Over the past few months I have been thinking about freedom, liberty and how we, as citizens can restore limited, Constitutional government. We have allowed our formerly federal government to transform itself into a national government.

A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact. (Source)

The national government involves itself in every aspect of our lives. Even in areas where it was obvious, such as education, that the Founders had no intention of a federal government role, our national government butts in.

Barry Goldwater, in Conscience of a Conservative, wrote:

The Constitution, I repeat, draws a sharp and clear line between federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction. The federal government’s failure to recognize that line has been a crushing blow to the principle of limited government.

Over the years, Progressive reforms have altered the nature of our government. For instance, the 17th Amendment, allowing for the direct election of Senators, was presented as both a more democratic means to choose Senators, and touted as a way to limit corruption. In fact, the 17th Amendment created a disconnect between the interests of the individual states, as reflected in their state legislatures, and the then federal government. Instead of state legislatures selecting Senators to represent the interests of their state in Washington, D.C., we now directly elect those Senators. This shifts the balance of power away from small rural communities and toward large urban areas. Furthermore, the direct election of Senators has made them less accountable to the people of their states, and more corrupt. Now, special interests need only attempt to buy off one Senator, rather than the somewhat more difficult process of buying a whole (or some part of a) state legislature.

I find it difficult to imagine that Senators would support grants-in-aid, unfunded mandates, and other means to strong arm the states if their political futures were tied directly to their state legislatures. Remember, the House of Representatives was created to represent the will of the people. The Senate was supposed to reflect the will of the states. Our federal government was a careful balancing act between the people, the states, and the federal government. Progressive tinkering unleashed unintended consequences – none of them good in regards to the Senate.

Another Progressive reform was the 16th Amendment – the amendment which created federal income taxes. This power to tax individual incomes was touted, in part, as a more fair and equitable way to raise revenue for the federal government. Few people, it was said, would ever pay the income tax. It was said that the income tax itself was progressive – the more you earned, the more you would pay. The income tax allowed the federal government to begin to accumulate power for itself by taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. It enabled a system of legalized bribery – both the government bribing citizens with all kinds of programs financed by other peoples’ money, and special interest bribery of politicians through political donations in order to receive money from the public trough.

The 16th Amendment and 17th Amendment – taken together – marked the beginning of the end of the federal government.

A number of factors, including the economic crisis, government bailouts, economic stimulus, political corruption, and an administration with views far outside the accepted norms, have created a groundswell of dissatisfaction in the United States. This dissatisfaction, has been part of why the Tea Party movement has gained strength. However, I think there is an even more important factor that has led to so much political dissent. People have woken up to the fact that the balance of power between the people, states and national government has shifted to a national government which looks on the states and people with disdain. Their disdain is palpable. It seems that neither party respects the will of the people. Neither party is offering to restore federalism. Yes, some politicians have mouthed the words, but none has really addressed the problem.

Much of the Tea Party movement has focused on Washington, D.C. That is understandable. Washington, D.C. is a cesspool of corruption. What the politicians in D.C. have done to our country with their corruption, wasteful spending, etc. is an abomination. Having said that, I don’t believe that a strategy that focuses exclusively on Washington, D.C. can hope to restore federalism. Equally, I am not convinced that individual effort, or group effort, will be sufficient to break the grip that national government has on the country. So, what can we do? In my opinion, if we ever hope to break the back of national government, we must Take the State back for the people. We must elect officials to state and local government that pledge to support the Tenth Amendment.

10th Amendment Pledge State

Ever wise, Barry Goldwater in Conscience of a Conservative, wrote:

Nothing could so far advance the cause of freedom as for state officials throughout the land to assert their rightful claims to lost state power; and for the federal government to withdraw promptly and totally from every jurisdiction which the Constitution reserved to the states.

Of course, no one should naively expect that the national government will abandon its power willingly. That’s where the states come in. The states are the chief bulwark of freedom and limited government. Individual citizens, in concert with their state and local governments, can stand up and tell the national government, “Enough!” But, to do that, we must demand that state officials, local officials and candidates for office sign the state pledge. It is no longer enough for elected officials and candidates for office to say they will stand up for our rights. We must have their word, and then hold them accountable. States and local communities can take action to oppose the national government. States can refuse to accept grants-in-aid that intrude upon the rights of the state or individuals. If necessary, states can go to court to fight unconstitutional laws. If nothing else, states can resist by dragging their heels, delaying, and publicly voicing their opposition.

At Take the State we believe the following:

1. States are the bulwark of freedom.

2. The federal government has exceeded its legitimate Constitutional authority and has transformed from a limited to an unlimited government.

3. The states and people must do everything within the limits of the law and our Constitution to restrain the power of the federal government.

4. We must elect leaders for state offices who pledge to support the legitimate rights of the states and people as outlined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

5. States must reject federal government mandates and grants-in-aid which are instruments to coerce and blackmail the states to give up their rights.

6. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution allowing for the direct election of Senators must be repealed and the authority to select Senators be returned to state legislatures.

7. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution allowing for the income tax must be repealed in order to shrink the size and scope of the federal government.

8. The Constitution must be amended to reassert the states’ rights over education. The federal government has no legitimate role in education.

9. National Guard units must be restored to their proper role of defending the individual states and the United States rather than being used to augment active duty military units. Furthermore, these units must be under the authority of state governors and not the federal government.

We welcome all who would join with us to protect freedom, individual rights, liberty and the Constitution.

A final quote from Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative:

The Result is that today neither of our two parties maintain a meaningful commitment to the principle of States’ Rights. Thus, the cornerstone of the Republic, our chief bulwark against the encroachment of individual freedom by Big Government is fast disappearing under the piling sands of absolutism.

It’s not too late to save our Republic. It’s not too late to transform our government back into a federal government rather than a national government. But the sands of absolutism are piling up. Will you join the effort to halt the absolutism of our national government?

Image via Wikipedia

This article originally appeared here.

[Additional author's comments for Red State: It will be interesting to see what happens with the pending Chrysler bankruptcy and pending sale to Fiat. I was watching Glenn Beck tonight and Judge Napolitano seems to think that the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law and send the whole Chrysler bankruptcy back to square one. I hope he is correct. Undoubtedly, some have cheered the Obama administration's actions, but it would be wise to consider what unintended political, economic and Constitutional consequences will arise from government meddling in contracts.]

The Rule of Law may not be a dead letter in the United States, but it is definitely on life support. The Obama administration’s Unconstitutional manipulation of the Chrysler bankruptcy to reward its political allies, not only poses a threat to the rule of law and Constitutional order, it also creates a dangerous precedent of government voiding legal contracts. A secondary effect of government’s Unconstitutional meddling in contracts is lack of certainty that some or any future contracts will be honored. This will have a chilling effect on any organization that seeks to raise money through the issuance of bonds – whether business, state or local.

Todd J. Zywicki,  in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Chrysler and the Rule of Law: The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason” writes:

The rule of law, not of men — an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers — is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?

Until Chrysler.

Unfortunately, we are governed by so-called leaders, who do not respect the Constitutional principles put forward by our Founding Fathers. Instead our elected officials use a series of crises to dismantle the protections so carefully assembled by the Founders. While it may be easy for favored groups, such as the unions, to cheer on the current administration, they – and their supporters – ought to be careful. Today’s insider can become tomorrow’s outsider. It is not a far stretch to imagine a future where government interferes with contracts to reward a favored interest at your expense. Would Obama’s supporters favor government expropriation of land to drill for oil? Take this a step further. Imagine a landowner selling the land to a nature conservancy and then having the contract invalidated by presidential decree. It may sound absurd, but in reality that is that path we are heading down.

The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact “uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies.”

The Obama administration’s behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors — entitled to first priority payment under the “absolute priority rule” — have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

It is easy to dislike creditors. Many of us have owed money to a creditor we felt was predatory or unfair. However, imagine the shoe on the other foot. Suppose you had invested or loaned a business or individual a significant sum of money. The business goes bankrupt and you hope to collect on the debt. It is your money and it is your right to collect on the debt ahead of junior creditors. However, at the last moment the government intervenes and gives you only 25 cents on the dollar of what you are owed. Meanwhile, you learn, a junior creditor, with less priority than you has received 40 cents on the dollar. They are well connected politically and it appears they are being rewarded for supporting the right politicians.

Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler’s assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset’s, or in this case the company’s, value. That’s hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration’s asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The actions of the Obama administration with regards to Chrysler are extremely short-sighted, or worse. They undermine the rule of law and the Constitution. They rewrite the law and Constitution as if by decree. Furthermore, they undermine the economic order by creating uncertainty and unnecessary political risk. The Obama administration’s Unconstitutional actions will almost certainly lead to capital flight from corporate bonds, state bonds, municipal bonds or other financial instruments where the acceptance of government funds may lead to government meddling.

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government’s threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

Chrysler — or more accurately, its unionized workers — may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government’s Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks’ troubled assets.

And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business — such as a pharmaceutical company — that’s on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House’s agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?

When we allow the government to break the law and undermine the Constitution we undermine our own freedom and liberty. While some might be cheering the administration’s current actions to reward the unions the precedent is a terrible one. What is to keep a future president from invalidating a union contract to help a favored industry or interest? The rule of law and Constitution is there for a reason – to provide equal justice under law. If you depend on this president, or the next, or the next, you likely won’t like the result – and you shouldn’t have to. We don’t live in a kingdom. We live in a Constitutional Republic guided by the law and the Constitution, rather than whims or decrees…at least for now.

This article originally appeared here.

Image via Wikipedia

Our elected leadership in Washington, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, make a mockery of the legislative process, including the idea that bills should be read aloud, and that there be adequate time for public review and comment.

Read More

Image via Wikipedia

With General Motors quickly making its transformation to Government Motors, I have made the decision not to buy any GM products. For that matter, I don’t intend to use any products related to GM either – for example, Ally Bank – formerly GMAC bank. It may seem a small thing, but it is a necessary, albeit small blow against the government takeover of vast swaths of the United States Economy.

Read More

Overheard at a Tea Party in Alabama…

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

–Thomas Jefferson

Plus, Stephen Gordon riffs on you might be a right-wing extremist if…

Read More

Image via Wikipedia

Let me beat a poor dead horse a little more. All of this talk about “green shoots” is a load of horse manure. Edward Hugh, writing an article titled Seeing is Believing, But Stabilising is NOT Recovering, in the Global Economy Matters blog.

Read More

Image by through via Flickr

Not tired yet of getting looted by government bailouts? Well, Michael Shedlock of Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis has an article titled More Prime Foreclosures; More Re-Defaults that will get your blood boiling. You would think our government would have learned its lesson about bubbles after Alan “Bubble Blower” Greenspan and Fed Chairman Ben “Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Daddy” Bernanke pushed our economy to the edge of the abyss by holding interest rates down at artificial and unsustainable levels. You would be wrong. No, instead the government is going to provide taxpayer-funded incentives to refinance mortgages through the Making Home Affordable program. These newly refinanced mortgages will likely re-default in 6-12 months. Yes, you read that right. You are paying many of the same mortgage servicers who made bad mortgage loans to make more bad mortgage loans.

Details highlighted my Mish are provided by John Mauldin in his weekly newsletter titled This Way There Be Dragons.

Read More

Image via Wikipedia

The Federal Reserve Bank (FED) stole my lunch money. Your lunch money too. Actually, the FED stole much more than lunch money. Here are just a few things the FED has stolen or is in the process of stealing.

1. They FED has stolen untold amounts of money from the people through inflation. As the U.S. Dollar becomes devalued, each dollar is worth less. Inflation is not rising prices, but currency devaluation. Rising prices is merely a symptom of inflation, not inflation itself. The elimination of the Gold Standard, in combination with FED policies, picks your pocket.

Read More

Image by _Robert C_ via Flickr

One of the biggest mistakes ever made through our Constitutional Amendment process, perhaps with the exception of the 16th Amendment – income taxes – was the decision to ratify the 17th Amendment and directly elect Senators. Previously, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. Members of the House of Representatives were elected directly by the people to represent their interests. Senators were chosen by the state legislatures to represent the interests of the states. This was part of the Great Compromise, or Connecticut Compromise, which helped settle the dispute between large and small states over how Representatives and Senators would be apportioned.

Read more

Image via Wikipedia

A conservative once wrote:

A substantial portion of the conservative movement has become a parody of its former self. Once home to distinguished intellectuals and men of letters, it now tolerates and even encourages anti-intellectualism and jingoism that would have embarrassed earlier generations of conservative thinkers. There are still some good and decent conservative leaders to be found, and a portion of the grass roots has remained uncorrupted by the transformation of conservatism into just another Big Government movement. But Big Government at home and abroad seems to suit many conservative spokesmen just fine. Once in a while they will latch on to phony but conservative-sounding causes like “tax reform”—almost always a shell game in which taxes are shuffled around rather than actually reduced overall—in order to pacify the conservative base, but that’s about it.

More

BJ Lawson, candidate for Congress in North Carolina’s 4th District, has 20 year incumbent David Price scrambling to save his political skin. BJ Lawson has been described as “…a wonderful young candidate running for Congress in North Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District. B.J. is a medical doctor, family man, Constitutionalist and a fierce defender of individual freedom. We need B.J. Lawson in Congress to stand beside me in the fight for liberty, and against the corporate socialism that has overtaken our economy!”

In an election year where both political parties appear drifiting toward socialism and neither offers voters what they want, BJ Lawson offers more than hope – he offers a return to the principles of constitutional government, a commitment to liberty, support for sound money, He is also one of the few candidates for Congress who has endorsed the complete Downsize DC including the Read the Bills Act which would require that:

• Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.

• Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.

• Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.

• Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.

• Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.

• Congress cannot waive these requirements.

There is much to like about BJ Lawson’s campaign.

Read the rest of Volunteer to Help BJ Lawson Defeat David Price in North Carolina 4th Congressional District.

This Song Is Dedicated To All The People Who Brought Us The Mortgage Crisis

Sung to the tune “Money For Nothing” by Dire Straits

(Starts with Sting solo)

I want my … I want my A.R.M. …

I want my … I want my A.R.M. …

I want my … I want my A.R.M. …

(Main verse)

Now look at them yo-yos, that’s the way you do it,
Buying a house with an A.R.M.,
I’m not working, but the bank will let me do it,
Money for nothing and a house for free.

Now look at Lehman, that’s the way you do it,
Lemme tell you, them guys ain’t dumb,
Mortgage deals for people in Vegas,
Mortgage deals for people with no income.

Sing along to the rest of the song Money for Nothing and don’t forget to thank the Federal Reserve System (FED) for artificially lowering interest rates to create the housing bubble.

In a strange way seeing this angry man confronting John McCain over the socialist takeover of our country warmed my heart. We should all be so blunt and in the face of our elected officials until they hear us loud and clear.

Keywords: angry voter, Wisconsin, John McCain, rally, socialism

Read the rest of the article Angry Voter at McCain Rally Mad at Socialist Takeover of Our Country or go directly to the angry voter video.

Peter Schiff, in an interview with Don Harrold, says to resolve the current panic/financial crisis, government needs to get out of the way and let the free market work.

See the interview Peter Schiff Tells Don Harrold Government Needs to Let Free Market Work

Summary: After the bailout, Republicans want campaign contributions. Here are my replies to their appeals.

I almost can’t believe the Republican party, after the bailout, has the gall to ask me for money.

Read the rest of the article Republican Fund Raising Replies at Liberty Stop.

For one brief moment the American people made their voices heard on the bailout, forcing the House of Representatives to blink. Soon enough, the Senate – unconstitutionally – took up the bailout bill, loaded it with goodies and returned it to the House, which approved it with no time to adequately review it or allow public comment. While the final passage of the bailout is discouraging to supporters of the free market and constitutional government, it is just the beginning of the battle against the state.

So, now what can we do to fight fedzilla?

See the rest of the story here.

Looks like the American taxpayer just got punkd by Congress and all the big, fat special interests that tell your so-called representatives how to vote.

A 700 billion dollar bailout will throw good money after bad. The U.S. Dollar will continue to be gutted by monetary policy. A weak dollar will make your real wages smaller and the cost of everything higher. The U.S. economy is already in a recession, and this bailout will certainly not help. Instead, the bailout will make things worse.

Read the rest of the article, Wall Street Bailout: America Just Got Punkd at Liberty Stop.

If you are angered by Congress’ massive power grab, lack of accountability, intervention in the free market, and the reality that we now have taxation without representation, you need to go to the No Cash for Trash site.

They have a great site that will let you see how Congress – both Senate and House members voted on the bailout.

They also have a section where you can log your call to your Senator or Representative. In addition, you can find and post links to articles on the Internet that demonstrate if your elected official is for, against, or on the fence for the bailout.

Please be sure to use the tools correctly or you’ll misinform others who use them. The tools don’t reflect your opinion, but the opinion of the Senator or Representative. So, if your Representative is for the bailouts please not that and not the fact that you oppose them. This will ensure everyone who uses the tools understands their elected official’s position on the bailout.

If your Senator or Representative votes for the bailout, be sure and make them pay at election time. Also, you can recall your Senator in the following states:

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and
Wisconsin.

Hat tip to the Campaign for Liberty web site for providing the Senate recall information.

Once you’re done doing that be sure to visit the [home page of No Cash for Trash] (http://http://nocashfortrash.org/) where you can read Twitter comments (twits) of people about the bailout. If you use Twitter already, add #nobailout or #nobailouts to your twits so it will show up on the site and appear on searches of Twitter.

Also, please check out Liberty Stop for articles, blog posts and opinions on all things liberty.

Congress just tacked out my “stupidometer”. Yes, Congress has “red-lined” the limits of stupidity this morning. While debating the new, and not improved, bailout package, several Congress Critters suggested that America needs the bailout because people living paycheck to paycheck are being squeezed as their lines of credit on their credit cards are being reduced.

Excuse me for my lack of financial wisdom, but is Congress recommending that people living paycheck to paycheck should be using their credit cards? Is it a good idea for people just making it to receive a credit line increase? Surely Congress has read the news that a recession, or worse, is upon us.

Read the rest of the article, Living Paycheck to Paycheck? Congress Says Charge It., at Liberty Stop.

Dear Representative Emerson,

I was extremely disappointed to learn that you voted for the bailout bill in the House of Representatives. I was even more disappointed in light of the fact that you were one of only 65 House Republicans to support this Bailout Bridge to Nowhere.

It seems to me that many representatives in Congress don’t remember who they were elected to represent. I found this quote from an article in the Southeast Missourian telling:

“Emerson was also convinced to vote for the measure when associations representing businesses showed almost unanimous support for the bill, Connor said.”

So, despite overwhelming opposition from your constituents (aka voters), you voted to support the interests of “associations” representing business.

Some of your concerns about the bill were listed as follows:

“The concerns ranged from oversight to controls on the “golden parachutes” enjoyed by top executives to bail outs for foreign banks and transparency about the price taxpayers would pay for banks’ troubled assets.”

It’s interesting that amongst your concerns I can’t find the following:

Read the rest of the article here.