authorized the British East India Company to ship tea directly to colonies while the government levied a tax of three pence on each shipment. While the Tea Act actually lowered the price of tea for colonists (so that even with the tax, the colonists were still paying less for tea), many colonists were still angry at being taxed at all.
"Taxation without Representation" was a rallying cry that was particularly significant. The taxes the British tried to collect were modest and the revenue collected was to be spent entirely in the colonies for their benefit and protection. It wasn't even going to be sent back to the mother country. So why all the fuss and cry of "tyranny"? It was because the real reason for American Revolution was the lack of political machinery to protect the colonists' rights. In short, our founding agitators and revolutionaries weren't as concerned about the insignificant tax on tea as they were with the underlying violations of their basic human rights.
The American experiment will continue to be successful only as long as we continue to be as vigilante and protective of our rights and as long as we continue to demand that government keep its distance. And so, as we recognize Constitution Day each year on September 17, we should re-commit to our Revolutionary spirit as Americans and read our founding documents in that light. As Jefferson warned, we shouldn't render our government one of general and unlimited power because we've tacitly allowed it the exclusive domain to interpret the Constitution as it sees fit. We can all know the meaning and intention of the Constitution simply by doing our homework and reading what words of wisdom our Founders left. We don't need government officials or judges to tell us. Government wants power. People want liberty.
As Patrick Henry warned on June 5, 1788 when he addressed the Virginia Ratifying Convention: (paraphrasing) "When we lose the American spirit and our mental powers have decayed, then our liberty will be gone forever."
DO YOU KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION and YOUR GOVERNMENT?
I ask everyone to please take the time to read the "QUIZ" I've prepared, take some pocket Constitutions, take any extra quizzes, and spread the Good Word.
So, the question today is: How to we go forward and limit the federal government?
(a) MARK LEVIN's book "THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS."
(b) Nullifcation
(c) Another proposal: A Constitutional amendment that would have funding resort back to the plan under the Articles of Confederation.
This evening we have Ms. Catherine Fodor from Congressman Jones' office. She is his Outreach Director. Not many in Washington know we are suffering a Constitutional crisis, but Congressman Jones does. He stands out among the others in recognizing that the government CAN'T do everything it wants... It can only do what the Constitution allows it to do. And he has been faithful in alerting his constituents to the abuses of government and asking for their support.
DO YOU KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION and YOUR GOVERNMENT ??
- What is the relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
- What is the purpose of the Declaration of Independence?
- The first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence explains the foundation of Individual Liberty. What is that foundation (2 laws)?
- The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence explains the relationship between We the People and government in the United States. What is that relationship?
- What are the first 10 amendments called? Why were they added?
- Where in the Constitution is the "Wall of Separation" mentioned?
- Where in the Constitution does it require criminals be read the "Miranda" warning?
- Where in the Constitution do we find that the Supreme Court has the power to issue binding decisions?
- Where in the Constitution do we find the president having the power to send US troops to engage in acts of war without an official declaration of war?
10. Where in the Constitution do we find the legislative or executive branches having the power to limit or define the rights listed in the Bill of Rights? (The preamble of the Bill of Rights is clear on this)
11. Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to mandate healthcare or control education?
12. Where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to spend taxpayer money to bailout selected businesses?
13. Where in the Constitution does it grant the Congress to tax and spend for any object other than those that are expressly listed in the Constitution?
14.What provision in the Constitution permits Congress to transfer its powers to legislate to unelected agencies?
15. Whose document is the Constitution?
16. Who does the Constitution protect? And what does it protect from?
17. Does the government have any "rights" under the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution? Is there any provision that permits it to engage in action or policies to further its own interests and longevity?
18. The President believes he has the right to identify American citizens as "enemy combatants" (a term invented by the Supreme Court during the era of WWII) thereby detaining them indefinitely and denying them their constitutional rights. An "enemy combatant" is a person who engages in belligerent acts (war) against the US. Isn't this type of person already identified in Article III, Section 3?
19. Can a treaty over-ride any provision of the US Constitution? Can it limit any of the Bill of Rights?
20. Which provision in the Constitution is the state equivalent of the Supremacy Clause?
21. Which Article establishes the automatic nullification of unconstitutional laws?
22. What Article requires that all government officers, both state and federal, must have a working knowledge of the Constitution?
23. At whose level of understanding was the Constitution drafted?
24. Who or what does government serve?
25. When elected representatives and government officials (both federal and state) take their oath of office, what do they pledge their allegiance to?? The United States or the US Constitution?
26. In Article V, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause), it reads: "in pursuance thereof." What does that mean?
27. What are the citizenship requirements for a candidate seeking to be President of the United States?
ANSWERS:
- The Declaration is our moral compass. It establishes the relationship between the Individual and government.
- The Declaration of Independence had 2 purposes. First, it declared that the American states were dissolving the political bonds that connected them to Great Britain. In other words, the Declaration was a secessionist document. Second, in explaining the reasons for their dissolution, the states proclaimed "to a candid world" the fundamental principles upon which they would declare their independence as free and sovereign states. The Declaration articulated the foundation of their societies and their government. It articulated the American blueprint for ordered liberty. The American system would be founded on the supreme sovereignty of the Individual ("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"). In announced that there would be no divine right of Kings or any premise that rights come from government. In fact, it would be the other way around. Government would only have those powers that the people voluntarily transfer or delegate to it to make laws for and protect them. That's why all 13 states at the time agreed to the provision that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends (to protect and secure the rights of the People), it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.").
- Nature's Law and God's Law
- Sovereign power resides in the Individual. That is, he has the rights associated with being a free person - Life, Liberty, and Property, as well as all rights associated with them - PLUS he has the right to defend them - ie, the rights of self-defense, self-determination, and self-preservation. In order to form into communities and protect those rights, governments are instituted to provide those protections en masse. Government, that is, is instituted to serve the People and has as its primary purpose, the obligation to protect the rights of the Individual. "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, and to institute new Government.."
- The Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments grant NO rights. They acknowledge certain rights that are so fundamental, so essential, and so integral to the notions of liberty that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is absolutely prohibited from violating them.
- This is a legal fiction - devised by a progressive Supreme Court designed to centralize power in the federal government. The Justice who gave us the "Wall of Separation" was Hugo Black, in the 1947 case Everson v. Board of Education. Hugo Black was a leader with the KKK, tasked with administering the Klan oath (one provision being that there is a "Wall of Separation" to prevent Catholics, one of their target groups, from gaining any political power). In the decision, Black wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Our Founders understood that the key to effective, responsible government is having a citizenry that is capable of governing themselves and conducting themselves according to certain productive guidelines. Those guidelines come from morality and religion (which are intertwined). Only a moral and religious people are capable of ensuring that government remains limited and therefore capable of preserving liberty for future generations.
- Another legal fiction - again devised by a progressive Supreme Court (the Earl Warren Court in 1966, in the case Miranda v. Arizona). The Warren Court was characterized as promoting the rights of criminals over victims and the ability of police (and the criminal justice system, in general) to fight crime and protect law-abiding citizens. The Miranda warning is not a constitutional right... it is a procedural safeguard imposed by the Supreme Court to make sure criminals do not suffer any violations of their constitutional rights with respect law enforcement. The Miranda warning includes elements of the Fifth Amendment (protection against self-incrimination) and the Sixth Amendment (the right to counsel). After Warren's time as Chief Justice ended in the mid 1970's, a more conservative Court appointed by President Richard Nixon set out to undermine the Miranda ruling. For the next twenty years, the Court weakened Miranda by un-mooring it (unlinking it) to the Constitution. The subsequent (conservative Courts), the Burger and Rehnquist Courts, later interpreted the Miranda holding as a mere prophylactic [protective] measure and made clear that a violation of Miranda does not equal a constitutional violation." (1994). While it was still illegal for prosecutors to use a transcript of a defendant's coerced testimony against him or her at trial, the information gained from that testimony could still be used to build a case against an accused. The Supreme Court had the chance to re-visit Miranda warnings in 2000 (in Dickerson v. US) and overrule the Miranda decision, but it chose not to. It chose to save Miranda. In Dickerson, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that the Court would not address the issue of whether Miranda warnings constitute judicial overreaching (He wrote: "The Court may or may not agree"), but would stand on stare decisis (the judicial practice of relying on Supreme Court precedent, or prior decisions). In other words, the Court would not feel it was necessary to reverse the Miranda decision of 1966. Rehnquist made two points to support the decision: (1) "We do not think there is such justification for overruling Miranda. Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture," (ie, NYPD Blue, Law & Order, etc); and (2) The Supreme Court has already weakened Miranda sufficiently so that it no longer effectively prevents slaw enforcement from good police work.
- Read Article III. It reads: "The judicial power of the United States...." ["United States" means federal government. When the Constitution was ratified, the nation was considered a Union of sovereign states. It's name was NOT the "United States." If anything, the nation was referred to as "The united States," meaning that the individual states have formerly decided to unite for limited and common purposes, for their ultimate protection and security]. So, the judicial power of the government was vested in one supreme court and other inferior courts (as the Congress might from time to time ordain and establish. In Section 2, the Constitution assigns jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. In certain cases, the Court has "original" jurisdiction (meaning that the first time a case is heard, it goes before the Supreme Court), but nowhere does the Constitution state that jurisdiction is also "exclusive." So cases can be heard in State courts as well. Nowhere does the Constitution state that decisions by the Supreme Court trump decisions in a state's highest court.
- Nowhere. The power to declare war is set out in Article I, Section 8. In Article II (The Executive), it states clearly that the President only becomes the Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy (and of the state militias) when they are called into service of the United States (again we see the term "United States." Again it means the federal government). So the President becomes the Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy when they are called into service by the federal government. In other words, only after Congress declares war are the forces of the United States called into action and only then does the President assume war powers.
NOTE: Notice that the Constitution affirms the right of states to establish militias for their individual defense. Most states have such forces established as state National Guards. In 2010, President Obama nationalized
nearly all National Guard Forces in various states; Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina - to name a few. In response, the Governors of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia have re-established "State Defense Forces." (These forces can go against federal forces should the need arise. Also important to note: There are NO federal laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State's Defense Forces. This dilemma occurred during the Civil War with many "citizen soldiers" choosing to serve their states instead of the Federal Government).
10. The Executive and Legislative branches have no such power. In fact, both branches are EXPRESSLY forbidden from limiting any of the rights acknowledged in the Bill of Rights. Likewise, they are forbidden, by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, from limiting the scope of rights reserved to the People and the States, respectfully, when the Bill of Rights were adopted (1789).
On the contrary, the Bill of Rights expressly limits the power of the federal government.
The Bill of Rights does not grant us any rights. Rather it re-affirms certain rights so fundamental, so essential, and so integral to our humanity and assures, through a permanent addition to the US Constitution, that the federal government cannot violate, infringe, or even burden such rights.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains exactly the nature of the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) as it relates to the Constitution. It reads:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." (Wednesday, March 4, 1789)
The government is a limited social compact. The Constitution, when ratified by 2/3 of the states back in 1787-1789, "created" or established the federal government. By its very terms and provisions, the government created was intended to be a limited common government for the purpose of "managing" and serving the States - not to control them. The Constitution creates a government separated into 3 distinct spheres of power (Separation of Powers), it creates a series of Checks and Balances, it checks power through the federal nature of government (States v. Federal Government, each possessing sovereign power; memorialized by the Tenth Amendment), and it further limits power by incorporation of the Bill of Rights. If anyone can look at all these safeguards and not understand that our government was intended to be one of limited powers and limited scope, then they need more formal education.
11. Nowhere
12. Nowhere
13. Nowhere. Congress is given express authority to legislate for approximately 17 enumerated objects (Article II, Section 8).
14. Nowhere
15. It is the People's document. It is a permanent and binding charter (social compact or social contract) which transfers limited sovereign power from a free people to a government for the purpose of that government to serve them and to protect their God-given inalienable rights (after all, "inalienable" means non-transferable. Fundamental human rights can never be divested or deprived from human beings... that is, under the American system of government, thanks to the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights). The Constitution limits government in our lives - at least it was supposed to. It sets boundaries on government, thereby allowing us to freely exercise our natural, God-given, inalienable rights. It is a RESTRAINING ORDER on government.
16. The Constitution protects We the People from unsanctioned interference in our lives and upon our liberties and property by government. It limits government in our lives. See answer above.
17. Nowhere
18. Such a person would be a traitor. Another title was invented by the Supreme Court (in an attempt to give FDR the extra power he wanted for the federal government; See Ex Parte Quirin, 1942) solely for the purposes of giving the President of the United States extraordinary power to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights in order to interrogate them and punish them.
Article III, Section 3 defines treason and defines a traitor: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. [ie, Waging war against the United States or aiding and abetting an enemy].
19. NO !!!! Treaties are equivalent in stature to federal law. They have the same force of law and status as federal laws.
20. The Tenth Amendment
21. Article VI, Clause 2 (the "Supremacy Clause"). If a federal bill is not passed in "pursuance" to the Constitution, it has no constitutional or legal authority and cannot be regarded as "supreme law of the land." If it is supreme, then the authority to regulate falls to the States. In fact, it is the duty of the States, under our notions of ordered liberty and under the Tenth Amendment, to prevent unconstitutional laws to be enforced upon a free people.
22. Article VI, Clause 3. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
23. The "average citizen" or "voters." See the very recent cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v City of Chicago (2010) - both addressing the Second Amendment right to have and bear arms.
