Yes, Mr. Liberal Whiny Pants, you DO have every right to be butt hurt over my guns

Over at Bearing Arms, Bob Owens cites a piece written, likely in Crayola, at The Huffington Post. The author of the drivel, Tom Harvey, proudly announces his right to be offended because I, and others own guns

I Have a Right to Hate Guns

Well, that is true Mr. Harvey, you DO have the right to hate guns, thank you for discovering what should have been obvious to anyone

I’m not sure that I do; it’s not that simple; but I certainly have the right and plenty of reason. I shouldn’t have to hide my position. I should be free to state it clearly, directly and simply and say:

No one is asking you to “hide” your positions. the fact that you must face, sir, is that most Americans disagree with you. See, your right to bless us with your infinite wisdom, is no different than our right to tell you to get stuffed. Liberals like you never seem to grasp that the whole freedom of speech thing cuts both ways.

• It’s much too easy for people of bad will or unstable emotions to become armed and dangerous and we should take the strong action needed to stop it.

Well, Mr. Harvey, it IS easy for people who will steal or buy guns on the black market, no law will stop them. Perhaps you should write your Congressman, and Senator and ask them why the vast majority of people who tried to buy a  gun and were denied by the background check are never questioned by authorities. Again, you call for laws, but say nothing of laws NOT enforced. Do you think more laws that will likely be unenforced will do one damn thing to make anyone safer?

• It is the responsibility of gun owners to prove that their activities do not create a danger to the public and submit to whatever regulation is needed to enforce that.

So, what government agency would you place in charge of choosing which American set to exercise their constitutional rights? How would we prove our “activities” do not pose a danger exactly? And what activities would be approved? I question if you actually thought at all before writing such an absurd idea down. I also would question if you can prove that your writing does not pose some threat? Surely you must think, and I use that word think reluctantly, that all of our liberties should be deemed “safe” by Big Brother.

• Unless one has an exceptional need, the risks of having guns far outweigh the benefits, making gun possession unwise for nearly everyone.

Mr. Harvey, have you one shred of credible evidence that supports this asinine claim? The fact is there are tens upon tens of millions of gun owners in America. The vast majority never harm anyone with them. It is also true that tens of thousands of Americans USE our guns in self-defense annually. Millions of Americans have concealed carry licenses, and despite the fantasies of people like you, those gun carriers cause ZERO harm to anyone, except of course, the many times they have stopped bad guys, and hurt the feelings of overly emotional people like you.

• Notwithstanding Antonin Scalia’s bogus logic, the Second Amendment only establishes a collective right.

Ah, here we are, back to the root of your problem sir. You are a Collectivist. Those individual rights are troublesome to you, as they always are to those who frown upon the very idea that there is an inherent human right to keep and bear arms. Where you get the notion that the second amendment applies only to a collective right I cannot say, but I will allow George Mason, known as the Father of said amendment answer. I also include some quotes from other Founders

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]) 

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington) 

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)) 

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) 

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) 

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789) 

I left the last one last so that it be made VERY clear that the Constitution protects INDIVIDUAL rights Mr. Harvey, not Collective rights. That document protects the individual from tyrants, and the tyranny of the majority, and from people like you who hold their feelings in higher esteem than they do God-given liberties!

Senator Mike Lee has some good thoughts on immigration reform, and legislating in general

James Madison saw the folly of legislation that was too large. His wisdom is being shown to be true. Consider the disaster that Obamacare is becoming. Even some of those who sponsored the bill are now warning us of its unintended consequences. Senator Mike Lee notes that immigration reform, like Obamacare, is being handled in a one-size fits all manner that will not work. It seems Congress cannot restrain itself from attempting grandiose all-encompassing bills that they fantasize will make all our problems go away.

 

In an op-ed for the Deseret News, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), who is my favorite member of the Senate (though I also have very high regard for several others such as Rubio, Paul, Cruz and Toomey), suggests that we should learn from the disaster of Obamacare, namely that it was a massive bill that nobody understood (or yet understands), and that it hides as much as it reveals.

He applies this lesson to immigration and says that “Immigration reform needs to happen step-by-step, not all at once.”

From Sen. Lee’s op-ed:

Much like the current bill, the comprehensive immigration reform I envision includes: real border security, visa modernization, employment verification, robust guest worker programs for both high- and low-skilled workers, and a compassionate approach to dealing with those currently in the country illegally. But history teaches that each of these vital components must be addressed incrementally and sequentially in order to ensure meaningful results.

Seems pretty logical doesn’t it? Fix the border FIRST. Carefully come up with plans AFTER the border is secured to address those already here, and the issues of visas, and any guest worker programs that might be implemented. Instead, the Gang of Eight seems hell bent on passing as big a bill as possible, as quickly as possible. And, anyone who dares suggest more prudent approaches, or who suggests that maybe the American people ought to be able to read any proposed legislation is labelled as racist, or anti-immigration. In other words, again, like with Obamacare, we see that our representatives have forgotten where the power lies. They will pass bills, THEN allow us lowly peons to “see what is in it”. They seem far more worried about passing a bill, no matter how bad it may be, as long as they can tie a ribbon around that bill that reads “bipartisan”. Frankly, I do not care if any bill is ever passed just because it is bipartisan. A bad bill is a bad bill. What I do care about is that the bill be constitutional, and that the people support it. Is that really so hard?

 

Some much needed words of wisdom from the past

Loopy Loo, posting at Zilla’s place, has a must read bit of history

United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was a famous jurist, and his Commentaries was a very influential treatise on United States constitutional law

His tenure on the Supreme Court spanned three decades, from 1811 to 1845.   At the beginning of the twentieth century, Story was elected to the Hall of Fame.   His views on the Constitution of the United States are still widely respected.

On November 18, 1811, President James Madison nominated Story to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Senate confirmed the appointment on February 3, 1812. At the age of thirty-two, Story was the youngest person ever appointed to the Supreme Court. While on the Supreme Court, Story served as a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820 and was a Professor of Law at Harvard, where he wrote a series of nine commentaries on the law, each of which was published in several editions. Story served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years. He died on September 10, 1845, at the age of sixty-five.

This quote from him caught  my attention:

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people in order to betray them.”

- Joseph Story – Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2d ed. (1851), vol. 2, chapter
Is that not a very near perfect summation of where America is today? The wise ARE mocked, and the honest are called “extremists”. Many of our citizens are blithely ignorant of our Constitution, our founders, our founding principles, and of our history. And some of the worst cases of ignorance occur in well-educated Americans. This is, I believe, because our education system  is about idoctrination, not education. 
Go read the rest of the post, it is worth it.

 

 

Just call him the Executive Order President

Maybe President E.O. for short? Clearly, President Obama has no regard for the separation of powers, or the will of the people. It is the Legislative Branch that is supposed to write laws, clearly, this president prefers to rule by executive orders

Via WaPo:

President Obama is considering a series of new executive actions aimed at working around a recalcitrant Congress, including policies that could allow struggling homeowners to refinance their mortgages, provide new protections for gays and lesbians, make buildings more energy-efficient and toughen regulations for coal-fired power plants, according to people outside the White House involved in discussions on the issues.

One of the first orders is expected this week, when the Obama administration will call for the creation of new standards on what critical private-sector companies should do to protect their computer systems from hackers.

The moves underscore Obama’s increasingly aggressive use of executive authority, including 23 administrative actions on gun violence last month and previous orders that delayed deportations of young illegal immigrants and will lower student loan payments.

I have never been a fan of executive orders, and I never will.they place far too much power in the hands of one man. It seems that James Madison had similar concerns when he wrote this. “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
–James Madison, Federalist 46

I am sure there is a valid place for such orders, but, those should be very specific and in my view rare.

Bob Belvedere on the vital role of state sovereignty

Read what Bob has to say, then I have some comments

It lies in state and county and local officials taking their oaths to The Constitution seriously.

It lies in people like Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County Oregon.

From CNN, Ed Payne and Ric Ward reporting [tip of the fedora to Wombat-Socho's Live At Five]:

An Oregon sheriff says he will not enforce any federal regulation that President Barack Obama lays out in his package of gun control proposals Wednesday. Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller joins several other public officials across the nation who have decided to square off with the White House even before it outlines what its plans are for expanded measures.

Mueller sent a letter to Vice President Joe Biden this week saying he won’t enforce any federal regulation “offending the constitutional rights of my citizens.” He won’t permit federal officers to come to his county to enforce such laws either, he said.

Mueller’s defiant stand exploded into a groundswell of support. His letter — posted on the department’s Facebook page — earned more than 59,000 likes and shares — and was growing by the minute.

Bravo, sir.

It lies in thinking like this:

In Texas, a lawmaker said this week that he will introduce legislation that would make it illegal to enforce a federal gun ban.

“At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause,” Republican Rep. Steve Toth told WOAI 1200-AM. “It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama.”

Indeed, it is time for a showdown between the forces that want to aggregate to the national government more powers than those that are enumerated in The Constitution and those of us who believe that it should be followed to the letter.

I could not agree more, it is all our duty to honor the Constitution. The federal government has, over the history of this nation grown far past the intent of the Founders. The Constitution constrained not the people, but the federal government. It enumerated certain rights, natural rights as Franklin called them that neither come from government, or can be restricted by government. That IS the most critical founding principle of this nation. And that principle has been under attack since the very birth of the United States. Alexander Hamilton fought against it, Madison and Jefferson battled for it.

The idea that States have a right to ignore, or even nullify certain federal laws originated after President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, in part criminalized speech critical of the government. It was, again, Madison and Jefferson who fought against these laws, writing the Virginia Resolution, which Madison wrote, and the Kentucky Resolution, which Jefferson wrote. Anyone who questions the patriotism of those who still think the States are and ought to be sovereign should read these two pieces of our history

From The Kentucky Resolution

1. 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.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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 act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.

7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.

From the Virginia Resolutions

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

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.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

These two wise men are, to me the best possible sources from which to draw on in this debate. The man who penned our Declaration of Independence, and the man who is known as the Father of our Constitution. Two men who were far different from the reactionary politicos we have too many of today. Two men who held the Constitution dear, two men who understood that a federal government, left unchecked, would soon rage out of control, and would subjugate both the States, and the people.

 

What Would the Father of the Constitution say to gun grabbers?

Gun control you say? The Left is pushing hard to negate much of the second amendment, and part of that is to call anyone who defends that amendment as a lunatic. Well are these people who say the Constitution MEANS what it says loony? Let us consult THE expert on the Constitution, James Madison. Via Steve

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #46:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke;and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Go read the rest. As a side note, it is amazing that more and more liberals are openly saying we need to scrap, or at least IGNORE the Constitution. I have long-held that destroying the Constitution is the end goal of the Left. For years, Liberals would scoff at such a suggestion. But, as the Left becomes more sure that they can render the Constitution, in this case the second amendment mute, they begin to be more honest about their disdain for our founders and their principles. The truth is the Left is as far removed from our Founders as the East is from the West. And their masks are slipping.

Happy birthday to a great man who really should be on Mt. Rushmore

James Madison is easily one of the five greatest American Founders, along with Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and Mason. Today is his birthday, as lance notes!

My question is this, why is Teddy Roosevelt on Mt. Rushmore and NOT Madison? Seriously! The Father of the Constitution? HELLO!

Linked at All-American Blogger

Some wisdom from our Founders

English: stippling engraving of James Madison,...

Image via Wikipedia

If only our “leaders” today had the wisdom of men like those that founded this nation. Men like James Madison. Read a few quotes from the father of the Constitution.

“The very definition of tyranny is when all powers are gathered under one place.”

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

“A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species.”

“But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm… But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.”

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”

“How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?”

“I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic it is also a truth, that if industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out.”

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”

Palinphobia outbreaks all over USA

I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday on the drive home. He, along with George Will, and Charles Krauthammer, and other select “establishment Republicans” are, and have been telling us that Sarah Palin could never become our nominee, and that if she did, she would lose badly to Barack Obama. And, I admit to having my own doubts about her ability to win next November. I think her biggest obstacle would be overcoming the damage done her by the media, which has painted her as an idiot, unable to lead etc.

One thing, though, keeps me from counting her out, and that is the fact that Democrats are SO damned afraid of her. If they thought she was no threat, they would be doing their best to get her nominated next November wouldn’t they? Of course they would, so, before you count her out, ask yourself the question that William Teach looks into today. Why are they so afraid of Palin?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: for someone who is supposed to be a lightweight, stupid, and has no chance of being president, Palin sure scares the panty shields off of the liberal media and the GOP intelligentsia, and The Politico is there to make sure they tell us once again that Palin is not serious: Sarah Palin’s bus tour leaves GOP cold

Let me pause here to remind y’all that a lot of the GOP “elites” were sure Reagan could never win in 1980 either. Sometimes, I wonder if the GOP leadership really does not trust us, the GOP voters to elect who we want, maybe their noses are just a bit too elevated to let too “common” a candidate get elected. Or perhaps they fear for their power? Anyway, back to William Teach’s look into what I am calling Palinphobia

As it played out on TV this week, Sarah Palin’s “One Nation” road trip of U.S. historical sites was a masterpiece of political mischief-making – a wild dash up the East Coast that delighted her fans and cornered the market on 2012 coverage for days on end.

That’s not how the bus tour looked to Republicans on the ground, many of whom are more convinced than ever that the former Alaska governor is simply not serious about running for president.

While Palin has reveled in giving an extended one-fingered salute to the national press, refusing to give out details about her travel schedule and forcing reporters to literally chase her vehicle up I-95 in order to cover her, she reached out to precious few activists and party leaders in the states she visited. And the locals have noticed, leaving them scratching their heads and looking for a rationale for a candidacy.

Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman Rob Gleason, whose state hosted Palin on visits to Gettysburg and the Liberty Bell, voiced a common exasperation about Palin’s tour: “I don’t think theater wins elections.”

O RLY? How’d Obama Theater work out?

“Running for president is a very serious thing and you need to deal with it as such,” Gleason said. “I’m looking for party builders.”

In other words, he’s looking for, like so many of the GOP insiders and wishy washy Republicans, someone just like him, who plays the same old tired political game. One would think that the rise of the TEA Party and the historic mid-term blowout, which included so many TEA Party supported candidates, would have given the GOP establishment a clue. Apparently not.

BINGO! This is about keeping the same old, same old “moderate” in other words non-principled Republicans in power. Those Republicans who put principles BEFORE politics are only allowed to rise so far by the would-be elites of the GOP. In the end, the self-appointed GOP elites are about politics before principles. They are, in short men and women that are nothing like our Founders. Their desire to keep their power and place in the pecking order is far stronger than their comittment to America’s founding principles. 

Consider this bit from the Politico link.

Former New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen, who noted that “the normal laws of political gravity don’t seem to apply to Sarah Palin,” said the catch-me-if-you-can act has to end sooner or later, all the same.

“At some point the establishment has to be paid its due,” he said. “She gets sort of an initial pass, but at some point the goodwill gets used up.”

In other words Palin is not “playing ball”, and therefore can not be allowed to win. You want to know what I think about the “establishment” of the GOP? It is a sad commentary, but if Thomas Jefferson, or James Madison,  or Benjamin Franklin, or George Mason were to come back to life, and seek to win the nomination, they would likely receive the same treatment from the establishment types. They were great and all, but they would surely be deemed too, unconventional.

I am certainly thankful we did not have the gutless wonder GOP elites around in 1776, if they had been, we would still be a colony.

Nullification? Sounds like a darn good idea to me

Before you read this post from Adrienne, remember that nullification was a principle that two guys named Jefferson and Madison argued for. I know many today view any talk of nullification as wacky, but I ask you to consider this. If it was good enough for the Father of the Constitution and the author of the Declaration of Independence, shouldn’t it be good enough for us? Idaho thinks so

After leading the nation last year in passing a law to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, Idaho’s Republican-dominated Legislature now plans to use an obscure 18th century doctrine to declare President Barack Obama’s signature bill null and void. Lawmakers in six other states — Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming — are also mulling “nullification” bills, which contend states, not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter of when Congress and the president run amok.

It’s a concept that’s won favor among many tea party adherents who believe Washington, D.C., is out of control.

Again, I can hear those “David Brooks Republicans” heaving and fretting over the extremist nature of such an act. But, again, I suggest we ask ourselves, who is smarter Brooks, or Thomas Jefferson

Back in 1799, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his “Kentucky Resolution,” a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France, that “nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts… is the rightful remedy.

Still not convinced? OK, let us weigh the wisdom of Madison

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now remember, what two of our Founders wrote and thought when you hear some pointed headed pseudo elite bashing the ideal of nullification as extreme or dangerous. And surely Idaho and other states which take up this principle will be castigated and marginalized by those who neither understand or appreciate our founders, their wisdom, our the true meaning of liberty!

The wisdom of Madison

Via Big Government comes these quotes from the FATHER of our Constitution! Read it all! Excellent piece by Robert Allen Bonelli

James Madison, referring to a bill to subsidize cod fishermen introduced to the First Congress said,

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands;they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”

Prior to that, in Federalist 41, Madison wrote,

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.”

Madison’s incredible forethought underscores exactly what all Americans are facing today as we move into the November 2nd Election.

With all the important national issues of the jobless recovery, the obvious need and desire to repeal Obamacare, the runaway National Debt and all the financially unsustainable government spending, the one overriding issue that is not being clearly debated is the choice between central authority control of all aspects of our lives and the restoration of individual liberty as our Founders intended.  Make no mistake about it, and James Madison knew this, the shortest distance in a free society is the distance between being citizens living free and being subjects whose lives are controlled by government.

From before the ratification of the Constitution, as is evidenced by the necessity of the Federalist Papers arguing for its passage, to the early beginnings of the First Congress there were those who sought to establish themselves as rulers rather than representatives of the people.  These individuals wanted the government to be the basis for their rule and sought more power for such government than originally granted to it by the Constitution.

As I  have said before, the Founders had something our current “leaders” do not. Wisdom!

Happy birthday James Madison

If only we had Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Mason, and those founders now! Mike has a tribute to the Father of the Constitution.

March 16 marks James Madison’s birthday. He was “the father of the Constitution”; no one had a greater hand in constructing and interpreting the highest law of our land. His understanding is especially important today, given how far we have moved away from the very limited government the Constitution authorized and toward one that continually expands its power at the expense of Americans. We could all profit by remembering Madison’s understanding of the federal government authorized under the Constitution, a sharp contrast to what we see everywhere around us

Mike has some great quotes from one of the greatest and brilliant men to ever draw breath.

 

Health care mandates, what would Jefferson and Madison say?

What would they say indeed? Hot Air provides the answer that the likes of Pelosi will not.

As the CBO noted in this 1993 analysis, there has never been a federal mandate for residence to buy any product, let alone one from a private industry heavily regulated by the government.  The Constitution does not grant Congress that power, and the Tenth Amendment strictly limits the federal government’s powers to those enumerated in the Constitution.  Some dismiss the Tenth Amendment as a “truism” rather than a fact of constitutional law in order to dismiss the entire point of the document — which was precisely intended to prevent the federal government from assuming dictatorial power over the states and individual citizens.

I’ll close with explanations of “general welfare” from James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, two men who led the effort that produced the Constitution, and its close connection to enumerated powers and their limitations:

Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. (James Madison, via Quoty)

[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. (Thomas Jefferson, via Quoty)

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. (James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546)

How far removed from these brilliant men are our current “leaders”? Way too far I fear. They have forgotten the Constitution. And that is terrifying. The Constitution is there to constrain government, thus protecting our liberties. Liberties I remind you that come not from government, but from God. The founders recognized where liberty comes from, and put in place a document to protect those liberties from government. They saw government as a sort of necessary evil. One that must be held strictly in check. When government, or its agents, refuse to abide by our Constitution, then every liberty that is ours is in grave peril. We, the people hold every right to throw out politicians who dishonor the Constitution, and we must be dilligent in our efforts to jealously defend our rights.

Without a return to constitutional government, that is a government which follows that document, our nation is doomed to fall, eventually, into the abyss of tyranny. This is why we must fight, not only to throw back the current attempts to subvert our rights, but to elect ONLY those politicians who will do their DUTY, and abide by our Constitution.

Obama “eloquence” vs James Madison’s wisdom

Via Smitty

If you misrepresent what’s in the plan, we will call you out.–BHO

Now, contrast this with the Fourth President, James Madison, who had written in Federalist #62 (Federalism, Mr. Obama: do you speak it?), emphasis mine:

It will be of little avail to the people,
that the laws are made by men of their own choice,
if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read,
or so incoherent that they cannot be understood;
if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated,
or undergo such incessant changes that no man,
who knows what the law is to-day,
can guess what it will be to-morrow.
Law is defined to be a rule of action;
but how can that be a rule,
which is little known,
and less fixed?

Quite a difference isn’t there. And not just between Obama and Madison, but between MOST of our “representatives” and the Founding Fathers.

The founders had brilliance and wisdom, but they also had common sense, and a respect for the PEOPLE. Those qualities are tough to find in our current leaders. More later, off to work right now.