FederalRepublic.net

It’s a cartoon, but it speaks the truth:

…by the Anti-Federalist Brutus on 18 October 1787:

This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof.”…The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please…And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.

Pretty timely, don’t you think?

More…

For those who have no clue about judicial philosophy or the different ways to interpret the U.S. Constitution, this video is great. Take a look and leave comments if you’d like.

For my conservative and libertarian friends, most of you would probably be originalists, while the other side would choose the always changing “living constitution.”

In earlier postings, I explored the reasons why I think America has turned into a soft despotism, allowing government to regulate every facet of our lives. To really point out where I think the United States is going in the long term, I thought I’d share Karl Marx’s Ten Pillars of Communism and compare them to today’s political practices:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

While it may be said that Kelo v. New London was a horrible SCOTUS decision regarding the use of eminent domain, I believe that the police power of individual states is to blame for an abolition of private property rights in America. According to the Supreme Court, police power is the power of states to regulate the welfare, morals, and health of the people (see Allgeyer v. Louisiana). By justifying heavy regulation of land use (licensing, zoning, etc.), states have basically destroyed the rights of the people to use their land as they see fit. Why should I need to apply for a license to build a deck on the back of my house? Why should I have to seek approval to build a shed? These are legitimate issues that affect private property rights all over America; states have taken the freedom of using private property away by regulating it to death.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Today’s Democratic Party seems to think that the more money one makes, the more one owes to society. I couldn’t disagree more. By penalizing those who work hard and are successful, the government takes away the incentive to be successful; that is, make as much money as one can. Let me state this clearly: I have never seen a poor person create a job! Without the “rich” to create jobs, the poor have no chance at getting a job in the first place. The “rich” provide the goods and services that people buy in the market and when “rich” see profit, it’s spent expanding the business, hiring more workers, or is invested elsewhere, thereby lifting up the whole economy.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

An abolition of inheritance is what you have when you slap an inheritance tax on already taxed income. By taking a portion of inheritance, the government is taking away the rights of a family or loved one to inherit what one has already worked for in the years before they died.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Going back to number one, it seems many states have confiscated the right to private property and to use private property was one deems fit through the police power. How exactly does regulation of land use affect the health, welfare, or morals of the people? In my opinion, not at all. There are already laws pertaining to the destruction of private property by another, thereby including pollution, physical damage, or other issues pertaining to the protection of private property.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Since the early 1900s, the centralization of credit and overall monetary policy has rested in the Federal Reserve. It has an exclusive monopoly over the money supply and consistently manipulates interest rates as a means to control it. While many may think the Federal Reserve may help stabilize an otherwise messy credit climate today, I think it illustrates the expansive power and very real danger of having one central authority attempt to manage and control the economy as a whole.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

While Congress as the power to regulate interstate commerce per the Constitution, the definition of commerce has changed since the founding of the republic. Today’s power to regulate commerce is more than a power to regulate buying and selling over state lines, but includes a power to regulate direct and indirect effects of manufacturing, which has nothing to do with commerce at all. In my opinion, the power to regulate interstate commerce has been used by the Congress to justify anything having to do with expenditures, thereby putting everything under the purview of the Congress. This includes transport, communication, or anything else Congress would like to get its hands into.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

In my opinion, number seven goes back to the regulation of land use. Through the Department of Labor, the government has implemented rules on businesses that are costly and unneeded. These include burdensome labor, safety, and tax rules that eat into the business’ bottom line, forcing the business to spend more in order to keep their factories or locations “in compliance.” The market should determine one’s business rules - if the business is unsafe, the worker does not have to work there. If the business is paying below market value for its labor, the worker can quit.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

We’ve all seen the wonders of free public education, especially in urban, inner-city schools. Drop-out rates in the inner-city continue to disturb us all, while many have accused public schools of dumbing down standards to the lowest denominator, thereby graduating those who needn’t graduate in the first place. What the education system needs is competition, vouchers, and privatized instruction, not a teacher’s union or government-subsidized failure.

An interesting perspective on Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury and Washington’s right hand man:

H/T to The Liberty Papers

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — With Republicans facing a potential backlash at the polls in November, a renewed national debate over gay marriage can only boost the morale of the party’s religious conservative base, which for a variety of reasons is near mutiny, say sources in the movement.

“It could be an issue that may not necessarily bring them back, but it will bring them out, which is the key thing for the fall elections,” said Bill Greene, head of RightMarch.com, an Atlanta-based conservative activist organization.

He described the Republicans’ conservative base as “pretty ticked off” over the way GOP senators have handled illegal immigration reform, the budget and President Bush’s judicial nominations, many of whom are still stalled in the Senate. But Greene said a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage “may be one prong of a multifaceted attempt at re-energizing the base.”

On May 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Federal Marriage Amendment. And the Associated Press reported Thursday that Bush will lend support to the amendment in an announcement Monday.

Link

As much as I agree with most Americans that the ultimate definition of marriage should be a union between a man and a woman only, a constitutional amendment is not needed to regulate an issue which I believe, clearly lies with the states.

Republican leadership and the Bush Administration, attempting to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage, has turned the constitution into a catalyst for social change, something I fear could be harmful to our republic in the long run. I believe the proper place for such social change, like the definition of marriage, lies squarely on the shoulders of the states or the people. The attempt to socialize the constitution, in my opinion, is a cheap trick designed to win votes in the November election, a short term priority for the Republican Party. Passing an amendment to the constitution and changing the basis of our laws altogether is a permanent action, an action that will forever change legislation and hamper the struggle to renew states rights.

Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves and shows that officials in our federal government have no respect for a once thriving federalism, but only care about the power of the central government in Washington.

By Charles Hurt

The long-fought Senate immigration bill that opponents say grants amnesty to 10 million illegal aliens is unconstitutional and appears headed for certain demise, Senate Republicans now say.
 
A key feature of the Senate bill is that it would make illegals pay back taxes before applying for citizenship, a requirement that supporters say will raise billions of dollars in the next decade.
 
There’s just one problem: The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits revenue-raising legislation from originating in the Senate.
 
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives,” according to the “origination clause” in Article I, Section 7.

Republicans — including the bill’s supporters — say this will kill the bill, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he’s offered a simple solution. He wants to attach the immigration bill to a tax bill that has already passed the House. It would then proceed as planned to a “conference committee,” where negotiators from the House and Senate hammer out differences between the two chambers’ immigration bills.

“This is a procedural issue that we could overcome,” said Carolyn Weyforth, spokeswoman for Mr. Frist.

But Minority Leader Harry Reid won’t go along with that fix. His office said yesterday that the concerns raised by Mr. Frist and House Republicans are “technical in nature” and can be ignored.

“If Republicans are serious about enacting comprehensive immigration reform, I’ve got a deal for them,” spokesman Jim Manley said. “All they have to do is nothing. Just let the House and Senate bills go to conference and let the conferees work their will.”

The bill as written, however, will never make it to conference, Republicans say. Under House rules, any member can introduce a “blue-slip resolution” to return the legislation to the Senate. And although there are plenty of House conservatives eager to kill the Senate bill any way they can, Hill staffers say it would likely be done based on “policy-blind constitutional issues.”

“If there is a blue-slip issue, it is not about policy,” said one House aide familiar with the matter. “It’s about procedure and the House’s prerogative to uphold the United States Constitution.”

Link

While most Americans agree that immigration reform is needed, the Senate bill raises serious issues about how much Congressional leadership favors following the U.S. Constitution, the basis of our republic.

Harry Reid may not think Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution is a big deal, but if the Senate leadership does not care about simple tax revenue rules in the constitution, how much more respect for the constitution could the leadership really have? The constitution is the basis of our republic, it is the base of our laws and our way of life. Even the simplest clause must be followed if we are to pass the freedom our constitution gives us to our grandchildren.

James Madison once said:

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

I believe Madison is right. Attaching a tax revenue amendment to the Senate bill is in my opinion, a gradual and silent encroachment into unlawful territory forbidden by our constitution. If the tax bill is allowed to stay in the bill as originally created, the Congress will not only have shown the American people the constitution means nothing, but will have denounced the American way of life and everything the founding fathers stood for. This usurpation of government power must not be tolerated. Republican Party leadership must seize this opportunity to uphold the constitutional principles our nation was founded on.

One day I was surfing around the web reading my favorite political blogs and I came across a great article from Brad Warbiany, who is a leading contributor for The Liberty Papers. In it, Brad explains what a political radical really is and how they can be defined. As one who feels I am a radical by definition, I feel Brad fully explains the political backdrop and mindset of one who truly wishes to see our country live up to its promise and go back to the constitutional law we once adhered to:

Janice Rogers Brown believes that the Constitution is the guiding law in our land. Specfically, she reads the Constitution literally, and believes that whatever is not in there shouldn’t be done by our federal government. And she’s an extremist. An extremist isn’t by definition wrong, or bad. It simply means that she is out of the mainstream.

There’s a good reason for this. The mainstream has been moving more and more left for the last 92 years (I use 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was passed for that calculation). Someone who views the New Deal as a socialist program and openly states so is not in the mainstream. Someone who believes that private property rights may include the right of discrimination is not in the mainstream (even though it is obvious she doesn’t approve of discrimination). Someone who has the view that coerced redistribution of income is a mild form of slavery is not in the mainstream. It is her view that this country is ruled by laws, as enshrined in the Constitution, and if the “mainstream” wants to change that law, it requires Constitutional amendments, not judicial activism.

So am I a “radical”? Am I an “extremist”? Yes. It is obvious that compared to the mainstream thought in this country, I am nowhere near the average Joe. The average Joe believes that the rule of the majority is just. The average Joe believes that government exists to promote his agenda, not protect individual rights. The average Joe views taxation and regulation as tools for social engineering. The Republican and Democratic parties are full of average Joes looking not to further American ideals with their votes, but to get “their guys” holding the reins of power.

So yes, I am a radical. I’m not afraid of that label, because the government I envision is radically different than the one we have. And yes, I am an extremist. Because I believe that we should be much closer to the extremes of personal liberty and personal responsibility than we currently are. I make no claims that the rest of the country thinks the same way I do. But the principles I believe in don’t require them to. They can live they way they want, and I’ll live the way I want. They don’t offer me the same courtesy. My beliefs put me well outside of the mainstream. But with such folks as Janice Rogers Brown out here with me, I can at least claim good company.

Yes Brad, I am also a radical and you are in great company…hands down.

From Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As Americans face a deadline for filing taxes, President George W. Bush on Saturday pressed Congress to extend tax cuts, saying they create jobs and economic growth.

A push by House and Senate Republicans for $70 billion in tax cuts was derailed earlier this month before lawmakers went on a two-week spring recess.

The tax cuts would have extended the maximum 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends beyond 2008. Without congressional action, capital gains taxes would jump to 20 percent and dividends would be taxed as regular income.

“Tax relief has done exactly what it was designed to do: It has created jobs and growth for the American people,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

“Yet some here in Washington are now proposing that we raise taxes, either by repealing the tax cuts or letting them expire,” he said. “To keep our economy creating jobs and opportunity, Congress needs to make the tax relief permanent.”

Link

To help allow the United States to have economic prosperity into the end of the decade, it would be wise for Congress to extend and/or make permanent the Bush tax cuts of 2003. By extending the tax cuts, Congress allows the potential for millions of citizens and businesses to have more money in their own pockets, allowing them additional capital to invest and plenty more to spend.

While tax cuts are wholly beneficial for the economy, we must work to do more. Congress must become fiscally conservative, cutting spending and programs which are no longer needed. Congress must also work to eliminate overlapping programs that have the same job or programs that are not needed anymore. Not only will cutting spending help the Congress move toward balancing the federal budget, it will also help to offset federal budget deficits and long term debt.

It has been said the founding fathers of this country took much inspiration from the Virginia Declaration of Rights in writing both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I’d like to share some of the similar rights now found in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration of Independence which were originally found in the Virginia Declaration, written in 1776:

1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article one of the Virginia Declaration is distinctly similar to the Declaration of Independence in that people are entitled first and foremost to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

Article two communicates as does the constitution that ultimate power of government is vested in its people.

3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Article three of Virginia’s declaration explains that government is instituted for the common good and security of the state. It also outlines that citizens may alter their government if they find the established government proves inadequate for their governance.

9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article nine, like the Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive or cruel and unusual punishment.

12. That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

As this article suggests, freedom of the press is indispensable to the public liberty and is an obvious precursor to the first amendment.

13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

A well-armed body of the people is the best defense against government tyranny. This article is an obvious precursor to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

In my opinion, article fifteen expressly explains that liberty requires a firm adherence to justice and fundamental principles. In modern thought, this article expresses the importance of equality and due process of those under the law.

16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Article sixteen is obviously a precursor to the first amendment freedom of religion. The article points out people may worship by their own conviction and conscience.

Link to the Virginia Declaration of Rights