Blog

The “American People” and ObamaCare

I find it interesting to hear all the media pundits claiming that the “American People” are against a government shut-down and blame Republicans for using ObamaCare as a negotiation tool.

If the States that are united were founded on a principle of a consolidated nation, where a “National” government ruled over them, then it is possible the pundits may have it correct. However, that is not how the founding generation envisioned our union of States. We are made up of individual and sovereign entities that united to form a more perfect union. These States then delegated certain limited authority to the Federal government. It was very clear to nearly everyone involved that the States would retain the majority of their sovereign powers. This is one of the reasons that the Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights. What does it say?:

“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.”

Who were those people? The people of the individual States, not the people of a giant conglomerate. If any self-respecting news journalist or historian for that matter, would take the time to read the debates of the several States during their ratifying process they would then understand the principle.

New York, for instance, inserted this into their ratification document:

“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.”

How much clearer could it be?

The people of the fifty States elect representatives from many different districts within their States. These representatives are to vote the way their constituents, who put them in office, expect them to vote. The people from a district in New York who are against an un-Constitutional act like ObamaCare do not really care if a socialist leaning district in Massachusetts are for it. This is called Federalism or like Mike Church of Sirius/XM fame likes to say, “Little [r]epublicanism”.

What about the Senators? The Senate was created to represent the interest of the States. Federal Senators are not supposed to represent the people of the States but the State itself. We already have a House of Representatives who are elected to represent the people of the States.

So when you hear or see the media continuously harping about the will of the People being thwarted by some in Congress, know it is a lie. The people of the Sovereign States elected those who are against ObamaCare, the NSA, Patriot Act, etc.. to vote against those things. Some may have voted for individuals who are for ObamaCare and such. However, it is the will of the sovereign people of the States to decide. There is no political entity of the whole people of the States united. There never was, nor should there ever be. Oh, and by the way, most Republicans do not understand the concept either and I hold no hope that they will do the right thing. Everyday that the government stays “shut-down” we the taxpayers are saving money and regaining our liberty. In the end we win. Viva the shut-down!

Sen. Harkin (D-Iowa) Warns of Civil War

Earlier today on the Senate floor, Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) assailed those attempting to defund Obamacare with these lofty and inspirational words: “It’s dangerous. It’s very dangerous. I believe, Mr. President, we are at one of the most dangerous points in our history right now. Every bit as dangerous as the break-up of the Union before the Civil War.”

Aside from exposing his woeful ignorance of history–it wasn’t a “civil war” by any academic stretch–he may have unwittingly probed the truth. In fact, we ARE, since Obama’s election, at “one of the most dangerous points in our history”. But, it certainly isn’t because the Conservatives or the Tea Partiers are irrationally pressing to repeal, defund or delay the Obamacare horror. It is precisely because the Progressives are hellbent to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into another failed utopian state. (more…)

Stop and Frisk…No Fed’s Needed.

Recently a Federal Judge, Shira Scheindlin, declared the New York City Police departments “Stop and Frisk” procedure Un-Constitutional and called for a federal monitor to watch over the police department to ensure Police Officers are in compliance with the constitution.

This happened without a peep of protest from any New York State elected official, Judge or lawyer.

You would think that Governor Cuomo would be at the fore of the angry protest against Federal intrusion into what is clearly a State Police power. Where does Justice Scheindlin believe her authority to rule on this matter come from? Not the United States Constitution.

The “Stop and Frisk” procedure is clearly un-Constitutional, however, it is the New York State Constitution that matters.

The New York State Constitution pre-dated the current U.S. Constitution by ten years. It was created in 1777. We have been governing ourselves here in New York with Amendments to that Constitution ever since. In that document it was made clear that: “I. This convention, therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that no authority shall, on any presence whatever, be exercised over the people or members of this State but such as shall be derived from and granted by them.

Nobody gave a Federal Judge authority to adjudicate over the Police Powers of New York City.

The people of New York were sovereign and very leery of a Centralized government. In fact, they just declared their independence from one and were fighting a bloody war to gain that independence. The crux of the revolution was that the British King and Parliament were treating the Colonies something less than citizens of the Empire. One of the earliest grievances were against “Writs of Assistance” which granted authority to Crown officials to conduct warrantless searches of peoples homes and seize property. In a speech by Boston Lawyer James Otis, one that John Adams recalled by stating: “Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there, the child Independence was born”, the writs were condemned. What was it that James Otis said?

“I will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villainy on the other as this Writ of Assistance is. It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book… The writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. It is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. I say I admit that special Writs of Assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath. But I deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted… In the first place, the writ is universal, being directed “to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects”; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the King’s dominions. Everyone with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder any one within the realm. In the next place, it is perpetual; there is no return. A man is accountable to no person for his doings. Every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the Archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. In the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. Fourthly, by this writ not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us… One of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient”.

New Yorkers, like those in Massachusetts, believed that they were protected against these illegal search and seizures. In the same Constitution of 1777 it was stated in section XXXV that:
“And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same”.

English common law held that warrantless search and seizures were illegal (Entick v Carrington) and thus New Yorkers believed that they were protected as well.

It was not until 1938 that protection against illegal search and seizures was formally introduced into the State Constitution. Article I, sec. 12 states:

“The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable interception of telephone and telegraph communications shall not be violated, and ex parte orders or warrants shall issue only upon oath or affirmation that there is reasonable ground to believe that evidence of crime may be thus obtained, and identifying the particular means of communication, and particularly describing the person or persons whose communications are to be intercepted and the purpose thereof”. (New. Adopted by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the people November 8, 1938.)

To sum up, we do not need the Federal government and it’s un-elected Judges lecturing New Yorkers on the Constitutionality of its Police Powers. The Governor should tell Judge Scheinlind that her monitoring scheme and lecture on the law should be saved for Federal matters and leave us alone. He should then declare that the “Stop and Frisk” procedure by the New York City Police is un-Constitutional under the New York State Constitution and expect a New York State Judge to do the same.

The true meaning of the 4th of July

This coming Thursday many of us will have a day off from work and be home to have a barbecue, watch the fireworks and proudly fly our American flag.

This uniquely American holiday is a time to reflect on the greatness of our Nation and its people.

However, it is not really a time to celebrate as “Americans”. It is a time to celebrate as sovereign people of the States. The Fourth of July was the day (it was actually a few days earlier) the people of the thirteen colonies through their representatives in the Congress, declared to the world that they were now independent and free States. Free from the King and Parliament and a centralized government. However, it would take a long and bloody war to actually permit these newly independent Sates to remain free.

The Declaration of Independence was signed by men who knew they were risking their “Lives, fortunes and sacred honor”. According to the King, they were all traitors who warranted death.

When the war finally came to a successful end the King and Parliament had no choice but to declare that the thirteen States were now free. The first Article of the Treaty of Paris that ended the war stated:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.

It appears that we have forgotten who we are. The King had to sign a treaty that recognized all of the States independently. We are a union of States that remain free and independent. The Articles of Confederation, our first Constitution, and the current Constitution never gave up the Sovereignty of the States. In fact the States delegated only limited authority to the Federal government. The Tenth Amendment made it very clear.

How does the Declaration of Independence sum up? Read it carefully:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

So this Fourth of July why not fly your State flag? It will show to the world that you are still a Sovereign and free people who choose to remain part of a union of States. How did John Adams say to celebrate: “…It ought to be commemorated as a day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bell, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other…”

Lets not forget who we are.

Federal Gun Legislation is Un-Constitutional

I have had many debates over this issue and it does not get any easier. Recently the New York State legislature passed a horrendous anti-freedom bill entitled the NYSAFE act. This legislation, that was passed in the middle of the night without proper debate, instantaneously made honest, law-abiding citizens criminals. It banned the possession of a myriad of innocuous semi-automatic rifles and magazines (not clips) that can hold more than seven rounds of ammunition along with many other ridiculous “feel good” items. It may well be that Commissar Cuomo and his Republican lackeys overstepped their bounds. You see, in New Yorks Constitution there contains a bill of “Civil Rights” much like the United States Constitutions “Bill of Rights”. New York Civil Rights – Article 2 – § 4 is New York’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms security. It states:

Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

This is the exactly the same as the Federal Constitutions Second Amendment except the words “cannot be infringed” replaces “shall not be infringed”. Law suits are already in place to overturn this horrible piece of legislation.

If New York courts uphold this freedom denying legislation, which I believe is inevitable, then the People of New York have a couple of choices. Throw out the tyrannical legislators and King, oh I mean Governor, that helped enact it, or submissively acquiesce to it and grovel at the feet of their new Masters.

I will fight tooth and nail to have this overturned, but in the end, the will of New Yorkers will prevail, like it or not. I can either move or submit.

Now, Federal legislation is a completely different story. All of the hullabaloo over what type of “Federal” action should be taken regarding firearm ownership should be for naught. The Constitution gives no authority to the President, the Congress or the Supreme Court to “regulate” firearm ownership. Background checks, Mental capacity, “Assault Weapons”, magazine capacity and all other firearm related topics are no concern for the “Federal Government”. This is an issue left strictly to the States. The Second Amendment was enacted for just such a reason. The Founding Fathers were very afraid that a central government would interfere with the ability of the States to defend themselves against a tyrannical body wishing to limit or take away their freedom, hence the Second Amendment. The Federal Government has no authority in this realm.

The “Bill of Rights” are a check on the powers of the Federal Government not on the States like many will claim. No, the Fourteenth Amendment did not “incorporate” them.

The States had Constitutions long before the Federal Government came into being. They were and still are sovereign entities that delegated certain enumerated powers to the Federal Government. The States are the “creator”, the Federal government the “created”. The created cannot be greater than the creator.

If your State passes UN-constitutional “State” laws, it is your obligation to fight to remedy the situation. If it does not protect your “Right to keep and bear arms” then fix it. However, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in this matter and any law passed is UN-Constitutional and void. It is only when we begin to understand the true nature of our government will we be able to defend it. Wake up people, time is running out.

New York Counties and Towns Nullifying NYSAFE ACT

Many Counties, towns and local communities throughout New York State have passed resolutions “Nullifying” the recently enacted (in the middle of the night) NYSAFE Act. Governor Cuomo along with his lackeys in the Republican and Democrat parties rammed through this Anti-Freedom bill in the middle of the night and almost instantly made criminals out of hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens. (Read more)The act banned magazines of more than SEVEN rounds and made illegal a myriad of semi-automatic rifles and infringed on our Natural rights. However, this political stunt may have back-fired. Throughout New York State law abiding citizens are loudly protesting with thousands attending rallies in almost every County. (more…)

John Taylor of Caroline

One of the forgotten Founding Fathers. John Taylor was “Raised in the home of his uncle Edmund Pendleton, John Taylor (1753–1824) attended The College of William and Mary, studied law, served as a major in the Continental Army, and became a successful lawyer and planter, owning several plantations and 150 slaves. He preferred his rural life, but entered politics to defend republican values, serving in the Virginia legislature (1779–81, 1783–85, 1796–1800) and filling out unexpired terms in the U.S. Senate (1793–1794, 1803, 1822–24). Taylor was clearly no archaic-radical republican like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He did not find freedom in political participation as such, but he would step forward in a crisis, as his sponsorship of the Virginia Resolutions, damning the Alien and Sedition Acts, shows.

Taylor began as an “Anti-federalist.” Once the Constitution won ratification, he meant to hold the victors to the assurances they gave while promoting it. Generally, Taylor’s books (1814, 1818, 1822, 1823) arose from immediate political questions; they included attacks on federal economic policies and reasoned polemics against the centralizing decisions of John Marshall’s Supreme Court.

The New York Tenth Amendment Center will post some of this forgotten Patriot’s writings in the hope that it will spur our fellow citizens into an understanding of our Constitution and the eventual restoration of our Republic. (more…)

How to Stop Progressive Tyranny COLD

For some time now, and particularly since November 6th, I have been speculating as to what can be done to effectively counter the unrelenting Progressive onslaught on our liberties and sovereignty.

Sincerely believing that Progressives must, at long last, be boldly and constitutionally challenged and outmaneuvered, and thinking outside the proverbial box, I think I’ve come up with a plan worth pursuing. But, like any political action plan worth its salt, so much depends upon the honor, political courage and integrity of our key political players. (Sadly, that requirement could be this plan’s Achilles’ heel.)

To counter the Progressive tyranny, many States are finally getting a spine and asserting their sovereignty by actually nullifying federal edicts, laws, directives and, some day soon I hope, judicial activist rulings as well. And if rule of law is our goal, then nullification remains an indispensable tool in that effort.

From a historical standpoint, the sheer volume of nullification activities over the last four years exceeds anything this country has seen since before the War of Northern Aggression in 1861, misleadingly dubbed the “civil war”. A very hopeful trend, indeed, and a trend we should all endorse and encourage. For as Thomas Jefferson asserted, nullification is “the rightful remedy” to federal encroachment. (Note: with the fearless and dedicated efforts of the 10th Amendment Center, I suspect that acts of nullification/interposition will be on the upswing in the years ahead. And thank God for that!) (more…)

Let’s Abandon the Constitution, Says Professor

No, not because it cedes too much power to the federal government. Surely that opinion would not be allowed in the New York Times.

Anticipating objections, I agree with the Spoonerite criticism of the Constitution, but in what follows I am acting as a historian and a logician evaluating claims.

Georgetown University’s Louis Michael Seidman writes in the NYT:

“Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago…. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

The issue is not what Madison would have wanted. The point is that republican government is premised on the idea of consent. The people consented to the interpretation of the Constitution that was presented to them in the ratifying conventions. If in the interim no formal change in the Constitution has been forthcoming from the people, then the understanding that was presented at the ratifying conventions must be presumed to stand. Otherwise, professors at Georgetown University could impose their own preferences on the public instead. (more…)

Government Security is Just Another Kind of Violence

The senseless and horrific killings last week in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on fully automatic, so-called “assault” rifles and gun-free zones.

Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government “do something” to protect us in the wake national tragedies is reflexive and often well-intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws. (more…)