Posted on 04/25/2010 1:00:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Most Americans are unaware but a Constitutional Crisis of immense proportions looms in our near future, and the early shots have already been fired. No, I’m not referring to the Obama birth certificate controversy; I’m referring to the fundamental battle for freedom and liberty based on the uniquely American experiment of Federalism. Federalism is the sharing of power between a federal government and the various state governments, and this foundation is at the very heart of the battle.
Through recent actions, the federal government has demonstrated that absolute power is its sole desire. They have ignored the message delivered through tea parties and have now directly engaged in political battles with state governments empowered by their citizenry. If “we the people” lose these battles, ALL power will centralize in Washington D.C. and the dynamics of our free country will rapidly change from a government that serves the people to a government that dictates to the people. The crisis ultimately revolves around this question:
“Who decides the constitutionality of a federal law?”
The most visible battle centers around the unconstitutional health care bill passed in March 2010. But as this one proceeds, there are other Constitutional battles cueing up in the pipeline. Many states where the population embraces freedom have begun to draft legislation that challenges federal authority on matters that the federal government has already overstepped their authority; and, proactive states are preparing legislation in preparation for future offenses. Some examples of these battles:
* Federal Health Care legislation designed to redistribute wealth and make states and people massively dependent on the federal government
* Federal Cap and Trade legislation designed to foster more state dependence of federal funds by making them insolvent through excessive taxation
* Federal Amnesty legislation designed to increase the voter base for federal level redistribution schemes.
* Federal Financial Reform legislation designed to acquire more economic power at the federal level to use a coercive tools against states and the people
* State Firearm Legislation that denies federal authority over firearms produced within a states; this is designed to proactively challenge the federal governments grasp on firearm laws by eliminating the “commerce clause” argument.
Each one of these battles between states and federal governments will test the very foundation of federalism upon which our great country has prospered in relative political, economic, and individual freedom. If the pillar of Federalism is to fall, the entire house of cards of the American experiment will fall with it, and a centralized authority will be formed. Your children’s future will be sealed as servants to corrupt politicians in Washington D.C.
Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?
The first question that must be resolved is “will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?” Almost half of the state governments are participating in a lawsuit claiming that the health care bill is unconstitutional. One of the multiple points of contention has to do with the federal governments new power to force a private citizen, under penalty of law, to purchase a product; clearly unconstitutional and something that has never been demanded by federal law before.
This is the federal court’s chance to clearly reassert the state’s constitutionally empowered jurisdiction and put the federal government back under the chains of federalism as defined by the Constitution. If they are willing and able to do this in no uncertain terms, we may still avoid a full constitutional crisis. If, on the other hand, the federal court sides with the federal legislators, then they will have missed the golden opportunity to restore stability and liberty to this country and will have placed us on a road to a government of absolute power.
Past rulings indicate that judges are, as Jefferson warned, simply people too; with political ambitions and a willingness to apply arbitrary opinions over rule-of-law. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the most recent Supreme Court appointee, publically argued the merits of rulings based on social justice over rule-of-law. Can an idea be any more dangerous to liberty than that?
In the 1942 case Wikard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat, on his own property, for his own consumption, is subject to federal laws. The ruling was based on a laughable “commerce clause” interpretation that claimed that since the farmer was NOT participating in interstate commerce then the farmer affected interstate commerce. This kind of circular thinking was used to steal the freedom and liberty from this farmer so that federal power might be increased. It was an impossible step of logic, but rulings like this are used as a precedent for incredible interpretations of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
What precedent is set if the health care legislation is deemed constitutional and the federal government immediately acquires “constitutional” power to mandate private citizen purchases? No doubt, this precedent will be used to force you to purchase all kinds of products that “partner” corporations might offer. What warped definition of “liberty” encompasses this concept?
We can hope the federal courts make the correct ruling here, but this one is simply out of our hands.
Who has the final say on the constitutionality of federal laws?
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the federal government and deems an obviously unconstitutional law to be constitutional then tensions between the states and the federal government will increase significantly. At this point, the Constitutional crisis will expose its head for all to see, and the fundamental question at the heart of it all is:
“Who decides the constitutionality of a federal law?”
The constitution does not answer this question. The precedent is that the Supreme Court rules on these. But, what happens when “we the people” judge the Supreme Court to be part of the problem?
First, consider that the common idea is that the Supreme Court offers the final say on constitutional. This is partially true given past history and other Supreme Court rulings. But take notice that historically the Supreme Court assumed this power for itself; it was not allocated through the Constitution. This power of final authority was first considered with Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and accrued through other cases presided over by Supreme Court Justice Marshal, a well-known champion of centralized federal power. It’s easy to see the conflict of interest when a federal judicial branch deems itself to hold absolute authority over the constitutionality of federal laws and federal executive actions. Over time a federal court will become more and more emboldened to ignore the states and “we the people” and rule in favor of more centralized federal power.
It is important to realize that the Constitution is silent on this and does not provide the answer. This was intentional, because on all matters “we the people” are the final authority. Giving the federal judicial branch the supreme power of determination institutionalizes an obvious danger to freedom and liberty. This danger was described by Jefferson:
“….To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”
In 1798, Jefferson and Madison authored the Virginian and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition acts. The resolution argued that unconstitutional federal bills that became federal law were null and void and of no effect. According to Jefferson and Madison, states were to be the ultimate arbiter on which laws were constitutional and which were not. By nullifying unconstitutional laws state governments need not ask permission of federal courts to govern their sovereign states.
The Crisis Resolved
So, what’s it going to be?
Freedom through decentralized government in which the people and the states determine the constitutionality of federal laws. With this choice, federalism is restored and sovereign states each govern themselves locally through rule-of-law.
Or, servitude to a centralized government in which all three federal branches work together to pass laws, enforce laws, and judge their own laws constitutional. With this choice, the Constitution and federalism are destroyed, absolute power is centralized and rule-of-men will dominate law.
This question is ultimately answered by the will of the people. We will decide and it will have immeasurable impact on our country’s future.
btt
You can bet Obama’s goal is to destroy the 10th amendment. His thugs are already calling Constitutionalists, Tenthers. Like birthers, tenthers will be thought as kooks and loons along with racists. It’s already started. If you want to uphold the Constitution you will be destroyed by Obama.
I was thinking about the new spin on HCR Obama and his thugs have been weaving in the media. I think they are doing it because they figured out there are flaws in the bill that are Unconstitutional and if they don’t put a different spin on it, the bill can be repealed. So they don’t really want to imprison anyone and the IRS agents are there to GIVE you money, not take if from you.
Excellent post. I agree and see a huge crisis ahead and hope and pray Amerika wises up and understands the Constitution soon - they clearly do NOT follow the constitution right now.
We all know the left, the entire Dem congress and the MSM do NOT use the constitution for their guide.
What I don’t get is why our side does not EVER ask them in front of a camera, “if you dislike the constitution so much, what specific items in it are unfair?”
The birth certificate is an issue, but won’t likely come out until after Obama is gone.
Who is kidding who here?
Under Chairman Mao were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Under Josef Stalin were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Under Pol Pot were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Under Louis XVI were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Who exactly declares what the "will of the people" is anyway? The Media? The opinion Polls? The government census?
THe US Constitution can be reinterpreted any way a sufficiently conspiratorial Legal Party wants. In exactly the same way the Bible could be reinterpreted in any way the Medieval Clergy wanted.
The Soviet Union had regular real elections; just all representing the same Party.
We are dealing with Power play, police power. Rahm Emmanuel understands that, it's just that the feckless 75% of American females, and the feckless 50% of American males do not. Living in LaLa Land.
How obvious is it that, besides the Tea Party, America has abandoned its independent Soul? Just like a hundred other fat, spoiled, tired, avaricious, fearful, societies have in past world history.
Johnny Suntrade
Repeal the 14th Amendment and the problem is solved.
The 2nd Amendment trumps ALL.
"In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
See http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Lectures/RWU_Curb_the_Courts.pdf
What Good Can A Handgun Do Against an Army...?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2312894/posts?page=242
Lord, help us.
The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS ALL THE REST!
Plus, I do add, gun sales I have noticed in the last year or two have GONE THROUGH THE ROOF!
Thankfully, most are CONSERVATIVE as far as the armed forces is conerned.
The crisis can be boiled down to this: The federal government, i.e. Congress, POTUS, and much of the federal courts, believe that the “interstate commerce clause” and the “general health and welfare clause” were written to give the federal government virtually unlimited power. Until we re-establish that the federal government has grossly abused their powers and we reign them in it will continue.
Every person reading this should also read the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. They will give you a concept of what our union is about.
How so? It's the New Deal Commerce Clause that has allowed Congress to control health care, education, the environment, welfare, etc.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Minor v. Happersett, an 1875 case dealing with citizenship: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
This was repeated by two other chief justices and in over a dozen supreme court cases. It has never been contravened. Only a constitutional amendment or a coup can change its meaning. If we give up articles of the Constitution because a vocal few call us names, we have shown we haven't the courage to defend freedom.
Every other transgression of the Constitution must be addressed, but if this clear violation is not addressed, every other transgression is moot. Obama does not have the authority of the Constitution. He is counting upon citizens to tire of insisting upon an issue which he has done a good job of obscuring with hidden documents and the clever Alinsky tactic (hardly original, but effective) of ridicule. More are afraid of being called “Birthers” than of losing their freedoms.
One phenomenon of the current “regime” should be clear; no front is ever off the table. He attacked health care while working on owning the financial industry while proceeding on amnesty for illegals while proceeding on VAT taxes while proceeding on cap and trade while proceeding to driving Israel into the sea for his PLO dinner companion and Harvard sponsors Rashid Khalidi, Whalid bin Talal and al Mansour. Obama's ineligibility remains a fact regardless of whatever insult he adds to our Constitutional foundation. The left counts upon our having a short and shallow memory. Few in our legal establishment were ever taught about Article II, because it was almost never relevant to litigation. We will prove them wrong because we see our freedom to thrive being subjugated.
It isn't about a nonexistent birth certificate; it is about being born of an alien and a subject of the British Commonwealth, a fact asserted by Obama himself many times, which makes him ineligible. If the court doesn't respect the Constitution nothing else they take on can be trusted. The justices are simply keeping their jobs at the pleasure of the Prince, and their “decisions” will be controlled, as they are now, by the executive and legislative branches.
When Obammy shows his face in Arizona will he be arrested as an illegal alien? Will leos do their duty?
The first sentence in Art.III sec.2 cl.2 reads:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Having said that, why would you want a congressional check on the courts in the first place? The courts are supposed to serve as a check on the improper exercise of power by Congress. By endorsing the New Deal Commerce Clause, SCOTUS has failed in its duty to reign in Congress. Congress is the initial bad actor here.
Great post!! This administration is hell bent on getting rid of that messy 10th that stands in their way.
Repeal of the 19th Amendment would probably do the same.
I’ve been leaning that way myself.
If they say you’re a Tenther, tell them that’s true, but that you’re also a Firster, a Seconder, a Thirder, and so on. Then ask them what they are.
Ann Coulter suggested it a few years ago.
I’ve heard a couple of women suggest it on Rush’s show.
“why would you want a congressional check on the courts in the first place?”
What you or I want is irrelevant, it is in the Constitution and is the law of the land.
Before responding, try reading: http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Lectures/RWU_Curb_the_Courts.pdf
You are correct that two centuries of "judicial review" are to our Constitution as the Talmud is to the Torah.
The Constitution in Article V provides a way - the only way - for it to be modified, but the statists have found an alternative pathway through Federal court precedents.
The Tenth Amendment holds the key to reversal, IF state governments are willing to act.
>>Repeal the 14th Amendment and the problem is solved.
>
>Repeal of the 19th Amendment would probably do the same.
“End Women’s Suffrage”?
They KNOW we won't burst.
We shall burst when the line is crossed. . .
America -- a great idea, didn't last.
Your post is beautifully written.
I don't see how they will be proven wrong. Every firewall on Obama's quest for the White House has been breached. Not even one person in the Judicial, Legislative, or Executive branches stood up and said, "STOP!" And...Both the Marxist and conservative media were dead on arrival.
No court yet has ruled on the evidence because the claim that the petitioners have "no standing".
What has been bitterly disappointing to me is the silence from our so-called "conservative" media.
That 40 to 50% of the population know that Obama may not be eligible and have serious questions about it is AMAZING! That the news has spread through the population is entirely due to word of mouth and the Internet.
If we give up articles of the Constitution because a vocal few call us names, we have shown we haven't the courage to defend freedom.....More are afraid of being called “Birthers” than of losing their freedoms.
Unfortunately, the very people in the so-called "conservative" with the most power to bring the issue to the American people are SILENT or ( worse) use Democrat talking points to mock those who are concerned about Obama's eligibility.
Rush Limbaugh wrote, "I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution,.." He wrote this in an essay, "Liberals and the Violence Card", published Friday in the Wall Street Journal.
What a HYPOCRIT! Rush's heart is bleeding all over the Constitution and, yet, he has managed to say almost NOTHING about Obama's eligibility. And..No, I do not think 2 minutes worth of jokes is defending the Constitution!
Other talk show hosts have been cruel. Beck, OReilly, Coulter, and Medved have been outright insulting.
I simultaneously hold contempt, disgust, and disappointment in the conservative yappers who claim to have allegiance to our Constitution. They are either phonies and/or cowards! Surely I can't be alone in my assessment of them. In this regard, Obama has had a great big Alinksky win! He has succeeded in sowing doubt among the listeners, viewers, and readers, of the conservative media.
If these so-called conservative yappers are phonies, then when tyranny comes they will sell their talents to the fascist oligarchy. They will spit shine the jack boots crushing our necks.
If they are cowards, the time to expose Obama the Fraud is **NOW**!! Why? Because...
**The fascist oligarchy will throw them off the air ANYWAY!
**The fascist oligarchy will steal their money ANYWAY!
**The fascist Oligarchy will carry out their treats against them and their families ANYWAY!
** The fascist oligarchy will expose their deepest darkest secrets ANYWAY!
Please read Spaulding’s post #20.
One thing that confuses me is the following - in a republic we elect the president, vice President, senators and Congress. The President nominates a judge that is to be approved by the senate confirmation hearing process. Yet the same judges have the right to say that people of the US have no right to bring something to court because they have no standing. Out tax dollars to the federal government enable the federal government to pay bills and so forth, yet the federal government cannot stay within a budget a goes into deficits.
Why is that the judges say that the people have no standing when something like Obama’s birth certificate is repeatedly brought to court. The claim that the court system cannot remove a sitting president from the branch of executive government. Why in hell is there a court system when the executive branch is stepping over the bounds of its powers.
the people have elected these officials and the same officials appointed the judges into the court. It sounds rather convulted in that the people vote, the voted in appoint and the appointed than tell the people whom vote that they have no ability to question those whom have voted and appointed. It sounds like the people whom vote have more power than those voted in and the appointed. The courts should be the checks and balances in regard to abuses of power. How much more money has to expended for the Obama proof of citizenship.
I served in the military, was injured in the military and received disability from the military. Throughout the entire process my birth certificate had to be prduced. Yet the democratic party really never endorsed Obama as a legitimate candidate for president because much of DC knows that Obama is not eligible to be the president because his father was not an American national but a British subject. How can a president have dual citizenship and allegiance be with the US and Great Britain. How can he have traveled to Pakistan in 1980 when Pakistan was a forbidden country to enter with a US passport.
The court system sounds more confused than the country to begin with.
FUCW
The author is correct. There is A LOT going on, all at once. Never seen the air so full of fire....
We must all obey the rulings of the U.S.Supreme Court.
Such as the Dredd-Scott Decision.
If Congress has an option to regulate the Courts in this matter, then constituent opinions would indeed be relevant. But SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party, so I don't think Congress has a say.
Let me ask this. Suppose you're right and Congress could regulate the judicial process here. Why would any opponent of Obamacare want Congress to exercise their constitutional option and become involved?
The Commerce Clause did not appear during the New Deal. It was part of the original accord. What happened in the New Deal is that the Supreme Court knuckled under to FDR and twisted its meaning beyond recognition enabling the Federal Government almost unlimited powers in the name of regulating "Interstate Commerce".
Prior to the 14th Amendment the States had the obligation to reject such encroachments on their Sovereignty. But the 14th Amendment declares in essence the Federal Government supreme over the States. And the Supreme Court and its absurd rulings are part of the Federal Government.
So the fundamental problem of an unconstrained Federal Government began during Reconstruction not the New Deal. And it is going to take the repeal of the Reconstruction era Amendments to restore the intended balance. In particular the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th Amendments. That would be a good start.
I'm okay with female suffrage.
But I would make it a lot harder for everyone to vote. For example, to vote should require one to register, in person showing photo ID prior to every election. No automatic registration.
So nobody would be prevented from registering to vote. But the process should be difficult enough that only those interested enough to appear in person multiple times should be allowed the franchise.
As an added benefit this would be the ultimate campaign finance reform. There would be not point raising the money to buy the worthless ads to try to sway the basically disinterested. And government accountability would be greatly increased if the only people qualified to vote were those who paid attention all the time rather than just a few weeks before an election every four years.
But more importantly, repeal of the 15th Amendment resolves the problem by returning the power to manage elections to the States.
Excellent post.
I understand your confusion given where we are today, but this is completely contrary to the construction of the United States and silly on the face of it.
The Constitution empowers the Congress to create the Federal Courts, but specifies little else about them. The Congress under the Constitution has the power to dissolve the Federal Courts if it so chose. So how can the Federal Courts be the "checks and balances" on the system?
The source of the confusion is a failure to recognize that the Federal Constitution was never designed to operate in a vacuum. It was designed to operate in the context of a union of Sovereign States. This ended with Reconstruction when the power of the States was eviscerated by the radical Republicans of the day.
Do you honestly think that the Founders of the American Republic would empower the Justices of the Supreme Court, who do not even answer to the people to be the guarantors of the nations liberties? The suggestion is absurd on the face of it.
No, no branch of the Federal Government is ever going to be a check on the power of the Federal Government, least of all the Federal Courts. This is a myth created by the power mad fools that populate the nation's capitol. And the idea that the descent into tyranny can be prevented solely by a separation of powers at the Federal level is equally silly.
The separation of powers at the Federal level was designed to keep the Federal government subordinate to the Sovereign States. But without the sovereignty of the States there is no real constraint on Federal power. And that is why we are in such danger today.
That's like saying the Commerce Clause declares fedgov supreme. It is Congress and the Courts who have not honored the original understanding of either the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment. That is no reason to repeal them.
The best summary I have seen on the original understanding of the 14th Amendment is Justice Thomas's dissent in Saenz v Roe.
I don't know why they call it Women's Suffrage. Don't men suffer in rage right now? Reinstate the poll tax. Oh, that's what Obamacare does. Of course, that's only for people who work.
Shorten the First Amendment to "Congress shall pass no law." Then repeal the whole bloody mess. Or nullify it. Or laugh at it, while making Congress pay out of their own pockets.
Back in the 1790s, a law was passed making it a crime to debase the currency, which at the time was gold and silver. Hasn't every Congress since 1912 done that? The penalty on that law was death. Does anyone know if it is still on the books?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.