Tag Archives: constitution

Health Care Reform – The Biggest Assault EVER on Our Freedom

Tomorrow (today), the House of Representatives will vote on a 2,000 page bill to give the federal government the power to micromanage the health care of every single American. The bill will no doubt pass. It will raise your taxes, steal your freedom, invade your privacy, and ration your health care. Even the Republicans have introduced their version of Obamacare Lite. It, too, if passed, will compel employers to provide coverage, bribe the states to change their court rules, and tell insurance companies whom to insure.

Unforunately, some people support this reform as a result of emotional appeals and either do not understand freedom or just don’t care about it.

Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

When I recently asked Congressman James Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House, to tell me “Where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to regulate everyone’s healthcare–, he replied that most of what Congress does is not authorized by the Constitution, but they do it anyway. There you have it. Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn’t care about the Constitution, it doesn’t care about your inalienable rights, it doesn’t care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t even read the laws it writes.

-Judge Andrew Napolitano

Misunderstanding the Preamble

It seems to me that after years and years of government-run education, people in this country just can’t understand that everything – in some way – in the Constitution, was meant as a way to limit government power.   Not the other way around.

Take this common view of the preamble:

The entire history of the legal system supports the notion that the material in the preamble to the constitution lays out what the legitimate functions of the Federal government are.

I’d be interested in knowing what court rulings this blogger was referring to, because Constitutionally, that statement couldn’t be more wrong.

The preamble lays out the intentions or the reasons for the Constitution.  It does not grant one ounce of power to the federal government.

All the “legitimate functions” of the federal government – which, according to the Founders would fulfill the intentions of the preamble – are in the Constitution itself.

The short of it? While the Preamble does refer to the “general Welfare,” promoting it is limited to those powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

cross-posted on the Tenth Amendment Center blog

Limiting Federal Power as the Path to Peace

I recently had the honor of appearing on AntiWar Radio with Scott Horton in my role with the Tenth Amendment Center.  Here’s the overview:

Michael Boldin of the 10th Amendment Center discusses how the doctrine of enumerated powers has become quaint, how the Constitution provides persuasive talking points for a strictly limited government for those otherwise undisposed, why activist priorities should be on limiting federal power as it is the most expansive and potentially destructive and how the states are, in some cases, resisting federal laws and asserting their own.

The War on Drugs Is a War on You

My latest article is live at Campaign for Liberty -”The War on Drugs is a War on You

Here’s an excerpt:

The drug war is based on a repugnant assertion: that you do not have ownership over your own body; that you don’t have the right to decide what you’ll do with your body, with your property and with your life. The position of the drug warriors is that you should be in jail if you decide to do something with your body that they don’t approve of.

This is an abomination of everything that America is supposed to stand for. As long as this country continues the drug war, you are not free. At the root, then, those that force the drug war on you are enemies to your freedom.

If you are concerned at all about liberty, the economy, the Constitution and the power of the Federal Government — you cannot ignore the US government’s longest and most costly “war” — the War on Drugs.

Randy Barnett and the Destruction of Federalism

The king of the centralizing “libertarians” is at it again.  In a recent Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece, Randy Barnett is now arguing that a Constitutional Convention – along with a constitutional amendment authorizing even more power to the federal government – is somehow going to raise the principles of federalism from the dead and decentralize power in this country.

Is anybody buying this stuff?

In my rebuttal at the Tenth Amendment Center, I argue – with some significant backing from people like Kevin Gutzman and Kurt Lash – that Barnett’s proposal is far from good…it’s quite dangerous.

Here’s what Professor Lash had to say:

Section 5 appears to grant courts constitutional authority to invalidate any state matter which a court perceives to be a liberty interest.

Indeed, since the amendment is to be interpreted according to today’s public meaning, Section 5 opens the door to judicial invalidation of any number of state regulations which traditionally have been left to the states, but which an individual judge or justice believes “today” should be considered a matter of individual liberty.”

Kevin Gutzman is always a joy to read, and he weighs in as well:

In explaining his proposal, [Barnett] calls this section “entirely consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. It merely clarifies the boundary between federal and state powers, and reaffirms the power of courts to police this boundary and protect individual liberty.”

This is a blatant falsehood.

I take the position that at this point, the only way we’re going to get the federal government in check (short of eliminating it, of course!) is non-compliance.  In constitutional theory, the concept is called nullification.  Basically, all this means is that state governments should refuse to comply with federal legislation that goes beyond the limitations of the constitution.

There’s a great, real, practical example of this working quite well in just the past few years.  So read the article, I hope you’ll find it worthy of your time.

CNN Reports: States Fight Back

On the growing “state sovereignty movement,” I had the opportunity to speak with CNN’s Bill Tucker for about 15-20 minutes yesterday – the short video report here is the result.  Not a bad report coming from a state-approved media outlet.

Kevin Gutzman will be on CNN at 7pm Eastern (or thereabouts) for a follow up.

Constitutional Coalition Episode 3

Third episode of the most popular online radio show EVER! I had Dr. Kevin R.C. Gutzman, an American historian and New York Times bestselling author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,” “Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic,” and “Who Killed the Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush” (Co-authored with Thomas E. Woods), on as a guest and he helped explain what a truly constitutionalist approach to modern day America would look like. You can listen to the show via this nifty player or download it from here and check it out at your leisure.

Obama vs the Constitution

JO can have his Article of Confederation but I still loves me that U.S. Constitution. One of my favorite writers on the topic exposes Obama & his Dem cronies for their outright defiance of it.

The Obamanoid Constitution
by Kevin R. C. Gutzman

The electoral defeat of the Republican Party in 2008, after all, meant the replacement of a party that at least talks the originalist talk by one that holds originalism (also known as “law”) in contempt. Already in the first weeks of the Barack Obama administration, Democrats in Congress and in the Executive Branch have taken several steps along the road of absolute constitutional nihilism. Since the U.S. Constitution stands for federalism, republicanism, and limited government, their program is essentially to ignore it. Given majority power, the Democratic Party feels entitled to adopt whatever initiatives come to mind, and those initiatives tend toward further centralization, empowerment of unelected officials, and statism. More…

Romans 13

Pastor Baldwin explains that there are bibilical limits to civil authorities which Christians must understand.

This means that in America the “higher powers” are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Christians in America:

“Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. … For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.”

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

Constitutional Required Reading

From Professor William J. Watkins:

In 1885 Woodrow Wilson noted that criticism of the Constitution had ceased upon its adoption and “an undiscriminating and almost blind worship of its principles” had developed (Wilson 1885, 4). A survey of American political discourse after the Constitution’s ratification reveals that its provisions were often quoted in such a manner as a minister would quote the Gospel. Considering that the history of Anglo-American liberty is, in many respects, a history of great charters and the events leading to their adoption, American reverence for the Constitution is not surprising (see Brooks 1993). Of course, the Constitution is not the only document in the pantheon. For most Americans the Declaration of Independence is also a sacred document, and some scholars place it above the Constitution (Jaffa 1994, 22-23). However, conspicuously absent from the list of universally revered charters are Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. For their lucid reasoning and peerless prose, they merit inclusion as much as the Constitution itself. Unfortunately, the Resolves of 1798, as they are also known, have been given short shrift as the nation has become more consolidated. Though the centralizers can twist the language of the Constitution to confer plenary powers on the national government, the language of the Resolves cannot be so manipulated. So Americans are kept in the dark about the principles of ’98, lest they be tempted to reclaim the decentralized republic of the Constitution’s framers. Continue reading

Our Enemy, the President

Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative reminds us why the executive should be restrained to its constitutional role regardless if it’s Dubya or Obama.

Right-wing presidentialism failed spectacularly under Bush and has now yielded to what may be the strongest expression of left-wing presidentialism since Franklin Roosevelt. Conservatives have an important lesson to learn here. They must not only oppose Obama as they once opposed FDR, they must recognize the threat that presidential power represents to an ordered Republic no matter which party occupies the Oval Office.

Rick’s Enduring Freedom

Southern California mega-church pastor Rick Warren is back in the news, this time for headlining the Los Angeles Mayor’s annual prayer breakfast. Not surprisingly, California’s Proposition 8 opponents are not amused. You may also recall that other groups were similarly not amused by some of President Obama’s unexpected remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast last month in Washington. 

Would someone please explain to me: why are all these governments holding “prayer breakfasts” in the first place? Isn’t there a law against this type of thing?

I seem to recall it, it’s one of those old arcane things, still on the books, but… oh, now I remember, it’s called the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t just prohibit the establishment of a (particular) religion, it prohibits the establishment of religion, period. That means no mixing of government and religion, or pandering to religion. It’s a slippery slope you know; you let them in the door for breakfast, or to start soup kitchens, and before you know it, they are starting the Crusades, 12.0., a.k.a. Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL), oops, I forgot, they changed that to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).

So, rather than squabbling over who said what, or who got invited, shouldn’t we be objecting to the events themselves? They events are, after all, merely forms of payback to faith-based special interests for their political support — and coordinating events for future political support. Just imagine if Obama, or the Mayor of Los Angles, tried to hold such a breakfast for the leaders of any other such large constituency, say a “Fraternal Organization’s Breakfast.” It would be seen for exactly what it was — a political event, pandering, payback, and campaigning on the public dime.

Neocon Rehab

As a reformed Republican who stopped drinking the neocon kool-aid served up by the Beltway Right, I’d like to invite all fellow Republicans seeking salvation from the neocon controlled GOP establishment to Political Class Dismissed (PCD) for rehabilitation. I speak of the very same neocon-centric establishment which ran Dubya’s administration into the ground and gave us President-Elect Barry. They’ve failed you and it’s time to try something different.

Here at PCD, we’ll start your rehab sessions off with healthy doses of traditional conservative views on foreign policy that are grounded in reality and the U.S. Constitution. I understand that it’ll be difficult at first but our relentless Obama bashing will help ease the process. Forget the neocons! They used you and are now Barry’s biggest fans. With each passing day, Obama’s administration is looking more and more like the progressive warmongers that PCD predicted. And remember: neocons are former leftists. They’re actually more at home with Barry & the gang anyway.