All Logic Necessary and Proper

If a liberal were asked to cite that section of the Constitution which specifies the power under which a given proposed law can be made, Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 would very likely be the most cited passage. It is the ‘holy grail’ of liberalism and the source of every well intentioned (and not so well intentioned) abuse of federal jurisdiction. To those who think government exists to solve every problem and run every life, it is considered a carte blanche from the Founding Fathers.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

How is it that we have social programs, federal education guidelines, environmental regulations and many of the other huge chunks of our government created in the 20th century? They come from the complete misapplication of Article I, Section8, Clause 18. The value of the various programs and regulations developed in the 20th century is a matter of debate. However, the unconstitutionality of those programs and laws should be obvious to anyone with a thread of common sense.

That passage from the Constitution grants the ability to make laws for carrying into execution the specific powers mentioned and all other powers enumerated for any other segment of the federal government. A very quick look at the specific powers mentioned shows that no power was granted to create social programs or any of the other bunk we invented 150 years after ratification. Congress has the power to do the following (Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1-17):

• To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
  
• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
  
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
  
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
  
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
  
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
  
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
  
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
  
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
  
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
  
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

After pointing out the lack of any enumeration of social manipulation powers in Article I, my usual conversations with liberals usually then take this form:

Me: Clearly, the power to create, fund and operate massive social programs is not mentioned in the list of powers granted specifically to the Congress.

Liberal: That must mean that the authority to socialize our country must be an authority granted to some other portion of the federal government. Perhaps it is in the executive branch.

Me: No, I’m sorry but it isn’t in there.

Liberal: Well, try the judicial branch.

Me: No luck.

Liberal: How about Article IV – no wait that is about the States and I don’t want to think about them having any power. Try Article V.

Me: No, that is the mode of amendment.

Liberal: It must be Article VI then.

Me: Well, the courts use VI to force the States to follow these ‘new powers’ created by Congress, but that article really reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” So far, we have yet to find any portion of the Constitution in which social programs, federal education guidelines, environmental regulations and other such ‘new powers’ are made in pursuance thereof.

Liberal: Oh, wait; I remember now. It is Article VII.

Me: No, Article VII is just about ratification.

Liberal: Try Article VIII.

Me: There is no Article VIII.

Liberal: Hmmmm. Ooooo, I FOUND IT! Here it is, “promote the general Welfare”. I knew it was in there.

Me: That’s the preamble – which is not a statement of powers and just as likely means that the people hope to promote the general welfare by limiting the scope of the federal government with the Constitution.

Liberal: You’re reading it wrong. Now be off with you whilst I comfort my inflated ego over a non-fat double mocha latte with light foam and a touch of freshly ground cinnamon in the company of my fellow intellectual elites around our daily circular reasoning session.

Of course, some of the liberals I speak to don’t bother with even trying to find the power. They believe that the very statement “all laws necessary and proper” can be taken at face value without reliance on any of the dependent clauses. Their position is simply that if the Congress feels something is necessary or proper (notice the change from ‘and’ to ‘or’), such a law can be made.

In that case, it is helpful to remind them that even if such a global authority may have been inferred from that statement, the fact that the Constitution was subsequently amended by the 9th and particularly the 10th amendments curtails that inference.

Some die-hard big government liberals will insist that the 10th amendment does not take precedence over the original wording of the Constitution. I suppose they also believe that the candidate who comes in second during a presidential election becomes the Vice President. By their reasoning, the 12th amendment would not take precedence over the original wording of the Constitution. I guess it must get confusing for them, especially at parties where arguments over whether or not Prohibition is in effect rage on.

The truth of the matter, regardless of what politicians, liberal ‘intellectuals’ or self-important justices may say, is that there is no possible way to faithfully read the Constitution and arrive at the conclusion that social programs, federal education guidelines, environmental regulations or any other such laws are constitutional. No such powers are enumerated anywhere in the original Constitution and that lack is defined by the 10th amendment to mean that they are reserved for the States or the people. Further, the ability to make all laws necessary and proper is limited by the constraint that they be made to support the execution of the specific powers granted to the federal government. Additionally, the preamble is a statement of what the people hope to accomplish by having the Constitution – not a statement of what one party of the Constitution is expected to do. Also, Article VI states that only laws made in pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. Finally, no amendment has been passed that repeals the 10th amendment, turning over social legislation to the federal government.

Just once it would be nice if big government liberals would use all logic necessary and proper for carrying into execution an understanding of powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. I won’t hold my breath.

Keystone of Victory

I was born and raised near Philadelphia, without any knowledge of my Confederate ancestry. I did not discover my ancestry until four years after college. Yet, I was always drawn to the Southern Cause. I always believed that the South was right. I challenged the teachers on the issues because I took time to read more than what was spoon-fed. I protested that an exercise in our history class was unfair because it was set up such that the Confederacy could not possibly win. I guess it just goes to show that Confederate blood and the facts of history can outweigh even the most biased education.

I experienced anti-Confederate discrimination for the first time while living in State College after graduating from Penn State. You see, I have always collected flags and flown them. I have scores of flags, including flags of the Confederacy. I flew those, along with my others, from a flagpole I installed at my home in a managed community. One afternoon, I was told by the head of the community that I could either stop flying any flag with the Southern Cross or I would have to remove the flagpole. I asked if someone had complained but was told that no one had. They were just worried that someone might be offended or decide not to live in the community because they saw the flag. I consented and flew the Bonnie Blue or 1st National every day from that point on and was proud of myself for having outwitted them. In truth, I was as wrong as they.

I gave away my rights and I was a fool. Instead of being proud of myself for displaying flags that meant the same thing, but that they did not understand – I should have been ashamed for not standing up for my rights as my ancestors had.

I knew I would lose the fight. I had erected that flagpole without the permission of the management and they had the legal right to make me take it down. It was because I knew I would lose, that I decided not to fight – thinking it a victory to keep the pole and fly the other flags. I know now that it is better to lose a battle than to surrender liberty without a fight.

Here in Pennsylvania – the birthplace of our nation and our Constitution – the “Cradle of Liberty”, it was here that I was told I could not express my rights. The battles in South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia are not isolated and local problems. Those same attacks on our heritage and our freedoms are here, in this state and beyond.

We must not let anyone defame, destroy, desecrate, or deny us our symbols and our heritage; we must be as active and as vocal as needed to ensure that we do not lose who we are. There are many groups who carry out this fight and we must support them whenever practical. Whether we like the people involved or whether the battle is far away is not as much the issue as whether that battle is part of the overall war effort. And make no mistake, we are at war.

If you do not believe that we are at war, then it is time to open your eyes. We did not start it and we did not want it, but we have been drawn into a war where our attackers have nothing to lose and we stand to lose not only our heritage and our symbols, but also our Liberty.

This state is a vital part in the war. Our history is the history of freedom and liberty. Yet, in this Cradle of Liberty, our freedoms are attacked by companies and individuals. Victory here has a meaning far greater than victory anywhere else. As was true in 1863, a victory for us in the North would tell the nation and the world that our Cause is not an isolated “Southern Thing You Wouldn’t Understand”, but a struggle for the rights we are supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

When Pennsylvanians were oppressed by a king and saw their countrymen in the other colonies suffering even more greatly, they did not seek a separate peace and let the others fend for themselves. They rose up and acted as a center for the Revolution and a safe haven for the outnumbered, underfunded and undersupplied army.

When Pennsylvanians were oppressed by a President and saw how even a democratic government can trample the rights of men, they rose up and fought. Some gave their lives to prove that liberty is more important than security or comfort. And although the President rode at the head of the army through the state and put the rebellion down and took away the freedom of all those who took part in it, those Pennsylvanians were the true victors because the oppressive tax they revolted against was repealed.

Pennsylvanians, I call upon you to make a difference. Stand up for the Cause our ancestors did. Stand up for the freedoms men died to create and again to defend. Stand up for what is right, regardless of whether that fight is here or elsewhere. Stand up for yourselves.

We must lobby our government to protect our heritage. We must educate our fellow citizens to the truth about our symbols, heritage and common history. We must support our fellows who are making the legal and vocal fight to protect our freedoms throughout the country. We must work together, each to his own abilities, to win this unsought war.

We must win a victory here in Pennsylvania. Here where the media cannot ignore it. Here where the nation cannot ignore it. And here where the people cannot ignore it.

Constitutional Protection of Our Heritage

Have you ever been talking to someone and started to wonder if you are both talking about the same thing? As the months have gone by, I've started to wonder if we're all talking about the same thing or, more to the point, if we have all been looking at the same Constitution. Perhaps all that needs to be said is, "Excuse me, but I am referring to the Constitution of the United States of America." Part of me thinks that the other party would reply, "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about something else." Unfortunately, it probably isn't that easy.

It may sound kind of silly to state that we all appear to be talking about different documents. It is one thing to argue how to interpret the more vague sections of the document, but I am not writing about that. The truth is I am really starting to wonder if most of the people who talk about the Constitution, including many justices, have actually read it.

Here is the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It seems straight-forward enough. I don't think it could have been written any more clearly. It defies reason how many people have become to understand it (unless they have never actually read it). It starts "Congress shall make no law" and then continues to explain what laws Congress shall not make. Much time has been devoted to arguing about the exact meaning of the prohibitions. That is another matter that, for the sake of brevity, I will not address in this writing. However, I do wish to address the first five words of the first amendment.

Unless you have had your head in the sand for the past few years, you are aware of the removal of plaques of the Ten Commandments from county courthouses around the country. In Pennsylvania, a plaque was removed from the Chester County Courthouse. The plaque was removed because it supposedly violated the first amendment rights of certain individuals because it demonstrated that the government, in this case the county government, acknowledged the existence of a single God. By so doing, some argued that those who believe in multiple gods or no god at all were having their first amendment rights infringed. A similar complaint was made in California against the Pledge of Allegiance as a result of the "under God" section. Previously, prayer has been removed from public schools for similar reasons.

The argument has always focused on whether the recognition of God could be interpreted as establishment of a religion or a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. Much time has been expended arguing that issue. Well, guess what? That is not the issue at all.

No, the issue is not in the details of the amendment, but rather on whom the restrictions apply. It does not read, 'Government shall make no law' nor does it read, 'No one shall make a law' nor does it read, 'No one shall take an action'. It reads, "Congress shall make no law". Congress made no law that placed any plaque on any county courthouse. Congress made no law that placed prayer in public schools. So, no one could have possibly had their first amendment rights infringed by those actions.

The same goes for the rest of the freedoms in that amendment. If your school, workplace, local government or state government abridges those freedoms, you may have a case in local or state court, but should not in federal court. Congress did not take the action, did not pass the law and thus your rights under the first amendment were not violated.

It may be a radical idea to acknowledge that the first amendment does not apply to anything but acts of Congress. Unlike the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the first amendment specifically states that it applies only to the laws made by Congress. That fact is one that we the people seem to overlook. For so many years, we have 'gone running to mama' every time we don't like the way we've been treated and cried the first amendment. It is no wonder that the federal government has grown so far beyond its legal scope and powers. Every day we encourage it to do so by asking it to safeguard a freedom over which it has no jurisdiction.

In Pennsylvania, the state constitution deals with the issue of religion, speech, press, assembly and redress of grievances. You will find the same in other states. The reason you will find it in those constitutions is because if those freedoms were to be protected at a level below Congress, they needed to be addressed. Had the first amendment been written to apply to all levels of government and society, such inclusions in state constitutions would not have been necessary. Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution reads, "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship."

In Pennsylvania, you will note the freedom covers all men in all situations and not just in the laws made by the State Legislature. It states that "no human authority" can abridge your religious freedom. The sections on the other freedoms are similarly all encompassing. They are not restricted to laws made by the State Legislature. It is, therefore, an issue for the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Courts to determine if the recitation of the pledge, period of prayer in school or placement of a Ten Commandments plaque on a county courthouse interferes "with the rights of conscience" of citizens within the Commonwealth.

In Tennessee, the wording is more modern than Pennsylvania's, but the law is the same. In that state, no law can be made that infringes the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, press or ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. In Virginia, the law is different. There you have the freedom to worship as you see fit, but rather than prohibit all human authority from interfering in religion, it only prohibits the General Assembly from interfering. In Texas, you have freedom of religion and while the State cannot interfere with your ability to believe as you wish, it can pass laws to equally protect the ability of every religion to worship peacefully. In California, you have freedom of religion only if it does not interfere with the peace or safety of the state. All of our 'first amendment rights' are protected to different degrees by the fifty individual states in the union. Some states have modified the amount of protection of those rights in recent years, reducing it by a significant degree. The rights you may believe are reserved may not be so protected as you thought.

Whether your argument is about prayer in school, PC speech or the right to fly a particular flag, you need to make that argument work within the laws of your state and community. If your school has banned prayer, then it is the school that has made the rule and not Congress. It is not the first amendment that has been violated. If you have been banned from flying a particular flag in a parade, it was that parade commission or local government that passed that ban. It is not the first amendment that has been violated.

If we are going to allow the federal government to decide what rights we do or do not have in our respective states when it has no Constitutional authority to do so, then we might as well just not argue about FREEDOM at all. We sacrifice the freedom of power being in the hands of the people when we run to the federal government each time we don't like the way we are treated. By letting the federal government exceed its authority by ruling on such matters, we violate the tenth amendment.

Why do federal courts accept cases about freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and the ability to petition that do not involve laws passed by Congress? Why do they not refuse to hear them and leave them in the proper jurisdiction of the states? Why do they assume a right and power for which they have no legal right? They do it for the same reason as does a person who breaks into another's property with no legal right. There is a benefit in doing so, so long as they are not caught.

For the courts, the benefit is the power to create law. By ruling on matters in which they have no jurisdiction, they create powers for themselves and create new law that is not bound by the same restrictions placed on laws legally created by the legislative branch. As the 'highest law in the land', they make themselves immune to checks and balances by simply ruling that they have the authority to grant themselves the authority to make the ruling. We, by offering them the opportunity to take that power when asking them to decide cases they should not, give tacit approval to a precedent-based re-writing of the tenth amendment to read, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the federal courts.'

We have been distracted by the attacks on our symbols and our beliefs by individuals from noticing the attack on our freedom of speech and religion by the federal courts. In our haste to defend our rights, we have given them up to a power over which we have no control. In our zeal to protect our heritage, we have promoted the gutting of the beliefs for which our ancestors were willing to die. By using the federal courts to rule on speech and religious issues that deal with individual, local or state attacks upon them, we can only hope to preserve the visual husk of our heritage, empty of substance. What use is the symbol of the rights of men if the way we preserve it is by surrendering those rights?

The fight for our HERITAGE must be made; the heritage of power being in the hands of the people. The fight must be held in the proper legal jurisdiction or else there can be no true victory for freedom and liberty. When we wish to protect our 'first amendment rights,' let us think instead of the tenth. It is the tenth that holds the true guarantee that we have the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, press and ability to petition. It is through the tenth that we are able to guard those freedoms ourselves in our communities and our states.

So, as a Pennsylvanian with the following guaranteed right of speech: "The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty." (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 - PA Constitution), I ask you and the federal courts, "Excuse me, but are we reading the same document?"

Introduction

Welcome to the new blog for a Confederate Constitutionalist view of history, national and world events. I will post new messages here that will hopefully inspire those who similarly believe in Jeffersonian democracy and provoke thought from all on various issues.

The War Between the States was a defining period in our history pitting not just industrialism against agrarianism, but also centralization against liberty. It is the turning point on our governmental history from the vision of our Founding Fathers to the massive, intrusive and over-reaching government that we have today. From Lincoln on, our government in Washington, D.C. has slowly turned its back on our Constitution. We have created massive social programs, waged several wars without a declaration of war, imposed a witholding tax that takes from the people more money than they owe before it is even due forcing them to file a request to have it returned to them, directly interfered with the powers reserved to the states and/or the people and curtailed the personal liberties of our citizens far more than King George had in the 1770s.

Rather than ammend our Constutition by legal means with the consent of the states and the people, we have it changed without our consent by the federal courts. This has resulted in the loss of personal liberty to express individual opinion and practice individual religious, moral and political beliefs.

It is easy to mistake our economic prosperity and military might as evidence that we have 'secured the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity'. However, liberty is not about money or power. Liberty is the ability to live a life free from persecution where government exists to serve the people. That is not the case in the present time. If you say something that is not 'politically correct' you could lose your job, be ejected from public school or worse. Rather than having a government that responds to the will of the people, we have a government that is increasingly out of step with the majority of Americans on either side of the political spectrum that we are forced to support with income and entitlement taxes.

It is my hope that through this blog, I will be able to contribute to the dialog about our constitutional republic citing in many cases the cause of the Confederacy which was, without a doubt, the political sucessor of our Founding Fathers.