Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 21 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here.

213 years ago, on November 10th, something really important happened.  In fact, it was so important that if there ARE going to be federal holidays at all, this should definitely be one.  But it’s not.

We’ve already got loads of federal holidays to choose from.  Some of them are worthy of our attention, and some of them not.  On July 4th, there’s independence from King George’s England.  On the first Monday in September, there’s a holiday that was dedicated to the “social and economic achievements of American workers.”  We celebrate all American presidents, give thanks for the autumn harvest, and more.

When there’s no federally-sanctioned holiday to call upon, people around the country celebrate all kinds of other stuff.  And activists across the political spectrum often pick “important” dates to schedule events to bring attention to their cause.  We’ve seen protests on Tax Day, May Day, Earth Day, the 5th of November, and more.

But nowhere to be found on these great lists of “federal holidays” or “protest days” is a celebration of one of the greatest political maxims in American history – that when the federal government does things it’s not supposed to do, you are not bound to obey them.

JEFFERSON, KENTUCKY-STYLE

Most Americans know that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of “The Declaration of Independence.”  Yet few of them have ever even heard of another document that I would say might be the second most important one he ever wrote – The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which were adopted by the Kentucky General Assembly on November 10, 1798.

Jefferson drafted these resolutions – in secret – while he was serving as vice president. It was written in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which were passed under the John Adams administration.

The acts authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered “dangerous to the peace and safety” of the United States, to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States, and criminalized any speech which might “defame” Congress, the President, or bring either of them into “contempt or disrepute.”

Interestingly enough, while it was illegal to, in essence, speak out against the president, congress and the federal government in general, it was not illegal to do so towards the opposition, in this case the sitting vice-president, a Mr. Thomas Jefferson.

In response, Jefferson invoked what he considered the bedrock of the constitution, the 10th Amendment – and its strict rule that the federal government was one of limited, delegated powers – and nothing more.  Essentially, he argued that by passing and enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had overstepped its bounds and was exercising powers which were never delegated to it in the Constitution.

In other words, he considered the Alien and Sedition Acts to be acts of usurpation.

VOID AND OF NO FORCE

What did Jefferson have to say?  Here’s a few snippets that, in my opinion, sum up his views quite well:

the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government

the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force

Jefferson argued that if the federal government were allowed to hold a monopoly on determining what its own powers were, we would have no right to be surprised when it kept discovering new ones – as it does so often today.

USURPATION!

Want to know where the feds get the power they do?  They get it from themselves, not the Constitution.  And they’ve been doing this for a long long time.

When FDR told starving farmers they couldn’t grow more wheat to consume on their own property, the federal government was assuming undelegated powers. When Richard Nixon founded the EPA with an unconstitutional executive order, he was doing the same.  When Ronald Reagan ramped up the war on drugs, this was also an exercise of powers that didn’t belong in Washington DC – they are powers that, according to the 10th Amendment, belong to the states.

George Bush gave us the biggest increase of federal control over healthcare in decades, no child left behind, the patriot act, and more.  Barack Obama has given us an extension of the Patriot Act, a nationwide health insurance mandate, raids on milk producers – and he has continued the Bush foreign policy agenda, waging war on his own decision, without a congressional declaration of war.

None of these things – none of them – are powers that have been delegated to the federal government in the constitution.  That means every single one of these acts should be “unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

NO MEANS NO!

If Congress passes a law and no one obeys it, it is really a law at all?

These politicians only get away with this stuff as long as people let them, and they will continue to get away with it as long as people don’t say NO.  But when enough individual people take a stand and say no, there’s not much that the federal government can do to force their unconstitutional acts, regulations and mandates down our throats.

So today, in celebration of the adoption of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, I rise in solidarity with all you brave individuals who quietly, or publicly, refuse to comply – with something, with anything.  In this time of massive federal power, it takes courage and I honor your courage to resist.  Whether you know it or not, you are our generation’s greatest heroes of liberty.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

Whether it’s the person who transports and consumes raw milk in defiance of the FDA, or the cancer patient who uses marijuana in defiance of the DEA, I salute you.  Whether you say no to federally-mandated lightbulbs or health insurance plans, whether you grow hemp without permission from DC or refuse to serve in an unconstitutional war – you are doing what’s right.

You are carrying out Jefferson’s advice and standing up for liberty by refusing in your own way.  Your acts of defiance to tyrants are the core of what will someday reduce these many unconstitutional federal acts to what they must become – “unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

The post Thomas Jefferson and Defiance to Tyrants: An Anniversary worth Celebrating appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 20 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time here. Find the show on iTunes at this link.

*******

Concordia res parvae crescunt.

It’s a Latin phrase made popular during the revolutionary period that means “small things grow great by concord.”  And in a time when politicians claim the power to control nearly every aspect of your life, it’s a phrase that not only packs wisdom, but gives insight on a possible road map to liberty.

A QUICK HISTORY LESSON

In 1765, the British Parliament passed the Quartering Act, which required the colonies to provide housing and provisions for British soldiers. Like unfunded mandates of today, the Colonies had to pay for it all, too.  But, when 1,500 British troops arrived at New York City in 1766, the New York Assembly refused to comply, effectively nullifying the act.

The Quartering Act was circumvented in all the colonies other than Pennsylvania. In royal circles, this was yet another sign that the colonies were getting a bit out of control.

In 1767, the British Parliament passed a series of five laws known as the Townshend Acts.  Their primary purpose was to raise tax revenue and enforce compliance in the colonies.  They included the Revenue Act of 1767, the Indemnity Act, the Commissioners of Customs Act, the Vice Admiralty Court Act, and the New York Restraining Act – a punishment for the very public rejection of the Quartering Act a year earlier.

The “punishment” given to New York?  The Assembly had its legislative powers suspended, effectively leaving all decision-making outside the colony.  In other words, they had to self-govern as they were told to, or not self-govern at all.

Sound familiar?

The colonies responded.  And, although the Townshend Acts didn’t have the same, immediate uproar as the Stamp Act had just two years prior, they were hated and resistance soon became widespread.  The most influential response to the acts came from John Dickinson, commonly known as “the Penman of the Revolution.”  Opposing the new Acts, he wrote a series of twelve essays known as “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.”

ADVICE, WISDOM

Dickinson’s warning? Don’t concede to new powers just because they appear to be small, or in the case of the Townshend Acts, because the taxes were low, since such concessions always set a dangerous precedent for new and greater powers in the future.

In the first of his “Letters,” Dickinson spent time discussing the New York Restraining Act.  He wrote:

If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union.

He continued on to say that, in essence, the rightful response at that moment would have been for other colonial assemblies to have at least passed non-binding resolutions informing Parliament that the act was a violation of rights and that it should be repealed.

Why? His answer came through clearly at the end of this first letter, where signed off with the Latin phrase, Concordia res parvae crescunt.

Small things grow great by concord.

ASSUMING TOTAL POWER

In many ways, today’s federal government has suspended the legislative power of state assemblies by assuming control over powers never delegated to it in the Constitution.  For example, when the Obama administration issued threats to close businesses in California because politicians and bureaucrats in DC think that a particular plant should be illegal, they’ve made their intentions clear.  And when the Bush administration told the people of Montana – and elsewhere – that they wouldn’t be able to fly without a new national ID card, they also asserted the power to legislate for the people of that state.

The federal government assumes unconstitutional new powers like this almost daily.

When Congressional declarations of war are deemed an “anachronism,” Congress simply abdicates its duty on the question of war, and unconstitutionally transfers its power to the executive branch.  And when such unconstitutional transfers of power seem unlikely, the executive branch simply redefines war into “kinetic something something” – and then initiates war on its own say-so anyway.

When home-grown wheat – never bought or sold, and then consumed on one’s own property – is outside the sphere of federal control, the judicial branch simply redefines what the founders considered “interstate commerce,” and dictates that the federal government controls virtually all commerce, and then even non-economic activity.

Politicians in congress and the executive branch – and the lobbyists that benefit financially from their unconstitutional acts – are all too happy to utilize this wealth of power.

For far too long, people have stood idly by – “voting the bums out” and hoping that a new crop of federal politicians would ride in and save the day.

But, while new bums have come and gone – and come and gone – the day has yet to be saved.

STEP BY STEP

Pushing off the yoke of an empire is not something that’s done in one fell swoop.  And, this is something that the Penman of the Revolution recognized early on.

When I talk with people about resisting – and slowly but eventually nullifying – unconstitutional federal acts, I rarely find opposition to the idea.  Instead, I often hear things like – “Yeah, but they have the guns!”  Or, “I’m totally in favor of this, but it’ll never work, the feds are too strong.”  Or, “This will just crumble when DC takes away funding, or jails opponents,” and the like.

Fear is something that obviously keeps traction through the ages, for Dickinson dealt with these same thoughts.  He wrote in his third Letter:

“Great Britain,” they say, “is too powerful to contend with; she is determined to oppress us; it is in vain to speak of right on one side, when there is power on the other; when we are strong enough to resist we shall attempt it; but now we are not strong enough, and therefore we had better be quiet; it signifies nothing to convince us that our rights are invaded when we cannot defend them; and if we should get into riots and tumults about the late act, it will only draw down heavier displeasure upon us.”

In the Revolutionary Period, like today, people were afraid of upsetting the status quo, and urged others to sit idly by.

Dickinson’s response?

Are these men ignorant that usurpations, which might have been successfully opposed at first, acquire strength by continuance, and thus become irresistible?

The message?  If we stand by and do nothing – we know what’s coming. And…each small step towards liberty is an important one.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

Today, dozens of states have considered – and many have passed – non-binding resolutions reaffirming the founders’ vision for the federal government…that it should be one of limited, delegated powers.  Fifteen states are actively defying both congress and the Supreme Court by allowing the use of marijuana.  More than two dozen states have refused to comply with the Real ID act.  Other states are taking steps to consider legislation that would nullify specific federal acts like Obamacare, warrantless searches by the TSA, legal tender laws, the Food Safety and Modernization Act, and more.

While many of these acts might feel like small steps in the grand scheme of things – risking reprisals from the dangerous beast we call the federal government – each thorn in the side of the empire is yet another essential step towards liberty.

For as a wise person once said, “Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.”

The post Small Things Grow Great by Concord appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 19 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com.

*******

Peace.

What sane person doesn’t want peace – peace in their communities and peace in their lives?

Absence of peace, a state of conflict, lowers our chances for a long, healthy, happy and prosperous life. Peace is something we strive for in our workplace, in our family, in our home, and yes – even in politics – although different people obviously have different methods that they believe will attain their desired peace.

The Founding Fathers thought that peace was extremely important in political thought.

James Madison, the “father of the constitution” considered war, the opposite of peace, to be a great evil when he wrote:

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address also stressed peace when he said: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”

Fast forward to today and the political establishment seems to care little for peace.

When Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote the Federalist Papers, the word peace was used 75 times in a series of 85 essays arguing for ratification of the Constitution. But the current Republican establishment almost never uses it. A quick review of recent public statements and the websites of Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich shows that peace must be a low priority, because it almost never enters the conversation. And in the rare cases that any of these republican leaders use the word peace, they never, ever use it in the context that war is a bad idea like James Madison said – an extreme last resort that should be avoided at all costs.

And then you have a guy like Rick Santorum, who must revile the founders when he preaches with religious-fervor the message of never-ending wars and entangling alliances.

So no, republican party leaders do not favor peace.

What about Barack Obama? The Nobel Peace Prize winner just announced the end of the war in Iraq – a full pullout of troops by the end of this year. Does this make him a man of peace?

I would say no.

In Afghanistan, he’s more than tripled troop levels – to about 100,000 – while waging drone wars over Pakistan, Libya, and elsewhere. Nobel Peace Prizes for people dropping bombs around the world now? This must be some kind of sick joke.

Foreign policy – on both the left and right – is not something of peace, but of war. And in a time of crushing debt, James Madison’s warning rings true, if not prophetic.

But does peace ONLY apply to foreign policy?

Of course not.

Government in this country harasses you in nearly every step of your life. While some – if not much – of what they do just might be things you like or agree with, you know that many times you go along with them out of fear….fear of what they’ll do to you if you don’t. This is not a state of peace, this is a state of compliance, and nothing more.

When the TSA expands its rights-violating practices to highways around Tennessee, you aren’t given an option. You are told to comply, or else. Is this a state of peace?

Is it peace when a cancer patient in California has her home invaded by federal agents because the plant she chooses to grow and consume at home is not approved by politicians and bureaucrats in DC?

Is it peace when armed federal agents raid local businesses because they don’t approve of the type of milk they sell, or the wood they use for musical instruments, or a host of other regulations designed to “protect” you – whether you want them to or not?

Is it peaceful to tell someone they have to purchase a healthcare plan or face a penalty? To accept the notion that government has the power to spy on just about anyone without a warrant? To force you to pay taxes under threat of imprisonment to bail out crooked corporations that have been ripping you off?

I charge that the political establishment hates peace. They recognize that peace is the greatest roadblock to all their goals, and at every turn possible they issue threats while they sow disharmony, fear and conflict.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

They can only get away with this as long as their message of hate and fear rings true with you. As long as you hate enemies – real or imagined – they will use your hatred to clamp down on your freedom. As long as you fear the outcomes of freedom – real or imagined – they will use your fear to regulate and control you – eliminating peace in your life in the process.

But…things that can’t go on forever….don’t.

And sooner or later those who love war both overseas and here at home will crumble under the weight of a great people who decide to throw away the chains of fear, and hate, and war – and decide that a society of liberty and peace is far better – and easily achieved.

For as a wise person once said, “Peace is not something you wish for; It’s something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.”

The post Peace. appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 17 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com.

*******

In a recent interview with a reporter from the BBC, I was asked – “Is the Tenth Amendment Center affiliated with the Tea Party movement?”

My answer?  “Weâ€re affiliated with the Constitution.  When people in the Tea Party take proper constitutional positions, we applaud them.  When they donâ€t, we educate – or when needed – we blast them.”

The reporter seemed a little stunned.  He was given my contact info as someone who could help him put together “viewpoints from the Tea Party” on some recent economic issues.  He researched our website and seemed certain that the Tenth Amendment Center was a tea party group.  He pretty much asked me, “are you sure – what is it, are you with the Tea Party or not?”

My response was the same.  The only thing that the Tenth Amendment Center is “with” is the constitution.  And furthermore, since our organization was founded in 2006, a few years before the Tea Party explosion, shouldnâ€t the question be the other way around?

The fact of the matter is this – we work with Tea Party groups all the time.  Many have sponsored our Nullify Now! events around the country, and many others reach out to us with questions.  And, as long as people from these groups are interested in learning about the Constitution, weâ€ll be more than happy to educate and lead.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

When talking with strict constitutionalists, Iâ€m often asked – “Do you think it might be a bad idea to participate in events with the Tea Party groups?  People might think you support all their goals, and many of them take positions that are totally repugnant to the principles of the Constitution.”

To verify that view – and the concern – you donâ€t need to look any further than tea party leaders like Michelle Bachmann or Herman Cain.

Bachmann proudly voted to extend the Patriot Act – a wildly unconstitutional act that Judge Andrew Napolitano called the “most hateful piece of legislation” in over 200 years.  She regularly twists the Constitutionâ€s meaning by claiming that the federal government has control over health care in the states.  She refers to Mitt Romneyâ€s awful health care mandate as “unconstitutional” instead of a “bad idea.”  Is she proposing that the federal government go in and stop Massachusetts from making their own decisions in this area?

Her house vote against letting states make their own choices on marijuana might be an indicator of her view of the constitution and centralized decision-making.  And no, itâ€s not good.

Herman Cain is no better.  He supported the TARP bailouts that took money from you and gave it to politically-connected corporations.  He considers the Patriot Act “about 90% right on.”  And, this week’s republican debate, while praising the inflationist Alan Greenspan, he lied about his opposition to an audit of the federal reserve.  Even worse, just look at his website.  In reviewing his positions on the issues, he doesnâ€t name a single program or department that would be completely eliminated.  Even Obamacare would be repealed, but “replaced” with something else.  No mention of the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in the health care industry at all.

On ten major national issues covered on his website, the word “constitution” isnâ€t mentioned even once.  Not one single time does Hermain Cain say that a program, act, or department is unconstitutional.  With just thirty powers delegated to the federal government in the constitution, he has plenty to choose from.   If the word Constitution is off-limits to this guy, is he even interested in it?

So, no, with bad constitutional positions like these – and many others – I donâ€t consider the Tenth Amendment Center as part of the tea party.  We are more than happy to work with and educate Tea Party leaders and activists as long as theyâ€re willing, though.

THE OTHER SIDE?

In recent days, Iâ€ve been hearing the same kind of questions – “donâ€t you think itâ€s a bad idea to be involved with these people?” – but directed towards a different group of protesters, the Occupy Wall Street groups.  Like the Tea Partyâ€s general consensus that government power is too big and taxes are too high – which I agree with – I find myself also opposing some of the things these new protesters appear to oppose.  Wealth redistribution to the rich?  Happens every day, and itâ€s not good.  Bailouts to banks and corporations?  Unconstitutional and economically destructive.

The best way to sum up what Iâ€ve seen from them so far was a sign in New York – “The banks got bailed out, we got sold out.”

Absolutely true.  But many, if not most of the solutions Iâ€ve heard offered from Occupy Wall Street protesters are things I vehemently oppose.  More regulations, more government control, more centralized power.  These have nothing whatsoever to do with our mission for the Constitution.  And because of this, the Tenth Amendment Center is absolutely not “part” of the Occupy Wall Street movement – just like weâ€re absolutely not “part” of the Tea Party movement.

THE MISSION

Some people have suggested to me that because of incorrect, constitution-violating solutions like these being offered by people at Occupy Wall Street, we should have nothing whatsoever to do with them.  We should even be wary of simply going there and talking with them – trying to educate people on different, better, and constitutional positions.

Itâ€s almost like saying – “you donâ€t agree with me already, so Iâ€m not going to talk with you!”

The fact of the matter is that we want to talk with everyone.  Our mission is to educate people on the proper role of government under the constitution.  And whether itâ€s people from the Tea Party or from Occupy Wall Street, many, if not most, have plenty to learn.

If we only wanted to talk and work with people who already had it right, weâ€d not only be idiots, but weâ€d be wasting our time.  This would be like demanding that a university only accept fully-licensed, practicing doctors into a pre-med program.  Whatâ€s the point in trying to educate people who are already educated?

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

All this makes me think of a great quote from Sun Tzu – “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

These days, as a constitution-supporter, weâ€ve got enemies all across the political spectrum.  And, until we recognize the need to connect with and be peaceful with all of them, with a goal of educating them in mind, weâ€ll just be spinning our wheels in the mud.

With adherence to the 10th Amendment becoming a growing concern for Americans, we arenâ€t part of any other movement.  We are our own movement.  Small, but growing, our efforts must continue no matter what.  And, as long as someone is willing to listen, weâ€ll be willing to talk.

The post The Enemy of My Enemy… appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 16 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link.

*******

Iâ€ve got news for you…some good and some bad. Letâ€s start out with the bad news first.

The constitution as the founders gave it to us is dead. Government in this country is nowhere close to what the founders created in the Constitution. It is nowhere close to what the people of the several states ratified and approved.

The Constitution is not being followed in Washington DC, and it hasn’t been for a long time. While itâ€s not supposed to be a “living breathing document,” that’s how it has been functioning for many decades.

As Kevin Gutzman, constitutional expert and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, has said, those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.

On top of that, itâ€s going to be tough to turn this mess around. Why? Because most everything you have been taught about the constitution is wrong. I, like most people, went to a government run school for many years. I also spent time in a government-approved private school for a number of years as well. What do these both have in common? They both teach students with government-approved textbooks….government-approved by a government that hasn’t followed the constitution for ages.

So what should that tell you? Throw out everything, and I mean everything, you learned about the Constitution, and start over. Thatâ€s why Rob Natelsonâ€s book, The Original Constitution, is so important. This is first book EVER to explain the legal force of the entire U.S. Constitution as it stood in December, 1791, right after adoption of the Bill of Rights. And, it will help you unlearn the mess that the government has forced upon you.

LOOKING BRIGHTER

That leads me to the good news. The Constitution is, believe it or not, extremely popular! And this gives me a glimmer of hope. How do I know this? For everything the government does, when a constitutional question arises, politicians and pundits alike ALL try to find a way to argue that their favorite programs are “constitutional”. They seem to reach for the worst, most obvious nonsense to back up their laws rather than just admit the opposite.

How many times have you heard Obama or Bush say something like this….”look, we know this action isn’t constitutional, but we need to do it anyway. The constitution is an old tired document, and we need to get with the times….so let’s get on track America, get on board, and forget that constitution thing. This new way is going to be much better!”

I’m going with zero.

Iâ€ve also never heard Sean Hannity, or Keith Olberman, or Rush Limbaugh, the New York Times, or anyone for that matter..making such a claim about programs they support. No, no one ever supports a federal act AND takes a position that itâ€s unconstitutional at the same time.

Why? Because they know people would flip out. Average people all over the country want government to follow the rules given to it…theyâ€ve just never been taught what those rules actually are.

THE CONSTITUTIONâ€S FAULT?

When talking with liberty activists, Iâ€m often asked, “why should this matter, the constitution obviously didnâ€t work, so whatâ€s the point in going back two centuries to a failed document?”

Failed document? How does a document fail? – is what I generally respond with.

Invariably, someone will quote the famed individualist, Lysander Spooner, who once said,

“whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Problem with this, though, is that Spooner was wrong.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

The Constitution doesnâ€t apply to you. It doesnâ€t apply to me. It doesnâ€t apply to any person at all. Itâ€s a document that lays out the rules for the federal government, and in a few instances, rules for state governments.

But documents donâ€t enforce themselves. It takes you to understand what those rules are, and it takes you refusing to go along with anything outside of those Constitutional limits. Thatâ€s how documents are enforced.

If you want to understand why liberty is being flushed down the toilet, and at the same time, if you want to understand how to turn things around, I have one simple suggestion for you.

Look in a mirror. Because liberty begins – and ends – with you.

The post News Flash: The Constitution is Dead appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 15 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link.

*******

Yesterday, a long-time commenter on the TenthAmendmentCenter.com website had this to say:

“Being a purist is generally another way of saying being a loser in a large Federation.”

This was in regards to the presidential candidacy and foreign policy views of Ron Paul.  The idea being that since Paul’s foreign policy ideas were, according to our commenter, far out of the current mainstream of republican voters, that Paul needed to shift his positions to ensure the potential for being a winner.

When I respond here, I’m certainly not limiting my viewpoints to the candidacy of Ron Paul, to viewpoints on foreign policy, or anything else for that matter.  Instead, I think this applies to everything politically.

Haven’t we had enough “winners” in this country?

For over a century, we’ve had winners on the left, and winners on the right.  And not a single one of them – not one – has followed the constitution as they were supposed to, and as we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand – every issue, every time, no exceptions and no excuses.

The 10th Amendment was the exclamation point on the constitution – reinforcing the fact that “We the People” of the several states created the federal government.  Not the other way around.   And, we created that government to be our agent for certain, enumerated purposes…and nothing more.

James Madison – you might have heard his name associated with the moniker “father of the constitution” – put it this way:

“The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Few and defined?

Well, depending on how you count it, there’s approximately 30 powers that have been delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, most of which reside in Article I, Section 8.

Thirty powers.  That’s all.

But, if you were somehow able to read through all of the US Code and the Code of Federal Regulations, you would have to go through tens of thousands of pages of federal laws and regulations.  And it’s not like presidents have been waging epic battles with Congress over the years, vetoing bill after bill and having those vetoes overridden.  Instead, almost nothing gets vetoed.   Even Ronald Reagan, the president that many constitutionalists idolize as their champion, only vetoed 39 times in an eight year period.

Five vetoes per year?  Nah, no thanks.  To me, that’s as good as zero.

At this point, what should a president do to stand up for the constitution?  If we want to err on the side of the constitution, let’s keep it simple.

A constitutional president should pretty much veto everything!

Take a hike.  That’s what a constitutional president would say to Congress on almost everything they pass.

And hopefully, this brings me back to my initial point – that it’s not OK to be a kinda-constitutionalist.  Or a mostly-constitutionalist.  Or what we almost always have, a partisan-constitutionalist.

Whether they’re from the left or the right, conservative or liberal – or anywhere in between – all politicians claim to support and follow the constitution.  And every now and then, most of them say something right.  But, it’s very little and there’s almost no consistency.

From both sides we’ve seen opposition to violations of your liberties on some issues, but not on others.  We’ve

But that’s best left for another conversation.

The fact of the matter, though, is this – both sides have allowed, turned a blind eye to, and even actively promoted massive constitutional violations for far too long.

Year in and year out, politicians tell us that there’s some kind of emergency, real or pretended, and they need to have new powers to prevent all kinds of horrors and death.

Corporate Bailouts, Social Security, Environmental Regulations, the Patriot Act, the Department of Energy, Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere, the Department of Education, Massive Military Spending, the Department of Energy, Foreign Aid, the War on Drugs, FEMA, the FDA and too much more to list – have all been sold to us on fear.   And all of them are unconstitutional.

When you allow politicians to bend the rules of the constitution or break them outright – even if it’s for a good reason, or to hopefully stop some outcome YOU are afraid of – and you let them do it year in and year out for decades – sooner or later you’ll end up with politicians who feel that the rules, the constitution that is, don’t apply at all.

And if we’re not already there today, we’re pretty damn close.

That’s why I vehemently reject our commenter’s opposition to being a purist.  Oppose the ideas, maybe.  Disagree with the principles, sure.  But oppose a position because it might not be a winner?  Never.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

That’s why our motto here at the Tenth Amendment Center is so simple.  The Constitution.  Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

I’m hoping that you, like me, are sick and tired of people who advocate winning above all else.  “Winning” is what’s gotten us where we are today, and “winning”‘ has really been losing for all of us.

Like my parents used to tell my brother and I when we fought as children – “you’re both wrong” – it’s time for people who love liberty to do the same to democrats and republicans alike.

Both sides have been wrong for far too long.  And every day we tolerate it for the sake of winning, we add one more link to the chains of our own shackles.

The post “Winning” is Losing. For All of Us. appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 14 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link.   Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Jacksonville. Get tickets here, or by calling 888-71-TICKETS.

*******

Republicans scream and yell about “Obamacare” and how much they oppose what they consider to be the socialist whoâ€s currently the president. In a recent poll, republicans and tea party members were asked if they considered Barack Obama a socialist.  71% said yes, and only 17% said no.

This must be a joke, because Republicans are little more than the pot calling the kettle black.

So, letâ€s take a look at that – first, with a definition of socialism.

Socialism. so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] noun

And….

Collectivism. col·lec·tiv·ism  [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm] noun

We all hear from people like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry that theyâ€ll do everything they can to repeal “Obamacare.”  Perry even says heâ€ll use an executive order to get rid of it – an unconstitutional legislative action from the executive branch is obviously no problem for this guy.  But thatâ€s best left for another discussion.

So, on principle, republicans oppose centralized control over health care, right?  Wrong.  They love it.  They just happen to dislike this particular social program in the health industry.  In fact, other than the new Affordable Care Act, there really doesnâ€t seem to be any socialist or collectivist programs that Republicans want to get rid of.  And itâ€s time we start calling them out on their inconsistencies, their lies and their grandstanding.

Letâ€s start with health care.

REPUBLICANS LOVE HEALTH CARE CENTRAL PLANNING

Medicare Part D was the biggest expansion of government control over the health care industry in decades.  It was pushed and passed by republicans under George Bush, and most certainly paved the way for further government control under the Obama administration.

Not really believing that massive government control of the health industry was the result of this republican plan?  A 2008 report in Politico helps make things a little more clear.

The growth of state and federal health care programs — including President Bushâ€s prescription drug plan for seniors — means that today about half of the pharmaceutical market is controlled by government.

Half of an entire market – a massive one to say the least – controlled by government?  Nah, thatâ€s not centralized economic control.  Only Obamacare is!

But why focus only on the past.  Those were the “bad” republicans, and George Bush was no real “conservative republican.”  Todayâ€s crop is all about the Constitution – and theyâ€re totally opposed to centralized economic control, right?

Wrong.

In the very same poll where 71% of republicans called Obama a “socialist” – 78% said they wanted to keep Medicare.  Only 12% want to get rid of it.

Centralized control over health care?  Republicans LOVE it, and theyâ€re frauds when they say they donâ€t.

OTHER PROGRAMS

What about your retirement?  Want the government to control it?  Some would say that Social Security is unconstitutional.  Others consider it a Ponzi scheme.  As an aside, I wouldnâ€t – Ponzi schemes are voluntary.

On retirement plans, Republicans once again love collectivism.   75% want to keep it and only 17% would like to see it eliminated.

Republicans donâ€t like socialism, collectivism – centralized planning and control?  Nonsense.

How about education?  Surely republicans are vehemently opposed to federal control – centralized planning and collectivism, that is – over the education of their children, right?

Nope.

A CNN Poll this month tells us that a whopping 74% of republicans want to keep the Department of Education and its centralized social and economic control over your childrens†education in the hands of the federal government.

Only 24% want to see it eliminated.

Not even the EPA is on the chopping block for Americaâ€s socialist republicans.  Earlier this year Reuters reported that 61% of republicans opposed abolishing the EPA.  A little glimmer of hope, maybe, but not much.  Still, a large majority of republicans are fully on board with centralized planning on all kinds of social and economic issues.

JOBS.  THATâ€S IT!

When looking at these numbers and seeing the big picture, I was both surprised, and not surprised at the same time.  I thought to myself, “there HAS to be some central planning and control that republicans donâ€t like.  I know it!”

Thatâ€s when it hit me.  Jobs!  Everywhere I turn, republicans are speaking out against the new jobs plan from Barack Obama.  They laugh when Ron Paul rightly points out that under Rick Perry, a large number of new jobs created in Texas were government jobs.

So thatâ€s the one.  Jobs is it!  Republicans donâ€t want government created jobs, right?

Then I saw this.

As of 2010, the biggest employer in the world is the US department of defense.  3.2 million government jobs in the DoD is more than #2 – the Chinese Peopleâ€s Liberation Army – by almost 1 million!  Itâ€s about the same as China National Petroleum and China State Grid, combined.

Hear a lot of republicans talking about cutting back on that government program, or those government jobs?

Neither have I.

SCAMMERS?

These are but a few of many examples of republican hypocrisy.  They have no problem whatsoever with centralized social and economic control – collectivism, that is.

Republicans may dislike Obama personally.  And they may genuinely oppose some of the collectivist programs heâ€s in favor of.  But when they tell you they oppose Obama because “heâ€s a socialist,” itâ€s beyond absurd.  Itâ€s often times a lie.

Some would tell me that these socialist republicans are just part of the establishment, that “real republicans” or “constitutional conservatives” are definitely not on board with all this.

But when Rasmussen Reports asked Tea Party members about their support for republicans, 92% – not 9.2, but 92% – of them said they would vote for the republican candidate in 2012 no matter what.  Only 83% of republicans at large have the same degree of support.  Tea Party members support republicans more than republicans do.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

Come on republicans – and that includes you Tea Partiers – stop the posturing.  Iâ€m sick and tired of the fraud of it all.

Like the fake antiwar movement before you – that marched against war under Bush but not under Obama – donâ€t turn into the fake anti-socialist movement of today.  Do you oppose socialism or just Obama?  From all this, it seems like the latter, but I hope you turn that around.  So hereâ€s my challenge to you, either join your so-called opponents, or stop your support of all these programs right now.

Either way, itâ€s the honest thing to do.

The post Don’t Let Republicans Fool You appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Boldin

EDITOR’S NOTE: Michael made the following rant at the close of Episode 13 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at https://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link. Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Jacksonville. Get tickets here, or by calling 888-71-TICKETS.

*******

The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787, and every year that date passes by with hardly a sound. Sure, now that itâ€s considered a day of “federal observance” youâ€ll find government schools around the country including it in their lesson plans. But these discussions generally focus on “Constitution Trivia” instead of whatâ€s really important. While it may be good to educate our young on how many years a Senator serves, or how Supreme Court justices are appointed, itâ€s not enough. Seriously lacking in the public discourse is the actual purpose of the Constitution – its underlying principles.

The founding generation spent their lives toiling under a tyranny – a government without limits. But, when the Constitution was written, it was done to codify in law that the powers of government would be limited to those which had been delegated to it. The entire system was created under the principle of popular sovereignty – that ‘We the People of the Several States†created the government, and all powers not delegated to it, were retained.

But thatâ€s not something youâ€re likely to hear from politicians in Washington DC, political pundits, schools, or just about anywhere else. Itâ€s generally not in their interest, either. If politicians and their backers were promoting such crazy ideas as “originalism” and “limited government” theyâ€d never be able to convince you that they have the power to tell you what kind of health care plan youâ€ll be getting, how big your toilet can be, what kind of plants youâ€re allowed to grow, where youâ€re allowed to exercise your “right” to free speech, whom you can buy and sell from, and even when you must send your children to die for them.

MORE OF THE SAME

Throughout history, even kings and queens have often failed to survive such acts of hubris; but, in “free” America, the major parties that produce all the presidents continue to receive approval through tens of millions of votes. And where has that gotten people?

Well, letâ€s take a look at some major issues.

If you were opposed to war in the Bush administration, youâ€ve still got the same wars and threats of wars under Obama.

If you were opposed to national health care under Clinton, you got a massive expansion of government health care under George Bush, which laid the groundwork for an even bigger expansion under Obama.

If you didnâ€t like the federal government passing the Patriot Act without even reading it, youâ€re still getting the same failure to read today.

On the other hand, if you liked the Bush bailouts, youâ€ve gotta love the ones that Obama has given you!

No matter what side of the political aisle you sit on, the federal government is not your friend. Itâ€s not a friend to the Constitution, and itâ€s certainly no friend to your liberty. For years and years…and years, people have yelled “vote the bums out!” “Call Congress now!” “March on DC!” But, in the long run, little to none of this actually works.

If you oppose this national health care plan, theyâ€ll give you that one.

If you oppose one war, youâ€ll get another one. If you oppose todayâ€s bailout, theyâ€ll find a different one tomorrow.

In Studio at Tenther Radio

A DIFFERENT STRATEGY

Decade in and decade out, the government keeps growing, and your liberty keeps shrinking. And it doesnâ€t matter if the person in charge is named Obama, or Bush, or Reagan, or Clinton.

The bottom line? Looking to the federal government – whether itâ€s though elections, or protests, or lawsuits, or rallies – is a failed strategy. Going to the federal government to fix problems created by the federal government doesn’t work!

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center we’re working towards something different, and we’re thankful to everyone who’s made this organization a reality. Together, we can make a difference.

The post Constitution Day is this Saturday! appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

by Michael Maharrey

The Constitution, when followed as intended by the framers, provides a bulwark against overreaching governmental power.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Lord Acton wrote those words in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Acton was an English historian and political philosopher. He held a deep distrust of governmental power.

“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”

Acton understood what few Americans seem to grasp today; concentrated power poses a grave danger to the liberties of the people. Even the well intentioned can easily slide down the slippery slope toward tyrannical behavior when placed in positions of authority.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”

The founders of the United States understood the dangers of concentrated power all too well. They lived with it and spilled blood to end it. As a result, they endeavored to create a government, framed by the Constitution, with limited power. Further, they divided those powers among three branches, creating a series of checks and balances.

The founder’s fears were quickly proved valid. The Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798, just 11 years after adoption of the Constitution, made it clear that federal power would tend to expand.

The problem stems from a tendency of those in power to stretch and pull on limits in order to satisfy their own ends. Each of us believe our ideas best. And while we may recoil at the notion of others imposing their ideas on us, we seldom fail to rationalize that our own program possesses such overriding benefit that a little coercion would be OK in that particular case. It’s for their own good, after all, we reason.

The recently passed federal health care legislation provides a vivid case in point. Most recognize the problems in our health care system. Most agree that changes are necessary. But to legitimize the huge federal power grab progressives deem necessary to fix the problem, proponents must bastardize the commerce and the general welfare clauses to an extent that virtually grants the federal government limitless power.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, James Madison warns of the dangers of expanding phrases beyond their original intent and meaning.

The General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

In other words, the Constitution must mean what it means.

Constitutional interpretation is not as mysterious and complicated as many would like to make it. The founders, framers and ratifiers wrote volumes on the subject, revealing not only the meaning of each article, but the principles underlying the document itself.

Instead of interpreting the Constitution through the lens of a progressive “living breathing” framework, which quickly devolves into pragmatic justification for expanding powers, we must understand the Constitution through the eyes of its creators. Otherwise, the document loses all real meaning, ripping down the bulwark protecting our liberties.

Jefferson summed it up nicely.

“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

The post How should we interpret the Constitution? appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.

Editor’s note: Barack Obama and other supporters of unlimited federal power would like us to believe that we can’t uncover the Constitution’s original meaning. In essence, they’re telling us that we don’t have a Constitution at all. Rob Natelson’s new book, The Original Constitution, shows us that such a view is little more than….a crock.

The following is the book’s preface, reprinted here with permission from the author. Audio version read by Jeff Riggenbach.

Get the New Book Today!

It is Thursday, December 22, 1791. You live in Philadelphia, currently serving as the temporary capital of the newly-created United States of America. It has been only fifteen years since Independence was declared, and less than three years since the federal government began functioning under the United States Constitution.

For a long time, it had been touch-and-go as to whether the Constitution would be ratified at all. Two states initially refused to agree, and of the remainder five had approved the document only after the Constitutionâ€s supporters and moderate opponents had cut a political deal calling for a Bill of Rights. As soon as the new Congress met, two of the most important states, Virginia and New York, petitioned for a new convention to re-write the Constitution. Only after Congress had approved the Bill of Rights did Virginia and New York abandon their petitions and only then did the last two hold-outs, North Carolina and Rhode Island, join the union. The fourteenth state, Vermont, came in at the beginning of 1791.

Earlier on this day, you learned that the Bill of Rights had finally been ratified on December 15. So now, you reflect, the union is reasonably secure, evening is approaching, and your work day is done—and you are on a Philadelphia street corner with nothing particular to do. The weather is chilly and blustery, but there is a cure for that: A warm punch in a cozy tavern.

You enter the tavern and look around for a seat. The place is nearly full. But there is bench space at a long wooden table at one side of the room. Sitting around the table are men you recognize— eminently respectable men— some of Philadelphiaâ€s leading judges and lawyers. They are deep in debate about an abstruse point of real property law. Not being a lawyer yourself, you do not think of that sort of discussion as the key to a good time. But there are no other seats.

You slip into the empty chair and order your punch while the discussion swirls around your head. Eventually, you decide to turn the conversation elsewhere. You give a little cough.

The lawyers had barely noticed you, but now turn they their heads and break off the debate. “I regret that I feel unqualified to comment on your subject,” you say. “But, gentlemen, you know I am not a lawyer. May I suggest another topic?”

They seem interested. The prior discussion had been wearing thin anyway. “You no doubt have observed,” you continue, “that ten new constitutional amendments were proclaimed last week.”

“Yes,” responds one of your listeners. (You know him as a distinguished judge.) “They should work some change upon the system.”

“That is exactly what I wished to pursue,” you add. “What is that system? And what change does the Bill of Rights effect upon it?”

The lawyers look at each other. One of them—he is particularly known as an expert in wills and fiduciary trusts—smiles. “Well, my good man, that is an expansive inquiry whose response might consume some time. Are you otherwise engaged for the next few hours? ” The others laugh.

But you press your question. It is only seven oâ€clock, your spouse has gone to Carlyle to visit relatives and you are not “otherwise engaged.” Neither are you particularly eager to leave the warm tavern.

“I am at complete leisure,” you respond. “Please, say on.”

The lawyers glance at each other. “Well, why not?” asks one. “As it happens, we are not engaged either. The courts are closed tomorrow, and our wives are enjoying the comfort of each otherâ€s society. I dare say they have no present need of us!” More laughter.

“I think I can speak for my learned colleagues here,” the trust attorney interjects, “when I tell you that there is no topic on which we would rather discourse that our new Constitution. We have exchanged views on this subject before, and we differ on the small points. But I flatter myself that we are in accord on the great ones.”

You are a bit amused at how easy it is to induce lawyers to talk. You draw deep from the warm punch, and sit back, and listen . . .

What would those lawyers tell you that evening? What would have been their understanding of the scope of the new federal government and its powers? What would they relate of the role of the states or of the people? What, in other words, was the actual legal force of our Constitution as lawyers and intelligent lay persons understood it in 1791?

This book answers those questions. The answers were important in 1791, but they are especially important today, when our federal government seems to have wandered so far from its roots. Those answers are deemed relevant to constitutional interpretation by almost everyone, and many people believe them dispositive. That is, many Americans—lawyers and non-lawyers alike—believe the Constitutionâ€s original understanding should govern us today.

To be sure, some people—including the former law instructor who now serves as President of the United States—believe that it is impossible to reconstruct the Constitutionâ€s original meaning. As this book demonstrates, that view is substantially incorrect. Competent Founding-Era scholars largely agree on what most of the original Constitutionâ€s provisions mean. Much of the disagreement among constitutional writers results from unfamiliarity with the historical record or with eighteenth-century law. We will never be absolutely certain of the complete meaning of every constitutional clause. But we can reconstruct most of the original Constitutionâ€s meaning with clarity and confidence.

The Structure and Approach of this Book

Our lawyer friends in the Philadelphia tavern probably would not explain the Constitution clause-by-clause, since it would be more efficient to approach the subject by general topic. That is the approach in this book. We shall begin by surveying some history and values shared by the Founding Generation—material you would not have had to ask about in 1791, but might not know today. Then the chapters proceed theme by theme. For example, one chapter examines the role of the states in the federal system. Another treats all of Congress†enumerated (listed) powers, no matter where in the Constitution they appear. Still another discusses the executive branch. Because this book speaks of the Constitution as it stood in late 1791, it generally uses the past tense. This keeps the work internally consistent, and reminds you that the content does not necessarily reflect constitutional law as the courts apply it today.

Footnotes and Bibliography

Most of the conclusions in this book are based on the densely-referenced studies listed in the chapter-by-chapter bibliography. Others are based on new research. In general, I have limited footnotes to four functions: providing cross-references to other parts of the book; providing references to the part of the Constitution then under discussion; citing material not found in the studies listed in the bibliography; and, in a few cases, commenting on modern constitutional issues related to the text.

Framers, Ratifiers, Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and Founders—the Words Defined

This book refers frequently to the views, goals, methods, and comments of the people who wrote, debated, and adopted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Framers were the fifty-five men who drafted the Constitution at the federal convention in Philadelphia, between May 29 and September 17, 1787. The Ratifiers were the 1,648 delegates at the thirteen state ratifying conventions meeting from late 1787 through May 29, 1790.

The Federalists were participants in the public ratification debates who argued for adopting the Constitution. History has labeled (unfairly) their opponents as Anti-Federalists. The Founders comprised all who played significant roles in the constitutional process, whether they were Framers, Ratifiers, Federalists, or Anti-Federalists. Although the Framers and Ratifiers were all male, the Founders were not. Women such as Mercy Otis Warren, an important Anti-Federalist writer (and later a leading historian), helped to shape public opinion about the Constitution.

Also among the Founders were the members of the Confederation Congress (1781-89) and its leading officers, as well as the members of the initial session of the First Federal Congress (1789). That session drafted the Bill of Rights and debated and resolved several constitutional issues while North Carolina and Rhode Island were still weighing whether to join the union, and while Virginia and New York were petitioning for a convention to propose amendments.

Many Founders fit into more than one category. For example, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were Framers, Ratifiers, leading Federalists. John Jay, who served the Confederation as Secretary for Foreign Affairs, did not attend the constitutional convention, so he was not a Framer. But he did serve as a delegate to the New York State ratifying convention, and he wrote some of the essays in The Federalist (or, as they are commonly called, The Federalist Papers) urging that the Constitution be approved. He was therefore a Ratifier and a Federalist as well as a Founder. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts actively participated in the federal convention, but publicly opposed the final result, so he was a Framer and an Anti-Federalist. He was not a Ratifier, but did go on to play a prominent role in the First Federal Congress. Like Gerry, George Mason was a Framer and an Anti-Federalist. He also was a delegate at the Virginia ratifying convention, and therefore a Ratifier.

In this book, the phrase Founding Generation means the entire involved populace—Framers, Ratifiers, Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Founders, and anyone else participating formally or informally in the great national debate over ratification.

Evidence for the Original Constitution

Lawyers, judges, and scholars seeking the Constitutionâ€s original legal effect use certain “standard sources.” These sources include the text of the Constitution itself, the federal convention notes prepared by James Madison and other delegates, debates in the state ratifying conventions, The Federalist, and a few other documents, such as the Articles of Confederation and the early state constitutions.

The standard sources are of great value, but they are not sufficient. For example, the royal commissions and instructions to colonial governors helped shape the Founding-Era understanding of the executive power, but those sources are rarely referenced today. The Federalist exercised an important influence in the ratification debates, but lesser-known writings exercised more.

Another valuable source often overlooked is the law of the Founding-Era. Most of the leading Founders were lawyers and the general public was far more knowledgeable about law than it is today. The Constitution was, of course, a legal document written in a particular legal environment. So you need to know something of the 1787 law to fully understand the meaning of a legal document written in 1787. Sometimes a few pages from Baconâ€s Abridgment or Jacobâ€s New Law-Dictionary can resolve decades of academic dispute.

For these reasons, lawyers, judges, and scholars have been paying more and more attention to evidence outside the standard sources. Herbert Storingâ€s The Complete Anti-Federalist was published in 1981. It is a collection of the long-neglected arguments against the Constitution. The Wisconsin Historical Society has been issuing its multi-volume Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. The National Historical Publications and Records Commission and George Washington University have sponsored the Documentary History of the First Federal Congress. Dedicated people, such as Texas attorney Jon Roland (www.constitution.org) have posted on the Internet hundreds of documents previously accessible only in top academic libraries. The Gale Companyâ€s Eighteenth Century Online database now makes available much of the Founders†literary world, enabling you to find dozens, sometimes thousands, of word usages in a few seconds.

In writing this book, I have had the advantage of all those sources.

Rob Natelson is a recently-retired Professor of Law at the University of Montana and a leading constitutional scholar. He is co-author of a forthcoming book on the Necessary and Proper Clause to be published by Cambridge University Press. He is also the author of The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant, published by the Tenth Amendment Center. Professor Natelson is a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute.

The post A Tavern in 1791 appeared first on Tenth Amendment Center.