Posted on 12/17/2003 12:40:43 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Getting back our liberties
Posted: December 17, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Last week's column, "Let's Do Some Detective Work," provided unassailable evidence that the protections of liberty envisioned by the Constitution's Framers mean little today. I was pleasantly surprised by the responses from fellow Americans expressing disgust and fear over what our nation is becoming. Several asked how we can regain our liberties. My short answer is: I'm not sure they can ever be recovered. Let's look at it.
We all have a moral obligation to pay our share for constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government, but we have no such obligation to have Congress take the earnings of one American and give them to another American. Forcing one American to serve the purposes of another is one way slavery can be defined.
I'm an emancipated adult fully capable of taking care of my own retirement. Why should I or anyone else be forced to pay into the government's Social Security? Do you see any signs on the horizon that such practices are coming to an end? The list of encroachments on personal liberty like these is virtually endless.
Self-determination is a human right we all should respect. If some people want socialism, that's their right – but it is not their right to use brute government power to force others, who want liberty, to be a part of it. Liberty-minded Americans might organize to acquire government power to impose their will on socialist-minded Americans, but that's not right either. A far more peaceful method is simply to part company.
That's an idea already being explored by the Free State Project. Their plan, as stated on their website, is: "20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to New Hampshire, where they may work within the political system to reduce the size and scope of government. The success of the Free State Project would likely entail reductions in burdensome taxation and regulation, reforms in state and local law, an end to federal mandates and a restoration of constitutional federalism."
In 1788, during New Hampshire's ratification convention, a concerned people said "amendments AND alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good People of this State and more Effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government. The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations and provisions be introduced into the said Constitution: (among them) First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly and particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised." The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which mean virtually nothing now, were added to our Constitution in response to these fears.
While members of Free State Project have not proposed it, I would imagine that if New Hampshire's elected representatives couldn't successfully negotiate with the U.S. Congress to obey the Constitution, the only other alternative would be that of making a unilateral declaration of independence and go our own way just as our Founders did in 1776.
Many people might argue that it's the U.S. Supreme Court that decides what is constitutional or not. Here's what Thomas Jefferson said about allowing the Court to hold a monopoly on the interpretation of the Constitution: "... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
The history of the Court, not to mention last week's decision on the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform that attacks free speech, is proof that Jefferson was right and Alexander Hamilton wrong in his Federalist Paper No. 78 prediction that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" branch of government.
Not on this site.
Because he is a libertarian and wants to be free, not control others at gunpoint. Therefore many here detest him and anyone like him.
Sign me up on Walter's side!!!!
I think there needs to be a "Free District Project" in every state. If (when) the Free State Project begins to flourish in NH, it would be nice to have a bunch of friendly Congressman from all over the country to help keep the Federal troops off of the streets of Concord.
"... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
The history of the Court, not to mention last week's decision on the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform that attacks free speech, is proof that Jefferson was right and Alexander Hamilton wrong in his Federalist Paper No. 78 prediction that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous" branch of government.
I agree with nearly all Walter's comments.
As you read through the Consitution, this statement will be repeatedly confirmed:
James Madison, His Legacy: Federalist Papers (FEDERALIST No. 51) But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.
Congress can fire a President and a federal judge. Neither of those can fire anyone in Congress. And who controls Congress? "We the people."
Congress & the President have neglected using several Constitutional means of preventing and correcting what has become the "despotic branch."
The Federalist #81 The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless." This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.
Federalist #81 goes on to explain and expound upon the very limited power of the federal courts.
Jefferson and Hamilton were both right. Hamilton described the design and Jefferson described what occurs when the government operates contrary to design.
It is especially instructive to read them in order. IMO, as it better frames the arguments for and against.
AGREE!!!
The anti-federalist explains what all the fuss is about in the federalist and describes a great deal of our present condition due to neglect.
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.