Blog

RESOLUTION PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court - caricatures

Written and Proposed by Diane Rufino

RESOLUTION PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SUPREME COURT

An amendment to replace the States’ influence in the federal government since the 17th Amendment was adopted.

“…If no remedy of the abuse be practicable under the forms of the Constitution, I should prefer a resort to the Nation for an amendment of the Tribunal itself.”  — James Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1832

 

AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:

Whereas, “The Creator has made the earth for the living, not for the dead.  Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things.”  (Thomas Jefferson).  Rights and powers do not originate or belong to a government, unless that power is exercised for the People – on behalf of them – and NOT against them;

Whereas, the several States, by a compact under the style and title “Constitution for the United States,” and of amendments thereto, voluntarily constituted a general government for special common purposes;

Whereas, the several States are parties to the compact (Constitution), with the people of said States acting in their own conventions to consider, debate, deliberate, and ratify it;

Whereas, our government structure is predicated on separation of powers between the States, as sovereigns, and the federal government, which is sovereign with respect to certain responsibilities;

Whereas, this separation of powers, known as federalism, is a critical feature of our government system, intended to safeguard the “precious gem” of individual liberty by limiting government overreach;

Whereas, there is no provision in the Constitution nor any grant of delegated power by which the States can be said to have (willingly or intentionally) surrendered their sovereignty, for it is clear that no State would have ratified the document and the Union would not have been established;

Whereas, the States were too watchful to leave the opportunity open to chance and using an abundance of caution, insisted that a series of amendments be added, including the Tenth Amendment, as a condition of ratification and formation of the Union;

Whereas, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights expressed the unambiguous intention of those amendments, and 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 insure the beneficent ends of its institution”;

Whereas, that relationship between the states and the federal government is defined by the Tenth Amendment, which reads:  “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”;

Whereas, the critical relationship has been eroded through the many Supreme Court decisions which have transferred power from the States to the federal government in order to enlarge its sphere of influence;

Whereas, the federal government has made itself the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, and as such, its need for power and its discretion – and not the Constitution – have been guiding those decisions.

Whereas, the federal government has created for itself an absolute monopoly over the possession and scope of its powers and has consistently assumed powers it wasn’t meant to have – misappropriating them from the States and from the People;

Whereas, the federal government has used said monopoly to change the nature of the Constitution and redefine its terms without using the lawful route, Article V;

Whereas, the particular security of the people is in the possession of a written and stable Constitution. The branches of the federal government have made it a blank piece of paper by construction;

Whereas, the federal government, through the consolidation and concerted action of its branches and said monopoly, the government has created a government that is bloated, vested with illegitimate powers, coercive, wasteful, corrupt, and out of touch with the People, is one in which less than a quarter of the people have trust in, and most importantly, is one that poses serious threats to the exercise of the freedoms that Americans are promised;

Whereas, the right of judging on infractions of inherent powers is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty which cannot be denied to the States, and therefore they must be allowed to do so;

Whereas, the States need a voice directly in the federal government in order to break up its monopoly and to serve as the only effective check to prevent unconstitutional laws from being enforced;

Therefore, in order to reverse the unintended concentration of power in the federal government and in order to divest it of powers it has misappropriated and assumed for the past 200 years

And Therefore, in order to replace the States’ influence in the federal government since the 17th Amendment was adopted, to recognize their sovereign right to meaningfully defend their sphere of power embodied in the Tenth Amendment, and to have them, as the parties who created and adopted the Constitution and from which the government’s powers derived, be the tribunal which offers the opinions of constitutionality, the following amendment is proposed to alter the make-up of the Supreme Court:

  • The Supreme Court’s membership will increase from 9 to 50. This way, citizens don’t incur the outrage that comes from a decision handed down by a mere 9 mortals, each motivated like other politicians with politics, legacy, passions, opinions, prejudices, personal preferences, ideology, etc., or the more outrageous situation of a 5-4 decision.]
  • Justices to the Supreme Court will be assigned by the States. Each state will select one justice to the Court. That justice will be selected by the particular state legislature (or popular referendum).
  • Justices selected by each state MUST have a documented history of adherence to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution and MUST have cited supporting documentation for its meaning and intent, including the Federalist Papers and the debates in the various state ratifying conventions. [Any change to the Constitution, including to reflect “modern times,” must be in the form of an amendment].
  • Justices can serve an unlimited term, but that term can be shortened upon a showing of incompetence, disloyalty to the state, or by violating the previous provision.
  • Justices will require each law passed by Congress to be prefaced with the particular grant of delegated Constitutional power which grants legal authority for that law. [Having 50 justices will allow the Court to render an initial opinion on the constitutionality of each piece of legislation, thus giving Congress the opportunity to be more cautious and responsible with its office.]
  • The first task of the newly-seated Supreme Court will be to review the federal budget for spending that is not constitutional. The analysis will be used to remind Congress what are the constitutional objects of spending, to adjust federal taxation, and to help return policy-making and legislative power to the states.
  • The next task of the newly-seated Supreme Court will be to invalidate all federal mandates (*) and eliminate all funding the government uses or plans to give/offer the states through “conditioned” grants or other forms of funding, contractual or otherwise. [Mandates are directly in violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states. With respect to federal grants and other forms of funding, if the government’s budget includes funds to “bribe” the states and otherwise attempt to influence state policy or planning, then it clearly overtaxes. Bribing the states or otherwise paying for any of its internal functions or projects is not one of the objects for which Congress can tax and spend under the Constitution. Such funding will end and the reduced federal tax rate will allow the states themselves to tax according to their own schemes to fund their own projects.]
  • The Supreme Court’s new membership will establish new constitutional law jurisprudence. They not be bound by any previous court decision and will agree to establish continuity in jurisprudence only among their own decisions.
  • Congress will not attempt to limit jurisdiction on this newly-organized Supreme Court in an attempt to frustrate the intent of this amendment.
  • Because the Constitution is the peoples’ document – their shield against excessive government in their lives and affairs – the justices will honor the rightful expectation that it is firm and unambiguous in its meaning. “The Constitution of a State is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon by the temper of the times, nor to rise and fall with the tide of events; notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immovable, as a mountain amidst the raging of the waves.”  [Justice William Patterson, in Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorance (1795)]. A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed.  The purpose of having a stable and firm constitution is so that when government transgresses its limits, the people can immediately recognize such action. [Thomas Paine].  Any change in the meaning of the US Constitution will be sought through the amendment process provided in Article V.

NULLIFICATION: The Power to Right Constitutional Wrongs

NULLIFICATION - John Greenleaf Whittier (Abolitionist and Nullifier)     by Diane Rufino, July 9, 2015

THOMAS JEFFERSON wondered how the country would respond if its government passed a law that was clearly unconstitutional.

As Secretary of State under George Washington, he had already witnessed the wheels of government trying to enlarge provisions in the Constitution in order to give the administration unchecked powers to tax and spend. Washington established the first national bank. Jefferson knew the trend would continue.

And it did.

John Adams followed Washington and signed the Alien & Sedition Acts into law. The French Revolution had just killed off the monarch and his family, and tensions flared up between the new French republic and its old rival, England. There was an influx of French immigrants, and Americans were split in their support of the old French system or the new republic.

Although the Alien Acts (three of them) were offensive, the Sedition Act that was most glaringly so. It made it a crime, with fines and jail sentences, to “write, print, utter, or publish, OR cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, OR assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States….”

The Constitutional red flags went up at once. While the Alien Acts violated the Tenth Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Sedition Act was a blatant violation of the First Amendment and its guarantee of free speech – most importantly, political speech!

John Adams saw nothing wrong with any of the laws. Neither did his Federalist co-members of government or his Federalist judges.  Thomas Jefferson, the vice president at the time, having garnered the second highest vote total in the election, wasn’t a Federalist. He was a Republican-Democrat, a party he founded.  [Notice that the Sedition Act protected everyone from slander EXCEPT the VP !!].  The checks and balances failed.

Convictions under the Sedition Act quickly followed. Journalists, publishers, and even a congressman, were fined and jailed. Not a single person targeted was a Federalist.

Jefferson and James Madison began corresponding to discuss what should be done to prevent such unconstitutional laws from being enforced. Jefferson identified three possible remedies when a government tries to enforce unconstitutional laws.

(1) Seek an opinion from the Judiciary;

(2) Secession

(3) Nullification.

Jefferson advised against the first two remedies.

He said the first was unpredictable and unreliable. He believed justices were men motivated by the same passions, political motivations, thirst for power and legacy, and opinions as politicians and could not be counted on to be impartial interpreters of the Constitution. He also realized that the judiciary was only one branch of government (the least powerful at the time), and although it would render an opinion, Congress and the president were not required to abide by its ruling. Furthermore, the judges were all Federalists at the time. They were part of the problem.

Jefferson said secession was certainly a legitimate option (after all, the Declaration itself was a secessionist document), but he said it was far too extreme and every effort should be made to keep the union together in a workable fashion.

The third option, he said, was “the rightful remedy.” Nullification, he said, was the remedy inherent in the states’ ratification of the Constitution, inherent in the doctrine of federalism, a remedy grounded in law itself, and the remedy that would allow hot tempers to cool and would prevent states from threatening to leave the Union.

Madison agreed.

Nullification is the doctrine holding that any law made without proper legal authority is immediately null and void and therefore unenforceable. Laws have to be enforced by officials – federal and state. When the federal government passes a law pursuant to its powers, it is supreme and binding. When the federal government passes a law that it has no authority to make – such as the Sedition Act – the law is by definition null and void. For a government to try to enforce it would be an act of tyranny. (Tyranny is defined as a government that abuses its powers and enforces unpopular laws). Since the law is null and void, no enforcement agency should force the law on the people.

The federal government will never admit its law is unconstitutional or unenforceable, so it is up to the states and the communities (and their enforcement agencies) to prevent such law from being enforced. The states are the rightful parties to stand up for the people against a tyrannical act of government. When the federal government assumes power to legislate that it was not granted in the Constitution, it usurps (or steals it) from its rightful depository, which are either the States or the People.

Every party must jealously guard its sphere of government; it’s bundle of powers. States have their powers of government and people have their rights of self-government (ie, control over their own lives, thoughts, actions, and property). Again, if we look at the Sedition Act, the government under John Adams passed the law by attempting to steal the rights of free speech from the People.

Jefferson ultimately drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and of 1799 for the Kentucky state legislature) and the Madison penned the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. Both states passed their respective resolutions, declaring that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable in their states.

The Virginia Resolutions were especially forceful because they announced that the state of Virginia would take every step possible to prevent the enforcement of the laws on its people.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson wrote:

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, he wrote:

RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy……

In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison wrote:

RESOLVED……. That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

The federal government hates the doctrine of nullification and has used every opportunity to discredit it.  Any doctrine empowering the States is offensive to the feds. It makes them harder to control. But nullification is a fundamental sovereign power reserved to each state. Since the states did not form the Union by unlimited submission to the common government they created, certain powers remain vested in them. Despite what Lincoln and Obama may claim, the states did NOT create, or attempt to create, or even envision creating a “perpetual” Union by ratifying the Constitution.  Those words are merely wishful thinking by despots and revisionists.

The biggest tool the government has in its arsenal to shut down the discussion of nullification is racism.

According to conventional wisdom, nullification is a racist doctrine that was used to help the southern states maintain slavery

Racism invites passion. It questions motives, clouds judgment, obscures facts, and shuts down debate. Racism never dies, according to the government. Racism never dies, according to the irresponsible media. Perhaps it is no coincidence that our current government is fanning the flames once again in history of racism and making sure we are once again defined as a racist nation.

In this time when nullification should be the topic everyone wants to re-address, the countering argument will always be, “Look, they’re trying to go back to the days of slavery or segregation.”

And so, I wanted to write this to emphasize the REAL story of Nullification and the REAL success of nullification.

It wasn’t in light of the Alien & Sedition Acts. It wasn’t the publication of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Most of the other states were controlled by Federalist and fully supported the acts. The others opposing were simply too timid to adopt similar resolutions. In the end, the states didn’t stand up to the federal government as Jefferson and Madison had hoped.

No, the real success story of nullification was in the rejection the Fugitive Slave Laws.

Yes, the American flag, believe it or not, was the official flag of a slave nation for 77 years (1788 – 1865).  Slavery was protected in the United States by the Constitution for those years. Although slave importation had been abolished by the time the Constitution was ratified and the Union was created, the institution itself was still constitutional. Not only was it constitutional, but slaves, as property, were required (by the Constitution) to be returned to their owner, and Congress passed fugitive slave acts to implement fugitive slave rendition. These were draconian laws that denied a black person accused of escaping slavery due process. They also forced every citizen to serve as a slave catcher if called up.

Abolitionists in the North found the fugitive slave acts revolting and fundamentally wrong, not to mention unconstitutional in their denial of due process. Legislatures in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, either outright enacted personal liberty laws that nullified fugitive slave laws in practice, acting to frustrate or otherwise render useless any attempt to enforce them.

Nullification was a very successful way for escaped slaves to finally realize freedom in the North. It’s pretty hard to claim nullification is racist when it served such a public good.

The following video does an amazing job to educate people on the history of nullification and to explain its power to right wrong.

Obama’s Amnesty Plan Compared to the Emancipation Proclamation

AMNESTY     by Diane Rufino

According to Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, President Obama’s plan to excuse the illegal action of millions of immigrants not unlike Abraham Lincoln’s effort to free slaves.  At first I thought it was a joke.  And then I remembered two things: Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and has no sense of humor.

In a press conference on November 20, Nancy Pelosi said: “Does the public know that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?  People have to understand how presidents have made change in our country.”   She continued: “Remember, President Lincoln said, ‘public sentiment is everything… I wish the Republicans would at least give the public a chance to listen to what the president is trying to do.”

Listening to the people is exactly what the President should do….   Maybe he already forgot, but the election this month can be seen as a complete rejection of his policies. Republicans just won complete control of both the House and Senate for the session that will begin in January.  Voters turned out to do what they see as an urgency…. to turn out government leaders who are willing to support the President in his agenda on immigration, healthcare, and more.  The urgency in this election was not to grant amnesty to “fix the immigration problem” but to PREVENT the President from doing so.

Perhaps Nancy Pelosi looked to President Lincoln for a new Democratic talking point because, after all, Lincoln was a tyrant and consolidated executive power to act extraordinarily in extraordinary circumstances. But I question whether our current broken immigration situation amounts to an “extraordinary circumstance.” The only reason we have this current immigration problem is because the government has refused to enforce immigration laws, an express enumerated power delegated to it.  The government can’t use a crisis of its own making as a reason to invoke unconstitutional powers.

Just because one president overstepped the law doesn’t mean another president should.  The people are entitled to a government that is restrained by its charter.  The American people are entitled to a government that operates within its boundaries so they can be comforted that government acts consistently, legally, and not in violation of their rights and interests.  Nancy Pelosi likes to think that Presidents can define issues as “crises” and thereby usurp power to address them. And then she believes that this type of conduct makes a President “great.”  That type of power grab made Adolph Hitler a monster.  That type of power grab made Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and gave rise to all-powerful government rather than a subordinate one. Luckily for the government, the party that wins a war has the luxury of writing the history books, providing the talking points, re-writing its reasons for the bloodshed, and demonizing the other side.  The admiration the country has for Abraham Lincoln has everything to do with the great debt the government owes to him and how his legacy has been defined.

So, what’s the real story behind the Executive Order?  Abraham Lincoln issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862. This date was chosen to coincide with the news of the battle at Antietam, near the village of Sharpsburg, Maryland. Antietam is infamously known as being the bloodiest single day of fighting in the Civil War. Although the battle is officially recognized as a stalemate, the North attempted to claim it as their victory. Hence, it would be a perfect time for Lincoln to tie a northern victory with the emancipation of slaves. The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then the Proclamation would go into effect. According to Lincoln, if the slaves were being forced to aid the Confederate war machine, by working in the fields and hauling armaments and building fortifications, he would act in his capacity as commander-in-chief to liberate that labor. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. U.S. Navy General Order No. 4, issued on January 1, 1863 declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”  It was issued as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war and as the North continued to watch its defeat at the hands of the South.  With the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863, Lincoln decided to go one step further.  He would not only to free the slaves outside of Union-controlled areas but also to enlist any black man as a soldier in the Union army.  Thus black men could be part of the movement to liberate those in bondage.

The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that instigated tensions between the North and the South, Lincoln’s only mission at the start of the war was to keep the Union together. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort, and was a step toward abolishing slavery and conferring full citizenship upon ex-slaves.  But make no mistake, the measure was not inspired by any affection for the slave or any stirring ambition to see them free in white-dominated society.  It was a cold calculated initiative to undermine the South.  Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of the slaves who were held as property in the South. It encouraged insurrection among the slaves against their white plantation owners (who, at the time, were mostly women and children). It eroded the loyalty and devotion of confederate soldiers because now their attention was torn between the war and between their families at home with this new threat from slaves who are encouraged to undermine the confederate war effort. Furthermore, the sooner the uprising could occur, and the greater the confederate effort could be undermined, the sooner the opportunity for local slaves to be liberated.  After January 1, 1863, every advance and victory of federal troops would bring freedom to the slaves in the South.    of undermining the confederate effort were almost  . After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops expanded the domain of freedom. And again, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. [By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom].

(more…)

A Government That Wants to Control Us; Not Represent Us

TYRANNY   by Diane Rufino

George S. Liberty recently wrote a rant about government on his blogsite after he watched a news clip about Jonathan Gruber, the controversial architect of Obamacare.  His theme was how audacious and contemptible the government has become regarding the American people.  Clearly, the government has little respect for the people. It feigns loyalty to them only when it comes to election time or when it serves its purposes in enlarging the federal institution. As George wrote: “It’s clear that government feels it must oversee us rather than represent us. It knows best.”

The federal government is steadily becoming more antagonistic and repugnant to the People.  Its interests are not the interests of the American people. In fact, too many times, its interests are exactly opposed to their interests.  Look at the immigration issue, look at the erosion of race relations at the direct hands of the current administration, and look at the soft stance the current administration is taking with respect with the greatest evil the world has encountered since Nazi Germany and its designs for genocide of the Jews and world domination.  When has America ever stood by and watched its citizens being brutally beheaded?  The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act, for example, which violates so many precious American liberties that this article dares not even go into them, was passed with a level of deception and duplicity that hasn’t been seen in this country since the days of the Civil War and Reconstruction. As if the backdoor deals, threats, and political promises make by the President weren’t enough, as if his promise to the American people, through an interview with George Stephanopolous, that the mandate was not a tax only to have the mandate officially classified as a tax (and supported and justified by the government’s taxing power) wasn’t enough, and as if the promises of lower healthcare costs (and retention of one’s doctor) only to see costs skyrocket, doctors lost, and businesses suffer wasn’t enough, we now learn that the architect of the healthcare bill “counted on the stupidity of the American people” in getting the bill passed in the court of public opinion.  He said that if more people knew what was written in the bill, it would have never passed. “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish we could have made it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

This government – OUR government – a government supposedly of the people, by the people and for the people –  purposely set out to deceive We the People.  Wow.  I mean, WOW!  Can you believe the audacity of our government?  King George III of England seemed audacious at one time.  He and the British Parliament took the liberty of taxing the American colonies to cover the costs incurred by the British in fighting the French in the French & Indian War (to clear claim to the New World territories) and the costs to protect them.  Yes, the tax was ultimately being used to serve and benefit the colonies, but it was the fact that the King didn’t first provide them with a seat in Parliament to give them representation with respect to legislation that affected them which set them off.  This failure of the King to safeguard their rights as Englishmen (as laid out in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, among other charters) is what gave birth to the Sons of Liberty, led to the Boston Tea Party, the shots at Concord & Lexington, the Declaration of Independence, and ultimately to our secession from Great Britain.  The lack of transparency, the duplicity, the contempt, etc…..  King Obama and his Congress of rats and weasels all of a sudden don’t seem much different from King George.

As I hear news story after news story showing just what a leviathan that our government has become – in both size and attitude –  I can’t help but reflect upon the genius of our Founding Fathers.  Thomas Jefferson repeatedly explained how government would work best. In 1816, he wrote to his friend Joseph Cabell: “”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 function he is competent to.  Let the National Government be entrusted with the defense 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 everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”  The federal government was never intended to have such concentrated power and authority over the states and over the lives and property of the people. Whatever happened to these documents: “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…..”     And “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 highly intuitive and intellectual geniuses that debated and drafted our Constitution knew very well what could happen if the populace became complacent and tacitly surrendered their freedom to the designs of government. Thomas Jefferson and others warned that government would tend to grow itself and put its own interests above those of the people.  The delegates to the Philadelphia Convention thought they addressed this problem by creating separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches and by building into government various levels of checks and balances.  Madison’s essays – Federalist No 47 and No. 51 – addressed these important design features.  Aside from the separation of powers and the systems of checks and balances, our Founders believed the two most powerful checks on government would be the States (federalism; Tenth Amendment) and the People themselves (ever vigilante of their liberties).

The question is this: Once government becomes self-serving rather than freedom-serving, are we stuck with it?  The answer is no.  Lucky for us, the sheer brilliance of our Founders can be seen in the plain words of our country’s charter of freedom – the Declaration of Independence:

“…….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, 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.

But the obvious follow-up question is this:  At what point do we “alter or abolish” our government?  Jefferson addresses that question in that second paragraph:

“…… Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.“

At this point, so many of our precious liberties – certainly our rights to property and now our rights to make basic choices regarding our lives, our associations, our conscience, and our health – are not secured by our government. In fact, government is assaulting and eroding them. Our right to bear arms, the one right that helps us secure all others, has become ever so tenuous.  Is now the time to “alter or abolish” our government?

Judging by the sheer volume of Americans that the government has managed to shackle to its existence and its programs, individual liberty may no longer be that “precious gem” (as James Madison once called it at the Virginia Ratifying Convention) that should be placed above all else. There was a time when it was.

And government knows this.  Perhaps that was the very intent of government when it set on its path to become the great leviathan that it currently is. Maybe it knew that the people had to be coerced into surrendering their liberties – by promising them stuff and taking care of them from cradle to grave and by convincing them that the promise of guaranteed freedom isn’t the same as a guaranteed paycheck or guaranteed housing or guaranteed healthcare.

Maybe those government officials who have sought over the years to use the full power of the government to divest it of its constitutional moorings studied Federalist No 51.  In that essay, James Madison wrote: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

People can’t control government like they are supposed to if government controls them.  And make no mistake about it…. Government today DOES control the American people.

Combine the complacency that people have on account of the emphasis that the leviathan places on social and welfare programs with the “experience that hath been shown” of human nature to be “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  This looks like a perfect recipe for government longevity and acceptance of tyranny.  And so, in one of his arguments, George S. Liberty writes: “The government will continue to take, and take, and take. And it will push, push, and push –  all in the design to sustain itself at the expense of the populacebecause it knows that people are more inclined to suffer the consequences than to right themselves. The government banks on the fact that we are timid.”

It cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals — that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government — that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

In other words, in this country, it is freedom that is enlarged.….   NOT the government.  Freedom must endure at all costs; NOT government.  Government must not be perpetual, if it be at the expense of individual freedom.  But individual freedom MUST be perpetual, even and perhaps especially at the expense of government.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote: “Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment.” (in a letter to M. van der Kemp, 1812)  Maybe our future generations of Americans are better served in our public schools by spending a month every year learning what our Founding Fathers had to say about civic duty instead of constantly re-learning about slavery and Jim Crow (the wounds that no one seems to want to let heal).

So, where are today’s Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Sam Adams, and George Washington?

If ever we needed these men – or their spirits – it is now.

Voters are Dillusioned, Including This One

Diane - I Voted          by Diane Rufino, November 7, 2014

On October 28, the final presidential debate of the 1980 election was held in Cleveland, Ohio. In his closing remarks, Ronald Reagan asked viewers: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions ‘yes’, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.”

How bad have things gotten in the world and in our lives that these weren’t even the questions we asked when we cast our votes this week? And how distracted must we be by the shenanigans and posturing of this inept current government that our corrupt, arbitrary and oppressive taxation system wasn’t even an issue for debate? As we squabble over “R” and “D” and how we can make everyone happy and comfortable – even those who don’t feel they need to obey laws or conform to norms of decency or even contribute to society – our country is slipping away from us. And the only thing we’ll end up giving our children and grandchildren is a government that makes it easier to be a despicable human being, to work harder for less, to be punished for investing in personal development and success, and to be stressed and frustrated for the length of their lives.

Wow, we must really love our children.

I saw the following election poster on facebook, obviously playing on Reagan’s famous remarks.  It was titled “humorous” but it really isn’t so funny, is it?  It’s truthful.  It’s accurate.  It’s the new reality.  A government tasked to keep its people safe and secure and to protect their liberties has become predatory and has put us at great risks on so many levels.  We hear President Obama promise to use the “pen and the phone” to accomplish what Congress refuses to do with respect to his personal agenda. In his remarks after the election results, he said: “What I’m not going to do is just wait. Let’s figure out what we can do lawfully though executive actions to improve the functioning of the existing system.”  In other words, he seems intent on accomplishing legislative action from the executive branch. I don’t hear anyone in Congress up in arms about this.  I don’t hear state governors or state attorney generals up in arms about this. I don’t hear the offices tasked with protecting us from unconstitutional action saying things like this: “We will not enforce any federal law or federal policy that is not grounded in proper constitutional authority.”  Tyranny has crept into our lives, slowly and without much notice. We barely notice it, but we certainly seem to tolerate it.  It comes from both parties.  Political power has corrupted our system.  Article V has been rendered meaningless by the federal court’s adoption of the “Constitution as a Living Document” mentality and the Tenth Amendment, the real key to the restoration of a government suited and tasked with protecting individual liberty, has been repeatedly ignored.  We really should be asking ourselves whether this is the kind of government we want.  And if that answer is “no,” then we need to figure out, as those brilliant men back in the the 1700’s did, what we need to do to design and implement a government suitable for a people historically destined to enjoy the greatest degree of freedom on the planet.

VOTING - funny (2014)

With all that in mind, I voted on November 4.  Of course, I voted.  I used my vote not only to help elect some of the servants I feel will represent us well and remain constrained by the written will of the people, but I also used my vote to exercise my precious first amendment right – the freedom of speech and expression. I hope my seemingly inconsequential vote will send a message. I’m disgusted with both political parties – Democrats and Republicans. One has huge balls and is audacious and the other has none and is spineless. I hope when North Carolina counts its votes, a message will have been sent. More importantly, I hope the message will be RECEIVED !!

The “Miracle Amendment” and the Rise of Judicial Tyranny

In the latest use of what Mike Church, calls the “Miracle Amendment” a federal circuit court has ruled that the citizens of Virginia and by extension North Carolina have no right to govern themselves and that federal government representatives, in this case judges, will dictate what laws you will live under.

In a divided court opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the citizens of Virginia couldn’t amend 14th amendmenttheir states constitution and ban same sex marriage. This case could follow other landmark and divisive decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973), Bush v. Gore (2000) all based on the 14the Amendment the Amendment that seems to offer an ever expanding array of new found powers to the federal government while stripping states of their rights.

“Lower-court judges in a dozen states have also found voter-approved restrictions on the ability of same-sex couples to get married to be unconstitutional.” CNN Politics

In what can only be the biggest example of subservience and indoctrination in the belief that the rights of 310 million people in these united states should be decided by 9 federal employees Byron Babione, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement that, “Ultimately, the question whether the people are free to affirm marriage as a man-woman union will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The Virginia case is notable in that the state’s attorney general, Democrat Mark Herring, had declined to defend the ban – an amendment to the state’s constitution passed by Virginia voters in 2006. On a call with reporters after the ruling, Herring said he was ‘proud that the commonwealth of Virginia is leading on one of the most important civil rights issues of our day.’” US News

A state’s attorney general that makes a statement like that deserves to be immediately replaced because he has (more…)

Anti-Common Core Bill Sleight of Hand

After months of back and forth over the wording of the two bills put forth by both the North Carolina House HB1061 and Senate SB812 both purporting to repeal and block the use of Common Core curriculum and standards, SB812 passed the NC House.Sleight of Hand

The problem is that HB1061 was THE stronger bill and passed overwhelmingly in the House and when SB812 came to the House Education Committee it was basically gutted and the HB1061 language was inserted making it an equally strong bill and then that was passed by the House and sent back to the Senate. The Senate gutted SB812 again passed it then sent it to a Conference Committee where it was watered down even more.

And there you have it, the North Carolina General Assembly with just a little sleight of hand can turn something into nothing.

So the question now is, was the effort even worth it, for in the end, all we ended up with is (more…)

Common Core Moving Closer to Repeal in NC with Your Help

For those who say I’m only one person or my one vote doesn’t matter what can I do?

You can if nothing else make phone call as we asked (Bill to STOP Common Core in Jeopardy) and those that did made all the difference.

When on June 19, 2014 the Education Committee Chairman stood to introduce SB812, he mentioned the 350+ calls his office received opposing the bill that would do little to remove Common Core other than, change the name.

As we reported (North Carolina House Passes Bill to Withdraw from Common Core) about the passage of the much stronger bill HB1061 on June 4th we told you the SB812 would be heard in committee and that it needed to be stopped.

In a move, that I hope will not backfire on the committee and HB1061 the committee had prepared an (more…)

Bill to STOP Common Core in Jeopardy

COMMON-CORE-2It has been reported that HB1061 renamed Replace Common Core with NC’s Higher Academic Standards is in jeopardy of being put back on the shelf to make way for SB812 the watered down Senate version that does nothing but rebrand Common Core.

The present plan is for SB812 to be brought to a vote in the House Education Meeting, which is scheduled right after the House adjourns Thursday (6/19/14) afternoon. If The House Education Committee and the House pass the Senate version then there will be no Conference Committee to work out the differences in the two bills. If that happens then we will keep Common Core but under a different name but still a federally directed education system with the loss of state sovereignty and parental rights and THAT is not what North Carolina needs!

YOUR ACTION IS NEEDED NOW! It doesn’t matter where in North Carolina you live, take action today! Call the Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs. Strongly, but respectfully urge them to vote against (more…)

North Carolina House Passes Bill to Withdraw from Common Core

Welcome NC Common Core

Raleigh, NC, June 4, 2014 — Today, the North Carolina House passed a bill that would end the state’s involvement in Common Core educational standards, effectively nullifying its implementation within the state. The vote was 78-39.

House Bill 1061 (HB1061) went through two hectic days. On Tuesday, the House Education Committee rewrote the original bill removing a number of sections that Common Core opponents wanted out of the bill. They voted 27-16 to send the bill to the House floor, where it passed today on second and third readings.

Representatives opposing the bill on the House floor were worried that scrapping Common Core would leave North Carolina with no state standards for education. However, both primary sponsors of the bill, Reps. Larry (more…)