Tag Archives: Tenth Amendment Center

Deploring the Fourth of July—the Lost Spirit of ’76—Mourning the Death of Liberty on July 4, 1863 and 150 Years Later


It is no accident, coincidence or mistake that the Battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg weigh so heavily on the American mind and consciousness.  On this day in 1863, if the Confederate States of America ever had any chance of winning its independence or achieving a newly restored constitutional synthesis in the USA, that chance died along with thousands of men, in both blue and grey, on the fields and rolling hills and ridges of Southern Pennsylvania and the bluffs of the Mississippi River and the Yazoo Basin.   I love the memory of the South and honor the legacy of my Confederate Ancestors, but the memory of the freedom that existed before 1861 is bittersweet indeed.   The modern world is a world of cruel, industrial slaughter and subjugation.   The spirt of the times was different, very different, as David Brooks recorded in yesterday’s New York Timeshttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/opinion/brooks-why-they-fought.html?_r=0.  The key point of Brooks’ article may be the final paragraph (it was a Christian nation and the warriors believed in God, and their covenant with the Almighty):

“These letter writers, and many of the men at Gettysburg, were not just different than most of us today because their language was more high flown and earnest. There was probably also a greater covenantal consciousness, a belief that they were born in a state of indebtedness to an ongoing project, and they would inevitably be called upon to pay these debts, to come square with the country, even at the cost of their lives.

Makes today’s special interest politics look kind of pathetic.”

Today, in the midst of our world of special interest politics (most fairly called the politics of distraction and inattention to real detail), e now have antibiotics, air-conditioning, and refrigeration, we can even choose our own favorite brand of tooth paste, and as a direct consequence of these technological matters we live longer.  But (to paraphrase Patrick Henry) is life so dear or peace so sweet that we would live it as slaves in chains?  Was freeing four million slaves from formal and open slavery paid for the occult and hermeneutic (but much more severe) total slavery of a nation of 300 million?  We awaken each day to television and internet broadcasts which divert our attention from real problems.   We live and sleep in a soft cocoon of dissimulated reality.

The Tenth Amendment Center’s article above refers to modern America’s 4th of July celebration as a lie, a major deception.  This ten year old article is surely correct, but Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, delivered later that year after the smoke of the battle had long blown off, was a much greater day of deception.  Old “Uncle Abe’s” carefully collected and assembled words amounted to the height of hypocrisy and disingenuous political manipulation.  Overlooking the graves of the thousands of fallen soldiers and the Constitution for which they fought, if you can manage in your mind merely but absolutely, to invert every line of the speech my distant kinsman gave in November 1863—you will see the reality, “A new nation conceived in tyranny and dedicated to the proposition that all men should equally be chattel slaves in bondage to their government”.   I read his cynical text with horror, trying to imagine what the reaction to his true purposes would have been, had he had the nerve to announce the true provisions of the new Constitution which he was creating by and through that horrible war.   

I am not at all sure that the authors of the Tenth Amendment society were specifically thinking about the 150th anniversary of Vicksburg and Gettysburg 10 years ago.  But I know I am thinking about mourning those calamities today.  The Spirit of 76 is all but dead.  The heirs of the Revolution have lost control of the country, and the reality is that the United States “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” was the country being buried at Gettysburg, and now almost forgotten.

I have often visited the Battlefield at Vicksburg but never been to Gettysburg.  I think I would find the latter much too emotional, in part because of my hatred of the falsity of the Gettysburg Address and what it implied.  Six of my ancestors fought there.  One was taken a prisoner.  None of my ancestors fought at Vicksburg or in the Western or Trans-Mississippi theatres of war at all.

General Lee lost at Gettysburg, but much more significantly, General Grant won at Vicksburg.  Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia only had one reasonable strategy and that was to Capture Washington, D.C., and make IT the new Capital of the Confederacy.  He and Jubal Early came so close on so many occasions, but they failed.  Lee’s victory would have been largely symbolic—the North could have continued the War without Washington, D.C., although the boost to Confederate prestige by occupying the capital city would have been enormous, both at home and abroad, internationally.  

And it was the lack of solid international recognition (specifically England’s and France’s refusal, in the aftermath of the Marxist led and inspired uprisings of 1848, to which both Queen Victoria’s and Emperor Napoleon III’s governments correctly connected Lincoln’s and the Republican Party’s rise) which doomed the Confederacy more than any other single factor in the war, aside from the north’s sheer brute strength, and genuine brutality.  

Yankee brutality was apparent nowhere more than in the six week siege of Vicksburg, Mississippi, by Ulysses S. Grant, which reduced the population, military and civilian, to eating rats before the riverside fortress-town’s defenders’ final surrender on July 4, 1863.  The skirmishes between Seminary ridge and Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg suggested a kinder and gentler war, more humane and genteel, by comparison.  But on those two battlefields died the heart and soul of the American dream of liberty and freedom, never really to rise up again over the past 150 years.

Uncelebrating the Fourth

by  on July 3, 2013 in Featured 2

by Harry Browne, Originally written July 2003

Unfortunately, July 4th has become a day of deceit.

On July 4, 1776, the Continental Congress formally declared its independence from Great Britain. Thirteen years later, after a difficult war to secure that independence, the new country was open for business.

It was truly unique – the first nation in all of history in which the individual was considered more important than the government, and the government was tied down by a written Constitution.

It was the one nation where you could live your life secure in the knowledge that no one would ask for your papers, where you weren’t identified by a number, and where the government wouldn’t extort a percentage of your income as the price of holding a job.

And so each year July 4th has been a commemoration of the freest country in history.

False Celebration

But the America that’s celebrated no longer exists.

The holiday oratory deceitfully describes America as though it were the unique land of liberty that once was. Politicians thank the Almighty for conferring the blessings of liberty on a country that no longer enjoys those blessings. The original freedom and security have disappeared, even though the oratory lingers on.

What made America unique is now gone, and we are much the same as Germany, France, England, or Spain, with:

  • confiscatory taxes,
  • a Constitution and Bill of Rights that are symbolic only – merely documents used to justify governmental actions that are in fact prohibited by those documents,
  • business regulated by the state in the most minute detail,
  • no limits on what Congress or the President might decide to do.

Yes, there are some freedoms left, but nothing like the America that was and nothing that you can’t find in a few dozen other countries.

The Empire

Gone, too, is the sense of peace and security that once reigned throughout the land. America, bound by two huge oceans and two friendly neighbors – was subject to none of the never-ending wars and destruction that plagued Europe and Asia.

Now, however, everyone’s business is America’s business. Our Presidents consider themselves the rulers of the world – deciding who may govern any country on earth and sending Americans to die enforcing those decisions.

Whereas America was once an inspiration to the entire world – its very existence was proof that peace and liberty really were possible – Americans now live in fear of the rest of the world and the rest of the world lives in fear of America.

The Future

Because the education of our children was turned over to government in the 19th century, generations of Americans have been taught that freedom means taxes, regulations, civic duty, and responsibility for the whole world. They have no conception of the better life that could exist in a society in which government doesn’t manage health care, education, welfare, and business – and in which individuals are free to plot their own destinies.

Human beings are born with the desire to make their own decisions and control their own lives. But in most countries government and social pressures work to teach people to expect very little autonomy.

Fortunately, in America a remnant has kept alive the ideas of liberty, peace, and self-respect – passing the concepts on from generation to generation. And so today millions of Americans know that the present system isn’t the right system – that human beings aren’t born to serve the state and police the world.

Millions more would be receptive upon being shown that it’s possible to have better lives than what they’re living now.

Both groups need encouragement to quit supporting those who are taking freedom away from them.

Become a member and support the TAC!

You and I may not have the money and influence to change America by ourselves, but we can keep spreading the word – describing a better society in which individuals are truly free and government is in chains (instead of the opposite).

And someday we may reach the people who do have the money and influence to persuade tens of millions of Americans to change our country for the better.

I don’t know that it’s going to happen, but I do know it’s possible. I know that the urge to live one’s own life is as basic in human beings as the will to live and the desire to procreate. If we keep plugging away, we may eventually tap into that urge and rally the forces necessary to restore the real America.

And then the 4th of July will be worth celebrating again.

Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation.  See his website.

Secession is still basically a Southern thing I guess—the Heart of Dixie leads the rest of the country in Secession Petitions

Texas still leads the nation with 105,905 signatures on its “we the people” Petition asking, pleading, President Obama and the Whitehouse to “take these chains from my heart(land) and set me free…. you grown red (communist) and no longer care for me…. all my faith in you in you is gone, but the deficit lingers on…. take these chains from my heart(land) and set me free.”  (With all due apologies to Hank Williams, Sr., who would certainly have signed the Petitions for Secessions in one or more of his beloved Southern States…).   In Texas, the petition is still growing like wildfire at the rate of better than one new signature per minute, the Lone Start state now being up to 105,921…. and Louisiana has climbed from 34,631 to 34,690 in the past hour (9:15-10:15 PM, Pacific Standard Time), while Alabama has increased a roughly comparable number from 28,137-28,179 in the same time.  

Mississippi hasn’t made it over the threshold of 25,000 yet, holding at 16,776, but Missouri has two Petitions, one at 17,965 and a second at 12,843 as of 9:15 Pacific.  Florida (the third in line to reach 25,000) stands at 31,491, up from 31,410 one hour ago (and thus expanding at the Texas rate, at least tonight).  Like Missouri, South Carolina has two Petitions, neither of which have crossed the threshold, though the one currently standing at 21,703 probably will by dawn’s early light on Thursday November 15; the second South Carolina petition stands at 14,025.  

By contrast Georgia has one petition over the top at 29,375 as of 9:15   PM Pacific up to 29,430 by 10:23 PM, another holding at 11,568, and yet a third Georgia Petition had collected 6,766 signatures as of 9:15, up to 6,801 at 10:38PM. If we combine the three petitions together, sentiment in favor of secession for Georgia is second only to Texas.

Tennessee Secession has 28,415 supporters, making it the Sixth and last state (so far) to top the 25,000 mark.  

Up until just now, I had somehow missed North Carolina’s Petition, but I just signed it….and the Tar-Heal state is “on board” as the Seventh State to pass 25,000 with 27,838 as of 11:52 PM on 11-14-12.

The Seventh and Most Recent Re-Addition to the "South Shall Rise Again" Club of 2012

North Carolina gave more soldiers than any other state, except for Virginia, to the Armies of the Confederate States of America, and Joe Johnston surrendered to Sherman even after Lee had surrendered to Grant.

Arkansas and Arizona are nearly tied at 20,807 and 20,360, still under the wire.  Mississippi lags surprisingly, and disappointingly, behind…

It is strange indeed that so many northern states have joined into the race to decide, but 7,431 people supported the Secession of the Empire State, 11,956 want Pennsylvania gone from the Union, while the smallest of three contiguous states, New Jersey, leads with 12,957 signatures.  On closer examination, it appears that Pennsylvania actually has two petitions for secession, the fourth of this series though at 7,556 signatures, making this fourth “Middle Atlantic” state’s petition on par with Virginia’s oldest of three petitions which has earned 7,165.  

Virginia’s three petitions may be compared by the use of different language: the oldest and largest (so far) asks “Peacefully grant the State of Virginia to Withdraw from the United States”.  A Second ask that the President “Allow the state of Virginia to vote on peacefully leaving the United States” (3,948) and the third is worded “Peacefully grant the COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA to Withdraw from the U.S. of America…” (3,679)

Still focusing on the east coast, Rhode Island Secessionists have 3,815 signatures. Connecticut separatists had by 9:15PM on Wednesday collected 1,866 up to 2008 by 11:33PM.  Massachusetts neo-Patriots have 2,514. Those later day followers of John Caldwell Calhoun in Maryland have 2,046.  

Maryland, Massachusetts, and Connecticut secessionist number at least 923 fewer than those of Maine at 2,969 and a third less than those of New Hampshire 4,481.  Strikingly, these three states each have 4,000 less than signed up for secession in tiny Delaware.  Those who would make Delaware into the next Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, or San Marino have collected over 6,920 signatures on its petition “Peacefully….to withdraw from the United States of America” (up to 6,949 by 11:37PM).

Inland and Westward, Ohio has one petition with 10,264 signatures, and another with 7,489 signatures in favor of “the Republic of Ohio” and yet a third petition with 1,950 signatures.  Fans of Michigan Secession number at least 17,583.  

Michigan’s figure is fairly astounding for being twice the number who have signed in favor of Oklahoma Secession (8,429), while leading advocates of solitary independence for New Mexico and Washington have only 3,903 and 3,099 signatures, respectively.  There is a secondary Washington State Petition which has collected 1,964.  

Secessionists in California, the most populous state, are apparently few and far between, with only 12,718 signatures, including out of staters who signed in favor of resuscitating the Bear Flag Republic.

Hawaiian Secessionists finally got busy and gathered 2,530 signatures by 9:15 on Wednesday, up to 2,605 by 10:47 PM, but this is nothing compared to Alaska’s two petitions at 2,363 (“Allow Alaska to Secede from a Dysfunctional Union”), 6,953 asking to “Allow Alaskans a free and open election to decide whether or not Alaska should Secede from the United States.”

So, by day’s end on November 14, 2012, a sufficient number of signatures have been gathered only with regard to seven states, all once part of the Confederate States of America (1861-1865), to require “the White House” to comment on secession.   Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and South Carolina can be confidently expected to join the list.

I’m sure our President will say nothing of any importance (he never does—why should he start now?).   A real “spirit of ’61” might be alive in Texas, Georgia, (and South Carolina, and possibly Missouri) but even the numbers from Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee, which have passed the 25,000 threshold, are otherwise unimpressive.  

Up North, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, and Delaware seem the most secession minded, but unless Pennsylvania catches on fire soon, Michigan-Ohio and Delaware-New Jersey might end up as separate “Confederacies.”   Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Virginia are at least “in the running”, as is South Carolina with two petitions.

The original seven states to secede in 1860-61 were South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas.  They met in Montgomery to frame a new and improved Constitution which could have been adopted Nationwide but for the Abolitionist-Slavery agitation.  

Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia eventually joined the CSA.  That was for them probably a mistake, because as it happened most of the fighting was in Virginia, and most of the death.  The War of Secession, which could have been and should have been the Second American Revolution, all-but completely and tragically destroying what had been the first and wealthiest English-speaking colony in the New World.  More blood was shed in battle in Virginia than lives had been lost to gunfire or bayonet in any of Napoleon Bonaparte’s “palaeo-technic” wars of Conquest.  This generalization would not count the “frozen holocaust” of the French Grand Armée of half a million in Russia in the winter of 1812-13, because it was the weather, and Napoleon’s ignorance of meteorology, that destroyed the First Empire, rather than any particular strategy on the part of the Tsar.  

Of all of the eleven actively Confederate States, Arkansas and Florida saw the least in the way of battle or bloodshed.  Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Maryland (of which only Tennessee completely and fully seceded, although Missouri and Kentucky had competing Confederate and Union State Capitals and legislatures during the war).

I think it is fair to say that the Petitions being signed and circulated are currently meaningless, empty symbolic acts.   The First Seven States to sign up are all original Confederate States, probably signed by people like me who grew up listening to tails of the glorious heroism of the original Confederacy.  Texas leads because Texas has the unique heritage of having been a moderately successful Independent Republic for ten years before agreeing to annexation.  South Carolina and Mississippi, the first states to secede in 1860-61, have not yet inspired 25,000 signatures on any single petition, although they probably will, as will Missouri.  

So right now the active and sufficiently numerous petitions are Texas, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina, in the order of passing the 25,000 mark.  We’ll see what happens next.  I have not yet seen what the Tenth Amendment Center has to say, if anything, about this new movement, but that too will be interesting to follow—because prior to Secession was the Nullification movement, heroically led by first by Jefferson and Madison against the Alien and Sedition Acts and then by John Randolph of Roanoke and John Caldwell Calhoun against Northern Tariffs…. 

A New Red Dawn Over America—Obamacare & the Police Power in Arizona are Upheld—the Constitution again ruled DOA at the Supreme Court (full text of the Supreme Court’s Worst Two Decisions of the Week attached)

Chief Justice John Roberts is rapidly becoming my least favorite U.S. Supreme Court Justice in history.  First, in 2007, the debut innovation of “the Roberts Court” was Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, then a followup kick in the face of freedom under the name of Ashcroft v. Iqbal and now this week (on Monday, June 25, 2012) Arizona v. United States (Arizona v US) and, today Thursday, June 28, 2012, yet another day that will live in infamy: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al. v. KAREN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS et al v SEBELIUS SECRETARY OF HEALTH).

It’s been a really bad week for the Constitution and for the American people, and a very good day for  Obama’s flourishing Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  Oh yes, and what a nice present for Hillary Clinton as she celebrates lasting longer as U.S. Secretary of State than any other of the 96 individuals to hold that office—and we were all sure she was just a joke back in the early 1990s when she was pushing a National Health Care System which looked an awful lot like what we’ve got now with Obamacare.

First with regard to Arizona v. US: The expansion of the American Police State seems never-ending, as the late great Strom Thurmond’s States-Rights Democratic Party Platform very accurately predicted in 1948.   The great triumph of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States over the past 64 years is quite simply this: all oppressive acts of government, so long as they are applied equally to White people as well as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and all others without Racial, and only with Economic and Political, Prejudice, will be upheld.  But try asserting any constitutional right other than your right to be on an equal footing with all other slaves, and man YOU ARE DEAD MEAT!!!!  States Rights got a minor boost last year when an individual right to sue under the Tenth Amendment was recognized, but this year the 162 year trend towards the complete suppression of State Sovereignty marches forward unabated….

The main issue regarding Arizona’s immigration statutes was whether the individual states of the Union have any right to make more restrictive laws regarding residence and citizenship than the United States as a whole.  Under the expressly anti-States’ Rights 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said NO.  But, if the Arizona police want to go around harassing people on the highways, they are free to do so, so long as they are willing to say they suspect that every blonde-haired & blue-eyed caucasian must have recently entered illegally from Sweden or Norway perhaps….  The Supreme Court, these days, never seems to miss an opportunity to enhance the power of the police to oppress the population at large.

With regard to the “Obamacare” case, I can only say I’m NOT even as surprised by this result as I was not by the result in the Arizona immigration opinion.  Ever since Franklin D. Roosevelt gave up his plan to “pack” the Supreme Court, there is no infringement on the economic liberty and personal choices of the American people which the Supreme Court finds too trivial to be worthy of Federal Enforcement.  The only comment-worthy deviation from predictions was that Chief Justice John Roberts in this case came up with the novel notion that the U.S. government can tax anything and anyone it wants to for any reason, including non-compliance with a mandatory insurance purchase requirement, and that this punitive tax or purchase choice makes it all “OK.”

Of all the commentary and punditry that came out on Thursday after the decision, two of the most “spot on” that I saw were first) the article describing John Roberts’ “Liberal Apotheosis”:

After Thursday’s Obamacare ruling, Supreme Court Justice John Roberts became a minor deity to some liberals for voting to save Obamacare. But just days before Roberts’ apotheosis, liberals lamented that the “conservative” Supreme Court was taking America down a dangerous path.  (http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-ruling-liberal-apotheosis-john-roberts-035207618.html)

The “Liberal Apotheosis” of John Roberts?  “Apotheosis” of course, means transformation into a god—and what did the pagan gods of Olympia or Pharaonic Egypt do?  Exactly what any god can do:  A “god” can work Miracles,  first Make and then Bend the all Rules, Change the Natural Order of Things….   I suppose my own religious notions, such as they are, posit an unchanging God defined by the phrase from the old BCP: “as it was in the beginning, it is now and ever shall be, world without end amen” which seems curiously absent from most Episcopal services these days.   I equate God with Nature, and while I believe rather fervently in Evolution, I believe Evolution operates according to certain utterly unchanging rules, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which even the discovery of man’s ability intentionally to split or fuse atoms could never quite change.

And yet the Godlike role of the Supreme Court in making and bending rules seems more than a bit undemocratic.   So that is the second part of the analysis we need to perform today: Was Roberts’ decision to side with Obamacare entirely a matter of political strategy?

 The American Concept of Constitutional Judicial Review predates Chief Justice John Marshall. The Supreme Court’s decision Chisholm v. Georgia 2 U.S. 412 (February 1, 1793)(Chisholm v Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, February 1 1793triggered the (I would now say very unfortunate) move to enact the 11th Amendment during the First Term of the Presidency of George Washington.  But Chief Justice Marshall’s notions of judicial review shaped the Court, much to his cousin Thomas Jefferson’s dismay and disgust.   I recall hearing the story of Marbury v. Madison and judicial review in my Freshman year at Tulane, from Professor Jean Danielson in Political Science H103, where I met my long-time college years best friend John K. Naland, now a long-time veteran of the U.S. State Department.  Professor Danielson explained the political genius of Marbury v. Madison was that it empowered the Court while respecting the political boundaries of the time.  Chief Justice Marshall knew that, as President Adams’ last major appointee, any decision made in favor of the appointment of Adams’ minor “midnight judges” including William Marbury would simply be ignored by the new Democratic-Republican administration of Jefferson (with James Madison as secretary of state and the defendant in the case) as an act of political partisanship on the part of a Federalist appointee favoring Federalist appointees.  On the other hand, to uphold Secretary of State Madison’s power to refuse to honor the appointments made by President Adams would seem like craven capitulation without legal or moral integrity.  So, in a result which no one ever anticipated, Chief Justice John Marshall carefully reasoned and soundly declared the statute authorizing the appointment of Magistrates in the District of Columbia to be an unconstitutional act in excess of Congress’ power under the Constitution—and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court as Constitutional arbiter of the United States was established forever—or, at least, for a long time.

That particular “long time” ended in 1936, which, as a another commentator/pundit on the Obamacare decision pointed out, was the last time in history that the United States Supreme Court overturned a major piece of Congressional legislation as Unconstitutional.    Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first term as President was unlike anything the United States had ever since, including George Washington’s First Term.   In Washington’s First Term, the constant debate in Congress was whether the Federal Government had power under the Constitution to do much of anything at all.  The spirit was decidedly “conservative” in the sense of cautious, even as a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal was being launched as a more formally organized “corporate” type of enterprise (the Articles of Confederation were much more analogous to a “partnership” among the States—with each partner having a nearly full veto power).

During FDR’s First Term, there were also many in Congress who asked whether the Federal Government had the power to do a great many of the things the New Deal proposed to do, from the NRA to the TVA (National Recovery Administration to the Tennessee Valley Authority).  But from 1933-1937, such questions were not asked in a cautious or even skeptical voice regarding what Congress and the Federal government could legitimately do, but in the desperate and panicked voice of people who saw and feared “you are taking our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor” from us.  Those people sought recourse against the reckless usurpation of Federal Power in the Supreme Court, and in the years 1933-1937, the Supreme Court struck down 29 Congressionally passed statutes signed by the President as part of the New Deal.

Roosevelt’s first hundred days and all that followed provoked an unprecedented clash between the Supreme Court Justices and the “New Deal” alliance of the legislative and executive branches. At Roosevelt’s instigation, Congress in the 1930s enacted a series of laws ostensibly, supposed, aimed at ending the Great Depression and restoring the nation’s economic well-being, but in fact aimed at shoring up the American Elite, especially the Banking system, from the threat of a Communist and/or Fascist revolution analogous to those taking place in Europe at the same time.  Of eight major “program” statutes to come before the Court, only two were upheld. Laws that were struck down included the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, and the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935.  The Court came under heavy fire for its decisions, and Roosevelt proposed a controversial plan to increase the size of the Court, presumably to ensure a majority sympathetic to the New Deal.

Shortly after the plan was proposed, the Court defused the issue by upholding a series of revised New Deal laws.  Dominated by economic conservatives, to which group even late 19th/early 20th Century “Progressives” such as Oliver Wendell Holmes were (by comparison, anyhow) the Court threw out numerous laws Congress enacted to protect workers and consumers. The conflicts peaked in 1936. The Court threw out twenty-nine laws during that period, but the last of these was in 1936, when when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

Everything changed in 1937 when, FDR Proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 on March 9 of that year in one of his legendary “Fireside chats” whereby he jumped over the Congress and all Constitutional Separation of Powers and asked the American people directly to endorse and support his programs.  The public reaction was overwhelmingly negative, almost the first time the 33rd President had seen any of his initiatives draw such opposition.  But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw the writing on the wall—mene, mene, tekel upharsin—and when faced with the two major cases challenging Social Security (the ultimate authority and most direct antecedent for Obamacare), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American people—the law creating a “Social Security Trust Fund” with the bribed cooperation of the States—into which Social Security Trust Fund not one dime of real money (certainly not one dime of the 14 Trillion dollars paid since 1937 in Social Security Taxes) has ever been paid.

Helvering v. Davis (05-27-1937 Helvering v Davis 301 US 619 57 SCt 904 Jusice Cardozo endorses the SS Trust Fund Fraud) and Steward Machine Company v. Davis (Charles C Steward Mach Co v Davis) thus effectively marked the end of the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government.  The new mantra was not “that government is best which governs least” but instead, “The concept of the general welfare is not a static one”…. “Needs that were narrow or parochial a century ago may be interwoven in our day with the well-being of the nation. What is critical or urgent changes with the times.”   (Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 641, 57 S.Ct. 904, 909, 81 L.Ed. 1307, 1315 [1937])

From that time forward Courts held that there appeared to be only four (all extra-constitutional) prerequisites to a finding that a spending clause measure and condition attached to it are valid: (1) The federal power is used for a legitimate national purpose, i.e., promotion of the general welfare (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 at pp. 585–590, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 890–92 [1937], 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1290–1293); (2) the condition is related to a legitimate national goal (Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra, at pp. 590–591, 57 S.Ct. at pp. 892–93, 81 L.Ed. at pp. 1292–1293; See also Note, Federal Grants and the Tenth Amendment: ‘Things As They Are’ and Fiscal Federalism (1981) 50 Fordham L.Rev. 130, 140–141); (3) the condition is related to the purpose of the federal funds whose receipt is conditioned (FCC v. League of Women Voters (1984) 468 U.S. 364, 104 S.Ct. 3106, 3132, 82 L.Ed.2d 278, 309 (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); State of Okl. v. Schweiker, 655 F.2d at pp. 407, 411); and (4) the condition is unambiguous (Pennhurst State School v. Halderman,  451 U.S. at p. 17, 101 S.Ct. at pp. 1539–40 [January 23, 1984])(Pennhurst State School And Hosp v Halderman).
It was in the spirit of such a “living constitution” that Chief Justice John Roberts allied himself with the enemies of limited government on June 28, 2012.  And it is in that sense, much like the Supreme Court in 1937, ruling in Roosevelt’s favor in both of the Social Security Cases, Helvering and Charles Steward above, that Chief Justice John Roberts “saved the Supreme Court” (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html).  More likely, Chief Justice John Roberts just danced on Chief Justice John Marshall’s grave and said, “You think that failure to follow the Constitution is Judicial Treason?  Well, let’s see what you’re going to do about it now.”  According to that same article, Chief Justice Roberts had told the Senate at his confirmation hearings:
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts at the time. “The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Now, strangely enough, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a very different kind of opinion in 1820:

The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty.  Cohens v State of Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 5 L.Ed. 257, 6 Wheaton 264 (March 3, 1820)

There is a great deal of confusion among the commentators and pundits, I think, about what “Judicial activism” really means.  I would NOT call Chief Justice John Marshall a Judicial Activist—although, indeed, he advocated throughout his 35 years on the bench a considerably more positive role for the Court in preserving the Constitution than Chief Justice John Roberts has shown to date.  “Judicial Activism” does not mean “striking down unconstitutional laws”—“Judicial Activism” as a term should be reserved for reshaping or restructuring the laws in the absence of Congressional Authority to do so.  The “Warren Court” from 1953-1971 was the epitome of “judicial activism”—the Supreme Court during those two decades effectively rewrote the laws of the United States and told CONGRESS and the STATES what to do, rather than vice-versa.

In the case of Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts acts his role as an umpire very poorly.  He has seen the foul, called it (under the commerce clause) and “covered it up” under the guise of the taxing power, which (in reality) is even less constitutionally justified than the commerce clause rationale (which at least has the past 75 years of tradition—however illegitimate, behind it).

And so was the U.S. Constitution rewritten in 1937 to allow for first the “relatively” modest program of Social Security and now, 75 years later—on the occasion of the 75th Annual Hunger Games (cf. Suzanne Collins, Catching Fire [2009] and Mockingjay [2010], both New York: Scholastic Press)—Obamacare comes forward to cap the fraud by, in Chief Justice John Roberts’ view—a non-coercive, mere “Tax” on those who do not buy governmentally mandated insurance… and of course, jail for those who do not pay their taxes.

SO WHAT IS THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION?  NULLIFY OBAMACARE!  I should say that, without any hesitation whatsoever, I absolutely endorse and support the Tenth Amendment Center’s position on Obamacare (this Los Angeles based think tank is just one of the brightest stars on the Political Horizon—of our New Red Dawn):

Now that the Supremes have crushed Constitutional limits once again, the next step is to focus all our energy on a state and local level to NULLIFY this – and every other – unconstitutional act.
We have model legislation for yor state.  Ready to go right now.  Press your state reps to introduce this bill today, or for the next legislative session.
Please SHARE this information widely!
We need your help to continue this work, and help people take the next step at the state level.  Please join us, and help nullification happen!  Whether it’s $500 or $5, every bit of help right now is crucial!
Please visit this link to help now:
Thomas Jefferson told us that when the government “assumes undelegated powers” a nullification is THE “rightful remedy”
James Madison said that states were “duty bound to interpose….to arrest the progress of evil”
Today’s ruling is an assumption of undelegated powers, and evil is advancing.  The time to act in support of nullification in your area is NOW!  Please share the model legislation for Obamacare with as many people as possible, and please chip in as generously as possible to help us push this campaign aggressively.
While the task is difficult, our cause is just.
Concordia res parvae crescunt,
(small thing grow great by concord)
Michael Bolding
Tenth Amendment Center
Our mailing address is:
Tenth Amendment Center
123 S. Figueroa St
Suite 1614
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Our telephone:


I sigh.  I cry.  And sometimes I just want to lie down and die.  This is not the land of my birth, even though on the map it generally looks like it should be the same country as it was in 1960.

The transformation over the past fifty two years is simply horrific.  52 years was a key cycle of time among the Aztec, Maya, Mixtec, Tarascans & Zapotec in ancient Mesoamerica, and I can only say that I feel a certain sympathy for how an Aztec born in 1518 might have felt looking at the wreckage of his once proud nation in 1570 after 52 years of Spanish conquest, rape and pillage.  Like an Aztec born in the last year before the arrival of the Spanish, I have grown up and come to age watching my own people (the American Middle Class, especially Protestants of European descent) reduced to second class status, my people’s most attractive and beautiful women taken as prizes by the conquerors, my nation’s heritage and values denigrated, suppressed and taught in the schools as nothing but “heresy” from the New World Order.

I do speak Spanish fairly well and have spent many of the happier moments in my life in Mexico and elsewhere in the Hispanic World, from Bogotá to Barcelona, and I keep in touch with many friends and acquaintances of a Constitutional mindset from those parts of the world.  When they ask me what I consider to be the greatest single constitutional development under the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, I tell them without hesitation: N.A.D.A.  (aka Senate Bill 1867, you know, the statute that effectively repealed the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments that passed the Senate 93-7 last December).

Really Bad “Patriot Mythologies” (the antidote: READ, ABSORB, REFLECT, and UNDERSTAND)(sorry if it sounds like work, but it is!)

I received an e-mail this morning from a client, referring me to this article under the subject heading: “A Good Article about Lawyers and the BAR”.  


Quite simply, nobody despises the “Integrated Bar” more than I do—by “Integrated Bar” is meant the constitutionally intolerable “licensing” of attorneys through the State Supreme Court system, adopted almost everywhere in the United States, Constitutionally enshrined here in the State of California.  But real is real and fake is fake, and the article posted by “Seawitch” on “Rumor Mill News” is about as far from reality as anything could be.  I do not wish to reproduce such drivel on my humble blog, so I’d ask you to read it first, and then my commentary:

No, sadly, that’s not a “good” article at all but a collection of poppycock fake “mythology” just plausible enough to fool some of those with no actual experience on the inside of the legal profession, or any good instinct for how life works, either, I might add.  I first ran into all that gibberish and nonsense about twenty years ago before my son Charlie was born even when I had just finished law school at the U of C and was getting ready to take the Florida Bar Exam.  
The Republic of Texas movement was still on the upswing, Ruby Ridge had not yet happened and it was almost a year before Mount Carmel, Waco, went up in flames.  If you ever want to dissect this pack of lies line-by-line we can do it late some night when there’s absolutely nothing better to do, but I submit to my own readers that it is hardly worth your time…..
Just for starters, I attach here for your reading enjoyment the cited case of  Erie v. Tompkins.  Erie R Co v Tompkins 304 US 65 58 SCt 817 92 LEd 1188 SCOTUS 1938
Now this is not one of the cases that normally fills the student of history with shock and awe at the majestic progression of historical process a la longue durée.  No, this is a “do your really want to be a lawyer” bone dry deadly dull case torturous case dealing with procedure and choice of law that every law student reads in first year civil procedure.  
And moreover, contrary to “Sea Witch’s” article on “Rumor Mill News”, the Supreme Court’s opinion in this case says nothing even remotely like “no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939.” or that “There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers (who were members of the American BAR Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain) created, formed and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American BAR Association is a franchise of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain. Since the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case was decided; the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same.”.
Every word of this paragraph is absurd nonsense. But it is especially weird to derive it all from a case which concerns nothing more dramatic than a rule that state law applies in federal court in diversity cases. I will send “Erie” to you So you can read it for yourself.  And as a former member of the bar, I can tell you that there are no secret oaths.  Now, truthfully, there may be a lot of broken oaths to uphold the Constitution, but no secret oaths.  No, sadly, that article is not only bad but it perpetuates myths which are so far off base that they hurt us in our fight for serious reform against the bar.  The bar is corrupt, monstrously so, but it is not because it is really a “British Accredited Registry” or anything remotely like that.  
Real Patriots must  be armed and ready for the fight to save our country.
Real Patriots need to be, like those of 1774-1792, literate and well-studied in the common law and constitutional history of England, her Empire, and of Europe and even Latin America.   The line “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH” or that you can defeat ignorance through gossip or cheap and shallow knowledge cheaply and shallowly acquired and used, is a tool of our Globalist enemies.
Real Patriots would do well to learn how to read history and in particular how to study and understand Judicial Decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s work. In fact it’s REAL work—Erie v. Tompkins does not touch on juicy issues of race, sex, contraception, or even whether the New Deal was constitutional or not (despite the fact that it was decided in 1938 after the Court-packing crisis was over and Felix Frankfurter and other Roosevelt appointees were safely on the Court).
Patriotism without historical knowledge and common sense is exactly what our enemies frame it to be: blithering idiocy.  Please study the case itself, and don’t rely on “Seawitches”, for legal advice or anything else, because the reality of the Supreme Court’s Erie R.R. v. Tompkins‘ key holdings are that they are dry as  bleached bones:
In federal courts, except in matters governed by Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, law to be applied in any case is law of the state.
There is no federal general common law and Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state, whether they be local or general in nature, be they commercial law or apart of the law of torts.
The phrase “laws of the several states,” as used in statute requiring federal courts to apply laws of the several states except in matters governed by federal Constitution or statutes, held to include not only state statutory law, but also state decisions on questions of general law, in absence of any constitutional provision purporting to confer upon federal courts power of declaring substantive rules of common law applicable in a state.
I would generally be wary of any website that calls itself “Rumor Mill News” anyhow and authors with names like “Seawitch”…. even though I admit that Rumor Mill News has published some of my material, which is why, I guess, my client thought I would like that article….  But “fair is fair and real is real and fake is fake”, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and such like aphorisms forever!  
The problem with the Bar is that it is unconstitutional both as a matter of substantive (First, Fifth, Ninth Amendment) and procedural (“Separation of Powers” between Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches) and monopolistic in nature, and is simultaneously socially, economically, and culturally (as well as legally) corrupt for all those reasons.
There are no easy answers to why our legal system is so corrupt, but “lack of education” and the quest for “easy solutions to difficult problems” and the general population’s lack of education and unwillingness to read and become educated are all major aspects of the problem.  The average American graduates High School (and College, and amazingly enough, many who finish Law School itself) with no real practical notion of any legal procedure, how to read or research law, and so the average American High School Graduate, College Graduate, and even Law School graduate has no idea how to defend himself or herself when (1) arrested, (2) questioned by the police or other authorities, (3) sued, (4) threatened with divorce or a child custody fight, (5) assessed with back taxes, (6) required to seek a license or register for some otherwise “lawful form of employment,” (7) do anything at all in the real world.  Saying that lawyers are all employees of an alien power or the British Crown doesn’t help anybody make it through any of these problems.
 So many Patriotic Americans have been led down insane roads by idiotic gurus to believing really stupid things, and Rumor Mill News has recently gathered a lot of the most incompetent, inept, and stupid ideas into one single article.  No one benefits except the “new world order” types who get to cite such examples to call all of us who believe in the constitution crazy idiots without a smidgen of common sense, historical knowledge, or real practical experience in the legal world….. and that means THEY get stronger and WE get weaker—so let’s learn how to take criticism from each other and improve our standing as a movement with real brains and practical intellectual capacity AT LEAST equal to the 1790s frontiersmen of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Western Virginia & North Carolina, Kentucky & Tennessee….who after all, were the First to assert States Rights against the Federal Government’s attempts to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and of the press when protesting against the government.  
The Los Angeles-based 10th Amendment Center has led the way in showing how State’s Rights Nullification, in the tradition of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions against the Federalist Presidency of John Adams, is still a viable option for neutralizing the worst abuses of the Bush-Obama administrations including (1) the USA Patriot Act, (2) the Real ID Act, (3) Obamacare, and (4) the National Defense Authorization Act.   But even Governor Michael Dukakis once tried to assert States’ Rights in Massachusetts to Nullify his state’s participation in illegal and unconstitutional undeclared wars abroad, and for that he should be applauded…..

Glenn Beck and the start of Easter Week

Today March 27, 2010, I attended Glenn Beck’s “American Revival” meeting in Orlando—and close to an old-fashioned “Revival” meeting it was—complete with two singings of “Amazing Grace”, a few tiresome confessionals (worst by Glenn) and one actual (security officer assisted) “healing.”

I don’t know what to thing of Glenn Beck and his followers: basically a very mixed bag.

One of my closest collaborating colleagues says that Glenn Beck is a “Monster”—-I don’t quite get that, unless you consider self-absorbed windyness a form of monstrosity (and even if you do, I’ve run into and heard MUCH worse).   I would not rate him as interesting an opinionated speaker as Alexander Woollcott, so good a news reporter or story-teller or moral editorialist as Paul Harvey or anywhere close to a speaker as inspiring as Ronald Reagan.  Still, he’s definitely a unique phenomenon in the United States of America today.

So I went to see the man in person today for the first time in my life at the University of Central Florida Arena in Orlando today.   Glenn Beck is nowhere the stature or determination of Judge Andrew Napolitano who also appeared, along with David Barton and David Buckner at a kind of “soft-core conservative pop culture symposium” today.  It wasn’t anywhere nearly as interesting or intense as the Tenth Amendment Summit I attended exactly one month in Atlanta, but it was 200 times better attended—around 8,000-10,000 people in attendance (and massive traffic jams around UCF) in Orlando compared to 400-500 at the Atlanta Airport Hilton.   I cannot help but think that both meetings are symbolic of the radical resurgence of constitutional thought in America.  The Tenth Amendment Center is based in Los Angeles, Judge Napolitano is from New Jersey—both meetings were in two of the original Seven States of the Old Southern Confederacy—how is it going to help me realize a state right democratic resurgence in California?

Some conservatives are devoted watchers of Glenn Beck.  I am not.  I don’t feel he has anything to teach me. (Judge Andrew Napolitano is actually fairly “hard core” and he does much to teach, as do some of the other participants, notably David Barton on the history of religion during the Revolutionary and Constitutionally formative among the founding fathers—a perennially controversial topic).

I know that Glenn Beck opposes two of the political theories/causes/movements to which I adhere and subscribe firmly: (1) to presume the constitutional ineligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama until he proves us wrong—because the time he may count on the “presumption of innocence” is now long gone, (2) the 911 Truth movement—which is probably (in the long run, more important than the “birther” movement to which it is regularly linked—it matters little, in reality, where Barack Husseim Obama was born, except that if he was born anywhere in the U.S. or the World other than the United States, or if he doesn’t in fact know where he was born, then he’s a gigantic liar and fraud—and as with so many things, such as the importance of Monica Lewinsky or Britney Spears, the Americans are the only people on earth who, by majority vote anyhow, believe the “official U.S. Government story” either of the 9-11 terrorist attacks or Barack Huseein Obama’s constitutional eligibility).

So why does Glenn Beck refuse to entertain discussion on Barack Obama’s birthplace and any detailed inquiry into questions such as “How did WTC7 Fall?” and “Why was there no aeroplane debris around the Pentagon?”  And “what a coincidence that the U.S. Air Force was engaged in conceptually related exercises on 9-11-2001, but still failed to react to the real thing in time to take any preventive action?”  Or, “why has both the press and the government been so completely closed behind stone-walls on this topic?”

A new acquaintance who teaches Constitutional Law in South Florida may have the answer: Glenn Beck is an “operative” moderate, a uniquely conservative voice in mainstream media whose purpose is nonetheless to preserve the IRS, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the general Title 42 Social Security and Public Welfare Program which has almost totally merged the state and Federal governments (as a matter of administrative law, hidden behind a facade of judicial separation in the publicly accessible courts).   The most important issue facing any country is whether its highest governmental leaders are willing to murder them for their own (the leaders’ own) advancement.  “False flag” terrorism is hardly a new concept, but 9-11, if an example, would certainly the most heinous, outrageous example in world history.   If 9-11 truthers are correct, and I think there are, then there is little point in negotiating with the present government of the United States, and the question of whether Barack Hussein Obama was born in Mombasa or Honolulu simply pales by comparison, because the administration of Barack Hussein Obama has not sought to indict or even investigate any high officials of the Bush Administration.

But tomorrow is Palm Sunday—the day of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  I have been reading all of John Dominic Crossan’s books I can get my hand on since hearing this brilliant Irish-American scholar speak at Bethesda-by-the-Sea in Palm Beach, Florida last month.  I was born on Palm Sunday, 1960, and my son was born in Palm Beach and baptized at Bethesda-by-the-Sea.  He’s off camping this weekend and his mother my estranged Elena is worried because he isn’t calling from camp…but he’s closer to 18 now than 17, and so close to freedom and adulthood…but still treated as half-swan, half-goose, the boy whom we used to call “Little Charlie” (or “Little Hurricane” born on the eve of Hurricane Andrew in 1992)….and how do you tell mothers not to worry about their babies?

Imagine the First Easter week, for instance.  John Dominic Crossan has written extensively about the Gospel story of Jesus’ last week, which happened to have been, at least in 1960, my first….

Mary’s somewhat prodigal son comes back to the Capital City after preaching in the countryside, and he rides a donkey (that’s kind of like running in the primary election as a write-in candidate, isn’t it, when your troops couldn’t organize your ballot ready application in time…).  Glenn Beck spoke a great deal about religion and salvation generally, but not so much about Jesus on the Eve of Holy Week…..  So Mary (whatever became of St. Joseph? and was James really Jesus’ brother????) has to watch the events of Holy Week unfold, right through a “summary judgment trial, capias, and execution” on Friday.  A mother watching her eccentric, much beloved, wildly popular but even more wildly misunderstood, son break into the Temple, scatter the money-changers (without even filing a complaint with the SEC or Comptroller of the Currency?  It was always doomed…..as is the world), generally challenge authority (my mother certainly couldn’t tolerate any of my activities, mild though they were back then…and not even close to Messianic…), and finally make everyone furious and be betrayed, arrested, condemned, and crucified—possibly the cruelest and most unusual form of capital punishment known—even when compared with such juicy methods as “boiling in oil”—which by comparison could not have taken long, compared with publicly bleeding to death while in effect standing up, very slowly….bleeding each drop of blood with each breath).   Jesus suffered, as have so many victims of injustice.

Where was any mention of America’s prison population in the middle-class Glenn Beck love-fest today?   With all the comparisons to the era of the founding fathers, 1774-1803, where was the comparison made that the imprisoned population of America today is now greater than the total population of America at that time or at either of the first two censuses.   Where was any mention of the lies and deceits that permeate the government?

Basically, the economist, David Bruckner, at today’s Orlando conclave clearly accepted the basic tenets of Keynsian Monetarism and Public Welfare Socialism in the United States, even as he quibbled with whether the national health care system just approved by contract was financial viable or not—let’s face it, EVERYTHING is financially viable when you can print up the money, so long as the people can still use Federal Reserve Notes at Walgreen’s, Walmart, CVS, Publix, HEB, Winn-Dixie, Vons’, Randall’s, Star Market, etc..

Jesus’ approach to the money changers in the Temple was much more radical—he just drove them out, “just said no” as it were.  And of monetary policy, his most famous statement was clearly valid until this day: “render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.”

Protected: I will run for the United States Senate from California in 2012.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

It’s Not Just Obama, It’s the System (from the Tenth Amendment Center)

It’s Not Just Obama, It’s the System
by Timothy Baldwin


Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?

Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switch” have all been the norm. Thievery under “color of law” has been their modus operandi. Through myriad usurpations, all three branches of the federal government have suppressed and oppressed true freedom throughout these states. It has, through masquerade and fraud, turned our original federal form of government into a national, seemingly-all-powerful empire. It has overtaken virtually every major element of society. It has bribed (and in some cases, forced) corporations, churches, states and citizens into giving the federal government our own powers and resources, with the promise of giving them back, of course, at our expense and with their demands. The federal government has unjustifiably entangled itself in the affairs of foreign nations, corporate elites and bankster mobs. It owns major media, education institutions and religious minds across America. In essence, it has created a seemingly impenetrable matrix of fraud, deceit and corruption, Republic or Democrat in the White House notwithstanding.

Despite the well-intentioned efforts and thoughts of many in America who feel that removing Obama from the Presidency, based upon constitutional grounds (i.e. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4), will somehow restore freedom to America, this simply is not the case and entirely misses the true crux of the problem. Do not misunderstand what I am saying: most certainly the constitution should be followed, and we the people of the states and the state governments should insist on it. No one believes that more than I. However, this fact must be realized before freedom will ever show its face again in America: the federal government (and those who control it) is not salvageable; its usurpations and encroachments are treasonous; its blatant unconstitutional actions have put the people of these states in a state of war; and without true revolution, freedom will never be restored in America.

The federal government–and by current default, the states–operates under a system and form contrary to freedom as expressed in America’s Declaration of Independence. It operates under the form of government which history proves is the enemy of a free republic. It operates under the very form of government that our founders rejected in September 1787 and that the ratifiers of the constitution rejected thereafter. It operates under a top-down structure, whereby the states and the people are mere subjects and corporations of the centralized head–the very form our founding generation seceded from in 1776. Freedom’s current plight in America has little to do with Obama being illegitimate as the President and has everything to do with the people of the states being controlled by a governmental system we never created or approved.

Even a brief look at recent history will reveal the numerous examples where the people have attempted to hold the federal government accountable to the constitution. Yet, that same government is more powerful and corrupt than ever, and the people and states are weaker and more oppressed than ever. It would not matter in the slightest if Obama were removed and replaced with Biden, Pelosi, McCain, Bush, Clinton, Gingrich, Palin, Scarborough, or any other eligible President. A new President would no more change the form and system of the federal government than would pumping trillions of dollars of tax payer monies create a stable and sound economic system in America. Just as America’s paper currency (the dollar) is not backed by a solid foundation (e.g. gold-silver standard), so too the executive branch of the federal government is not backed by substantive principles of freedom.

Make no mistake about this: there has not been a United States President elected since 1861 that has advocated for the true principles of federalism and freedom, and both major political parties have only cemented and built upon the previous President’s legacy of federal power at the expense of the states and people. If you think that freedom will be restored because a Republican who claims to be pro-life, pro-family, or pro-business sits in the White House, you are mistaken. If you think that Obama’s true birth place being revealed will restore all that we have lost for over 100 years and will somehow decapitate the head of the beast (thereby granting victory to “conservative America”), think again.

Those who have controlled the federal system have shown their intent of ignoring, demeaning and contradicting the United States Constitution. They care nothing of it, and only lead us to believe they do just to get elected. As Nancy Pelosi laughed when recently being asked the question, “Does the constitution grant Congress the power to pass the national health care bill?”, she only illustrated both the latent and patent practice and philosophy the federal government has possessed for generations. Do we need any more evidence at this point to conclude that our federal government is unconstitutional in its actions, powers and intentions? I think not. The only question is, what do we do about it?

In 1776, the delegates from the colonies met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in attempts to rectify the unconstitutional political actions of their national government. Like many of us today, they knew the designs of their government to reduce them to submissive slaves; they knew their government overstepped the authority given them by the consent of the governed; they knew that their government had committed acts of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” So, what did they decide to do? Replace their king with a new king? Use the court system to invalidate the illegal actions of the king? Use parliament to address their grievances to the king? Try to establish that the king was not of the hereditary lineage legally capable of being king? Wait until a new king would assume the throne to accomplish freedom? None of the above.

Instead, our founding generation secured the blessings of liberty by doing what all free peoples decided to do throughout history when confronted with the evident intents of tyrannical government: they became independent from the source of tyranny. They declared their natural right to govern themselves. They formed and constituted government by and on the consent of the governed. They ridded themselves of the entire system of the “long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object [which evinced] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” They became independent and sovereign states!

You claim to love freedom: you do well. But freedom will never be restored by replacing Obama with Biden, nor will it be restored by establishing that Obama is not legally eligible to hold the executive office. You claim to love the constitution: you do well. But the constitution will never be restored until the principles, form and system it created are restored. You claim that Obama’s birth certificate is crucial in restoring freedom? Your thoughts are likely pure, but your focus is misplaced. There have been open and notorious unconstitutional actions forced upon us by the federal government over the past 140 years. What makes this particular issue the winning contestant in restoring freedom?

Moreover, where are those in the federal government also demanding what you claim is so crucial to restoring the constitution? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the federal government give the states and the people back their money and power? Where are those in the federal government demanding that the tenth amendment be adhered to? Where are those even considering running for a federal position who preach and practice concepts of federalism? Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? Where are the federal political statesmen who proclaim that the federal government be resisted by the voice and the arm of the states, as Alexander Hamilton explained? The answer is, no where!

The questions that should be asked are the ones whose answers provide real solutions to restoring our Confederate Republic. The solutions sought should not be ones whose only end simply replaces one quarterback for another; yet all the while, their team continues to control us by insisting that we play their game by their rules in their (home) stadium with their referees, all of which are controlled by those sitting in the glass boxes overhead who smoke their cigars, drink their wine, play with their whores and laugh at us as we drudge through the game thinking that we are gaining ground when we lose only ten yards instead of twenty. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.”

Our methods of change are proven ineffectual, the expressed terms of the constitution notwithstanding. It is time for a different course of action–a course that has already been given to us by principle and practice. It is time that we the people of the states think in the pure political and philosophical terms that formed our country and secured our freedom in 1776. It is time that the states of this country reclaim what has been taken from us and to reignite the flames of independence and federalism which will cause freedom to burn brightly for us and our posterity for years to come.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty.  See his website.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,