Posted on 04/25/2010 1:00:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Most Americans are unaware but a Constitutional Crisis of immense proportions looms in our near future, and the early shots have already been fired. No, I’m not referring to the Obama birth certificate controversy; I’m referring to the fundamental battle for freedom and liberty based on the uniquely American experiment of Federalism. Federalism is the sharing of power between a federal government and the various state governments, and this foundation is at the very heart of the battle.
Through recent actions, the federal government has demonstrated that absolute power is its sole desire. They have ignored the message delivered through tea parties and have now directly engaged in political battles with state governments empowered by their citizenry. If “we the people” lose these battles, ALL power will centralize in Washington D.C. and the dynamics of our free country will rapidly change from a government that serves the people to a government that dictates to the people. The crisis ultimately revolves around this question:
“Who decides the constitutionality of a federal law?”
The most visible battle centers around the unconstitutional health care bill passed in March 2010. But as this one proceeds, there are other Constitutional battles cueing up in the pipeline. Many states where the population embraces freedom have begun to draft legislation that challenges federal authority on matters that the federal government has already overstepped their authority; and, proactive states are preparing legislation in preparation for future offenses. Some examples of these battles:
* Federal Health Care legislation designed to redistribute wealth and make states and people massively dependent on the federal government
* Federal Cap and Trade legislation designed to foster more state dependence of federal funds by making them insolvent through excessive taxation
* Federal Amnesty legislation designed to increase the voter base for federal level redistribution schemes.
* Federal Financial Reform legislation designed to acquire more economic power at the federal level to use a coercive tools against states and the people
* State Firearm Legislation that denies federal authority over firearms produced within a states; this is designed to proactively challenge the federal governments grasp on firearm laws by eliminating the “commerce clause” argument.
Each one of these battles between states and federal governments will test the very foundation of federalism upon which our great country has prospered in relative political, economic, and individual freedom. If the pillar of Federalism is to fall, the entire house of cards of the American experiment will fall with it, and a centralized authority will be formed. Your children’s future will be sealed as servants to corrupt politicians in Washington D.C.
Will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?
The first question that must be resolved is “will the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution?” Almost half of the state governments are participating in a lawsuit claiming that the health care bill is unconstitutional. One of the multiple points of contention has to do with the federal governments new power to force a private citizen, under penalty of law, to purchase a product; clearly unconstitutional and something that has never been demanded by federal law before.
This is the federal court’s chance to clearly reassert the state’s constitutionally empowered jurisdiction and put the federal government back under the chains of federalism as defined by the Constitution. If they are willing and able to do this in no uncertain terms, we may still avoid a full constitutional crisis. If, on the other hand, the federal court sides with the federal legislators, then they will have missed the golden opportunity to restore stability and liberty to this country and will have placed us on a road to a government of absolute power.
Past rulings indicate that judges are, as Jefferson warned, simply people too; with political ambitions and a willingness to apply arbitrary opinions over rule-of-law. In fact, Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, the most recent Supreme Court appointee, publically argued the merits of rulings based on social justice over rule-of-law. Can an idea be any more dangerous to liberty than that?
In the 1942 case Wikard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat, on his own property, for his own consumption, is subject to federal laws. The ruling was based on a laughable “commerce clause” interpretation that claimed that since the farmer was NOT participating in interstate commerce then the farmer affected interstate commerce. This kind of circular thinking was used to steal the freedom and liberty from this farmer so that federal power might be increased. It was an impossible step of logic, but rulings like this are used as a precedent for incredible interpretations of the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
What precedent is set if the health care legislation is deemed constitutional and the federal government immediately acquires “constitutional” power to mandate private citizen purchases? No doubt, this precedent will be used to force you to purchase all kinds of products that “partner” corporations might offer. What warped definition of “liberty” encompasses this concept?
We can hope the federal courts make the correct ruling here, but this one is simply out of our hands.
Who has the final say on the constitutionality of federal laws?
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the federal government and deems an obviously unconstitutional law to be constitutional then tensions between the states and the federal government will increase significantly. At this point, the Constitutional crisis will expose its head for all to see, and the fundamental question at the heart of it all is:
“Who decides the constitutionality of a federal law?”
The constitution does not answer this question. The precedent is that the Supreme Court rules on these. But, what happens when “we the people” judge the Supreme Court to be part of the problem?
First, consider that the common idea is that the Supreme Court offers the final say on constitutional. This is partially true given past history and other Supreme Court rulings. But take notice that historically the Supreme Court assumed this power for itself; it was not allocated through the Constitution. This power of final authority was first considered with Marbury v. Madison in 1803 and accrued through other cases presided over by Supreme Court Justice Marshal, a well-known champion of centralized federal power. It’s easy to see the conflict of interest when a federal judicial branch deems itself to hold absolute authority over the constitutionality of federal laws and federal executive actions. Over time a federal court will become more and more emboldened to ignore the states and “we the people” and rule in favor of more centralized federal power.
It is important to realize that the Constitution is silent on this and does not provide the answer. This was intentional, because on all matters “we the people” are the final authority. Giving the federal judicial branch the supreme power of determination institutionalizes an obvious danger to freedom and liberty. This danger was described by Jefferson:
“….To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”
In 1798, Jefferson and Madison authored the Virginian and Kentucky Resolutions in response to the Alien and Sedition acts. The resolution argued that unconstitutional federal bills that became federal law were null and void and of no effect. According to Jefferson and Madison, states were to be the ultimate arbiter on which laws were constitutional and which were not. By nullifying unconstitutional laws state governments need not ask permission of federal courts to govern their sovereign states.
The Crisis Resolved
So, what’s it going to be?
Freedom through decentralized government in which the people and the states determine the constitutionality of federal laws. With this choice, federalism is restored and sovereign states each govern themselves locally through rule-of-law.
Or, servitude to a centralized government in which all three federal branches work together to pass laws, enforce laws, and judge their own laws constitutional. With this choice, the Constitution and federalism are destroyed, absolute power is centralized and rule-of-men will dominate law.
This question is ultimately answered by the will of the people. We will decide and it will have immeasurable impact on our country’s future.
btt
You can bet Obama’s goal is to destroy the 10th amendment. His thugs are already calling Constitutionalists, Tenthers. Like birthers, tenthers will be thought as kooks and loons along with racists. It’s already started. If you want to uphold the Constitution you will be destroyed by Obama.
I was thinking about the new spin on HCR Obama and his thugs have been weaving in the media. I think they are doing it because they figured out there are flaws in the bill that are Unconstitutional and if they don’t put a different spin on it, the bill can be repealed. So they don’t really want to imprison anyone and the IRS agents are there to GIVE you money, not take if from you.
Excellent post. I agree and see a huge crisis ahead and hope and pray Amerika wises up and understands the Constitution soon - they clearly do NOT follow the constitution right now.
We all know the left, the entire Dem congress and the MSM do NOT use the constitution for their guide.
What I don’t get is why our side does not EVER ask them in front of a camera, “if you dislike the constitution so much, what specific items in it are unfair?”
The birth certificate is an issue, but won’t likely come out until after Obama is gone.
Who is kidding who here?
Under Chairman Mao were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Under Josef Stalin were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Under Pol Pot were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Under Louis XVI were questions answered by the "will of the people?"
Who exactly declares what the "will of the people" is anyway? The Media? The opinion Polls? The government census?
THe US Constitution can be reinterpreted any way a sufficiently conspiratorial Legal Party wants. In exactly the same way the Bible could be reinterpreted in any way the Medieval Clergy wanted.
The Soviet Union had regular real elections; just all representing the same Party.
We are dealing with Power play, police power. Rahm Emmanuel understands that, it's just that the feckless 75% of American females, and the feckless 50% of American males do not. Living in LaLa Land.
How obvious is it that, besides the Tea Party, America has abandoned its independent Soul? Just like a hundred other fat, spoiled, tired, avaricious, fearful, societies have in past world history.
Johnny Suntrade
Repeal the 14th Amendment and the problem is solved.
The 2nd Amendment trumps ALL.
"In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
See http://www.robertwelchuniversity.org/Lectures/RWU_Curb_the_Courts.pdf
What Good Can A Handgun Do Against an Army...?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2312894/posts?page=242
Lord, help us.
The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS ALL THE REST!
Plus, I do add, gun sales I have noticed in the last year or two have GONE THROUGH THE ROOF!
Thankfully, most are CONSERVATIVE as far as the armed forces is conerned.
The crisis can be boiled down to this: The federal government, i.e. Congress, POTUS, and much of the federal courts, believe that the “interstate commerce clause” and the “general health and welfare clause” were written to give the federal government virtually unlimited power. Until we re-establish that the federal government has grossly abused their powers and we reign them in it will continue.
Every person reading this should also read the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. They will give you a concept of what our union is about.
How so? It's the New Deal Commerce Clause that has allowed Congress to control health care, education, the environment, welfare, etc.
Chief Justice Morrison Waite in Minor v. Happersett, an 1875 case dealing with citizenship: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
This was repeated by two other chief justices and in over a dozen supreme court cases. It has never been contravened. Only a constitutional amendment or a coup can change its meaning. If we give up articles of the Constitution because a vocal few call us names, we have shown we haven't the courage to defend freedom.
Every other transgression of the Constitution must be addressed, but if this clear violation is not addressed, every other transgression is moot. Obama does not have the authority of the Constitution. He is counting upon citizens to tire of insisting upon an issue which he has done a good job of obscuring with hidden documents and the clever Alinsky tactic (hardly original, but effective) of ridicule. More are afraid of being called “Birthers” than of losing their freedoms.
One phenomenon of the current “regime” should be clear; no front is ever off the table. He attacked health care while working on owning the financial industry while proceeding on amnesty for illegals while proceeding on VAT taxes while proceeding on cap and trade while proceeding to driving Israel into the sea for his PLO dinner companion and Harvard sponsors Rashid Khalidi, Whalid bin Talal and al Mansour. Obama's ineligibility remains a fact regardless of whatever insult he adds to our Constitutional foundation. The left counts upon our having a short and shallow memory. Few in our legal establishment were ever taught about Article II, because it was almost never relevant to litigation. We will prove them wrong because we see our freedom to thrive being subjugated.
It isn't about a nonexistent birth certificate; it is about being born of an alien and a subject of the British Commonwealth, a fact asserted by Obama himself many times, which makes him ineligible. If the court doesn't respect the Constitution nothing else they take on can be trusted. The justices are simply keeping their jobs at the pleasure of the Prince, and their “decisions” will be controlled, as they are now, by the executive and legislative branches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.