Throughout this series I have addressed the subject of the growing imbalance of power between the states and the federal government.  Until this installment I have mostly focused on causes and not spent much time on solutions.  Not wanting to be an all-problems-and-no-solutions guy I am now going to set forth my plan for restoring the balance.  (Readers beware!  Some of these ideas may be considered radical!)

Before I get started I want to clarify that “states’ rights” is a misnomer.  States don’t have rights.  Individuals have rights. States have sovereignty.  Their sovereignty is limited but they do have sovereignty that is delegated to them by the people.  The federal government also has sovereignty but it is delegated to it by the states.  (I have elaborated on this subject in greater detail in a previous blog.)

The curious part about all of this is that even though I have argued that the states, collectively, are superior to the federal government, federal laws supersede state laws and even state constitutions. This is clearly stated in the US Constitution itself:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (Article VI)

So if federal laws are superior to state laws then how is it that the states are collectively superior to the federal government?  There are essentially two parts to the answer.

1.  The federal governments power was instituted by the states and is limited by the US Constitution, which reserves all non-enumerated powers to the states (see Amendment X).  This is of particular interest now since the US Supreme Court has recently heard oral arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” and the Arizona SB 1070.  The Supreme Court’s decisions on these two cases may help stem the tide on the expansion of federal power and reassert the sovereignty of the states and the people.  However, this is highly dependent on a very small group of people appointed by the President.  For a more robust solution less dependent on the capriciousness of a group of nine people appointed to their positions for life by the President we must look further abroad.

2. The US Constitution can be amended by the states independent of any federal action.

What!!??  The states can change the Constitution without Congress!!??  Say it isn’t so!

It is so.  Not only can they amend the Constitution, they could also repeal it if they wished.  There are some that may call this claim ridiculous and that the Civil War has proven that the Union cannot be dissolved and that the federal power is superior to the states.  Not so.  The Constitution itself says otherwise:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (Article V)

Note that there are two methods of proposing amendments:  one that involves Congress and one that does not.  The several states can call a “Convention for proposing Amendments…” which become binding “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…”  So there is a path by which the states can alter (or even abolish, should they so choose) the US Constitution without any Congressional involvement.  Since we are talking about limiting federal power, this method must be used because Congress is not really interested in relinquishing their own power and would never propose an amendment that would further restrict the federal government’s power.  After all this is their livelihood we are talking about here…

So what would we propose in these state conventions that would curtail the ever expanding federal power?  Besides repealing the 16^th and 17^th Amendments I would propose the following four amendments:

The repeal amendment.  This has already been proposed in the state of Virginia. The proposed text reads:

“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

This would be a very effective tool for states to eliminate statutes or executive orders that are not in the best interest of the states.  If this amendment were effective now the several states could have already repealed “Obamacare”.  In theory they could have done so the next day.  Opponents say that this would create chaos by allowing the states to effectively nullify federal legislation.  On the surface it would appear to be so but garnering a 2/3 vote from the state, while less stringent than the ¾ needed for amendment, would not be an easy task and any law would have to be deeply unpopular with the state legislatures to be put in danger.

The recall amendment.  Almost all states in the union have a method for recalling their representatives.  That includes state legislators, executives, and judiciary.  Many states even have provisions for recalling their US legislators.  There is, however, no provision for recalling any US official in either the executive or judicial branches.  I would propose something like this:

“Any officer of the United States including the President of the United States may be removed from office by the several states for failure to uphold their oath to support this constitution, and such removal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose.  All vacancies shall be filled in accordance with this constitution and federal laws”

Note that I would apply a less stringent standard than that of impeachment.  An officer (including the President) of the United States can only be impeached for “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.  (Article II, Section 4).  The reason is that failing to support the Constitution is not necessarily a criminal matter but in large part a political one.  An officer may not be guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors and yet not support the Constitution, which they have taken an oath to do.  By removing those who are derelict in their duty, the states would have more direct control over the destiny of the Union as a whole.

This particular amendment is one that I would say may be the most urgent.  We now have a President of the United States who has ramrodded a law through that will bankrupt the states (Obamacare), sued a state to get it to change its laws (Arizona), and refused to enforce a law duly enacted by Congress and signed by a previous president because he disagrees with it (Defense of Marriage Act).  Today he is saying that the states should decide the issue and the federal government should stay out.  Who knows what he will be saying tomorrow?  One thing is for certain; our current president does not play nice when he disagrees with someone or some organization.  A lot of damage can be done in four years.  More can be done in eight.  If someone has no fear of retribution a lot can be done in say… three months?

The Congressional compensation amendment.  While Congress determining the compensation of the executive and judiciary may not be a conflict of interest, dictating their own pay certainly is.  Why a congressman or senator can retire after only five years of service and receive a pension for life is painfully obvious….  And shameful.  I would propose something like this:

“Compensation for legislators representing the several states shall be determined by the legislatures of the respective states.  All compensation shall be paid out of the treasuries of the respective states according to the laws of that state.”

Now we are getting radical.  Since we no longer have direct election of senators the states have lost control of their legislators.  By taking control of the purse strings of the legislators each state can decide how lucrative the compensation for their representation should be.  This would restore some (but not all) of a state’s voice regarding its representatives.

The land ownership preemption amendment.  The last amendment that I would propose would prohibit the federal government from owning any land within state boundaries.

“The United States may not own any land located within any state boundary.  A state may allow the United States to own real property exclusive of land for the use of the executive or judiciary provided that the state grants the United States ownership thereof.  Any state that prohibits ownership of real property by the United States shall provide the United States facilities adequate to perform the functions required by the legislature, executive, or judiciary.   All real improvements required by the United States shall be funded by the United States and may be contracted by the same.”

OK, so this one may need some more work on the wording but the idea is fairly simple.  Don’t let the federal government own any land within state boundaries.  Why?  Remember the Civil War?  The federal government had military bases on land they owned in some of the southern states.  Not only that, I really don’t like the BLM.

I realize that amending the constitution is not something to take lightly but it is the only way to restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government without revolution or total economic collapse.  At least, it is the only way that I know of.  If there are any better solutions out there I am open to them but if we do not restore it soon the states could lose what little sovereignty they have left.  Once that happens, it is a small matter to take the remaining vestiges of sovereignty left to the people.

ABOUT OHIO’S NEW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

Elections have consequences and it is clear that the GOP has had the upper hand on redistricting following the census in 1990, 2000, and 2010. Given this trend, it is entirely possible that we can expect more of the same in 2021. Our current law dictates that the state legislature is required to re-draw congressional district lines based on the census results and this census shows that Ohio has lost enough residents to warrant a loss of 2 seats. One of the requirements is that each district must be comprised of a similar number of residents. This time it is about 720,000 residents.

Another requirement is that the plan must provide for “majority-minority” districts which means that a significant number of black residents must be grouped together so as not to dilute their voting power. So the plan must adhere to this or risk being thrown out and re-drawn. Republicans have done as such the past three times and so first, Louis Stokes, then Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and now Marcia Fudge have the district seat in Cuyahoga County set aside for them.

This means that the plan is not democratic giving an equal opportunity for all candidates. Even if Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, wanted to create a fair, non-partisan plan giving all citizens equal opportunity to run for Congress or vote for a congressman in a 50-50 district, it is nearly impossible given the Voting Rights Act requirement providing for a Democratic Party set-aside seat.

The current Voting Rights Act is a relic of the last century and of a time that no longer exists. It is time for it to be abolished in so far as it perpetuates unnecessary practices such as congressional minority seat set-asides and provisions for bi-lingual ballots. It essentially sets-aside a Democratic seat based on race or ethnicity. The days of lasting institutional racism are long past.

If you want proof of how far we’ve come, just look at the faces of recently elected governors in New Mexico, Nevada, South Carolina, and Louisiana—all Asian-, or Hispanic-Americans and all Republicans. Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American Republican was elected senator from Florida. Here is substantial proof that so-called minorities can be elected state-wide without set aside districts. Six of the sixty-three new GOP congressmen elected in 2010 were Hispanic-Americans and two African-American. None was from a majority-minority district. One new Puerto Rican congressman was elected from Idaho. How many Puerto Rican voters might there be in Idaho?

And Republicans are supposed to be bigots?

For self-serving purposes, former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is spreading the word that Democrats dropped the ball last year by not offering a new law providing for a reform of the Ohio congressional redistricting process. She claims that Democrats’ hubris precluded them from working with Republicans, namely then-Senator Jon Husted. Nonsense, sheer nonsense. I have my doubts about the reality of such a scenario given that at least as early as summer 2010, polls showed that some state races would be toss-ups, the House could shift back to GOP majority and add seats in the Senate. I saw no speculation anywhere that Democrats would run the table and win the House, Senate and governorship. Even if Democrats wanted to pass a law for redistricting reform, GOP Senate leader Paul Harris would never have approved. He, not Jon Husted, would have been the decider on such a ploy.

Within the past few weeks more talk has surfaced, primarily from media pundits and aggrieved Democrats like Brunner, to change the current redistricting law, if need be, by a ballot referendum. It seems these days ballot initiatives are the only means that Democrats have to push their agenda. No doubt they believe that voters have forgotten that a few short years ago in 2005, Democrats and their Academic elite MSM allies proposed not one, but four initiatives to change the redistricting process, provide for Early Voting, and a reorganization of the Secretary of States office, among other things I recall. All four of these so-called “reform” initiatives” failed by no less than 2-1 margins, even in Cuyahoga County. I don’t agree that Ohio is a 50-50 state. Certainly over the past twenty years Republicans have largely had control of the state offices as well as the legislature. Democratic dominance is long in the past. The majority of “likely” Ohio voters are Republicans and Democrats, partisan voters. I can’t see how anything has changed to expect a different outcome for a redistrict initiative today or next year.

So in 2010, the GOP won 13 Ohio districts, Democrats 5. It would appear that the Republican redistrict map was an exercise in ensuring re-election for most incumbents, both Democrat and Republican save for three. Republicans were more than generous in giving up one seat and creating a possibly new minority seat in Columbus for a Democrat while the Democrats only lost one seat.

Those on the bubble are: Democrats Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich and Betty Sutton from Northern Ohio and Republicans Steve Austria and Mike Turner from the Dayton area. Two have no seat and one has a chance for a seat in an adjacent district in which she’s have to beat the Republican incumbent.

Right now a “death match” is shaping up between Kucinich and Kaptur in the 9th District. Since this includes much of Lorain County which is Sutton’s district, I wouldn’t discount the possibility that she takes on Kaptur and Kucinich rather than run against Renacci in the 16th.

Last but not least a change needs to be made whereby college students are allowed to register and vote in districts where they attend school: Columbus, Oberlin etc. as well as their home districts. Our system does not have portable registration such that you only have one residence to register and vote. College students do. Whether or not some or all vote multiple times at school and at home is unknown but the possibility exists that some do. That is fraudulent and needs to be fixed along with other measures. It is my understanding that currently the Cuyahoga voting rolls show more than one million registered voters with an eligible voting population of fewer than 800,000. The city of Oberlin has more registered voters than residents. The current electoral system leaves a lot to be desired.

IMMINENT REBELLION: THE DEMISE OF THE DOLLAR AND ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON

I’ve wanted to address the financial aspect of our current situation for quite some time but have not been able to articulate my thoughts sufficiently to make a coherent argument.  I hope I am able to do so now.  Fair warning though:  I am about to contradict all of the conventional wisdom of modern economists.  Here we go…

To begin with I am going to make a distinction between money and wealth.  These are not dictionary definitions and certainly not endorsed by most economists or financial advisors.  They are my definitions.  Money is whatever is used as currency.   At various times and places in the world it has generally been gold and/or silver but, in some areas of the world, even stones have served as currency.  In our case it is the US dollar.  Wealth is something of value that can be produced or consumed.  Food, clothing, shelter are the most basic forms.  Vehicles, electronics, furniture, weapons, boats, anything that is somewhat durable and useful would qualify under my definition.  Generally goods would qualify as wealth but services would not since there is no durability.  Land wouldn’t really qualify as wealth since it isn’t really something you produce or consume but it is the source of the raw materials that generate wealth.  The closest term that we commonly use to my definition of wealth would be assets, but it’s not a perfect fit either since cash is considered an asset but I don’t really count it as a measure of wealth.  It would be more of a potential for wealth.  I certainly don’t count the book value of your portfolio as wealth.

Money is accepted by the general populous because it is a lot easier to make value judgments in terms of money than it is in goods and services.  When the majority of the people in a society agree that the money is worth something it circulates and becomes currency.  Currency is then used to exchange goods, services, real estate, etc.

Wealth on the other hand, is something that is of use or fulfills a need, the most basic of which are food, clothing, and shelter.  Wealth (remember this is my definition) must be built up through utilization of resources to produce something that people need or want.  By my definition you would need the same three essentials for creating wealth that you need for running a business:  resources, labor, and capital.

They key word in all of this is produce.  Wealth is created by production and destroyed by consumption.  If I grow a bushel of apples I have created wealth.  If I eat a bushel of apples I have consumed wealth.  (I know this does not fit any definition you learned in economics class but I warned you of that at the beginning, didn’t I?)  The relative value of that wealth is decided by the individuals in a market and is usually quantified in terms of money.  The rules of supply and demand are probably familiar to you so I won’t go any further than to say supply and demand for money and wealth together determine the price or quantity of money required to purchase something of value which may or may contribute to your personal wealth.

Purchasing may increase your wealth (you buy land with a house on it) or decrease it (you throw a big party and purchase lots of food to be consumed). Merely conducting trade does not necessarily increase or decrease your wealth.  You may be amassing wealth or depleting it depending on what you are spending your money on.

Until recently, money was nearly always something that had intrinsic value.  The supply of money was limited by the amount of the substance that was available for use.  If you wanted to increase the supply of money you had to expend time and resources to extract it (i.e. mine more gold).  Societies were limited to the finite quantities of extracted material for their money supply.

This loosely tied money and wealth together.  In order to increase the money supply you had to produce something that people needed or wanted (i.e. gold).  This also creates a condition that allows for both inflation and deflation.  When the money supply increases faster than wealth does, inflation occurs.  When wealth increases faster than the money supply, then deflation occurs.  The market always seeks equilibrium so that the value of money accurately reflects the amount of wealth in a market. (Many of you will argue with me but remember this is NOT Economics 101.  This is economics according to James Williamson.)

Inflation is a condition where the money supply grows faster than wealth does.  More money to purchase the same amount of wealth leads to higher prices. You could also say that less wealth purchased with the same quantity of money will lead to higher prices. (In the macro.)  Dealing with inflation is much easier than dealing with deflation if you are wealthy or if you are in debt.  If prices rise, you can sell your goods and services at ever higher prices and therefore increase your wealth or consumption (whichever you prefer) with relative ease.  Since the goods you produced yesterday are worth more today it is rather simple to turn a profit on what you have either produced or traded for.  If you have a debt to pay it will become easier and easier to pay the debt because (presumably) the money supply is increasing and therefore your income (in terms of money not necessarily wealth) is also increasing.  To keep runaway inflation in check, society simply needs to produce enough to keep up with the money supply.

Deflation is a condition where the wealth supply grows faster than the money does or the money supply shrinks faster than wealth does.  Less money to purchase the same amount of wealth leads to lower prices and the same amount of money to purchase more wealth will also lead to lower prices.  Deflation is a generally a result of overproduction and much more difficult issue to deal with than inflation.  If you have surplus wealth you will get ever lower prices for your goods and services which in turn makes it ever more difficult to profit from production or trade.  This makes amassing wealth–or excessive consumption–ever more difficult.  If you have money reserves (not wealth by my definition) you may benefit from the lower prices for a short while and temporarily increase your wealth or consumption but eventually your income will get caught up in the downward spiral as well.  If you are in debt your situation is especially pernicious because, while your payment is fixed, your income is falling, making it ever more difficult to pay.  The real difficulty of getting out of this cycle is that increasing production or wealth does not cure the problem.  What you produced or traded for yesterday is worth less today than what you paid for it.  The only thing you can do is reduce your consumption until either the money supply increases or the production of wealth slows sufficiently to restore the inflationary market.

In the past (before 1900) periods of inflation were always followed by brief periods of deflation.  The markets would seek equilibrium and those who were prepared would weather the deflation storms (or even amass wealth at discounted prices) and those who were not would suffer.  After the correction, inflation would then provide market conditions for those who were not prepared to get ready for the next correction.

All of this changed with the introduction of fiat money.  Fiat money is money produced by governments with no intrinsic value.  It only has value because everyone agrees that it does.  It is created and destroyed at will by the government that issues it.  There is no limit to how much can be produced.  It doesn’t matter how much gold is in circulation any more.  Nor does it matter how much gold could potentially be extracted.  Since money is no longer produced (the treasury doesn’t even bother to print all the money that is available in financial markets, they just produce enough for circulation), the ties that connected money and wealth have now been completely severed and each one grows and shrinks independently of each other.  When the government wants less money in the market, they remove it.  When they want more money in the market, they insert it.

Why would governments do such a thing?  The answer is simple: They don’t like deflation.  Or, stated another way, they hate, loathe, and despise deflation.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that most governments would rather deal with foreign invasion than deflation.  Deflation is the four letter word of the financial sector.  Why?  Because governments and many of the businesses that support the government financially all benefit from inflation but are hurt by deflation.  As long as there is steady inflation it will become easier as time goes on to pay old debts.  Prices rise, incomes rise, tax revenue increases, debt remains the same.  Fabulous, right?  Well, with deflation prices fall, incomes fall, tax revenues fall, debt remains the same.  So if you like to live beyond your means, then you want continual inflation.  You don’t ever want to experience deflation because that would decrease your wealth in a real way.  As long as you have continued inflation, you can always sell higher than you bought, which, if you borrowed money to buy in the first place, is very, very important.  That means you never have to give up real wealth even if you are living on other people’s money.

With fiat money you can create a virtual inflation machine.  You can artificially create inflation even when the market would normally deflate simply by issuing more money.  More wealth + even more money = inflation.  Leveraged businesses and traders are benefited by perpetual inflation just as much as governments, so they support the practice.  Businesses never get punished for overproducing and governments never get punished for overspending.  Perfect isn’t it?  Now government can spend without any restraint and the bill never really comes due because when it does, there is always plenty of (albeit fake) money to pay.

This is the real reason we have fiat money and the real reason the Federal Reserve exists.  Don’t let them kid you about the mission to maintain full employment.  That’s just so the electorate will keep voting in incumbents. But given the choice, maintaining positive inflation always takes precedence over full employment.

So now we are in a market that really wants to deflate.  It hasn’t deflated in over a hundred years.  We overproduced homes and instead of treating them like wealth (something useful, i.e. a place to live) we treated them as a source of money.  Now the market pressures are so great that notwithstanding the injection of over $3 trillion in cash over the last three years, home prices are still declining.  Wages are following.  Well, private sector wages are falling.  Public sector wages continue to rise.  I’m not sure what is keeping inflation positive.  Are rising food and oil prices enough to counteract the deflation of wages and real estate?  Is public sector wage inflation enough to negate the private sector wage deflation?  What happens if oil & food prices begin to decline?  Is that the reason the White House doesn’t want to increase oil production?  For fear falling oil prices will cause everything to deflate?  The disconnect between wealth and money serves as a giant smoke screen that hides the true market behavior, but eventually the truth comes out.

What we are witnessing here is the fleecing of the American populace by the political and business elites.  This is why the gap between the rich and the poor has become so great.  The rich have cheated the system with the help of the government.  Don’t let Obama fool you into thinking the rich will pay.  They may write checks but they don’t ever pay.  The government only consumes wealth and produces only money.  The consumption, like it or not, comes at the expense of the producers.  Who are the producers?  You and I.

Many speculate that our currency will become worthless.  Generally they argue that hyperinflation a la Weimar Republic will destroy faith in it.  While I agree that when the faith in the currency is destroyed, the currency will be worthless.  I disagree that hyperinflation will be the real culprit.  The Fed is ready to combat hyperinflation.  When it starts, they will do everything they can to fight it.  Since they can destroy money at will, they will probably succeed.  No, hyperinflation will not be the real culprit if our currency becomes worthless.

What will destroy our currency is the market itself.  The Fed has pitted its will against the market.  The market wants to deflate and the Fed wants to inflate.  Eventually the market will win.  When it does, the eulogy for the dollar has already been written…  by John the Revelator!  (See Revelation 18:11-15)

Ohio SoS Jon Husted, a Republican that I didn’t endorse during the 2010 election cycle, is preventing the Ohio General Assembly’s attempts to restore the integrity of Ohio’s elections, i.e., in this instance, putting the kibosh on voter ID.  As I’ve pointed out, this is the same Husted who, as Speaker of the Ohio House, shepherded the passage of legislation that created loopholes big enough for 18-wheelers to pull through.  Former Ohio SoS Jennifer Brunner was only to happy to drive through each and every one of those loopholes in 2008 to secure a partisan advantage for the Democrats.

Too few see through Husted’s pretense to see him for who he truly is.  If not so, he wouldn’t have prevailed in the 2008 GOP primary.  Kudos to Tom Blumer for compiling the sources and synthesizing them into a more accurate portrayal of Husted.

James is an Ohio native who currently resides in Nevada.  Fairly recently, while James was driving down a Nevada road, he was accosted by an employee of the federal government’s Bureau of Land Management.  He was issued a traffic ticket.  Huh? Say that again, I’m not sure I heard it right.  He really got a traffic ticket from the Bureau of Land Management?  Yup, and James wasn’t even driving on, nor was he driving adjacent to, federally owned lands.  According to the words on the back of the ticket, the payment of the traffic fine was to be sent to an address in Pennsylvania.  Crazy.  Apparently, Congress passed a law clearly overreaching the  enumerated powers granted to the federal government by way of the Constitution.

James has composed an entire “Imminent Rebellion” series examining the growing schisms between the sovereign people, the state governments, and the federal government.  Prior blog entries in this series are:  “Imminent Rebellion: States vs the Federal Government,” “Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit,” “Imminent Rebellion: The New Fort Sumter,” and “Imminent Rebellion: Nullification, Secession, and the Constitution.”

IMMINENT REBELLION: THE NEW KING GEORGE

I’d like to start out by discussing a fallacy I hear so often quoted:  “It can’t get any worse than this.”  It can always be worse.  In fact I would argue that until people recognize that things can get worse they will get worse because living in denial brings inaction.  Inaction is the very cause of a downward trend continuing.  Something is broken and so you have to fix it.  If you don’t correct the problem it will continue to grow in severity until it becomes destructive.  The difficulty with breakdowns in our governmental/political system is that few people can agree on what is broken and hence what needs to be repaired and how.  So here is my view on our federal government problem.  (If you don’t think we have a problem then you scare me.)

Problem:  The federal government no longer recognizes the sovereignty of the people nor does it respect the sovereignty of the states.  These are both principles enshrined in our Constitution by the founding fathers (who were much wiser than our leaders today).  Both are essential to maintaining liberty because when a government retains all sovereignty there is no check on its power.  If there is no check on government power, the inevitable result is tyranny.  History has provided us with so many good examples that I could fill volumes with them, so, in the interest of brevity, I won’t include them here.

Many of our current so-called “leaders” barely make a pretense of adhering to the document that empowered our federal government and a few even openly dismiss it as out of date.  The Constitution is not outdated.  It will never be outdated.  Those who belittle its importance argue that the founding fathers could not have possibly seen 200 years into the future and anticipated the challenges that we have today.  While that statement is true, I would like to point out that the reason why the Constitution enumerates powers and outlines the federal system but doesn’t include any statutes is that it only enumerates individual rights and delegated authority (from the states to the federal government).  That is why we have a legislative branch in the first place.  It’s to deal with changing conditions, both at home and abroad.

In order to understand more clearly what is wrong with the government acting beyond its delegated authority we must understand why the Constitution was established in the first place.  To find this, let’s look at the preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

So, first of all, we understand that the federal government was created by the people of the United States.  It was created by the several states (not the other way around) and can (in theory) be abolished by the states by amendment.  So, it follows that the states, collectively, are superior, not inferior, to the federal government.  Furthermore, the people, collectively, are superior to both the state and federal governments.  Sovereignty lies with the people.  They hold the supreme power and, with it, the right to organize, alter, or abolish government as the need arises.  I have at least one friend who agrees with my view: Thomas Jefferson.  To quote the Declaration of Independence:

…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… [and when it becomes destructive]… it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

The governed (the people or public)  in the thirteen former British colonies (now independent states) already recognized that there was a union among the several states before the Constitution was adopted and that it was imperfect.  They proposed forming a central government because they wanted to establish a more perfect union.  Why?

{To}… establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

This is the reason the Constitution exists:  It’s to preserve liberty.  Liberty must be preserved or it will be taken away by those who wish to exercise control over others.  The colonists wanted to control their own destiny, not have it controlled by a king that didn’t even live on the same continent as they did.  Our founding fathers recognized that the people are sovereign and have the inherent authority to govern.  So, when authority is given to the government, it is given to it by the consent of the people.

Now I ask you: Where in the Constitution of the United States is the mandate that says that the federal government needs to ensure everyone has money in their pocket and food on their table?  Is that promoting “the general Welfare?” No, absolutely not.

Remember that the colonists organized the Boston Tea party and numerous other protests because the government of Great Britain impeded the promotion of general welfare by imposing financial burdens on the colonists for government actions they weren’t even party to.  (Obamacare?  Libya?  Foreign aid to the Middle East?)  Furthermore, the taxes were imposed by the government in London without any representation or public support from the colonies.  That was an infringement on liberty.  The protests only increased when King George tried to crack down on the rebellion and used his ability to designate when, where, and how citizens could be tried for crimes to deter the resistance.  By delaying trials and holding them in distant places with no jury (the judge’s decision was final) the average citizen could not adequately protect himself from the abuses of government. (Justice and domestic tranquility weren’t priorities for the British crown.) The general welfare is promoted by maintaining liberty and individual rights (defense being a necessary element in a hostile world), not by robbing the rich to feed the poor.  (The Robin Hood principle actually degrades the general welfare of the people . . . but that is an argument for a different day.)  I will say, however, that the protests didn’t have anything to do with a lack of common defense.  Britain did a pretty good job of protecting their piggy bank in the Americas.

So I ask you, after we threw off the oppression of George III and we established a government for the express purpose of preserving liberty, how are we doing now?  Is allowing people who plot and carry out designs to kill Americans to be tried in civil court promoting justice?  Is refusing to enforce our immigration laws and suing the states that try to deal with the problem promoting domestic tranquility?  Is military involvement in Libya or Yemen providing for the common defense?  Is taking approximately 19% of everything that is produced in the country in the form of taxation promoting the general welfare?  Is forcing your own citizens to purchase health insurance against their will promoting liberty?

I could go on but I don’t need to.  You are all aware that our own government is now guilty of many of the abuses that caused us to throw off the British government in the first place.  The reason we fought the Revolutionary War was because the outcry of the public fell on deaf ears.  The government in London did not listen to its constituents.  Now we have a government in Washington DC that does not listen to its constituents.  It doesn’t need to end in bloodshed, though.  There is another way.

The solution:  The federal government needs to get back to the basics:

{To}… establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

Remember that, in the United States of America, the people are sovereign.  They have the right to govern themselves.  They only delegate authority to governments, . . . they don’t abdicate it.  The people delegated certain powers to the states and the states delegated certain (enumerated) powers to the federal government.

The federal government needs to preserve liberty, not trample it.    They also need to recognize that they are dependent on the states and the people for their existence, not the other way around.  If the federal government was looking out for the best interest of the citizens at large and not just the best interests of campaign donors, we would not have this problem.

This change can only happen from within.  This is the essence of the tea party movement.  So far no one in the national media has been able to articulate it, but the reason the tea party exists is because the federal government has become what we threw off over 200 years ago: Despotic!   This is a natural response from freedom loving people.  It is not radical, racist, or extreme.

The Declaration of Independence provides the remedy for the malady of despotism:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

So I ask you:  Do you think the federal government is preserving your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Or are they becoming destructive to such ends?  How does taxing the rich and refunding to the poor promote liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  I suppose if you are on the receiving end, you might think the idea is great, but what if you are the one having money taken out of your wallet against your will and having it given to someone else just because they make less money than you do?  How does allowing guns to be smuggled to Mexico by drug cartels promote our right to life?  How does forcing everyone to buy health insurance preserve our liberty?

If you believe, as I do, that the federal government (and, by the way, state governments are not guiltless) has overreached, then please support candidates that truly believe in limited government.  If they don’t live up to their promises, replace them.  As long as the political elites control Washington, this problem will only grow until it financially crushes the state governments and simultaneously usurps their authority to govern.  This is already beginning to happen.  Obamacare and high-speed rail are only aiding in the power grab by forcing spending on the states while only funding about half of it.  By bankrupting the states, there will be less resistance for the next usurpation of authority since there will be fewer funds available to fight the measure.

I was recently issued a citation for a traffic violation while traveling on a state highway here in Nevada by a Bureau of Land Management officer.  I was not even on or near BLM land.  Police power is not delegated by the Constitution (and my Congressional representative’s office even agreed with me) and yet I am being tried by the federal government for a traffic violation on a state highway that does not even border BLM land.  This is a blatant violation of the Constitution, yet the BLM claims that they are acting within the law.  What law?  The law that Congress created that was in direct violation of the 10^th amendment?  That law?  Inexplicably, my Congressional representative’s office also agrees with the BLM officer in that he acted within the law.  What further evidence do we need to show that we need new leadership in Washington?

The political elites deride and berate the tea party movement because it is in direct opposition to their goals, not because it is bad for the country.  They don’t want their power limited. They want to expand it.  They usually use the pretext of solving societal problems, but they don’t solve society’s problems because they can’t.  Only we, as a people, can do that.  Government regulations will not make our kids smarter nor get them better jobs nor will it magically create wealth for our citizens.  The federal government needs to get back to preserving liberty by protecting against foreign invasion (Mexico anyone?), minting (real) money, and regulating trade (with China maybe?).  That is what the Constitution gave them the authority to do and that is what will allow the states and the public the liberty to focus on the issues of education, local commerce, rule of law, and the well-being of its citizens.

It is paramount that we elect representatives that will uphold the principles of liberty.  Time is short.  If we do not act soon, the only alternative we will have is the alternative that the colonists felt compelled to take: Exercise the right to bear arms.