Blog

Ignoring History and Embracing Rhetoric: A Case Against Tenther Opponents

  In a recent post, the progressive websiteThinkProgress attacked Utah Republican Mike Lee over comments he made regarding the constitutionality of federal child labor laws. In his remarks, Lee used federal child labor laws and the case against them in Hammer v. Dagenhart 247 U.S. 251 (1918) to illustrate the original meaning of our federal system and the distinct spheres of power occupied by federal and state governments under that system. In their attack, ThinkProgress, while accurately quoting the words of Sen. Lee, blatantly ignores history and turns to rhetoric in making a political argument.

 The issues in the Hammer case revolved around a federal statute, passed by Congress, that prohibited goods from being shipped in interstate commerce if the business producing those goods had utilized child labor within the previous thirty days. Congress, by including the interstate commerce language, attempted to bring the statute within its constitutional grant of power. But the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that despite any “interstate” nature, the regulation of labor occurring entirely within a state was rightfully under state, and not federal, control.

 When Hammer was argued and decided, the United States was emerging from the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century when the United States experienced the largest increase in economic and population growth in its history. The legal and political culture of the late 19th Century largely supported this growth admittedly by largely ignoring the well being and health of workers of all ages. As the 20th Century emerged and the United States became a more industrialized economy, the rights, needs, and concerns of middle and lower class workers garnered more attention from the legal and political establishments. One outgrowth of this increased attention was concern about the moral and social implications of child labor.

 That child labor was increasingly being seen in a negative light is reflected in the dissent of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Hammer case, where he refers to “the evil of premature and excessive child labor.” In this case, Justice Holmes was willing to rule with reasoning that drew on popular sentiment. The majority of the court, however, chose to rule with reasoning that relied on the plain meaning of the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment, which left the regulation of labor conditions to the states and their police powers.

 Of course, it would be naïve to ignore the fact that Hammer, as well as other Supreme Court decisions during this era, were influenced in part by political pressures. The justices of the Supreme Court are nominated and confirmed by politicians, and many of the justices, especially during this period, were nominated for their political loyalties just as much as for their legal brilliance. But the final question that one must decide is “Did the Court decide correctly?” In Hammer the answer is unquestionably yes, not because child labor was good, but because the Constitution, if it and its language is to mean anything at all, must be taken at face value.

 This is obviously the position taken by Senator Lee: That the language of the Constitution has a plain meaning and our decisions about the power of state and federal government must be controlled by the plain meaning of that language. The editorialists at ThinkProgress, however, disagree, instead focusing on the immediate results of judicial fiat by taking the traditional progressive position that ends justify means. Even this position, though, is ostensible when they disagree with the ends. Like other progressive media, ThinkProgress is on record opposing the executive overreaches of President Bush and his ambitious domestic anti-terror policies. The ends of those policies were good, on their face – to protect Americans against the “evil” of murderous terrorists. Not that I agree with the means to those ends. I, too, am on record opposing the unconstitutional policies of President Bush. But like Senator Lee, I am a “radical tenther” who supports Constitutional faithfulness, every issue, every time.

 The “radical tenther” remark draws attention to the simply rhetorical attack that ThinkProgress launched in this article. Because Senator Lee drew attention to the Hammercase and constitutional issues about New Deal politics, ThinkProgress jumps to the conclusion that “in Mike Lee’s America” we’d still have segregated lunch counters, low wages, and no healthcare or retirement security, simply because the Constitution prohibits those powers to the United States government. This rhetorical argument links to another article attacking “conservative” views on the U.S. Constitution where tenthers, textualists, and strict constructionists are accused of implicitly supporting racial and gender discrimination, elimination of the U.S. Dollar, and child labor while implicitly opposing minimum wages, education, and popular election.

 The linked article implores others to “tell the truth” about their views on the Constitution. Okay, I’ll bite.

 Attacks on the Constitutional validity of minimum wage laws, judicial decisions about racial and gender discrimination, federal funding of education, and modern monetary policy are well-founded in the text of the Constitution. There is no constitutional authorization allowing Congress to set a minimum wage. Most of the judicial decisions regarding discrimination were based on stretched, unprecedented readings of the commerce clause that had no basis in history or common law. Education isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution because it was not considered a concern of the national government when the Constitution was written. And our current monetary system based on paper money with no backing is expressly prohibited in the Constitution.

 That’s the truth.

 But it’s also the truth that recognizing a lack of Constitutional authorization for these acts is not the same as opposing the policies. Saying Congress has no authority to regulate wages is not the same as saying wages shouldn’t be regulated. Questioning the legal reasoning in discrimination cases is not the same as agreeing with racial or gender discrimination. Recognizing that there is no constitutional authorization for the Department of Education is not the same as saying education shouldn’t be publicly funded. And, questioning the constitutionality of our current fiat money system is certainly not the same as calling for the abolition of American currency.

 There, I did it. But now it’s time for ThinkProgress and other like-minded groups to do the same … tell the truth. Admit that you attack principled views of Constitutional interpretation for strictly political reasons. Admit that you’re unwilling to have a debate on the merits of one style of Constitutional construction over another. And admit that you’re willing to abandon Constitutional language when it suits your political purposes and later strictly construe the same language if it so suits your political purposes.

 I, and other “radical tenthers” take another, more principled, reasoned position: Constitutional loyalty. Every issue, every time without regard to political outcome.

Jan 18, 2011 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave A Comment »

Of Anarchy, Nullification, and Democracy

 

  Recently, another writer for the Tenth Amendment Center posed the question, “Does Nullification Lead to Anarchy?” The author, Steve Palmer of the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center, answers the question in the negative. He reaches this answer by implicitly defining anarchy as an absence of the rule of law. In his analysis, the rule of law is equated with Hayek’s claims about the predictability of government action, and in the examination of hypothetical scenarios he concludes that nullification is a 50-state consensus on Constitutionality, while a judicial ruling is simply the consensus of five out of nine Supreme Court justices. Thus, the margin for constitutional error is reduced in a nullification scenario since the consensus is broader.

 Although this is a simplification of Mr. Palmer’s analysis, and I encourage you to read the original article, it is not an argument that I disagree with. In my initial comments on the article, I agreed with his outcome, although I used a different justification:

 Anarchy is the absence of government, thus a purely anarchical society is a stateless society. So on its face, nullification is, by definition, not anarchical in nature. Nullification reinforces a society with governments because its debate revolves around the supremacy of one government over another.

 And even though I still stand by that original comment, I have thought a lot about the original article and the question that it posed, and I think I need to elaborate more on the issue.

 Steve’s definition of anarchy, as I understand it, that it is the absence of the rule of law, appears to be based on a popularized, oversimplified view of anarchy – a chaotic state of violence with Bolshevik-like revolutionaries hurling Molotov cocktails where nobody is safe and where law and order simply don’t exist. Okay, maybe that, too, is an oversimplification, but I don’t think I’m too off the mark. If asked to define anarchy, I think most people would offer definitions that included concepts like disorder, chaos, and violence. In reality though, that’s not the case.

 Merriam-Webster gives an accurate definition of anarchism: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.

 And even given this clear definition, anarchy and anarchists are difficult to define and categorize: socialist anarchists, market anarchists, mutualists and individualists. And yes, there are anarchists who advocate violent, revolutionary means. But there is one prominent strain of anarchists I’d like to focus on – philosophical anarchists.

 In fact, you may already be familiar with many philosophical anarchists, only with a different name: libertarians. Much (but certainly not all) libertarian philosophy is indeed within the anarchist tradition, advocating a radically limited government with an emphasis on the reduction of governmental force over the decisions and actions of private individuals. Philosophical anarchists can be categorized broadly into two primary groups: Left and Right. Leftist anarchists emphasize a free market that achieves largely socialistic goals such as communalism and cooperation. Right anarchists emphasize a free market that achieves largely capitalistic goals such as competition and the development of private wealth. Few squarely fall on one side or the other, but all share a common emphasis on resisting governmental coercion.

 Philosophical anarchists are also unified in their rejection of violent means to an ostensibly peaceful end, recognizing that it is ideologically incoherent to condemn state supported violence while advocating private violence. Also, recognizing the libertarian-anarchist synonym, many philosophical anarchists are active in and support anarchist (libertarian) goals through the legitimate political process. In fact, it may not be much of a stretch to suggest that many libertarians are philosophical anarchists who, for practical reasons, accept the existence of a limited government and choose to operate within the “establishment system.”

 I offer this alternative definition of anarchy, perhaps in spite of my agreement with Steve Palmer’s article, to ask this question: Could anarchists be part of the Tenth Amendment Movement?

 I think the answer might be, “Yes, they can.”

 If being an anarchist means believing “governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable” and if the vast majority of domestic federal legislation is unconstitutional and limits “voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups,” and if the Tenth Amendment Movement is dedicated to local action aimed at deconstructing an out of control federal government and returning power to the states, where individual influence is more effective, then it seems to me that the goals of anarchists and tenthers are fairly congruent, when applied to the federal government.

 Of course, the Tenth Amendment Center does not advocate the dissolution of the United States government. But neither do most libertarians (read: philosophical anarchists). That there may be legitimate debates about how big and intrusive state governments should be, there is no doubt. But, that is a debate that is rightfully taken up within individual states. Besides, operations within the established systems of government is necessary since Article IV § 4 of the Constitution guarantees “to every state … a republican form of government.”

 No doubt, the idea that someone who calls themselves an anarchist would be welcome in the Tenther’s tent may make some uneasy – we are, after all, dedicated to democratic action that returns America to its original form of a federal republic. But it is also disingenuous to ignore many of the common goals shared between radical libertarian thought and Tenth Amendment action.

 Plus, if Tenthers are committed to constitutional loyalty on every issue without exception regardless of political outcome, then why not extend a welcoming hand to potential allies, even though they may have different political motives?

Dec 31, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

The Obama Administration is Looking for Ways to Bend the Constitution … Shocker!

  During what normally is a slow news cycle, the New York Times published a front-page story on Christmas Eve, the importance of which may be overlooked. The story itself, “Facing New Politics, Obama Is Set to Shuffle Staff,” focuses on anticipation and speculation over upcoming organizational changes in the Obama administration. Although this is certainly important news in and of itself, what’s more important is the implied motive for the shuffling: skirting Constitutional limitations.

 Let’s begin our exegesis with the story’s title: “Facing New Politics.” The midterm elections created adverse conditions for Obama’s policy goals. With a Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a slim Democrat majority in the Senate, President Obama is preparing “for the realities of divided government.” For the second half of his first term, Congress won’t be a rubber stamp. Even if Democrats can bully legislation through the Senate, passage in the House will be made quite impossible. It’s a reality that previous presidents have dealt with too. Learning from his predecessors, Obama apparently intends to do what was most recently done by George W. Bush: simply ignore Congress and find a way to do what you want anyway.

 According to the article, “the president is studying how to maximize the power of the executive branch … seeking insight from veterans of previous administrations.” In light of the fact that he’s “facing new politics,” the only reasonable explanation for “maximizing the power of the executive” would be to avoid the checks and balances of a Congress that may not be willing to write his policies into law. And if by studying he really means seeking legal justifications for making law by fiat, some of the veterans he could talk to include the lawyers from President Bush’s White House legal team, guys like Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, who wrote creative legal briefs that justified things like warrantless wiretapping, torture, secret renditions, and ignoring the Bill of Rights altogether by using a broad interpretation of executive powers in the Constitution.

 In fact, he could simply study the executive actions of virtually every president since Abraham Lincoln. In their book, Who Killed the Constitution?, Mises Institute fellow Thomas Woods and historian Kevin Gutzman provide a detailed history of such practices – Obama might just want to study it too since, in a twisted way, it provides evidence of precedents for usurping powers not granted in the Constitution.

 It’s no surprise that the president wants to maximize his power because that’s the very nature of the federal government. It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a Constitutional issue.

 And, it’s an issue that the Tenth Amendment Movement can counter. States are just as capable of nullifying an executive order as they are a congressional bill.

 “Constitutional Adherence – Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.”

Dec 28, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

A Tenther’s Perspective of WikiLeaks

  As I’ve grown older, learned more, and experience takes a toll on my philosophy, I have come to trust government less and less. I’m distrustful of all government, but particularly, I’m distrustful of the federal government of the United States because it is the most difficult to control. The government of the United States has become the distant, detached, self-important entity that the founders had hoped to avoid when writing the Constitution. Today, the government is a being in and of itself – in national security planning, steps are taken to ensure that the government is preserved. Elected officials and unelected bureaucrats take the position that it’s their job to do what they think is in America’s best interest whether the American people agree or not.

 It is this type of behavior on the part of government that has led us into fighting two wars simultaneously that drain our national resources. It was this philosophy of governance that created the financial environment that led to our current economic crisis. In the current administration, nothing has changed, really. The political goals may be different, but the underlying philosophy of government remains – a philosophy that holds that government can ignore the electorate and disregard the Constitution if they feel doing so is “in the best interest of America.”

 I couldn’t disagree more.

 It was this recognition, that government is not really what it pretends to be, that led me to self-identify as a libertarian, which eventually led to my involvement with the Tenth Amendment Center. And it is this same realization that causes me to applaud WikiLeaks and the sunshine it has brought to American government.

 I grew up Christian with a very specific moral code which had very specific standards of behavior. Of course, being human and a child, I didn’t feel the need to always obey our standards of behavior. Sometimes, (okay, a lot of times), what I wanted to do didn’t align with what I was supposed to do. So my parents and religious leaders told me a story about how I was always being watched by God and I had a guardian angel following me around with a book. And in that book, my angel wrote down all the bad things and good things that I did, and it was up to me to make sure that there were more good things in that book than bad, because one day I would be judged and the contents of that book, my life’s record, would be laid bare for all to see.

 The government of the United States was instituted by men who held government to a certain standard of behavior. It was their belief that government should be instituted to protect the liberty of individuals, but it was also their realization that all governments are a monopoly of force and will tend to disregard liberty in pursuit of their own ends. Sometimes, (okay, a lot of times), what government wants to do isn’t what government is supposed to do. Realizing this, our founders protected the freedoms of speech and press believing that an interested, knowledgeable populous would follow the goings-on in government, writing it all down with the intention that government’s record would be laid bare for all to see, and judge.

 Sometimes, the mainstream press does its job well calling government to account for its misdeeds, misleads, or outright lies. Other times, the press itself seems to be fooled by, or in collusion with, a government that just does what it wants. This is why movements like the Tenth Amendment Center rise up and become successful – because there will always be a group of people who see the inherent evil in centralized government and do all they can to keep it in check. And because I am one of those people, a Tenther, a Constitutionalist, and a lover of liberty, I cannot help but support the mission of WikiLeaks, which, according to their website is to foster and promote the freedom of information in an effort to keep governments open and transparent.

 On the page dedicated to WikiLeaks’ most recent document dump of American diplomatic cables, I find this quote:

 This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors, and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.

My sentiments exactly.

 I’ve realized for some time now that the public persona of the United States is nothing like the closed door policy discussions. Our country talks openly of freedom, democracy and republican principles, but in reality, the United States is the largest sponsor of totalitarian regimes in the world. Our politicians pay homage to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but ignore them when they pass legislation designed to infringe on the principles and protected rights in those documents. That there are others out there, like WikiLeaks, who see the same thing as me, keeps hope alive.

 WikiLeaks can be a powerful tool for the Tenth Amendment movement. It gives us undeniable sources showing the hypocrisy of our federal government and provides impetus for local activism designed to reign in a federal leviathan that’s out of control. We, along with WikiLeaks and other pro-transparency movements, can be the federal government’s guardian angel – God knows it needs one – because it just keeps on doing whatever it wants.

Dec 19, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

The Real Meaning of the S.510 Chamber Dispute

  In case you haven’t heard, S.510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which recently passed the Senate, is probably going to be blocked by members of the House Ways and Means Committee for being unconstitutional. This is not a disappointing outcome, especially since a previous post on this website expressed opposition to this bill on Constitutional grounds. Unfortunately, the House of Representative’s constitutional opposition to the bill is not because S.510 violates Congress’s enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (which it certainly does). Instead, Ways and Means is blocking the bill because their exclusive power to raise revenue, found in Article I, Section 7, is violated in the Senate bill. And although I agree with this end result, I cannot agree with all the reasoning. A concurring opinion is necessary because this particular legislative ordeal is revealing about the true nature of legislative actions in the United States Congress: Congress is hardly concerned with the Constitutionality of their bills, and hardly aware of the details they’re voting on.

 In essence, the House Ways and Means Committee is asserting bicameral pride in blocking S.510 from further action in the House. In other words, they’re offended that the Senate would step on their revenue-raising toes rather than taking action out of any desire to protect the integrity of the Constitution – a desirable result, even if the reasoning is somewhat flawed. However, that the Senate would even pass this bill in the first place and send it to the House with such an obvious Constitutional violation is shameful. I learned in elementary school civics that any bill to raise revenue must first be proposed in the House of Representatives – one of the built-in, federalism-preserving mechanisms placed in the Constitution. That not one out of one-hundred United States Senators recognized this error, or if they did, did not oppose it, is shameful at the very least, and dire at the very worst. It reveals a disconcerting lack of knowledge and respect for the nation’s founding charter. And this discomfiting fact reveals another piece of uneasy evidence: that the Senators, by-and-large, probably didn’t even really know what they were voting for.

 Sure, they knew they were voting on an act “to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the safety of the food supply.” But had all 100 Senators read the proposed legislation? Were they truly versed in the potential effects it would have on their constituent states? Probably not. Actually, most certainly not. Perhaps a few Senators did read the bill in its entirety and tried to digest and understand it, but it’s doubtful that this happened on any large scale, if it happened at all. Instead, the knowledge the Senators had about this bill probably consisted of a summary that was given to them by their aids, who came up with the summary through consultation with lawyers, who worked with the lawyers who wrote the legislation, who worked with the aids of the original sponsors, who network with the aids of all the other Senators, who then compromise and posture to make it look like they’ve accomplished something with all the money they’ve extracted from the American people. And that’s not even considering all the amendments that were added and changed in the bill, summaries of which were provided by aids, who worked with lawyers, and you get the idea. The fact of the matter is that no Senator is actually reading and writing legislation. He or she relies on aids and lawyers who may have their own agendas and who also participate in the bargaining and compromising, and the end result is a bill that nobody really understands and the unintended consequences of which cannot be accurately predicted – hence, the gigantic mess we’re in today.

 The Constitution, the limits and responsibility it places on Congress, are hardly paid any regard in the modern legislative process. It is quickly resurrected when one of its provisions can be used to enforce the agenda of politicians, but Congress as a whole no longer recognizes any limits to its lawmaking power. This fact is evidenced in the recent passage of S.510. Because Congress, apparently, does not recognize any incumbent responsibility to follow the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the electorate, the people, the sovereign, to reassert the limits placed on government in the Constitution. It is also incumbent upon us to be aware and educate ourselves about the actions of government. If we don’t, we’ll be stuck with laws that were written by lawyers, summarized by aids, and then forced on the American people by uninformed politicans without any real understanding of their consequences or effects – an unacceptable state of affairs.

Dec 03, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

You Can Fool All the People … Yeah, Pretty Much All the Time

  I have many fond memories of time spent with my grandfather. Some of the earliest are of me watching him watch professional wrestling. My grandfather’s one vice was professional wrestling, and boy did he get into it. He would laugh and slap his knee when the bad guys got slapped around by the good guys. He expressed suspicious optimism when a villain switched sides, and “knew it all along” when a good guy made an alliance with the bad. Today, I can only laugh at professional wrestling: choreographed combat, outrageous speeches, and staged news conferences. It’s really a brilliant form of entertainment, playing on the emotions of fans by exploiting their desire to identify with someone they see as good, while opposing someone they view as bad. In the ring, heroes and villains pretend (convincingly) to dislike one another and everything they’re about, but in reality, after the match is over, they’re slapping each other on the back and sharing a beer. But in public, significant effort is exerted in preserving the illusion – good guys share a locker room apart from the bad guys, but ride to the arena on the same tour bus.

 Observing our two party system in the United States, it strikes me that it’s much like professional wrestling – choreographed combat. Most political observers can quickly identify the fringe members of each party, those who could potentially go either way – the players who, with the safety of reelection passed, switch parties to an outcry of “I knew it all along!” And what about the bipartisan alliances, when we hope our good guy is positively influencing the bad guy, but fear the consequences of the alliance. And when our party of choice soundly defeats the opposition, we hoot and holler, confident that, finally, our guys get the spotlight for a while. And certainly we know that it’s only for a while, because it’s all really just a choreographed show, exploiting our desire to identify with something. And at the end of it all, they’re sharing the same tour bus.

 I recently re-read some of the writings of John Stuart Mill. In his Chapters on Socialism, published in 1879, he discussed the emerging philosophies of socialism and communism, reporting, rather than editorializing, about the debate between competing political ideologies. As I read Chapters, I felt as though I was listening to a modern day discussion that still rages on between American liberals and conservatives. Owners v. Workers. Capital v. Labor. Have v. Have-not. As I thought about what I was reading, it struck me that this debate has been going on for over 100 years, but with plenty of evidence on either side. Through the Twentieth Century, free(er) markets have outperformed and outlasted centrally planned socialist economies. From the complete failures of Soviet and Chinese systems, to the emerging failures in Western Europe, it seems clear that a centrally planned economy based on the absolute redistribution of wealth will fail. And, to the extent that a mixed economy like those of Germany, France, Greece, and Great Britain is able to fumble along for some time, the buck must stop somewhere, usually on a steep cliff overlooking complete economic and political collapse.

 Even in the United States, a mixed economy for sure, but still the freest market in the world, we’re faced with serious consequences resulting from our own attempts at central planning and wealth redistribution. So why are we still having this debate? Why does the middle class, the largest piece of the electorate, vacillate between conservatism and liberalism? The answer lies, perhaps, in our professional wrestling analogy.

 Political and economic writers throughout history have recognized that any government, once in power, will tend to grow in power and authority until it is replaced or placed in check. Human nature, as recognized by Thomas Hobbes, tends to seek power, authority, and recognition. Once gained, power will increase through the ambition and self-interest of those in power. This realization is why the Revolutionary generation founded the United States (and every member state) with a written constitution – with hope (rather than true belief) that a written constitution could better limit the inevitable tendency in government to increase its own power and control. This constitution was written with the Lockean philosophy that the only legitimate function of government was to protect individual liberty from encroachment. Unfortunately for Locke’s ideal, government itself, as a human institution, will also be driven by ambition and self-interest leading it to itself encroach upon the very liberty it was designed to protect.

 In the United States today, few have experienced life in a tyrannical, totalitarian, or violently anarchical state. For over two hundred years we have held peaceful elections, enjoyed relative economic stability and growth, and sat as the most influential military and economic power in the world. Under such conditions, it is difficult (impossible for some) to even imagine how liberty could die in America. But it can die, and with each passing decade through the Twentieth Century until today, the federal government has grown in size, scope and power with a corresponding decrease in the real and potential liberty of American citizens. Those who disagree with this assertion, believing that the size of government bears no relation to liberty, are simply wrong, for every power that government can exercise over an individual is consequently a power that the individual cannot exercise over himself. And the power to govern oneself is liberty.

 That government, as an institution, acts self-interestedly by increasing in power, size, and influence presents a more accurate view of the class warfare discussed in Mill’s Chapters on Socialism. Our debates in politics often revolve around convincing the middle class electorate of who their enemies in society are. Democrats would have the middle and lower classes believe that their enemy is the capitalist and the wealthy who build their wealth and power through the labor and ingenuity of the middle class – thus, socialist and liberal policy promises to level the playing field and make sure that everyone gets what’s due to them through egalitarianism and wealth redistribution. Republicans would have the upper and middle classes believe that their enemy is the poor who take advantage of socialist, liberal, and Democrat policies that favor wealth redistribution and unfairly tax the labor and ingenuity of the middle class. While there’s a kernel of truth in the argument of each side, the reality is that these aren’t two polar opposites vying for votes – it’s more along the line of choreographed political theater that plays on the emotions of American voters.

 A more accurate view of class warfare is to see American society in two segments: a governing class and everyone else. The governing class consists not just of politicians, but a massive federal bureaucracy that in self-interest seeks to grow in size, power, and influence. Regardless of individual political affiliations, the people who make up the government class, out of their own self interest, will stop at nothing to maintain the existence from which they derive income, lifestyle, and influence. Democrats present voters with a shadowy bogeyman portrayed as the insidious rich man who gets richer off the back of the middle class while Republicans present their own bogeyman in the person of the welfare recipient and his socialist paymaster who taxes the working to pay the lazy. In actuality it’s more like the heroes and villains of professional wrestling, who play their part in the big show put on for those watching. For the wrestlers, it’s to hide the fact that they’re all just paid actors who follow the script. For the government, it’s to control the debate and keep voters fighting about symptoms rather than focusing on the real problem – that there is a government class, producing nothing of social or economic value, that subsists on the taxes taken from the upper, middle, and lower classes, that can contribute social and economic value.

 By controlling the debate, this government class keeps voters focused on the results of bad government instead of the cause of bad government. In the midterm election, Republicans convinced voters that they were the new good guys – the Democrats had their chance. Two years into a Democrat administration was long enough to know that they couldn’t solve the ills of society. Strangely, voters apparently forgot that Republicans were bad guys just two years ago when Barack Obama convinced them that hope, belief, and warm, fuzzy feelings could change America for the better. So, we replaced the Republican that believed government could solve all problems with the Democrat who believes government can solve all problems.

 In professional wrestling, if the good guys won all the time, nobody would stay interested. When the bad guys get a little bit ahead, it creates dramatic suspense by anticipating the good-guy comeback that everyone knows is coming. Regardless of how one views Republicans and Democrats, as either good or bad, when the other party wins, the suspense in anticipation of revenge keeps the audience interested, and distracted.

 Government is the problem. Actually, the problem is that nobody realizes that government is the problem because they’re too focused on the problems created by government.

 Voting for candidates from the two major parties will never solve the problem. As members of the governing class, they will only act in their own self-interest, which is to preserve the government class by convincing voters that somehow government can clean up the problems of government. But government can’t solve the problems created by government, because I can’t recall one government that ever voted itself out of existence.

Nov 29, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , , | Leave A Comment »

Nullification – A Lesson from Massachusetts History

  Nullification – the principle that, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the states and their people have the right and responsibility to declare unconstitutional federal laws of no force within their jurisdiction – has a significant place in Massachusetts history. As a hot spot of colonial resistance leading up to the War for Independence, Massachusetts emerged as a leader in pushing back against unlawful and immoral acts of Parliament. The place Massachusetts holds in the fight for liberty and local sovereignty lends strong philosophical support to the Tenth Amendment movement and provides a historical backdrop for its emergence as a leader in constitutional integrity.

 The acts of Parliament and the Crown of Great Britain that led to the Revolution were numerous and stretch far into history. But the beginning of the tensions that led to war occurred in 1764 with the passage of the Sugar Act, which restricted a free and open market in the North American colonies. It was the first act of Parliament written specifically to raise colonial money – thus generating the well known slogan, “taxation without representation.” The Sugar Act was followed by other laws that restricted the personal and economic liberties of American colonists: the Currency Act, the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, and the Townshend Acts. With each new piece of legislation, discontent with the English government grew into open, organized opposition that focused on the right and ability of a people to govern itself locally. And Massachusetts was at the forefront of this opposition.

 In January, 1773 (the Boston Tea Party would take place in December that year), the loyalist, colonial governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, gave a speech to the state assembly to address growing opposition to the British government. In his speech, Hutchinson spoke directly to the citizens of Massachusetts who were, in effect, attempting to nullify Parliament through acts of local and individual sovereignty: “The authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to make and establish laws for the inhabitants of this province has been, by many, denied. What was, at first, whispered with caution, was soon after openly asserted in print and, of late, a number of inhabitants in several of the principal towns in the province, have assembled together in their respective towns and, having assumed the name of legal Town Meetings, have passed resolves which they have ordered to be placed upon their town records, and caused to be printed & published in pamphlets and newspapers … some of them deny the supreme authority of Parliament.”

 So as far back as the early 1770s, the people of Massachusetts have asserted their rights of local sovereignty. The philosophical ideas that would give rise to the protections granted in the Tenth Amendment were present before the Revolutionary War even started. In fact, the same principles enshrined in the Tenth Amendment are the same principles that caused the people of Massachusetts and the other twelve colonies to resist Parliament through the acts of locally elected legislatures. The people of Massachusetts recognized in 1773 that a geographically distant government, concerned with its own welfare and motives, had no place in managing their local affairs. It was a sentiment that would be carried up to and throughout the war. The formation of the Continental Congress and individual states’ efforts to form their own legislatures with the power to make policy in opposition to that of the Parliament reflects the deep rooted American belief in self-governance – a belief that, despite efforts to suppress and overcome it, will not go away easily. The formation of a new Tenth Amendment Center chapter in Massachusetts is evidence to that fact.

 Today, the people of Massachusetts face a similar situation. A distant, centralized government, concerned only with its own self interest, sits now in Washington, rather than London. This distant government has claimed supreme authority over nearly every aspect of public life and continually contrives new methods of taxation to fund its growing size and intrusiveness. The nullification pioneers of 1773 understood well that the size of government is inversely proportional to individual liberty. In our current era of bailouts, welfare-statism, and perpetual war, it’s hard to believe that individual liberty stands a chance. But it does stand a chance as long as we recognize that we are the chance. We, the people of Massachusetts, have the power and authority to keep the federal government in check, if we take a lesson from our colonial history. Under the authority of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we have the authority to assemble and declare, as a sovereign state, that Massachusetts is not subject to the supreme authority of the United States government when it ignores the Constitution and its enumerated powers.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Massachusetts Nullification – In business since 1773!

 

Nov 20, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

Federal Legislation Threatens Massachusetts Agriculture

  Massachusetts has a long, proud history of farming. Drive into the small towns West of Metro Boston and it’s hard not to notice an orchard, dairy, or signs for one of our many local farmer’s markets. A few minute’s drive from my home will bring you to Bolton – a right to farm community. A few minute’s drive in the other direction, and you’re in Lancaster, where a pick-your-own orchard gave me my first job in Massachusetts, when I moved here in 2001. One more town over from Lancaster and you’re in Sterling, where the Davis family, farming for over 100 years, turned a disaster on their family-owned dairy into Davis Farmland – a local attraction dedicated to educating children and conservation of endangered livestock. All of this, and more, is threatened by the provisions in S 510, The FDA Food Modernization Act.

 The Food Modernization Act was primarily written to force American food producers and exporters into compliance with international treaties that the United States has entered regarding the import and export of agricultural products. To the extent that the bill will regulate the exportation and importation of food in international commerce, it is constitutional. However, there are serious constitutional and economic issues with the bill in how it deals with small, local farms.

 One of the act’s main initiatives is to make all food produced in the United States traceable. The motives behind this initiative seem honorable on their face. Essentially, the act says food must be traceable in order to protect public health. If someone gets sick after eating an agricultural product, then the source of their sickness must be traceable back to the producer so that the problem can be corrected. However honorable this may seem, the act exceeds the constitutional authority of the United States government by making its requirements mandatory for small, local farmers whose produce will never enter international commerce. Under the new regulations created by this act, anyone who produces food and gives it away, trades it, or sells it at a local farmer’s market will be classified as a producer subject to regulation and their produce will have to comply with the traceability provisions in the bill. This requirement is in direct violation of the United States Constitution in two ways.

 First, Congress is authorized by the Commerce Clause “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Food that is produced locally on a small scale with the intention of transferring it within the state where it is produced fails to meet the definition of international or interstate commerce. So long as a Massachusetts farmer is engaging in business completely within the boundaries of the Commonwealth, he cannot be regulated by the federal government per the United States Constitution. Any legal reasoning that claims locally produced food could enter interstate commerce when a resident of another New England state purchases it and transports it into another state is not in line with the original spirit and intent of the Constitution. A farmer growing and selling in Massachusetts, to the exclusion of Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Connecticut has not engaged in interstate commerce. Engagement in interstate commerce should be judged by the actions and intent of the merchant, not the consumer.

 Second, S 510 violates the Tenth Amendment and the constitutional understanding of state sovereignty. Massachusetts is not a subsidiary, sycophant, or subordinate of the United States government. By requiring state cooperation in the enforcement and administration of the Food Modernization Act, the government of the United States violates and belittles the sovereign rights and responsibilities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Further, by attempting to regulate farmers who do not engage in international or interstate commerce, the federal government has effectively usurped the right of another sovereign to regulate its own intrastate agricultural producers. Furthermore, by including producers who are not engaged in the business of agriculture, S 510 would restrict the rights of individual property owners – what right does the federal government have to tell a private landowner he cannot grow food and give it away for free? If S 510 and its equivalent bill in the House pass and become law, Massachusetts will be fully within its Tenth Amendment rights to nullify that law and direct its officials not to cooperate with federal enforcement actions.

 Finally, there are serious economic implications for Massachusetts agriculture should S 510 become law. By loading small, local producers with burdensome regulatory costs and time investments, it is not inconceivable that these new regulations would drive many small farmers out of business. According to the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, there are 7,691 farms in Massachusetts employing 13,545 workers. Total farm cash receipts in 2008 were $489 million with $99 million paid in wages. And these statistics don’t include non-commercial producers, like my coworker who owns a few chickens and sells or gives away the (truly free-range) eggs they produce – she, too, would be subject to federal regulation if S 510 becomes law. Sometimes it’s difficult in the sub-urban hustle and bustle to notice the presence and importance of agriculture in our communities. But consider the ramifications of losing part of an industry that put almost $100 million of wages into the pockets of Massachusetts residents – and imagine not being able to buy those perfect New England tomatoes, organic broccoli, and fresh eggs at your local farmer’s market.

 S 510 is just one recent example of the federal government’s never-ending attempt to overreach its constitutional boundaries. And in this example, Massachusetts has much about which to feel threatened – constitutionally and economically. As of this writing, the speculation is that S 510 will proceed to the floor of the United States Senate tomorrow, Thursday, November 18, 2010. You have approximately 24 hours to contact Senators Scott Brown and John Kerry and ask them to oppose passage of S 510.

Nov 17, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave A Comment »

Bringing the Tenth Amendment to Massachusetts

  In the last year, since December 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has experienced a political facelift. Once considered the textbook example of a one-party state that would play the games of big-government politics without fail, Massachusetts has once again become a battleground for liberty. Groups of citizens, once believed to be a silent, defeated minority have rocked the status quo establishments of both major parties and put every politician in the state on notice that liberty will not be surrendered quietly to increasingly centralized authority. These citizens have rediscovered the prescient wisdom of the United States Constitution and find in that document empowerment to retrace the lines that limit our government to its rightful functions.

 Some citizen activists came away from the recent election with a sense of defeat, maybe even hopelessness. How could a grassroots movement with so much evidence on its side lose to the same tired rhetoric of party politics? Remember that a midterm election is just one battle in a war of ideas that will be fought on many other fields. And today, into this war, Massachusetts has introduced a new weapon in its arsenal – a weapon, perhaps, not so much new, but certainly underutilized: The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 Contained within these words is the power of the Commonwealth and its citizens to control the government of the United States – a government that, for too long, has spun dangerously out of control. Few areas of local concern have been able to escape the reach of a federal government that no longer operates within its constitutional boundaries. Public education, drug control policy, public health, and natural resources management have been taken from the hands of local communities and mismanaged by a distant, disinterested central government. And that’s only the beginning of a long list of issues that are rightfully dealt with by local communities who are directly affected.

 The Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center, a state affiliate of the Tenth Amendment Center, is committed to state and local activism and networking with other liberty minded groups and individuals to influence legislation with the goal being a Massachusetts that nullifies federal laws and regulations that are not authorized to the federal government in the constitution. These commitments are not limited by tired political ideology – this isn’t a political movement, it’s a liberty movement. The Tenth Amendment is about state sovereignty, not left or right.

 We are committed to a Massachusetts that is controlled by the citizens of Massachusetts, not by Washington. There are many more battles to be fought in this war, and the Constitution is on our side. We transcend party politics by focusing on issues important to Massachusetts that should be decided by the people of Massachusetts, regardless of political affiliation.

 If you are committed to principles of liberty, Constitutionalism, and state sovereignty, please contact the Tenth Amendment Center using the links at the top of the page. There are many opportunities at the state and local level, and your talents are needed.

Nov 16, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | 1 Comment »