Posted on 09/24/2003 10:33:52 AM PDT by Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS
There they go again. After the disgraceful, unjustified Borking of Miguel Estrada, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) called it a, "victory for the Constitution and the nation's judicial system and the American people." Whenever liberals invoke the C word, you can bet your bottom dollar that more damage to that sacred document is imminent. Similarly, when "victories" are claimed in the name of the rule of law, or worse, our Founding Fathers, you can immediately surmise that the exact opposite is true.
Most on the left are either ignorant, or in blatant disregard of the precepts that undergird our system of government. Last October I attended a three-day seminar in Quincy, Massachusetts celebrating the life of John Adams. Most of the speakers, with the exception of authors David McCullough and Richard Brookhiser, were liberal professors, historians and legal types who, one would presume, should be well versed in that very knowledge. Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA) alone referred to our form of government as a democracy no less than eight times, while Judge Hiller B. Zobel, editor of Mr. Adams' legal papers, stated that Adams would have been appalled by the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore, reminding us that "We are a nation of laws and not of men." Judge Zobel apparently does not consider Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution a law.
More recently, the ignorance of and disregard for the rule of law under a constitutional republic has manifested itself in a childish charge by leading Democrats, including soon-to-be ex-Governor Gray Davis that, "What's happening here is part of an ongoing national effort by Republicans to steal elections they cannot win." This blather, of course, would refer to, among other things, the 2000 presidential election, the impeachment of Bill Clinton and Mr. Davis's own impending take-down by the people of California for fraud and malfeasance.
And so in the interest of educating the unknowing and uncaring among us, I offer the following brief catalog of "victories" and "defeats" for the rule law, the Constitution and our glorious Founding.
The Impeachment of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton: For the sake of argument, I will label this a draw, as the House of Representatives lived up to its constitutional duties, while the majority of the Senate most vilely violated their oaths and affirmations of office by conducting a predetermined sham of a trial. The media, doing their best work on behalf of their darling of a perjuring president, so obscured the facts of the case, that what is mostly forgotten was the original lawsuit that triggered this nation's only impeachment of an elected president. That would be of an ordinary citizen, Paula Jones, asserting her civil right under law to sue a fellow citizen for sexual harassment. That the man charged with executing the law of the land under the Constitution, would use that high office to claim immunity from it, then commit perjury and encourage others to do the same, would have been as repugnant an affront to our Founders as it should be to all Americans today. A nation of laws and not men, indeed.
2000 Presidential Election: A big victory for the Constitution and its authors. In the tension-filled days following the election, I had the occasion to explain to a Democrat friend of mine why we were called the United States of America, as opposed to simply, America. In the course of that explanation, I pointed out that Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution directs that "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress." In other words, I told him that the States and not the people were responsible for electing a president as long as the manner used does not violate any other part of the Constitution. When the Florida Supreme Court did in fact violate the equal protection clause, as well as its own state constitution, the U.S. Supremes did exactly as they should have.
The Alabama Ten Commandments Flap: This was hailed by liberals everywhere as , "a victory for the rule of law." Not quite fellows. The Constitution of the state of Alabama begins thusly, "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama." Whether or not the fight to return the Almighty to his rightful place in our nation should have been waged there, it is a battle worth waging. The Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights in order to ensure that the "tyranny of the majority" would not trample the rights of those in the minority. This has been perverted in such a way that minorities now hold sway over the will of the rest of the country via perceived injustices against their sensibilities. This was clearly not the intent of the Founders, as Thomas Jefferson so wryly explained, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
The Borking of Miguel Estrada: This was a dismal defeat for the separation of powers on two counts. Not only did the Senate confer upon itself powers not granted to it by the Constitution, it thwarted the very will of the American people. Despite claims that it's not "fair" that the president's party controls both houses of Congress, that remains the people's decision. The people gave that majority to the Republicans to ensure that the president's judicial nominees would be approved by the Senate and not blocked by megalomaniacs in the minority who've suddenly found a Constitutional penumbra requiring a supermajority for confirmation.
Freedom of Speech From Whom? As I've said before, Hollywood leftists and their allies who felt the wrath of the American people did so as a consequence of free speech and not as a prohibition of same. Freedom of speech shall not be infringed upon by the federal government and its agencies and this prohibition applies to no other entity, especially to other citizens. What the so-called dissenters really object to is Capitalism, in that they can't force the public to support the work of people whose views they abhor. I will repeat, decline in the sales of Dixie Chicks records does not reflect governmental suppression of free speech, it merely represents a consequence of that speech (and a return to good taste, I might add ).
I hope this clears up a few things for those on the left, but fear it will not — that would be a victory for all of us.
The bottom line is this: There is no full answer to the problem of judicial tyranny short of impeachment. Many other proposals have been put forth over the years, and many others have been revived during the current debate, but none of them will serve as a complete solution under our current Constitution.163 Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny
Q. Sir, on May 6th, on the floor of the house you asked the question: "Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic." How would you answer that question, Sir?
A. A growing number of Americans want it, but a minority, and that is why we are losing this fight in Washington at the moment. That isn't as discouraging as it sounds, because if you had asked me that in 1976 when I first came to Washington, I would have said there were a lot fewer who wanted it then. We have drifted along and, although we have still enjoyed a lot of prosperity in the last twenty-five years, we have further undermined the principles of the Constitution and private property market economy. Therefore, I think we have to continue to do what we are doing to get a larger number. But if we took a vote in this country and told them what it meant to live in a Constitutional Republic and what it would mean if you had a Congress dedicated to the Constitution they would probably reject it. It reminds me of a statement by Walter Williams when he said that if you had two candidates for office, one running on the programs of Stalin and the other running on the programs of Jefferson the American people would probably vote for the candidate who represented the programs of Stalin. If you didn't put the name on it and just looked at the programs, they would say, Oh yeah, we believe in national health care and we believe in free education for everybody and we believe we should have gun control. Therefore, the majority of the people would probably reject Thomas Jefferson. So that describes the difficulty, but then again, we have to look at some of the positive things which means that we just need more people dedicated to the rule of law. Otherwise, there will be nothing left here within a short time. Are the American people determined they still wish to have a Constitutional Republic
The Fourteenth Amendment is in dire need of editing. The Founding Fathers were wise when they included the language found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Both amendments are, in essence, instruction and warning about not abusing the other amendments, states or the people. Too bad no such limitations were included in the wording of the 14th.
Article I, Section 9: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Amendment XVI: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Citizen's Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. 655 (1874)
To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms.Nor is it taxation. A 'tax,' says Webster's Dictionary, 'is a rate or sum of money assessed on the person or property of a citizen by government for the use of the nation or state.' 'Taxes are burdens or charges imposed by the legislature upon persons or property to raise money for public purposes.'
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Concurring opinion of Justice Field.
The income tax law under consideration is marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminates between those who receive an income of $4,000 and those who do not. It thus vitiates, in my judgment, by this arbitrary discrimination, the whole legislation. Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): 'The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.' 1 Hamilton's Works (Ed. 1885) 270. The legislation, in the discrimination it makes, is class legislation. Whenever a distinction is made in the burdens a law imposes or in the benefits it confers on any citizens by reason of their birth, or wealth, or religion, it is class legislation, and leads inevitably to oppression and abuses, and to general unrest and disturbance in society.
U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. We may concede that the latter sort of imposition is constitutional when imposed to effectuate regulation of a matter in which both groups are interested and in respect of which there is a power of legislative regulation. But manifestly no justification for it can be found unless as an integral part of such regulation. The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raising revenue, and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentality for bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand.
Here is what they were saying about the income tax in 1871. (The Congressional Globe was the official record of that era.)
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE
SENATE
Thursday, January 26, 1871
Page 747 |LINK|
Mr. JOHNSTON of Virginia. (offered a bill)
* * *
That all acts and parts of acts establishing the department of internal revenue, and providing for the collection on internal taxes, be, and the same are hereby, repealed, except so much thereof as provides for the issue and sale of stamps upon writings.
* * *
Page 748 |LINK|
The war has ingrafted, for the time at least, upon the country the internal revenue system. No one claims that it is a good thing in itself, or desires to retain it one moment longer than is necessary. It grew out of the war, as did many other evils, and now let it expire with the restoration of the Union and the return of peace.
* * *
How does the internal revenue system tally with these principles? Does it affect all the people equally? Is it or not injurious to any great interest? Does it foster some at the expense of others? These questions are not hard to answer. Of all the great interests of the country not one is prosperous. Ship-building has already almost become a lost art. Our commerce is gone. Our manufactures, protected as they are by a high tariff, are yet not flourishing. Agriculture struggles and affords a living to the farmer or planter, but no profit.
* * *
That this is a true picture of the condition of our country cannot be well denied. What has our internal system of taxation to do with it? How far is it responsible for this state of things? It has much to do with bringing about this deplorable result. It is the main instrument in accomplishing it. It fulfulls none of the requisites of a good financial system. It is not equal in its operation, but bears with almost destructive weight upon some parts of the country and some important interests. It is badly administered, and cannot well be otherwise. It is demoralizing in its effects, and tends to weaken the respect of the people for the Government and lessen their inclination to obey the laws; and it extends the jurisdiction of the United States courts, extends the powers of the General Government, swells the already too great patronage of the Executive, is fatal to the individual liberties of the people, and destroys the constitutional rights of the States.
* * *
Page 751 |LINK|
Mr. MORRILL of Vermont.
Mr. President, I am not to be frightened by the bugaboo, conjured up at the last moment, about the unconstitutionality of the tax. We hear all sorts of adjectives applied to this tax as the most odious, unnecessary, inquisitorial, and unconstitutional of all taxes. Taxes, in any form, are ever odious, and yet may be necessary. Why, sir, when did the time exist when the most eminent lawyers could not be found to give a certificate that any measure was constitutional or unconstitutional? Lawyers differ, and good lawyers, too, amoung themselves as much as other people. It it to be supposed, after we have levied this tax for eight years, that it is not just found out, when we are almost ready to part with it, that it is unconstitutional? Are Senators ready to give even the slightest countenance to the idea that this tax is unconstitutional, and thereby bar ourselves for all future time from employing such a resource as this, even though the emergency should be as overwhelming for its employment as it recently has been? Our necessities compelled us even to impose this tax twice in one year during the recent war.
May not the time come again when we may experience the necessity of resorting to this tax?
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.