I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

What, then, is the citizen to do when the enemies of the Constitution include the President and a significant majority of both Houses of the Congress?  Henceforth we shall refer to this latter group simply as Congress while realizing that there are many in the Congress who are honest and hard working representatives of the People.

The President is demonstrably guilty of violating the rule of law in that he has taken to himself the power to discharge management of private companies, stolen billions of dollars from secured investors (GM and Chrysler) and made a gift of the ill gotten proceeds of these thefts to unions who supported him in his run to the Presidency, allowed Federal agencies (EPA and Corp of Engineers) to exacerbate the damage to both the people of the gulf region and the environment of the same region for purely political gain, and in direct violation of due process “taken” twenty billion dollars from a private company and inserted himself into the disbursement of said funds, again without regard to due process of law, again purely for personal political gain.

Through his personal acts he has prevented the proper pursuit of happiness of many citizens of the gulf region, again simply to put himself in a more positive political light.  He has damaged the standing of the United States of America by apologizing for so many imagined ills that it is not practical to list them here.  He has insulted the leaders of our closest allies (England and Israel) with repeated gaffs and intentional acts contrary to political norms and he has consorted with and given standing to enemies of the United States of America (Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad) and bowed to foreign leaders such as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

He continues to act, not as a President, but rather as an arrogant despot eager to create new voters loyal to him with no regard to the legality or moral right of his acts.  And he damns those who would oppose him as misguided fools or someone whose “ass” needs to be kicked.

Our current President is a liar, a thief and at a minimum a Muslim sympathizer.   This is an enemy of our Constitution.

Congress, although divided, has, in the main, supported the Progressive attempts to destroy our capitalist system, move jobs overseas and make the United States a Socialist nation of the European model.  We could spend the next few pages listing the illegal, unwise or insulting actions of our Congress.

It is obvious to any reasoning citizen that the President and a significant majority of our Congress are, indeed, domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America.

What, then, is the citizen to do?  How is the citizen to react?  First of all, our next step is to vote the fools, crooks and self serving out of Congress in November and to hamstring our President in the process.  Secondly, it is not legal, nor is it reasonable, for any citizen to advocate the overthrow of the government.  But it is the right of the citizenry to change the government through reasonable and legal means.  But, the question remains,  what then if this ballot is not sufficient?

I would suggest that we should use the current situation to educate the citizenry about the values held by our Founding Fathers and the principals upon which our country was founded.  It is the right, indeed the duty, of every citizen to participate in this process.  By our dedication to this process of education, we will end the erosion of our values and return to our roots.  Those roots are firmly based upon Christian values and devotion to our Creator.

I suggest that we should dedicate ourselves to this end, so help us God. As we go forward in this effort, we should hold close two parts of the Declaration of Independence.  First, we read the second sentence. . .

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.

Endowed by their Creator.  Our country was founded upon the belief that our rights are not given by the royalty, nor by any government.  But, they are given by our Creator.

Finally, we look at the Preamble.  It is the right, it is the duty of every citizen to right the wrongs in our government.  We do not claim the right or duty to make violent change.  Such would be contrary to the spirit of the Declaration.  We claim the right to make these changes through education and the power of the ballot box.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence of

the United States of America

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,[71] 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We have not done a very good job in exercising our control.  And, we have often, no usually, let our elected officials do whatever they wished with little correction from us.  If the Tax Code we now have is a weapon to be used by the government against us, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

The fact remains that the power to tax provides elected officials with a source of power more addictive than heroin.  And, power is the drug of choice in Washington, DC.

The current tax system in this country requires the taxpayer to find ways to avoid taxes.  This does not mean the taxpayer is encouraged to evade taxes, but to find legal ways of reducing his or her tax burden.  The taxpayer greatly resents the government holding him/her at the point of a gun , figuratively speaking, and forcefully taking his or her monies.

The current tax system is not fully in accord with the Constitution.  Now, I am not an attorney and I am not qualified to comment upon this with any great expertise.  But, the Constitution is clear.  To Wit:

Article 1, Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have 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; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Article I, Section. 9.
Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Some would say that the 16 Amendment allowed for the imposition of an income tax. *  But, there is some rather strong debate as to whether or not the 16th Amendment was ever really ratified.  As in the current administration, the Taft administration has been accused of ignoring legalities in order to accomplish their goals without regard to proper procedure.

Obviously all this lends confusion to the real question.  That real question is how is the power to levy taxes being used as a power base or as a weapon against the people?  Legalities and necessities aside, have those in power misused this power and are they using the threat of all the powers of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to impose their will upon the people?

The basic premise upon which this article is based is that the people should never be afraid of their government.  Rather, it is appropriate that the government should always fear the wrath of the people.  In a later article this same premise will be the basis for an argument for the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Today, almost every taxpayer is fearful of the IRS.  Even if the taxpayer has been diligent and careful in the preparation of his or her tax return, the fear remains that something could be wrong.  The IRS could audit him or her and the consequences “could” be something to fear.  Many taxpayers have “fudged” a little and live in fear of being caught.  And, of even greater import, Congress uses the threat of higher taxes, or lower taxes for those who pay no tax, or taxing the rich (to be defined as the politician decides later), or even that most feared of all, the temporary surtax which always seems to become permanent.

Whether any of the previous paragraph is accurate or not is irrelevant.  That most people believe it to be accurate is relevant.  So, we come to the truism that Perception is Reality. That perceived fear gives the individuals in office (Senators and Congresspersons) a very real power over the lives of the citizen.

The only real solution from the point of view of the citizen is for the government to levy a consumption tax and to do away with any direct taxation.  That this is the right way to go is not in question.  That those with the power to make this change will not do so without almost overpowering threat from the electorate is simply a fact.

The Tax Code as it now exists gives those in office such a high level of power over the citizenry that to willingly give up that power is akin to an addict willingly giving up crack cocaine.  In fact, I would suggest that this power is even more addictive than the narcotic.

The people do, however, have the trump card.  If the citizenry is sufficiently focused and convincingly vocal, we have the power to force this change; either through the threat of mass ouster of elected officials or their actual ouster.  Once aroused, the ire of the people is irresistible and once convinced that the people mean business, elected officials will do whatever is required to keep their jobs and, thus, their position and power.

But, as to what system of consumption tax should be chosen, there are really only two realistic alternatives.

The first is the adoption of a flat tax; most probably in the form of a national sales tax.  The problems, with this approach are:

• the flat tax is to easy to change (raise the tax rate);

• the flat tax does not eliminate other forms of taxation.

The most studied and effective consumption tax is the Fair Tax.  Fair Tax advantages are:

• it has been designed to be revenue neutral;

• it rightly transfers the power of taxation away from elected officials to the people who have consented to the tax;

• it abolishes the Internal Revenue Service;

• all other forms of taxation are eliminated;

• a change in tax rate would require either 2/3 or 3/4 approval in both the House and the Senate (as established by enabling legislation);

• the underground economy, not now taxed, would be included;

• monies sent overseas by individuals or corporate entities, again, as established by enabling legislation, would be taxed at the same rate as monies spent in the United States.

Clearly, the Fair Tax is the only reasonable tax system proposed thus far.  And, just as clearly, we must change our system of taxation and revenue generation.  It has been amply demonstrated that we cannot trust our elected officials with this power.  Because, as has been said many times, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The system of taxation we now endure is, indeed, a Weapon of Government.  By adopting the Fair Tax, we eliminate that weapon and assure a tax system which is, in fact, fair.

*  THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS:  THE FRAUD OF THE 16th AMENDMENT AND PERSONAL INCOME TAX, Bill Benson and M J “Red” Beckman, 1985

What is the indelible question here?  Why is it important for us to know who should vote?  And, why should some people not vote?  If we decide that some of our people should not vote, for whatever reason, how do their rights stay protected?  It would be oh so simple to say that those who do not contribute to society should not have a say in how society is governed.  After all, we can see right now in the current Obama administration the result of the non productive citizens voting themselves largess.

But, is it so simple?

The American economy has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of those living just a century ago.   Free enterprise, where any man or woman can take risks, invest and produce, has led to a cultural mobility not present in any other country in the world.

Today, however,  forces exist within our Republic which actually want these basic tenants of our nation to fail.  Free enterprise not only means everyone has the opportunity to succeed.  It also means that some will fail.  In fact, most of those who do succeed have failed many times before they succeed.  What does that have to do with Who should Vote and Who Should Not?  Everything.

Because some people fail, often because of their own decisions, there is a large group within our economy who believe the government should protect them from failure.    This fact has allowed a strong group of opportunists to gain power with our government.  This group, comprised of people from both political parties, are self identified as Progressives.  In fact, they are anything but.

Progressives seek to make the electorate subservient to the government through handouts, bailouts, Earned Income Tax Credits and other ways of creating a large group of voters, currently a near majority, so dependent upon government that they will vote as directed simply from personal greed.

But, let’s go back to the eighteenth century when our Founding Fathers were forming our Republic.  There was no suggestion of “one man, one vote.”  In fact, Jefferson, and others, warned against this ridiculous idea.  Only men of property were enfranchised with the vote.  No women, no workers, no idle hands.  Only free, adult males who owned property.  Women were not even allowed to own property and a widow’s inheritance passed to the “appropriate” male relative in most cases.  It is not hard to understand the ideals behind this approach.

But, we will have to put aside questions and opinions about male versus female and even slave versus free.  For the time being we just have to accept yesterday as it was and not as we believe it should have been.

Today, we do not accept the condition in which women depend upon their men and fall into the background.  No one, I believe, has any lingering doubts that slavery was wrong and that it has no place in our society today.  I think all of us, or at least almost all of us, agree that these two issues have been settled by history and we are the better for it.  Again, let’s just accept that for the purposes of this article.

In the times in which our Republic was formed, it was the property owner who controlled the direction of our economy and workers had little education and, usually, less say about social and economic issues of the day.  Therefore, limiting the vote to property owners had social validity.  Today that approach would simply be ridiculous.

We have today what we refer to as universal education in this country.  We all know that this education is imperfect and the quality of education varies with the social and economic realities of communities.  Further, a case can be made that the quality of education up to and including the 16th grade has fallen drastically over the past half century.  This, even while the quality of higher education seems to have, in some cases, grown to the highest levels in the entire world.  But, we limit ourselves here to consideration of the vote.

We have moved far from the precepts of our Founding Fathers in deciding who should vote.  Rather than “qualified” voters, we have the “universal vote.”  Most of this movement has resulted from racial hatreds and government directives which are, frankly, in direct violation of the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  That amendment reads:

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.

Many Americans believe the Constitution guarantees us the right to vote.  This is not so.

Let us first establish the fact that there is no “right to vote” in the U. S. Constitution. Any right to vote falls under the administration of the several States.  Therefore, Federal Directives pertaining to voting rights have no standing.  This is not to say that the States were not wrong in many cases, they were.  All we want to look at in this article is how we came to “the universal vote” and what is wrong with this approach.  Or, how could we better gauge who should and who should not vote?

If we accept the States Rights position that the several States should control the qualifications of its’ citizens right to vote, we have to accept that there will be variances from State to State.  The citizens have a responsibility to monitor this and to make sure the rights of citizens are protected.  This is not a subject for Federal involvement.

Each State will have to consider specific qualifications for its’ citizens to have the voting franchise.

Each State will have to consider specific disqualifying criteria which may prevent a citizen from having the right to vote.

Each State will have to look into its’ own heart (or the soul of its’ citizens) and to provide for the protection of the rights of those citizens judged not to qualify to have the voting franchise.

The author will present here a few ideas for your consideration.  Very few will agree with every idea suggested.  And, it is not the intention of the author to convince the reader.  Rather it is my intention that what is presented here will begin a process in which you, the reader, think about these questions and come to your own conclusions.

Just as the Founding Fathers believed, a citizen, in order to vote, must be a productive member of society.  Let’s think about what that means in today’s society.

To be a productive member of society the citizen should have a job or contribute in some manner to society.  The specifics of contributing in some manner to society I leave to the legislators of each State.  However, student activities shall be considered to be a job for the purposes of this qualification.

In order to be a productive member of our society the citizen should be able to speak and write the English language.  To what specific level of proficiency I leave to the legislators of each State.

Beyond this, any man or woman who has served this country through military service in a combat situation should have the right to vote without regard to either of the first two qualifications.  It is expected, however, that the State will endeavor to assist the citizen in both of the first two qualifications.

Any citizen dishonorably discharged from the military services shall not be eligible to vote unless the dishonorable condition is later removed.  Those discharged in a manner other than honorable  would not be so limited.

Any citizen found to be mentally incompetent shall not be eligible to vote unless and until found to be competent by an authorized entity of the State.

Any citizen convicted of a felony where violence or the threat of violence is not present shall not be eligible to vote for a period of five years.  At the end of that five year period the citizen’s voting franchise may be restored if judged by a competent State authority to have become a contributing member of society.

Any citizen convicted of a felony where violence or the threat of violence is present shall not be eligible to vote for the rest of his or her life.

Any citizen convicted of specific felonies where violence or the threat of violence is not present including, but not limited to, sexual child abuse, rape, kidnap of a minor by other than an immediate family member or other felonies as established by competent authorities of the State shall not be eligible to vote for the rest of his or her life.

Any citizen receiving aid from the State or from the Federal government which provides the majority (in excess of 50%) of that citizen’s material support shall lose the right to vote.  Exceptions to this condition shall be according to the legislators of each State.

All organizations including, but not limited to, churches, unions and social or business organizations, shall be prohibited from directing or placing pressure upon any citizen regarding how that citizen exercises his or her franchise of voting.

In order to understand just how important the question of who should vote is, we must understand the consequences of continuing to allow those citizens who do not contribute to the general welfare to make decisions about where our resources are directed.  The United States has competitors in the international arena.  For example, today both China and India are working hard to replace us as the leader of the economic world.  They may succeed.  If we continue to generate huge amounts of debt while not instilling in our younger generations the understanding that they will be faced with determined adversaries around the world, they will succeed.  And the United States will fade from the world stage in much the same way as have France and the Untied Kingdom.

Of course we do not know how different decisions made by “qualified” voters, or those “productive” citizens who are contributors to the  general welfare will be.  However, because these individuals are directly involved in the creation of national resources, they will be more cognizant of the issues and the need to place our national resources where they will most benefit our people and our country. Because they create the wealth, they will have a direct stake in how it is used.

The author will appreciate any and all comments and criticisms of this article at http://brucemaynes.wordpress.com

An American Treasure!

In the United States our free press loudly expresses  pride in our “democracy” and our “unique” right to vote.  We sing the praises of our Founding Fathers who established for the first time in history the system of “one man, one vote.  This means that every adult has, and should have, the right to vote.

If you believe any of this, you are sadly misinformed.  The United States of America is not a democracy.  Our Founding Fathers most certainly did not embrace the concept of “one man, one vote.”  In fact, they specifically warned against this concept.

In a democracy every eligible citizen is able to vote on every subject which comes up.  In Athens beginning in 510 BC, this system worked fairly well.  Although, even then it was difficult for each eligible voter to take time from his normal activities to vote each time a subject arose.  So, they selected, usually by lottery, a group of 500 men who voted instead of the entire eligible citizenry.

You might wonder why I keep referring to “eligible citizens.”  In ancient Athens, as in most democracies ever since, only adult, male citizens who owned land or owned houses were eligible to vote.  Our own Founding Fathers made just such a selection and only free, adult, land owning males enjoyed the voting franchise.

Benjamin Franklin was asked, outside of Independence Hall in 1797, what kind of government we had been given.  He replied  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  Many words have been written and many conflicting ideas ascribed to Franklin’s words.  But, the real point for the purposes of this article is that we do not live in a democracy.

A democracy is unworkable in any group larger than a small city.  In any group larger than this, discussions and votes rapidly descend into argument and chaos.  Well, who then selects the leaders of this “Republic?”

Thomas Jefferson noted that the people were not capable of selecting the people to represent them.  But, they were able to select those who would select those representatives.  Thus arose the Electoral College.  Those elected to the Electoral College actually vote and select the President of the United States.  Elsewhere, the direct vote does prevail.

So, why is the vote an American Treasure?  After all, people around the world vote.  Even in the old Soviet Union the people voted.  People vote today in Cuba and Venezuela.  Certainly, people vote in Canada, Mexico, England, France, Peru and all the rest of South America, and many other places.  What makes the vote such an “American” treasure?

The now defunct USSR used to refer to the decadent democracies of the West saying that they would crumble under the weight of their own corruption.  In many of the “democracies” of those days the vote was problematic.  In many they still are.  In many South American countries, the traditions of civilian rule were not, and are not, well established.

Only in a handful of countries is a voting citizenry assured that their decisions will be reflected in the government for which they vote.  And many of the strongest democratic Republics arose only  because of the strength of the United States.  Either we won a war against them, Germany and Japan, and rebuilt them somewhat in our own image, or our economic strength and (lamentably) our entertainment industry had influences strong enough to encourage their people to select the republican form (not party) of government.

Still, why an “American Treasure?”

It is not necessary here to compare the strengths and weaknesses of bicameral, tricameral and parliamentary systems.  Suffice it to say that The United States is the champion of the vote because in this country the people, through the use of the vote, have always had the power to direct the government.  Of equal import is the fact that in this country the tradition of civilian control of the military is so entrenched that the military is, has always been and will continue to be solely a tool of government and not a part of or a threat to civilian government.

Today is January 20, 2010.  What we saw last night in Massachusetts was proof that the system works.  Where anyone falls in any of the arguments involved is unimportant.  What is important is that the people spoke.  And, the government must listen.

Never before in the history of the United States has any group in power so blatantly ignored the people’s expressions.  And, last night they paid the first price for that arrogance.  For the group in power to continue to ignore the people’s decisions will not bring about a Constitutional Crisis as some believe.  Such arrogant acts would result in a much louder and clearer voicing of the people’s will this coming November.

The right of the American people to freely express any view and to direct government to follow the people’s will must always be guarded at any cost by all of the people.  As Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

This is why the vote is, indeed, an American Treasure.

Let us all first agree that the healthcare system in the United States does not serve the needs of the people.  It is broken and reform is needed.  Having said that, the nature of health reform is a subject about which few people discuss rationally and debate with open minds.  One might even say that many people have predetermined ideas and personal or political agendas which tend to prevent rational debate and negotiation.

Discussion by slander, vilification and “steamroller tactics” are not helpful.  Preconceived positions and “we are in control and you will accept our position” attitudes are not helpful.

What would be helpful is an open discussion, visible in its’ entirety to the people, where ideas are presented and considered freely with sufficient time to do so, and where those who will make the decisions do so with the interests of the country and her people.  Neither House is likely to adhere to such selfless ideals.

On the one hand, taking the entire healthcare system apart, redesigning it to fit any political agenda, turning it over to government bureaucrats, and thus placing 20 percent of the American Economy under the direct supervision of Congress, and ignoring the largest single problem with the system of healthcare, tort reform, is an act of sheer lunacy.  But, in and of itself, and because these actions are being taken within the rules of Congress (both Houses), said actions do not constitute Piracy.  In fact, in this article we are not going to use terms like treason, traitor, thief or malfeasance.  Rather, we shall endeavor to refer to government acts only as Piracy.  Some of the aforementioned terms may be attached to individuals within the government.  But, Piracy is the only term to be used in reference to the Government of the United States of America.

Let us first take up the idea that healthcare is now an “inalienable right” of the people of America.  Did you notice how the definition of “people of America” was cleverly left undefined?  Does this mean citizens of the United States?  Or, perhaps it means legal residents of the United States.  Could it mean people in the United States?  Or, does it matter?

I would challenge anyone to find healthcare as an inalienable right in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States of America.  There is no such right.  Once said, though, Americans are, and have always been, among the most compassionate people in the world.

Basic healthcare, while it is not a “right,” should be made available to anyone in need of basic urgent care.  I include even illegal immigrants.  These people, who are in criminal violation of the laws of the Untied States, should then be deported immediately upon sufficient recovery to allow such travel.  But, out of decency, we owe them basic urgent care.

As a fine man once said to me, “I know a man who grew up without the opportunities available to you and me.  This man cannot even articulate his needs.  But I, as a decent human being, believe it is my responsibility to see to it that this man gets a meal.  And, if he is sick, again as a decent man, it is my responsibility to see that he finds the basic medical care he needs.

But, it is not my responsibility to give this man annual physicals or other tests which might even give him a longer life.”  “I do not owe anyone more than the basic medical needs of the day.”

I totally agree with this decent man.  But, I would contend that such a system, however severely flawed it may be (and it is seriously flawed), already exists.  This system is the County Hospital and County Health system.  This system should be reviewed and clear direction given.  It should be properly funded and permitted to function as it should.  This system should provide basic urgent medical care on an as needed basis without consideration of the ability to pay for it.  More extensive and ongoing care is not the responsibility of this system.

I know many people will judge me harshly now.  They will say I have no compassion, or that I will not part with a dollar to help someone less fortunate than I.  But, that is just not so.  I will do what I believe is right and no more.  That, my friends, is an inalienable right.  It is an inalienable right endowed not by Congress, but by my Creator.  Make of that what you will.  It remains true.

For the government to decide otherwise, by law or by proclamation, is a questionable act.  For the government to make such decisions by the purchase and/or sale of votes of members of the Congress (either House), paid for by funds forcibly removed from the citizens of this country is, at best, malfeasance of office and, at worst, treason.  To tax me and other working citizens of this country with tax rates which are clearly designed to be confiscatory and to “spread the wealth” is an Act of Piracy by the government of the United States of America.

To decide within the government in that manner that we, the people of the United States, must as an inalienable right provide the “less fortunate” (an asinine term if one ever existed) with ongoing medical care without regard to their legal status, the choices they have made in life, or their ability to pay for that care, is an Act of Piracy by the government of the United States of America.

In the United States of America we have the unusual ability to decide for ourselves the manner in which our representatives, Congresspersons and Senators, have acted.  And, we have the right to remove such persons should we decide that they have not met our expectations or that they have lined their own pockets.  Every two years we must elect all Congresspersons and one third of all Senators.

We, as citizens, have these rights.  But, we have done a terrible job of making these judgements and of taking the responsible actions attendant thereto.

You are a citizen of the United States of America (if you are not, you may read elsewhere), it is your right to make these judgements.  It is your duty to exercise these rights.  If you do not do so, you (we) deserve the self serving, corrupt, and inane Congress (both Houses) we currently enjoy.

Read!  Study!  Reflect!  And, then Vote!

If you do not read, study and reflect, then do not vote.

Index

Outline

Overview

• Historic Origins
• Federalization in the 18th and 19 Centuries
• The 20th Century and the Growth of Central Power

– The First Half

– The Second Half

• The 21st Century
• Is This What We Really Want?
• The Present Day and States Rights Declarations
• Which Path Will We Ultimately Take?

– Sovereign States

– Tenth Amendment Sovereignty (Most Desirable)

– Secession (New Confederacy)

– Complete Federalization (Least Desirable)

– A Middle Ground (A Possible Compromise?)

The Overview

The Bill of Rights (Partial)

Preamble

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent starts of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendments

• Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

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 Founding Fathers of our country, upon the adoption of the Constitution, believed in the need for what is now called The Bill of Rights in order to prevent the abuse of power by the Federal Government. Here we are looking only three of these Amendments; the second, the ninth and the tenth Amendments. It was a belief widely held by the Founding Fathers that the several States were Sovereign States and that, in joining together in a Republic named The United States of America, they were not surrendering their sovereignty. Rather they were joining together as sovereign states ceding those rights specifically named in the Constitution to the Federal Government in order to more efficiently provide for the common defense and certain other common needs enumerated within the Constitution.

There was little change during the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries. It was not until slavery became an issue greatly dividing the peoples and the States of the United States, that States Rights became an issue. The great divide preceding the War Between the States was both moral and economic and the war was fought primarily on the question of whether or not the Sovereign States had the right to leave the Union.

An income tax was passed during the Civil War (The Revenue Act of 1861) which was repealed ten years later. This was the first, but by no means the last, effort of the Federal Government to apply an income tax upon all of the citizens of the several States.

With the passage in 1909 of the 16th Amendment established the right of the Federal Government to tax in this manner. It is only now, in the 21st century, that an attempt to replace the income tax with a consumption tax (The Fair Tax) that the power of the Federal Government and its’ representatives to direct the Sovereign States is being challenged. More on this later.

The 20th century saw little change until the Labor Relations Act of 1937 and the Child Labor Law established the Federal Government’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The New Deal leading up to WWII began the growth of Federal Power which was greatly extended during the war. The second half of the 20th century saw the Kennedy Minimum Wage Law extending Federal Power even further. The growth of Federal Power has continued to grow ever since.

But, it is only in the 21st Century that Federal Power has grown to alarming rates. The advent of 9/11 and the resulting War on Terror and the Patriot Act have caused, perhaps by necessity, the American people to surrender more of our rights than ever before. And the subsequent Administration has begun an unprecedented expansion of Federal Control over the American (notice the American Economy – no longer the economies of the Several States) Economy to ever greater lengths.

We will discuss in this series of articles, the effects of these trends on the United States as a whole, the State of Georgia and ourselves as not only Georgians but residents of North Georgia.

We will also look at the actions already taken by several States and actions contemplated by a number of other States, including Georgia, regarding the Sovereignty of the State.

And, finally, we will look at at least four possible paths we might take to the future and what each might look like in years to come.

But, a few men, mostly well educated and of substantial means, took another approach. They appealed repeatedly to the Crown for redress. It was the Crown’s unwillingness to listen to these appeals which led to the drawing together of the Colonies with first Continental Congress meetings and then more clandestine gatherings leading to the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and the Articles of Confederation. The first President of The United States was, incidentally, John Hanson of Maryland. Hanson was unanimously elected by Congress on March 1, 1781 upon the signing of the Articles of Confederation by Maryland, the last of the 13 States to do so. The Articles were weak and led to the adoption of the U. S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention and subsequently ratified by each of the States in the name of “The People.” The Constitution of the United States is the oldest constitution still in use anywhere in the world today.

In these early days of our country, great attention was given to and demand for the rights of the Sovereign States of the United States. The several States and their representatives felt strongly that a series of rights must be contained in the Constitution. Thus, we have the “Bill of Rights,” the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

These facts deserve mention in this treatise because they demonstrate clearly the belief of our founders in the rights of the Sovereign States. And, in the limitation of the power vested in any central or federal government. This was the reason for the “balance of power” created with the three separate branches of our government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial, each with the power to balance the others.

During the early decades of the 19th century, the northern States and southern States began to draw apart. Slavery was the issue most visible and it was given great import in both the north and south because of its’ moral implications. But, economic issues were probably of more direct import. Both, however, led to the War Between the States, today known in the north as the Civil War and in the south as The War of Northern Aggression.

The War was clearly a struggle to determine whether a State is, in fact, sovereign with the right to leave the Union or a State is a part of the whole and subject to the dictates of the Union. This fight rages to this day. And, it has never been under stronger debate than now.

The War established for the remaining years of the 19th century that the Federal Government was the seat of power and that States are subject to the laws of the Federal Government. It did not, however, settle this argument fully, nor did it do so in any complete manner.

It is important to note here that the American of these decades remained an independent sort, many of whom simply moved on when authority seemed unacceptable. The central government spent a great deal of its‘ time and treasure administering new lands as they came under American rule by one method or another and in fighting Indian nations in defense of settlers and in defense of expansion of Federal rule.

At the turn of the 20th century the subject of States Rights vs the Federal Government occupied little of the public’s attention. These were prosperous times and land was still available for those who wished to be far from cities.

WWI, was a terrible time. But, it had little effect upon the ongoing life of the country as a whole only from the perspective of federalization. In other ways, it was the worst time since the War Between the States.

The roaring twenties, while lots of fun to be sure, gave people the Speakeasy and illegal booze. Wild parties and booze and drugs (they were not yet illegal.) Crime syndicates grew, street warfare raged in large cities. Still, prosperity reigned and the “bigger fool” theory of stock market investment gave the people a sense of live hard and play harder.

Then 1929. The feel good era gave way to bread lines and massive unemployment. Prohibition was repealed in 1933. By now the carefree “individual” had become the hungry sufferer who begged the government to save him.

The New Deal. An awful lot has been written about The New Deal. Suffice it to say here that it proved unsuccessful. It proved that the government cannot be the savior of the populace with massive spending and borrowing. But, more of that when we get to the 21st Century. Let’s leave it at that government “by the people” had given way to “big government” at the expense of “state’s rights.”

Ever so slowly the country began to crawl out of the Depression and by 1940 most people had jobs and the bread line was no longer the mainstay of the American diet. “Happy Days” seemed, at least, in “the light at the end of the tunnel.”

WWII. The only thing we need to say here about the war is that WWII was the single most terrible time in our country’s history. It was costly both in human cost and money with 418,888 American dead at a monetary cost of about $304 Billion. The Korean Conflict was the first of Cold War period conflicts which, along with the Vietnam War caused an ever widening separation of two camps, the liberal – anti war group and the conservative – “There is no Substitute for Victory” group.

President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address against a Military/Industrial Complex which would lead to out of control spending and economic ruin of the United States. His words were prophetic.

The balance of the 20th century saw battles back and forth between the Reagan conservatives and the Clinton liberals. Nixon and Carter will be ignored as morally irrelevant. Carter’s Camp David Accords and Nixon’s opening of China were both of great merit. But, otherwise neither man had lasting impact on American life.

The Clinton years saw strong efforts to implement big government programs, such as National Healthcare. But, all in all the century ended with little change in the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government.