Walter Williams on the Constitution

From Investors Business Daily:

Does U.S. Need To Split Along Political Lines?

By WALTER WILLIAMS

Ten years ago I asked the following question in a column titled "It's Time To Part Company":

"If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?"

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them.

The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.

Read the rest

Constitutional Scholars Needed

Tony Blankley has an article in the Washington Times of what the 17th amendment has done to harm the 10th amendment. 

To re-empower our states Repeal the 17th Amendment to shift influence out of Washington

It is a detailed discussion so I won't chop it up into segments here.  Go Read It.

A Constitutional Crisis and Security Crisis

So says Andy Mc Carthy in National Review The Constitutional Crisis and the Security Crisis
On detainees, either ignore the judges or rein them in.

We do not want a situation where the executive is defying the courts,” a senior Obama administration official told the Washington Post. The spokesman was rationalizing the administration’s release of jihadist detainees, who are returning to the jihad and targeting Americans. Such defiance, said the official, would be “a recipe for a constitutional crisis.” Evidently, the president doesn’t appreciate that we already have a constitutional crisis.

These are not just bad decisions. They amount to a scandal. Let’s count the ways.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

First, there is the matter of the ongoing constitutional crisis that, as al-Qaeda’s attempted Christmas Day attack amply demonstrates, is now endangering our nation. The Constitution gives the political branches plenary responsibility for the conduct of war. The conduct of war includes the detention, trial, or release of enemy combatants. The federal courts have no role except the one they have usurped. This brazen power grab flouts the bedrock constitutional separation of powers, and the political branches do not have to abide it. Indeed, as national defense is their chief responsibility, it is their duty not to abide it.

This is a long article, well worth reading.

Calvinism and the Constitution

A very interesting discussion at American Thinker. I'm not going to post it here, you need to read the whole thing and and be sure to follow all the links. It is very thought provoking. Read it.

Our Constitution

Patriot Post has a very long and well reasoned article on our constitution.

'Nobody Questions That'?

Never before has there been more evidence of outright contempt for our Constitution than under the current liberal hegemony presiding over the executive and legislative branches of our federal government.

The protagonist of this Leftist regime is, of course, Barack Hussein Obama, who promised his constituents, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction. We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America. And generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time" [emphasis added]

..........Thus, by virtue of his election to the presidency nearly one year ago, he believes he has the authority to establish a new paradigm to "fundamentally transform" our nation by creating "a new foundation."

However, if we are a nation of laws with a national government limited by our Constitution, and, indeed, we are, then Obama has no legal authority to "transform" our government.

Those who laid our constitutional foundation were very clear about its limits on government.

Our Constitution's principle author, James Madison, wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce."

Concerning the legislature's authority, Thomas Jefferson asserted: "[G]iving [Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole [Constitution] to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly, no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."

Madison added, "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." [RC bolding]

Go read it all.

The Five Pledges

I received this in an email from a friend. Before I post emails I like to trace their origins, if I can. This is from the Glenn Beck show of August 28th. He has a pretty version of it posted on his site.

To Congress, The 5 Pledges

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during a difficult economic times, therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has
rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of US dependence on foreign oil is a travesty, therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why. I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity power over US citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

Please Read, Print, Study and Consider changes or additions

Dick Hoese has written a petition he would like to have everyone in our group study, comment, correct or add on to at our next meeting, Aug 17th. Don Durand has also sent it around in an email. Here is the Petition:

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IS A CO-EQUAL RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT, THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THEREFORE:

The undersigned members of the Rockport Conservatives are committed to:

No more stealing of taxpayer money to fund or enable unconstitutional projects. Anyone in doubt after reading the constitution can read the Federalist Papers and other writings of the period. The Supreme Court is only the temporary, not final, determinant, of constitutionality.

No more stealing of taxpayer money to fund or enable social engineering, no matter how reasonable it appears. Work to retire all such programs.

No more stealing of taxpayer money to fund or enable projects that are in conflict with state and local rights. Work to retire all such programs.

No more bribery of states and local interests with the threat of withholding or providing federal (taxpayer) funds.

No more passing of legislation, amendments, appointments and regulations without reading and understanding them. If not, vote no. The same applies to producing extensive, contradictory, and confusing language.

All legislation, amendments, appointments and regulations must state their constitutional basis, by specific reference to the article(s).

No more talk of a floating or changing constitution. If you want to do something unconstitutional change it by a lawful process. Challenge all parties who deny us enforcement of the constitution.

If you are consistent with these articles in your practice, see to it that others are also, subject to your powers and explanations.

When someone lies, say so, no matter their position.

If you do not understand the constitution, we will explain it or guide you to sources.

Check out the Brutally Honest Blog

Alan Grayson is suggesting that the constitution is being usurped by the federal reserve
My husband and I have just almost given up exclaiming over every new example of the government (read President Obama there) ignoring the constitution. TARP was bad. The so called stimulus bill was bad , but when the government started giving portions of GM to the highest bidder, (read donations here) we just really started shaking our heads. When the bankruptcy judge went along with it we really started shaking in our boots. Where is our constituion, why isn't more of congress objecting? I know we are in the minority but where are the patriots? The Alan Grayson link leads to a 5 minute video so if you have a fast internet connection you will want to see it.