Skip to comments.There Ought To Be a Law Against Making So Many Laws
Posted on 06/14/2012 6:38:58 AM PDT by Aspenhuskerette
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.
Those words were written by James Madison in 1788 in The Federalist, a series of essays intended to promote the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and were intended to assure a skeptical nation, fresh from its revolutionary separation from England, that the proposed Constitution would strictly limit the powers of a new federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at aspentimes.com ...
Statutes do not trump law...
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.
Anything not in Art 1 Sec 8, the FedGov isn't supposed to do. Anything not protected by the BoR, or previously assigned to the FedGov by Art 1 Sec 8, is up to the State and it's citizens.
At least, that is how it is SUPPOSED to work. When you start ignoring things like Art 1 Sec 8, or Art 6 para 2, or "shall not be infringed"... Anything goes.
He mentions "in time we must repeal hundreds if not thousands of laws" if we are to regain our freedom. This is the problem. It's NEVER going to happen through normal legislative process. Laws of any scope are rarely EVER repealed and somehow we are going to do this by the hundreds or thousands?
It will never happen and thus we will NEVER regain our freedom if we frivolously continue to fight these laws and regulations one at a time.
My opinion is it's time for a Constitutional Convention. If you are interested in this topic there is great information at
Download the .pdf it's a great educational read
At the Municipal level. Clearly too many laws are in force. A log jam of new statutes being agitated for by citizens in every city.
I blame my neighbors for both the overreaching of Federal power, and the perpetual demand from citizens that the municipalities “fix” the person next to them.
If coddled gubment school, risk adverse pathetic shadows of men did not ask for new laws at every level of governance, we would not be afflicted with a veritable Egyptian plagues of laws, statutes and regulations.
I have never asked for a new law. I have lobbied against laws. But Lawmakers make their bones making law. That’s what they do. It’s like asking a sausage maker to stop making sausage.
So the infrastructure for making laws must be weak. The people must be strong and independent. We don’t live in that world.
Just overturning Wickard v Filburn would take care of thousands of regulations and several agencies.
In today’s world of politically correct dumbed down education systems, and the rarity of meaningful historical study, the prescience of the Founders’ insight and wisdom would seem almost mystical to younger generations. If that were any longer a course of study.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
— George Santayana in ‘The Life of Reason’
This’ll make you puke:
Probably better than half of the expansion of government is based on misuse and utter perversion of the Commerce Clause.
My opinion is it should be eliminated completely. The free market will do it's job just fine.
Of course you do not expect the corruptocracy to cancel their means to empowerment at our sovereignty expense.
Congress would do well to comb through the rooms full of laws and begin to reduce them by about 500 per year, until the books of laws is reduced to one shelf.
It’s not the number of laws, it is that the idiots in DC never leave and have to live under them. I wish we had term limits and make those politicians obey every law and then we would have many less for us to uphold.
Think abut who would be invited to that convention and ask yourself if that’s really a good idea.
No, we need to keep it, but apply it as originally intended. It gives the federal government the authority to prevent individual States from enacting protectionist laws that interfere with the free market.
You don’t need or want a constitutional Convention, you only need to go back and learn the history of our governments gradual theft of our freedoms.
We are all born as Sovereign citizens over the Federal Government and you are still sovereign today.
So ask yourself how it is that the government has power over you now??? It’s because you have surrendered your sovereignty voluntarily.
Our rights are still there, but you must take them back yourself because the government sure azz h-ll isn’t going to just give them back to you.
You have been “deceived” into accepting “Benifits”, and as a result you have entered into “contract” with the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA inc” and thus are bound by their rules.
These videos will begin to explain a lot if you listen carefully to what they are saying.
Act of 1871
“That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation”
These videos may be easier to follow:
Then watch these videos below. They should explain the difference between an ‘American citizen’ and a ‘US [statuatory 14th amendment] citizen’:
Then go here and read:
I hope this is enough to peak your curiousity to learn more
Natural Law? Enumerated Powers?
These two concepts form the basis of our Federal system. 99.99% of the idiotocracy won’t understand what you are talking about. If they did understand the concepts they would never support them at the ballot box.
The civil war settled the question of State Sovereignty and FDR and his courts destroyed what was left of the constraints on Federal Power.
The “greatest generation” fought WWII and came back believing the Federal Government was the premier force for good in the world. So they wanted it powerful enough to do good.
So here we are. You can’t put it back in the box.
In short, government tends to grow. The constitution provides a framework for that growth, but has the flaw that the only way for major “pruning” to be done to that growth is via a constitutional convention, or a revolution.
This problem has been exacerbated by the 17th Amendment, which took away from the states any control they have through the US senate, to limit federal growth. But since senators adore this lack of oversight by their states, they will never agree to repeal the 17th Amendment.
So a way to go to the heart of the problem, to create a safe way of pruning federal power, is to create a sitting body representing the state legislatures, as a permanent pruning mechanism. Unlike a risky constitutional convention, they cannot add to federal law, they can only subtract from it.
The way to do this is to create a “Second Court of the United States”, superior to the Federal District Courts but inferior to the Supreme Court, which will act as a check on them.
This 2nd Court will not be a federal court, however, but will be composed of two, state legislature (strictly, no democratic vote allowed) appointed state judges, on terms parallel with their two senators.
In that it is not a federal court, it will not determine the *constitutionality* of court cases appealed from the Federal District Courts, but their *jurisdiction*. If they should have been federal cases in the first place, or if they should be returned to the individual states for them to decide.
Otherwise, the 2nd Court would have original jurisdiction over all lawsuits between the states and the federal government. This would mean that the states, not the federal bench, would decide such cases first.
So how does this prune the federal government?
To start with, there are a large number of federal judges who can “federalize” local and state court cases simply by deciding there is a federal issue involved. This has resulted in an enormous amount of “legislation from the bench”. But there is no mechanism for such cases to be “de-federalized”, as “not within federal authority”.
So the 2nd Court can read the opinions about the constitutional arguments from the lower federal appeals courts, yet reach their own determination as to whether what is being argued is a federal issue, or a state issue.
Some 8,000 cases a year are appealed to the SCOTUS, which instead would first go to the 2nd Court. And since the SCOTUS can only decide a fraction of those 8,000 cases, those it rejected would *first* be returned to the decision of the 2nd Court. Only if the 2nd Court had decided that it was a federal matter, would the case be returned to the decision of the Federal District Court from which it arose.
The end result would be a LOT less “legislation from the bench”. It could also wipe out vast amounts of “federal precedent”, by effectively saying, “We don’t care how long the federal courts have been hearing these cases. They just are not federal issues, so leave them to the states to decide.”
Just as importantly, lawsuits between the federal government and the states are very burdensome. They must be heard by several appeals courts in a time and money consuming process, but all too often must be decided by the SCOTUS.
So by sending such lawsuits to the 2nd Court first, the states could both tell the federal government to “back off”, or even sue over federal impositions that have been around for decades.
I truly doubt the states would agree that the Interstate Commerce Clause applies to intrastate commerce as well, nor that the General Welfare Clause means that the federal government can create a welfare state. No matter *what* Nancy Pelosi thinks.
Importantly, in this way it would be acting like a “safe” constitutional convention. That is, if a simple majority of judges (51) decided to overturn a federal law, the SCOTUS could overrule them. But if 3/4ths (76) of the 2nd Court decided to overturn a federal law, the SCOTUS could not overturn their decision, because it would be, in effect a constitutional change, but without changing the constitution.
I fully agree that 90% of the people today are either too stupid or too stubborn to believe anythig that I posted.
All I can do is educate those who wish to learn the truth.
Reserving your rights is entirely up to you, but rest assured the Supreme has confirmed your right to do so.
In accordance with the following U.S. Supreme Court case:
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Thus, be it known to all that I reserve my natural common law right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled and pretended “benefit” of any hidden or unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.
Then there is this one:
This position is in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Brady v. U.S., 379 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970):
“Waivers of Constitutional Rights not only must be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts, done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and consequences.”
That was the original idea and 200 years ago it was likely needed. Today no state could do this as they would be crushed by competition. As far as applying as originally inteded, well that's the system we have now and we now have the federal government taking the position that individual citizens NOT buying something is interstate commerce and thus can be regulated.
The government has NO INTENTION on ever applying the interstate commerce clause as it was intended. The safest bet to freedom is to eliminate this as a power of the federal government.
Bottom line: The LESS power the federal government has the better off we are going to be. Whatever risks are involved in leaving interstate commerce to the states will be offset a hundred fold by the return of liberty to the states and the individual.
The "competition" would be other States, and they would answer with their own trade laws. History records that under the original Articles of Confederation, trade sanctions between states soon crippled interstate commerce, to the detriment of all. I wouldn't be too sure they couldn't find a way to do it all again if there was no mechanism in place to stop it. This was considered a "must have" by the attendees of the convention. They saw the results first-hand, and I think it would be unwise, if not downright arrogant, to say that we're too smart to ever do it again.
Poeple will do lots of things they never intended to do if the alternative is unpleasant enough.
Yes, people like Scott Walker would be invited.
This country is made up primarily of limited government conservative people. Just take a look at the red and blue map. Most of this country is RED. That's why this IS a good idea. The Convention would be dominated by red state limited government delegates. See the libs make up only about 20 percent but they control 90 percent of the government bureaucracy this is the reason why we are losing freedom.
We don't have a balanced budget amendment because the libs Won't allow the American people to vote on the issue. They know it would pass by a huge margin. They will NEVER put term limits on the table because they know the people would impose them. We will never get a rewrite of the commerce clause because they KNOW the American people would limit or eliminate it.
The current condition of hugely expanding out of control government that REFUSES to vote to limit it's power is THE VERY REASON the founders added the option for the states to call a convention. It's not only time it's way past time and even that may be running out.
Yes, that's the problem. The alternative is not unpleasant at all! Do you think Harry reid is living these unpleasantries? No he's not and I can tell you none of our elected officials are. They have no fear of losing their jobs, their power, their elite status, their private tables at DCs finest restaurants, and on and on.
I'm not dead set on elimination but we would need wording that would protect states but eliminate the huge number of government beauracracies and thousands of laws and regulations based on the perverted interpretation of the clause. This will NEVER be put to a vote outside of a Constitutional Convention.
For every Scott Walker invited there will be one John McCain / Lindsey Graham AND one Howard Dean / Dick Durbin / Harry Reid. As you said, the libs control 90% of the government. When it comes to who attends the Con. Convention, they’d do their level best (worst?) to ensure the deck is stacked in their favor. If you don’t think that’s the case, I’m sorry but we’re just going to disagree.
I agree about the rest of what you had to say about balanced budget, term limits etc...
Lastly, wouldn’t you rather have the relatively brief brilliance of the Constitution we have now rather than a 2000 page monstrosity which would be the output of a Constitutional Convention held today? As much as I appreciate people like Walker, Demint or Palin, I trust the wisdom of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin more.
That being said most of the fear is deliberately put forth by the statists.
In other words, they (libs) can't stack the deck in a convention. Just as they would have no chance to defeat an amendment imposing term limits or a balanced budget. They way they defeat these reforms is to NOT ALLOW the people to vote on them. This is really the only purpose of a CC is to propose amendments and allow a vote by the people in situations where the government itself (congress) will NOT allow an amendment to come to a vote.
It's a myth that a CC would draft huge changes. It's very limited scopy by definition.
We would simply propose a clearly worded balanced budget amendment, term limits, strict limit or removal of the commerce clause. Then the amendments go to a vote by the states.
This is where the libs lose this battle everytime and they know it. This is why a balanced budget amendment is blocked by the Dems every step of the way. They KNOW it passes if the people get to vote. The CC just takes Harry Reid and the rest of the tyrants out of the equation and allows the people to vote.
If the libs somehow stacked the deck at the convention (which they can't as they are heavily outnumbered) and created an amendment that increases government power and says all money is owned by the government then obviously there is no way the states would vote to ratify it.
The problem we have now is WE are outnumbered in the halls of congress and they (both republicans and democrats) have no intention on allowing a vote that would greatly reduce their power.