How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! : Freedom Outpost

How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare? Nullify It! : Freedom Outpost.

by

obamascareWe are Americans. We are resourceful. When doors are slammed in our faces, we find another way. Since five (5) lawless judges on the U.S. supreme Court betrayed us by failing to declare the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“obamacare”) unconstitutional; since we may be stuck with obama for four more years; 1 and since a democrat-controlled U.S. Senate will not repeal obamacare, we must find another way.

There is another way. Here it is, and it comes from Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence.

Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures

1. Resolved, That The States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only. That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.

That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

That to these Principles, each State agreed as a State, and as The Parties to the Constitution.

That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution; and as the mere creature, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; since that would have made the creature’s will, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers. That as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each State has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether the creature has committed infractions, and as to the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of The State of Tennessee acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

3. Resolved, That in the Constitution of the United States, THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Federation of Sovereign States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce and relations; and domestically the creation of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery and road building. That the 10th Amendment to the Constitution also declares that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

That nowhere in the Constitution of the United States was any power granted to Congress to make laws respecting the medical care of THE PEOPLE; and that nowhere in the Constitution are powers over this matter prohibited to The States.

4. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative Powers granted by that Constitution are vested in CONGRESS; therefore, Departments within the Executive Branch are forbidden to make any “rules” or “laws” of general application whatsoever.

That administrative rules being promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services, one of the executive Departments of the federal government, to be set forth in Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and which pretend to regulate the medical care of THE PEOPLE throughout the several States; are altogether void, and of no force, as in violation of Art. I, Sec.1, of the federal Constitution.

That as matters pertaining to the “medical care”, “health”, and “human services” of THE PEOPLE are nowhere delegated to the federal government by the federal Constitution; but are among the countless multitudes of matters reserved to The States or THE PEOPLE; the federal Department of Health and Human Services is itself an unlawful Department, and its mere existence an affront to the Constitution; and all of the powers it exercises are usurped powers as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by our Constitution.

That if the pretended “rules” of this spurious federal Department should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that unelected bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of the federal government may force upon The States, THE PEOPLE, the medical profession, and The Churches their own ideas of what others must and must not do in the area of medical care; and may force upon them their own ideas of what medical treatments each person shall be provided or denied.

That this spurious federal Department will further send out swarms of officers to trespass upon hospitals, doctors’ offices, other places of provision of medical care, and premises of religious institutions, to harass providers of medical services, dictate to them as to what specific medical treatments they must provide and are forbidden to provide to their patients.

To this abomination is added the additional affront that the objects of these pretended “rules” are altogether outside the scope of the enumerated powers THE PEOPLE delegated to the federal government in our Constitution.

That the Departments within the Executive Branch of the federal government have established a pattern of unlawfully functioning as legislators, when they write “agency rules”; as executives, when they investigate and prosecute violations of “agency rules”; and as judges and juries when they decide whether violations of their “agency rules” have occurred and impose punishment. Thus the Executive Branch unlawfully functions as legislator, accuser, judge & jury, in violation of the Constitution and of the Principles of Separation of Power and of Checks and Balances.

5. Resolved, That all aspects of the medical care of THE PEOPLE, not being anywhere delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by The Constitution to The States, are reserved to The States respectively, or to THE PEOPLE. Therefore, power over this matter is reserved solely and exclusively to the respective States and THE PEOPLE, each within its or their own territory.

6. Resolved, That to take from The States all the powers of self-government and to transfer all powers to a general and consolidated national government, in defiance of the Constitution which was ordained and established by THE PEOPLE, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of THE PEOPLE.

Therefore This State is determined to refuse to submit to undelegated powers exercised over them by the federal government; and rejects altogether the notion that the federal government may exercise unlimited powers over them.

That in cases of an abuse of the delegated (enumerated) powers, the members of the federal government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy.

But, where powers are usurped which have not been delegated to the federal government – when the federal government acts outside of, and in defiance of, the federal Constitution by exercising powers not delegated to it by that Constitution; then a nullification of the unlawful act is the rightful remedy.

Thus every State has a natural right – which pre-dates & pre-exists the federal Constitution – to nullify of their own authority all such lawless assumptions of power within the boundaries of their State. That without this pre-existing natural and original right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whoever in the federal government chooses to exercise tyrannical powers over them.

The States alone are The Parties to the compact; and thus are solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it. Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch are not parties to the contract; but are merely the creatures of the compact (Federalist No. 33, 5th para). As mere creatures, they may exercise no powers other than those enumerated powers specifically delegated to them.

7. Resolved, That the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government to the so-called “taxing”, “general welfare”, “interstate commerce”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, to the effect that these clauses bestow unlimited powers on the federal government, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the federal Constitution. That the true and genuine meaning of those clauses is as follows:

a) The “taxing” and “general welfare” clauses: Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.1, employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. It is “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; thus, to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” is “an absurdity” (Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras).

The federal Constitution declares that “the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars…excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended…” (Federalist No. 83, 7th para).

b) The “interstate commerce” clause: “Commerce” is the buying and selling of goods – only that and nothing more. Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) says “commerce” is:

“an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals… by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick… inland commerce…is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.”

Federalist No. 22 (4th para), Federalist No. 42 (9th &10th paras), Federalist No. 44 (at 2.), and Federalist No. 56 (5th & 6th paras), explain the two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause: (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.

Article I, Sec. 8, cl.1; Art. I, Sec. 9, cls. 5 & 6; and Art. I, Sec.10, cls. 2 & 3, of the federal Constitution give express effect to these two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause.

c) The “necessary and proper” clause: This clause merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3rd para). Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, at 1.).

The clause merely permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the federal Constitution. No additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

8. Resolved, That contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only:

“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; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects…” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end)

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para)

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [those made by Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para).

That The Federalist Papers – and not the U.S. supreme Court – is the highest authority and evidence “of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning”. 2 The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 1) – usurp powers, as they did with their lawless opinion upholding Obamacare, they must be impeached and removed from office (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

9. Resolved, That those within the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the federal government are sweeping away all the barriers of our Constitution; and that no ramparts now remain against their unbridled and insatiable lust for power over THE PEOPLE except for The States.

That if The States do not now resist all such blatantly unlawful usurpations of power, THE PEOPLE of their States will be delivered into abject slavery subject to the unbridled control of whosoever occupies the office of President. Our Representatives in Congress have shirked their constitutional obligation to support the Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3), by acquiescing in the blatant usurpations by the Executive Branch; and have failed in their duty to impeach and remove those within the Executive Branch who usurp powers (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para, and No. 77, last para). That the supreme Court long ago took the side of those who seek to exercise unlimited control over The States and THE PEOPLE; and that Congress has failed in its duty to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp powers (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

That pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 of our federal Constitution, all State legislators, State Officers and State Judges take a solemn Oath to support our federal Constitution. Therefore, they are bound by sacred Oath to protect THE PEOPLE of their States from the usurpations of the federal government whose clear object is the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States and THE PEOPLE.

That our Framers anticipated the dangers we now face and provided wise counsel for such a time as this. Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras) states that when “the representatives of the people betray their constituents”, the people have no recourse but to exert “that original right of self-defense” [The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para], against “the usurpations of the national rulers” (5th para from end).

That in a Federation of States united under a federal government for only limited purposes,

“…the people… are…the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…” (4th para from end)

Thus, THE STATE LEGISLATURES are the ultimate bulwark of The People and The Ultimate Human Protectors of our Constitutional Republic:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.” (3rd para from end)

The last paragraph of Federalist No. 28 recognizes that when the federal government seeks

“… a despotism over the great body of the people … [the people] are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”

10. Resolved, That because men are corrupt and may not be trusted with power, the federal Constitution fixed the limits to which, and no further, the federal government may go. Would we be wise if we permit the federal government to destroy the limits the Constitution places upon its powers? Would we be wise if we permit unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Departments of the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives?

That if those who administer the federal government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal Constitution, by disregarding the limits on its powers set forth therein, then annihilation of the State Governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence.

That the several States, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of infractions to the federal Constitution; and that nullification by those Sovereign States of all unauthorized acts of the federal government is the rightful remedy.

THEREFORE, This State, recurring to its natural rights in matters outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government, declares Obamacare void, and of no force, and will take measures of its own for providing that neither that act, nor any others of the federal government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised in any manner whatsoever within This State.

Notes:

1. The above is patterned on Thomas Jefferson’s various writings on nullification, including The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by him in response to the alien and sedition acts passed by Congress which purported to grant to the President tyrannical powers with respect to aliens & “seditious” words.

2. These Resolutions focus on an Act of Congress and administrative rules being made by a Department within the Executive Branch of the federal government. This Model may be easily adapted to address Executive Orders which are outside the scope of the President’s enumerated powers; and supreme Court opinions which exceed their enumerated powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings upholding Obamacare, banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers in order to convert us into a secular humanist State, and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to undermine the morals of the People and destroy the residuary sovereignty of The States.

3. Several attorneys, historians, and others who claim special knowledge on this subject have asserted that States have no right to nullify anything the federal government does; that The States and The People must submit to the federal government no matter what it does; that only the federal government may question the federal government; that the federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five supreme Court judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Such people may not understand the distinction between abuses of delegated powers (e.g., unwise bankruptcy laws – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), for which election of better Representatives is the answer; and usurpations of powers which have not been delegated and are thus outside the lawful reach of the federal government (e.g., Obamacare), for which nullification is the proper answer. When any branch of the federal government steps outside of the Constitution to make laws or “rules” or issue “orders” or “opinions” which exceed their delegated powers; The States must resort to those original rights which pre-date & pre-exist Our Constitution to nullify such usurpations by the federal government of undelegated powers.

4. Others who claim special knowledge on this subject insist that a single State may not nullify any act of the federal government; that only a majority of States acting in concert may do so.

They overlook (among other things) the nature of the laws protested in the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions. Those Resolutions addressed laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President certain dictatorial powers over “aliens” and “seditious words”. The States have no means of stopping the President from enforcing such laws since the President has the raw power to send out armed thugs to arrest people by night; and then to prosecute, convict, & execute them in secret tribunals and chambers. The States may object – but they can’t stop it. The supreme Court may denounce it, but can’t stop it. Only Congress can put an end to it by repealing its usurpatious law and by impeaching & removing a usurping President (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para & No. 77, last para).

But when Congress by means of a law (which is outside the scope of its delegated powers); or the President by means of an executive order (which is outside the scope of his delegated powers); or federal executive departments by means of administrative rules (which they are altogether prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 1 from making); or the supreme Court by means of opinions which contradict Our Constitution; purport to require THE STATES or THE PEOPLE and THE CHURCHES to do something, or stop doing something, then of course THE STATES – on an individual basis – have both the POWER and the DUTY (imposed by their Art. VI, cl. 3 Oaths of Office) to nullify such usurpatious acts within the boundaries of their States.

These Model Resolutions set forth the Authorities on which they are based, so that State Legislators and Citizens may propose them in their State Legislatures with complete confidence that Our Framers “have their backs”. PH

Endnotes:

1 We can get rid of him earlier if we send enough people to Congress in 2014 with the spine to impeach & convict him and Biden. The Federalist Papers (cited above) are clear that Presidents should be impeached & removed for usurpations of power.

2 See the Minutes of March 4, 1825 of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia (Thomas Jefferson & James Madison were present) where they voted to make The Federalist Papers one of the texts books for the Law School:

“Resolved that it is the opinion of this board that as to … the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning. 3. the Resolutions of the General assembly of Virginia in 1799. on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws, which appeared to accord with the predominant sense of the people of the US. 4. the Valedictory address of President Washington, as conveying political lessons of peculiar value. and that in the branch of the school of Law, which is to treat on the subject of Civil polity, these shall be used as the text and documents of the school.” [pages 82-83, boldface added]. PH

 

Advertisements

Would States Secede to Protect Their Citizens? – Tea Party Nation

Would States Secede to Protect Their Citizens? – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Many, if not most, Americans are unaware that the nation is composed of separate republics with their own constitutions. They are, of course, the individual states.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved respectively, or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment

By tying compliance with federal laws and regulation to receiving funds, the states have been coerced to accept programs that limit freedoms enumerated in the Constitution and the passage of Obamacare is but one example. Some twenty states have refused to set up the mandated insurance exchanges. Obamacare grants the government complete control over the provision of medical care that every American has formerly received from the free market health system that it destroyed. It gives the federal government control over our lives in terms of who lives or dies.

As noted on the website of the Tenth Amendment Center: “The Founding Fathers has good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.”

“The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.”

“Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag ‘Anti-Federalists.’”

“The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.”

Their worst fears are coming true as the nation heads into 2013. In just four years, the Obama administration, through its profligate borrowing and spending, has brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse and, as we have seen, the refusal of the President to negotiate anything than the current Band-Aid to avoid the “fiscal cliff” for another two months, has brought the nation to a point where the collapse of the U.S. dollar is not just imminent, but likely.

When that occurs the individual states may elect to secede in order to avoid having the federal government nationalize their National Guard units or take control of their state police to enforce whatever measures it might take to control the population. Individual state law enforcement authorities in cities and towns would need similar protection. Reportedly, massive amounts of funding have been directed to them to ensure their cooperation.

It would be a means to protect their citizens insofar as state constitutions grant the same rights as found in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It would not surprise me to see Texas lead the way. Others would follow.

You know things are bad when historians like Arthur Herman, writing on the January 3 Fox News, says that “Washington’s Republicans and Democrats alike have become the toll collectors on the road to serfdom.” Citing recent riots in Argentina, Herman said that “Argentina reveals who really suffers when those who create a nation’s wealth get mugged by those who spend it—as just happened this week in Washington.”

If the private sector manages to rally this year, it may buy some time before the midterm elections in 2014. A letter to the editor in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune summed up the problem neatly. “Let’s look at what we have learned from this election: Twenty-one of 22 incumbent senators were re-elected, and 353 of 373 incumbent members of the House were re-elected. The American people have re-elected 94 percent of the incumbents who were running for re-election to an institution that has an approval rating of about 9 percent. This indicates, as an electorate, we are a nation of idiots. We’re now stuck with the useless, dysfunctional government that we deserve.”

The U.S. Constitution was written in the wake of the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the first attempt to unite the states for the common good of the growing nation. It is the product of some of the finest minds, the most dedicated advocates of liberty, to gather in one place at one time. It is the oldest, living Constitution in the world. It was adopted on September 17, 1787 and ratified in June of 1788.

On December 17, 1791, the first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights—were ratified. It is a list of immunities from interference by the federal government and the fears of the Founders are now being borne out by a government that is too large, borrows and spends too much money, and has departments such as the Homeland Security that threaten the rights of free speech, travel, and other freedoms. Every U.S. citizen is now subject to government surveillance more typical of a totalitarian government than one that respects and protects their personal security and rights.

This is why the United States could find itself in a rebellion that will rival the causes of the Civil War, itself a state’s rights conflict in addition to the issue of slavery that had hung over the Constitution since its ratification; an effort to “kick the can down the road” the Founders agreed to in order to get it ratified.

It is not beyond the imagination that a deliberately created crisis would prompt individual states to withdraw from the Union to protect themselves and their citizens, otherwise known as “the people.”

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

Why Obama Should Not Be Allowed to Take the Oath of Office Again – Tea Party Nation

Why Obama Should Not Be Allowed to Take the Oath of Office Again – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

If anyone had read any of the many books that have examined President Obama’s life and his many questionable qualifications for office, including a Social Security number that appears to have been purloined from someone else, he should not be allowed to take the oath of office for a second time.

Here are just some of the books I have received and read over the first four years of his disastrous first term:

The Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi

Where’s the Birth Certificate? By Jerome Corsi

Deconstructing Obama by Jack Cashill

The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution And Build an Imperial Presidency by Ken Blackwell & Ken Klukowski

The Post-American Presidency by Pamela Geller with Robert Spencer

The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama’s War on American values by Brad O’Leary

The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama by Paul Kengor

An American Obsession: Race and Conflict in the Age of Obama by Seth A. Forman

If only one half or one quarter of the facts cited in these books were true, Obama has no legal right to be President and is committed to an ideology that seeks to undermine capitalism. He is set to take the oath of office a second time.

Few of these books received any of the attention they deserve in the mainstream media and all of the authors are at risk of being whisked off to jail as enemies of the state if the Bill of Rights continues to be eroded and ignored by the Obama administration.

To those who deride the “birthers” who have raised issues about his eligibility, Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch notes that “Even if born in America, Obama does not quality as a ‘natural born citizen’ under our Constitution, since he was not, as also required under our law to be president, sired by two American born parents. Only his mother was an American at the time of birth.”

Historians will look back at his first term and wonder how 51% of the voters reelected Obama when he added $6 trillion to the national debt (more than all Presidents who preceded him combined.) They will wonder how he got reelected in a nation with more than 26 million unemployed and 47 million on food stamps and other “safety net” programs including 99 weeks of unemployment checks.

They will wonder how his opponent promised to repeal Obamacare was defeated when many states have refused to set up the “exchanges” the law requires be created. Health insurance premiums will increase 25% to 30% on January 1, 2013. At the same time employers of more than 50 people will put most of them in a part-time status to avoid the increase to the cost of doing business, guaranteeing less work and less pay.

I recently received an email from Dr. Orly Taitz, an attorney who has filed many law suits alleging that Obama used “forged IDs, forged short form birth certificate, forged long form birth certificate, forged Selected Service certificate and fraudulently obtained Connecticut Social Security number, which Obama is using in his tax returns and which was never assigned to him according to e-verify.”

Any one of these charges should have been sufficient to keep Obama from taking his first oath of office and should foreclose any opportunity for a second one. If true, they nullify the forthcoming Electoral College decision regarding his right to be declared the winner of the 2012 elections.

This goes way beyond stuffing ballot boxes to steal an election. It is fraud that nullifies the Constitutional requirements–the laws– governing who may hold the highest office in the land.

We must also ask why there has been the failure or refusal of many elements of the nation’s judicial system to respond to the law suits, often declaring that the parties filing them have “no standing” before the courts to allege that Obama has defrauded Americans in order to be elected. Dr. Taitz’s release noted that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is set to rule on one such case just six days before the Electoral College meets.

We are taught in schools that America is a “nation of laws, not of men,” but this attack on our laws, aided and abetted by the Democratic Party that nominated Obama, is the most severe attack on the Constitution in modern times.

If Barack Hussein Obama is permitted to take the oath of office in the face of the documentation offered in the books cited above and the clear language of the U.S. Constitution, it will mark the end of the efficacy of law in America.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

 

Waiving Freedom – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com

Waiving Freedom – Thomas Sowell – Townhall.com.

Among the objections to ObamaCare, one that has not gotten as much attention as it should is the president’s power to waive the law for any company, union or other enterprise he chooses.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides for “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans. To have a law that can cost an organization millions of dollars a year either apply or not apply, depending on the whim or political interest of the President of the United States, is to make a mockery of the rule of law.

How secure is any freedom when there is this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one man?

What does your right of freedom of speech mean if saying something that irritates the Obama administration means that you or your business has to pay huge amounts of money and get hit with all sorts of red tape under ObamaCare that your competitor is exempted from, because your competitor either kept quiet or praised the Obama administration or donated to its reelection campaign?

Arbitrary ObamaCare waivers are bad enough by themselves. They are truly ominous as part of a more general practice of this administration to create arbitrary powers that permit them to walk roughshod over the basic rights of the American people.

The checks and balances of the Constitution have been evaded time and time again by the Obama administration, undermining the fundamental right of the people to determine the laws that govern them, through their elected representatives.

You do not have a self-governing people when huge laws are passed too fast for the public to even know what is in them.

You do not have a self-governing people when “czars” are created by Executive Orders, so that individuals wielding vast powers equal to, or greater than, the powers of Cabinet members do not have to be vetted and confirmed by the people’s elected representatives in the Senate, as Cabinet members must be.

You do not have a self-governing people when decisions to take military action are referred to the United Nations and the Arab League, but not to the Congress of the United States, elected by the American people, whose blood and treasure are squandered.

You do not have a self-governing people when a so-called “consumer protection” agency is created to be financed by the unelected officials of the Federal Reserve System, which can create its own money out of thin air, instead of being financed by appropriations voted by elected members of Congress who have to justify their priorities and trade-offs to the taxpaying public.

You do not have a self-governing people when laws passed by the Congress, signed by previous Presidents, and approved by the federal courts, can have the current President waive whatever sections he does not like, and refuse to enforce those sections, despite his oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Barack Obama, for example, has refused to carry out sections of the immigration laws that he does not like, unilaterally creating de facto amnesty for those illegal immigrants he has chosen to be exempt from the law. The issue is not — repeat, NOT — the wisdom or justice of this President’s immigration policy, but the seizing of arbitrary powers not granted to any President by the Constitution of the United States.

You do not have a self-governing people if President Obama succeeds in having international treaties under United Nations auspices govern the way Americans live their lives, whether with gun control laws or other laws.

Obama’s “citizen of the world” mindset was revealed back in 2008, when he said “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that every other country is going to say okay.”

The desire to circumvent the will of the American people was revealed even more ominously when Barack Obama said to Russian President Medvedev — when he thought the microphone was off — that, after he is reelected and need never face the voters again, he can be more “flexible” with the Russians about missile defense.

There are other signs of Obama’s contempt for American Constitutional democracy, but these should be more than enough. Dare we risk how far he will go when he never has to face the voters again, and can appoint Supreme Court justices who can rubber stamp his power grabs? Will this still be America in 2016?

The Proper Role of Government? They Don’t Have a Clue! – Tea Party Nation

The Proper Role of Government? They Don’t Have a Clue! – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by KrisAnne Hall

What is the proper role of Government? We have witnessed the perspectives of those in government, we have heard the answers in recent presidential debates, but what did those who DESIGNED it envision? Wouldn’t you like to KNOW what government is supposed to be doing? The interesting thing is, we don’t have to guess, we don’t have to make it up, we simply need to look to the framers of our Constitution. It is almost simplistically elegant the way they described the role of the Senate and the House. Yet, even the simplest of explanations seem to have eluded the entire government machine. As the employers of our government, it is essential that we know what government is supposed to be doing and require them to fully accomplish their job description.

What follows is a brief and simple primer about the structure of our Republic according to our founders. James Madison said that the powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. He lists them as war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce. He explains that the general welfare clause does not grant the government the power to do generally whatever they want; it simply describes the purpose in delegating those few powers he listed. In other words our founders believed in and intended limited government, very limited.

“I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who rarified the Constitution conceived—that is is not an indefinite government…but a limited Government. The Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined…war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce.” James Madison

By the same token, Congress was to have a limited and strictly defined role as well. Congress was not established to “become” the federal government but to control it on behalf of the people. That is the reason they hold the most influence and control through the checks and balances established through powers of impeachment and congressional oversight.

In the American Constitution The general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac[it]y. ~James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 24 Oct. 1787

First, the Senate was established to represent the states in the federal government. That is why each state is allotted the same number of Senators, to ensure equal representation and therefore equal control for all states. The Senate’s primary job description was to protect the states from federal encroachment and ensure each state’s sovereignty. “Defenders of the 10th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.

President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the Senate have no similitude to nobles. First then not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom and virtue are not precarious, for by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices; and they will have none of the peculiar follies and vices of those men who possess power merely because their fathers held it before them, for they will be educated (under equal advantages and with equal prospects) among and on a footing with the other sons of a free people.~Tench Coxe– An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States II September 28, 1788

The House was designed to be the representatives of the people. That is why there are more house members than senators, to better reflect the population of people in each state. The House’s primary job description was to be the guardians of Liberty, so the people can maintain the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. “Defenders of the 9th Amendment”would be a good description for the job our founders intended them to perform.

Each member of this truly popular assembly will be chosen by about six thousand electors, by the poor as well as the rich. No decayed and venal borough will have an unjust share in their determinations. No old Sarum will send thither a Representative by the voice of a single elector. As we shall have no royal ministries to purchase votes, so we shall have no votes for sale. For the suffrages of six thousand enlightened and independent freemen are above all price.~ Tench Coxe- An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States III September 29, 1788

But here we are today with a Senate that looks more like a protector of the federal government than a defender of the states and a House that feels it’s primary role is to “protect” national security instead of the rights and Liberty of the people. Placing security over liberty seems to be a common affliction of our Congress. Remember Patrick Henry made it perfectly clear that without Liberty life was not even worth living. Benjamin Franklin rightfully declared that if security was placed above Liberty, we would lose them both.

Our framers made it clear that if the federal government was not following their constitutional duties or abiding by the limitations established, their actions (their laws) were null and void.

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution… But it will not follow…that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.~ Federalist Paper #33

This is the fundamental principle of state nullification. If Congress understood their proper role they would KNOW that when the federal government creates unjust and unconstitutional law, it is their job to protect the people from it and declare the sovereignty of the people over the powers delegated to the federal government. If they really understood their oath to the Constitution and what their obligations were, THEY would be nullifying Obamacare, UN Treaties, and the myriad of unconstitutional executive orders spewed out by this current administration.

Of course there are those who would assert that the Supreme Court has “declared” state nullification invalid. The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court is one third of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (the division of government with the least power, by the way), a Federal government created by the people. Allowing SCOTUS to determine the degree of sovereignty each state has over the federal government is the ultimate expression of a conflict of interest. Let us remember that the Federal government, which includes the SCOTUS is a creature of the people. Would you allow the defendant in a criminal case to decide HIS own guilt or innocence? Of course not! But allowing the Supreme Court to determine how the Federal Government (of which it is a part) is operating with respect to State’s rights is to have to have the offender declaring his own innocence. Is the Supreme Court capable of making the proper ruling? I’m sure they are, but they are equally capable of making the improper ruling and such would be the destruction of liberty by declaring the 9th and 10th Amendments irrelevant.

Alexander Hamilton declared in Federalist paper #33 that when the government steps outside its constitutional bounds, it is incumbent upon the people to redress the injury done to the Constitution.

The current lack of understanding of the proper relationship between the States and its Federal Government as well as the neglect of the proper roles of our Congressional employees is leading directly to the destruction of our Constitution. And as Daniel Webster warned, we as a nation have an obligation to hold onto this great Constitution, or suffer consequences of our neglect.

Is our Constitution worth preserving?Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.~ An Anniversary Address by Daniel Webster July 4th 1806

INHOFE AND DEMINT: U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty – Washington Times

INHOFE AND DEMINT: U.N. treaties mean LOST U.S. sovereignty – Washington Times.

Liberals intent on imposing backdoor globalism

By Sen. James M. Inhofe and Sen. Jim DeMint

For years, liberals and misguided State Department officials have pushed for the U.S. Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). This treaty would convey ownership of the oceans to a United Nations agency and give international bureaucrats veto authority over U.S. naval operations and could force the United States to comply with international carbon emissions caps.

Last week, we defeated LOST by securing commitments to ensure it cannot gain the 67 votes needed for ratification.

However, no sooner had the 34th Republican senator signed a letter opposing LOST than the surrender of American sovereignty was put back on the table by foreign diplomats and their internationalist allies in the federal government.

With LOST dead, the new treaties being promoted to take its place include the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Disabled, which calls for government agents to supersede the authority of parents of disabled children and even covers abortion. Also, the Obama administration has begun negotiations on a new U.N. treaty to create international gun control rules that could slowly erode our Second Amendment.

The globalist ideologues behind these treaties are either ignorant of or hostile to the universal human experience that problems are best solved by the people and institutions closest to them. So assured are these masters of their mandate to direct the lives and wealth of other people that they see their routine failures to do so efficiently at the local, state and national level merely as reason to ascend to new heights of international command and control.

Our nation’s founders understood this hubristic temptation of public officials. Thomas Jefferson stated in his inaugural address the principle of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Instead, America sought to constrain our actions within the confines of the consent of the people. It is this measure of accountability that fetters both policymaking and policymakers. This is precisely why internationalists prefer to elevate authority wherever possible above democratic accountability.

This explains the feverish effort to join the United States to so many international treaties and conventions on every subject under the sun. It is a backdoor effort to impose extreme liberal policies on Americans who would never vote for them if given the choice.

That was precisely the motivation behind President Obama and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry’s effort to ratify LOST in a lame-duck session of Congress, when public scrutiny and accountability would be minimal.

They argue that we need this treaty, which the Senate correctly has ignored since its original completion in 1982, to ensure America’s access to the world’s shipping lanes. Of course, we already have such access, no thanks to a piece of paper, but to the world’s most powerful navy.

In exchange for gaining something it already has, then, the United States would, under LOST, surrender billions, possibly trillions, in royalty payments for oil and gas produced from our Outer Continental Shelf. At the same time, the treaty would expose our citizens to frivolous lawsuits in international courts.

LOST would trade in our Constitution for a vague 200-page compact drafted by foreign diplomats. It would trade in our Founding Fathers for the United Nations, and “we the people” for “you the foreign secretaries we’ve never heard of and didn’t elect.”

This desire to substitute the received wisdom of international committees, led by nations like Sudan and Russia, for the electoral judgment of the American people is the motivation behind LOST and every other sovereignty-peddling treaty making the rounds.

It explains the Kyoto Protocols, which would have handed over American energy policymaking to international green-ocrats. It explains the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would supersede federal, state and local laws, mandating choices and decisions best left to parents.

The same is true for the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which would empower international bureaucrats to set local laws concerning abortion, marriage, day care and even Mother’s Day.

In the end, for all their titles and credentials, the globalists are just liberal politicians with well-worn passports. It is not some new form of international harmony they seek but just larger institutions from which to impose their old, discredited agenda.

They see the U.S. Constitution as an obstacle to progress and so seek to supersede it by any means available to them. The debates about these treaties are not about the legalistic minutiae they contain but the sovereign citizenry they threaten.

The American people’s God-given and constitutionally protected right to self-government must be protected. The fact that our people remain skeptical toward the schemes of international diplomats is a sign of their enduring wisdom.

LOST is dead, for now. But new efforts to hand over American sovereignty to international authority already are under way. Only with the ongoing help and vigilance of the American people can we hope to defeat the next generation of unnecessary, unrepublican and undemocratic treaties.

Sen. James M. Inhofe is a Republican from Oklahoma. Sen. Jim DeMint is a Republican from South Carolina. They both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Oathkeepers – Tea Party Nation

The Oathkeepers – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

I regard the next four months between now and the election to be the most dangerous that the nation has faced since the months before the outbreak of the Civil War. I am concerned that President Obama, who has already declared “a state of emergency” in a recent Executive Order, will attempt to assert dictatorial powers and require U.S. military and law enforcement authorities to enforce them

You don’t get to be a general by saying no to the Commander-in-Chief. Witness the way “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was thrown under the bus by the most gay-friendly president in history. Then there’s the idiotic push to power naval ships with biofuels. The Fort Hood murders required a lot of officers to ignore the obvious. Et cetera.

My normal response to conspiracy theories is to dismiss them until I can find sufficient cause to give them credence. That said—President Obama is unlike any previous president this nation has ever had.

He is what those of us on the Right call “a red diaper baby,” raised from birth and mentored to embrace communism. Including his mother and grandparents, all of his closest friends and advisors come from the extreme Left.

By word and by action, Obama’s disregard for the Constitution, its separation of powers, and Americans suffering greatly from his policies, suggests that he is not beyond making the greatest grab for power using a bogus “national emergency” or manufactured “crisis” to declare martial law.

He has, moreover, recently issued three Executive Orders that (1) declare that the U.S. is in a state of emergency, (2) empowers the federal government to seize anything and everything it wants to pursue martial law in the event of an attack, foreign or domestic, and (3) to control all the means of communication nationwide..

The biggest question facing Americans is whether the members of our military and our law enforcement authorities would obey him. My bet is that they would not.

Millions of active duty and veterans swear an oath when they embark on active duty. The oath for non-commissioned officers differs slightly in that includes accepting orders from the President and the officers serving over them.

For officers, the oath is “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.”

The oath is for life! It does not end when you are discharged from active duty. Law enforcement officers take a comparable oath. As Gen. Douglas McArthur said when he spoke to the corps at West Point, the oath for all who take it is about “duty, honor, country.”

There is an organization called Oath Keepers composed of those who have served or currently serve in our military, in law enforcement, and as fire fighters. Here is their “Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey.”

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects—such as warrantless house-to-house searches for weapons or persons.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obsey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockage American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatever.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Samuel Adams of U.S. Revolutionary fame once said, “If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

The oath keepers and other patriots are all that stand between “We the People” and a government verging on evil.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

NAPOLITANO: Can Obama rewrite federal law? – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Can Obama rewrite federal law? – Washington Times.

President has usurped Congress’ role by altering immigration rules

By Andrew P. Napolitano

Here we go again. Is the Constitution merely a guideline to be consulted by those it purports to regulate, or is it really the supreme law of the land? If it is just a guideline, then it is meaningless, as it only will be followed by those in government when it is not an obstacle to their purposes. If it is the supreme law of the land, what do we do when one branch of government seizes power from another and the branch that had its power stolen does nothing about it?

Late last week, President Obama, fresh from a series of revelations that he kills whomever he pleases in foreign lands, that the U.S. military is actually fighting undeclared wars in Somalia and Yemen, and that the CIA is using cyberwarfare – computers – to destabilize innocents in Iran, announced that he has rewritten a small portion of federal immigration law so as to accommodate the needs of young immigrants who came to the United States as children and remained here. By establishing new rules governing deportation, rules that Congress declined to enact, the president has usurped the power to write federal law from Congress and commandeered it for himself.

Immigrants should not be used as political pawns by the government. When government does that, it violates the natural law. Our rights come from our humanity, and our humanity comes from God. Our rights are natural and integral to us, and they do not vary by virtue of, and cannot be conditioned upon, the place where our mothers were physically located at the time of our births. Federal law violates the natural law when it interferes with whom you invite to your home or employ in your business or to whom you rent your property or with whom you walk the public sidewalks.

When the government restricts freedom of association based on immutable characteristics – like race, gender or the place of birth – it is engaging in the same type of decision-making that brought us slavery, Jim Crow and other invidious government discrimination. Regrettably, the feds think they can limit human freedom by quota and by geography. And they have done this for base political reasons.

Along comes the president, and he has decided that he can fix some of our immigration woes by rewriting the laws to his liking. Never mind that the Constitution provides that his job is “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and that “all legislative power” in the federal government has been granted to Congress. He has chosen to bypass Congress and disregard the Constitution. Can he do this?

There is a valid and constitutional argument to be made that the president can refrain from defending and enforcing laws that he believes are palpably and demonstrably unconstitutional. These arguments go back to Thomas Jefferson, who refused to defend or enforce the Alien and Sedition Acts because, by punishing speech, they directly contradicted the First Amendment. Jefferson argued that when a law contradicts the Constitution, the law must give way because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are inferior and must conform to it. This argument is itself now universally accepted jurisprudence – except by President Obama, who recently and inexplicably questioned the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to invalidate the Affordable Health Care Act on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, there is no intellectually honest argument to be made that the president can pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal preferences. And it is a profound violation of the Constitution for the president to engage in rewriting the laws. That’s what he has done here – he has rewritten federal law.

Only Congress can lay down specifics for immigration law, such as in order to avoid deportation and qualify for a two-year work visa, one must have entered the U.S. prior to age 16 and possess a valid American high school diploma or be a military veteran, as the president now requires. By altering the law in this manner – by constructing the requirements the government will impose – the president has violated his oath to enforce the laws as they are written. His second responsibility in the Constitution (the first is to defend the Constitution) is to enforce federal laws as Congress has written them – hence the employment of the word “faithfully” in the Constitution – not as he wishes them to be.

Congress should have enacted years ago what the president is now doing on his own, because it is unjust to punish children for the behavior of their parents, and it is unjust to restrict freedom based on the place of birth. But this can be remedied only by Congress. If the president can rewrite federal laws that he doesn’t like, there is no limit to his power. Then, he will not be a president – he will be a king.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye – Washington Times

NAPOLITANO: Big Brother’s all-seeing eye – Washington Times.

Use of military surveillance drones overhead would be un-American

By Andrew P. Napolitano – Washington Times

For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government’s use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel, where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if – had they existed at the time – King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as someone who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. Folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don’t believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the “recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function” in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel insidetheUnitedStates and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them “to collect information about U.S. persons.”

It gets worse. If the military personnel see something of interest from a drone, they may apply to a military judge or “military commander” for permission to conduct a physical search of the private property that intrigues them. Any “incidentally acquired information” can be retained or turned over to local law enforcement. What’s next? Prosecutions before military tribunals in the United States?

The quoted phrases above are extracted from a now-public 30-page memorandum issued by President Obama’s secretary of the Air Force on April 23. The purpose of the memorandum is stated as “balancing … obtaining intelligence information … and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.” Note the primacy of intelligence-gathering over protection of freedom, and note the peculiar use of the word “balancing.”

When liberty and safety clash, do we really expect the government to balance those values? Of course not. The government cannot be trusted to restrain itself in the face of individual choices to pursue happiness. That’s why we have a Constitution and a life-tenured judiciary: to protect the minority from the liberty-stealing impulses of the majority. And that’s why the Air Force memo has its priorities reversed – intelligence-gathering first, protecting freedom second – and the mechanism of reconciling the two – balancing them – constitutionally incorrect.

Everyone who works for the government swears to uphold the Constitution. It was written to define and restrain the government. According to the Declaration of Independence, the government’s powers come from the consent of the governed. The government in America was not created by a powerful king reluctantly granting liberty to his subjects. It was created by free people willingly granting limited power to their government – and retaining that which they did not delegate.

The Declaration also defines our liberties as coming from our Creator, as integral to our humanity and inseparable from us, unless we give them up by violating someone else’s liberties. Hence, the Jeffersonian and constitutional beef with the word “balancing” when it comes to government power versus individual liberty.

The Judeo-Christian and constitutionally mandated relationship between government power and individual liberty is not balance. It is bias – a bias in favor of liberty. All presumptions should favor the natural rights of individuals, not the delegated and seized powers of the government. Individual liberty, not government power, is the default position because persons are immortal and created in God’s image, and governments are temporary and based on force.

Hence my outrage at the coming use of drones – some as small as golf balls – to watch us, listen to us and record us. Did you consent to the government having that power? Did you consent to the American military spying on Americans in America? I don’t know a single person who has, but I know only a few who are complaining.

If we remain silent when our popularly elected government violates the laws it has sworn to uphold and steals the freedoms we elected it to protect, we will have only ourselves to blame when Big Brother is everywhere. Somehow, I doubt my father’s generation fought the Nazis in World War II only to permit a totalitarian government to flourish here.

Is President Obama prepared to defend this? Is Mitt Romney prepared to challenge it? Are you prepared for its consequences?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

Big Lies in Politics – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Big Lies in Politics – Thomas Sowell – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them, and only in the short run. The current outbreaks of riots in Europe show what happens when the truth catches up with both the politicians and the people in the long run.

Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can supply the people with things they want but cannot afford. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government.

There is, of course, the perennial fallacy that the government can simply raise taxes on “the rich” and use that additional revenue to pay for things that most people cannot afford. What is amazing is the implicit assumption that “the rich” are all such complete fools that they will do nothing to prevent their money from being taxed away. History shows otherwise.

After the Constitution of the United States was amended to permit a federal income tax, in 1916, the number of people reporting taxable incomes of $300,000 a year or more fell from well over a thousand to fewer than three hundred by 1921.

Were the rich all getting poorer? Not at all. They were investing huge sums of money in tax-exempt securities. The amount of money invested in tax-exempt securities was larger than the federal budget, and nearly half as large as the national debt.

This was not unique to the United States or to that era. After the British government raised their income tax on the top income earners in 2010, they discovered that they collected less tax revenue than before. Other countries have had similar experiences. Apparently the rich are not all fools, after all.

In today’s globalized world economy, the rich can simply invest their money in countries where tax rates are lower.

So, if you cannot rely on “the rich” to pick up the slack, what can you rely on? Lies.

Nothing is easier for a politician than promising government benefits that cannot be delivered. Pensions such as Social Security are perfect for this role. The promises that are made are for money to be paid many years from now — and somebody else will be in power then, left with the job of figuring out what to say and do when the money runs out and the riots start.

There are all sorts of ways of postponing the day of reckoning. The government can refuse to pay what it costs to get things done. Cutting what doctors are paid for treating Medicare patients is one obvious example.

That of course leads some doctors to refuse to take on new Medicare patients. But this process takes time to really make its full impact felt — and elections are held in the short run. This is another growing problem that can be left for someone else to try to cope with in future years.

Increasing amounts of paperwork for doctors in welfare states with government-run medical care, and reduced payments to those doctors, in order to stave off the day of bankruptcy, mean that the medical profession is likely to attract fewer of the brightest young people who have other occupations available to them — paying more money and having fewer hassles. But this too is a long-run problem — and elections are still held in the short run.

Eventually, all these long-run problems can catch up with the wonderful-sounding lies that are the lifeblood of welfare state politics. But there can be a lot of elections between now and eventually — and those who are good at political lies can win a lot of those elections.

As the day of reckoning approaches, there are a number of ways of seeming to overcome the crisis. If the government is running out of money, it can print more money. That does not make the country any richer, but it quietly transfers part of the value of existing money from people’s savings and income to the government, whose newly printed money is worth just as much as the money that people worked for and saved.

Printing more money means inflation — and inflation is a quiet lie, by which a government can keep its promises on paper, but with money worth much less than when the promises were made.

Is it so surprising voters with unrealistic hopes elect politicians who lie about being able to fulfill those hopes?