Judicial Tyranny & We the People

With the polls showing a very close presidential race, fears are mounting among patriots that if Obama is re-elected very liberal justices will be appointed to fill the vacancies of at least  two retiring justices, one of whom may be Justice Scalia, a fairly reliable conservative jurist.

Can you imagine the damage done should two more Kagans or Sotomayors be appointed and a 5-4 or 6-4 liberal SCOTUS rear its ugly head? With the judiciary in his back pocket, Obama's "fundamental transformation of the United States" might well prove to be a fairly leisurely cakewalk.

But, not so fast!

First, for the libs to take over SCOTUS, the Senate would have to remain in Progressive hands, an unsettling prospect which diminishes with each unemployment report and blazing American consulate. For that reason alone, patriots had best pull out all stops to ensure a Republican/Tea Party takeover of the Senate this year.

That said, in all honesty, I am always flummoxed, and not a little disappointed, when I hear patriots feverishly warn against and whine about a liberal takeover of the Supreme Court, asserting that a liberal-dominated court will inevitably result in more socialism and statism.

Well, in truth, with or without a liberal majority on the bench, the judicial world as we now know it isn't a lot to celebrate. Yes, over the years liberal justices have done incalculable harm, even more so than self-identified conservative judges. Years of faulty and revisionist case law, to which both schools have often been a party, is ample proof of the harm already perpetrated by a runaway judiciary inconsistently faithful to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.

But let's not forget that OUR permitting the States to routinely submit to the federal judiciary to fairly settle constitutional disputes with the federal government (a surefire recipe for disaster), and OUR allowing the omniscient courts to imperiously overrule voter referendums, thus imposing  THEIR own will on the people, have also materially contributed to the breakdown in constitutional order. So, who's really at fault? What is the proximate cause of this breakdown in the constitutional order?  We are! Overweaning liberal judges are merely a symptom of OUR failure. And at some point, WE will have to do something about it if our "representatives" won't.

My point is that the harm occasioned by judicial overreach--whether by liberal or conservative jurists--can be effectively thwarted IF IF IF the States and We the People assert their 9th and 10th Amendment constitutional powers.

Contrary to the opinion of many brainwashed law students, it is the U.S. Constitution--NOT the "Supreme" Court--which is the supreme law of the land, and both the 9th and 10th Amendments,  both very much essential components of that Constitution, were intended to ensure constitutional supremacy, balance of powers and liberty.

When SCOTUS overreaches its authority with unconstitutional rulings/opinions, then the States, per the 9th and the 10th Amendments, are legally and morally obliged to summarily nullify, aka render null, void and unenforcable, those rulings. In this regard, the framers' intention was crystal clear.

The Constitution works brilliantly to safeguard liberty, our core principles of checks and balances and separation of powers, but ONLY if it is honored and enforced by all parties to the federal-state contract we call the Constitution. And if the States, equal parties to that contract, are too weak-kneed or corrupted by federal handouts to honor the supreme law of the land, that being the Constitution and no other, then it is encumbent upon We the People, the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, to assert our central role as the guardian of the Constitution. If that means nationwide well-coordinated civil disobedience, then so be it! If it means Tea Parties marching on and, yes, occupying our State houses to "convince" them to assert their authority over a runaway federal government, so be it. No more pussy-footing, no more whining. Going forward, only meaningful a-c-t-i-o-n will suffice.

Let this sink in: only with the single-minded enforcement of the 9th and 10th Amendments by the States and/or the People can our constitutional republic be restored. And the ball is clearly in OUR court.

In short, folks, we need to get very seriously organized if Obama is re-elected. But we also need to get organized even if Romney is elected. The growth of the imperial presidency, to say nothing of the Supreme Court's imperiousness, screams for remedial grassroots action.

In truth, the Supreme Court, a servant of the central government, has become an essentially unbridled, unaccountable, black-robed oligarchy, beholden to its federal creators alone and driven by personal, political and ideological agendas. Tragically, the court's faithfulness to the Constitution has long ago dissipated. Revealingly, Gov. Hughes, who served as Chief Justice from 1930-1941, asserted that "We are under a Constitution, BUT the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Wow! And that pretty much sums up where we are now. Absent congressional remedial action, without meaningful grassroots opposition, judicial supremacy will continue to effectively trump constitutional supremacy and, in so doing, the judiciary will continue to dangerously undermine the very underpinnings of our republic.

For me, THE burning question is this: by our disengagement, submissiveness, benign neglect, or by our merely hoping that the problem will eventually go away, will we continue to permit the foundational collapse of what remains of our constitutional republic? We each need to  honestly answer that question for ourselves and for our families.

"If the Federal Government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the PEOPLE, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed [the Constitution], and take such measure to redress the injury to the Constitution  as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 33.

"I know of no safe despository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; this is the true corrective of abuses of Constitutional powers." Thomas Jefferson

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiselesss foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the state governments into the jaws of that which feeds them; the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary." Thomas Jefferson

QE3: Magic Elixir or Our Last Hurrah?

The imperial Federal Reserve's shocking and mystifying decision to further flood the market with more increasingly worthless dollars reminds me of Dr. Einstein's definition of insanity, that being "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

QE3 will NOT ease the nearly 20% real unemployment rate, nor will  it spur economic growth. If anything, QE3 will hasten our acceleration toward the looming financial cliff.

It must surely be painfully obvious now to all but the willfully ignorant that bloated, profligate and irresponsible government coupled with an unaccountable Federal Reserve are THE principle reasons for our economic malaise and headlong rush toward national economic suicide.

While those who have wisely hoarded precious metals will see the value of those assets increase, the rest of us will have to grapple with painfully increasing gasoline prices and shrinking disposable income, neither of which will lead to economic recovery.

Good luck, America. You'll need it.

Libyan & Egyptian Islamists Honor 9/11

The death of our Ambassador and several of our diplomatic staff in Benghazi as well as our timid response both to that outrage as well as to the violent attack on our Cairo embassy is symptomatic of a weak, ineffectual, permissive Administration whose sympathies are stunningly confused, if not suspect, and whose knee-jerk response is to apologize for America even when it is America which is attacked without provocation.

And what does Barry say during his press conference? "The World" must stand together in the face of this outrage. "The World"? How about this Adminstration? Why must it always be a world thing with Obama? Because he's a hardcore globalist who holds the world in higher esteem than the United States. He's an unmitigated fraud, an unconvincing word- smith, an un-American disaster. By my count, he mentioned "world" and "globe" as many times as he did America. Tedious and shameful. Though sensitive and heartfelt in his comments before the press corps this morning, his response fell utterly flat. FLAT! And totally inadequate.

Our Ambassador and three other diplomatic staff were slaughtered! Let that sink in. "Outrageous and disgusting", as Romney described the violence, seemd far more appropriate and representative of Americans' genuine outrage. Conversely, Obama's remarks were mind-numbingly tepid and painfully measured.

Again, the Administration's knee-jerk policy of apologizing and tempering Americans' ire when our national honor and internationally accepted standards of diplomatic conduct are so brazenly violated by our enemies are wearing thin--very thin!

My understanding is that the marine guard was ordered to stand down. I also understand that neither Libyan nor Egyptian police timely intervened with appropriate force. Yes, the mobs might not have been representative of Libyans and Egyptians in general--and that too remains questionable--but the lack of appropriate intervention by their police forces to protect US embassy grounds is justifiable cause for serious doubts as to how widespread Libyan and Egyptian support for those attacks may have been.

As Romney indicated, how the Administration handled this situation demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect and understanding on the part of this Administration for America's fundamental principles. I couldn't agree more.

Hillary's response--after the embassy apology--seemed balanced and sensible, though the lack of strength and appropriate indignation was notable. To her credit, she did indicate that the Administration would not rest until those responsible are caught and punished. Obama echoed that reassurance. How very moving. But, how very uninspired. And just who in Egypt and Libya will dare to hunt down and arrest the perpetrators of this Islamist violence?

And just to keep it interesting, nearly simultaneously Prime Minister Netanyahu's request for a meeting with the Obama to discuss the menacing Iranian nuclear threat was spurned. Afterall, in Barry's Progressive mind campaigning for four more years of failure, malaise and fundamental transformation as well as his obscene obsession with golfing take priority. No surprise there. To even the casual observer, Barry has been the Campaigner-in-Chief for nearly four years now, attending a scant 48% of those pesky national security briefings during that time. Right on top of things, huh?

What the Hell is this effete, liberal, aristocratic Progressive in the White House thinking? Dare I even speculate?

In times like this, yes, we must be cautious, take into account the bigger picture, the longer range effects of any actions taken, but I heard NOTHING in terms of deliberate US "actions" which would indicate that Libya or Egypt would be punished for failing to protect our embassies. NOTHING. And that is beyond annoying and unsettling. That is inexcusable. An attack on any embassy is an act of war!!! Am I calling for war? No! But, I am calling for credible, persuasive, punitive action.

Is it any wonder our foreign policy appears to be adrift and confused? Is it any wonder why our enemies no longer respect or fear us?

And on top of this, our defense budget is likely to be drastically reduced while Obama insists upon "taxing the rich" before he disallows sequestration to taking effect at the end of the year. Could it be this untrustworthy scoundrel's intention really is to bring down the United States? That question must now be taken seriously.

Anyone who thinks we're in good shape, either economically or militarily, is either willfully ignorant or hopelessly delusional. This is a mess of the first order. Obama and his un-American Progressive minions MUST go!!!! This Progressive plague, which I firmly believe constitute the "enemy within",  must be removed from our political system once and for all.

Today's scorecard: Radical Islam 1. America 0.

Will Obama's Secrecy Finally Precipitate a Constitutional Crisis?

Over the years, I and many others have delved into the matter of Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, and have carefully explained the bases for our very serious doubts regarding his qualifications.

One of those concerns was raised by me in my December 2008 blog post cited below, in which I questioned Obama's presidential ineligibility on the basis of his likely being an Indonesian citizen, a citizenship status which may not have been legally remedied by Obama when he returned to the United States and before his presidential run in 2008.

"And when young Obama was taken to Indonesia by his adoptive Indonesian parent, Leo Soetoro, where he attended a school to which only Indonesian citizens were permitted to enroll and where school records list OBH's citizenship as Indonesian, shouldn't a reasonable person be expected to ask questions? Or was that simply a matter of fraudulent enrollment? Who knows?"

Now, all hell is breaking loose yet again. Unlike any President before him, "Mr. Transparency" is definitely keeping the mysteries about his background and doubts about his eligibility painfully alive.

Wayne Root of RootforAmerica, a 1983 Columbia graduate, the same year Obama was reportedly graduated from Columbia, is reporting that none of his fellow pre-law/PoliSci classmates at Columbia have any knowledge or recollection of either a Barack Obama or of a Barry Soetoro in their class, the latter being Barack's adoptive Indonesian moniker. 

More importantly--and as many of us have questioned for a very long time now--Root asks how Obama, of limited financial means, financed his Ivy League education. So, buttressed by a report from a Breitbart investigator in Jakarta who telephonically confirmed to Root earlier today that he has impeccable proof that Obama, aka Soetoro, was/is an Indonesian Citizen, Root speculates that Barack, or whatever his legal name may be, most likely relied upon his "foreign student" status to access the needed funding and that this is precisely the reason why Obama has sealed his college records--that reason being to conceal the fact that he, Obama, aka Soetoro, is not a US Citizen and, thus, ineligible to be President.

To this very day, US Citizen Barack Obama or Indonesian Citizen Barry Soetoro remains a proverbial puzzle wrapped in an enigma, and until his real identity and presidential eligibility are proven without a shadow of a doubt the Republic remains in mortal danger. 

If Root's speculation is on the mark, and with Sheriff Arpaio's investigative posse relentlessly on Obama's tail,  it is not unrealistic to conclude that a constitutional crisis of the first order is surely at hand: we may actually see an imposter President and a host of Democratic Party co-conspirators arrested and tried for assorted felonies and treason. The exposure of a putative president would precipitate an unprecedented crisis which our nation must face and a crisis we can and should endure. And the sooner the better. 

And here's to you, Senator Reid, and your fellow DNC apparatchiks. My profound thanks for finally opening Pandora's Box. You want Romney's tax returns? Fine. For a start, we want Obama's college records. ALL of them--his applications for admission and his grades.  (Gee, do I hear the pitter-patter of scurrying cockroaches? Yup! I believe I do.)

God save the Republic.

August 10, 2012 PostScript:

After I wrote this post, I quickly consulted my three immigration reference books. Upshot: Clearly, Barry, being under 18 while in Indonesia, could not have renounced his US Citizenship.

 

However, what I cannot absolutely determine is if Indonesia recognized dual citizenship at that time. I don't think they did. If not, then how did Barry become an Indonesian Citizen as reported by a Breitbart investigator in Jakarta yesterday? Did Barry's adoptive Indonesian dad, Lolo Soetoro, commit fraud in Indonesia in order to obtain Barry's Indonesian citizenship documents which both enabled Barry's enrollment in public school there as well as Barry's travelling to Pakistan at a time when Americans were disallowed entry? Not terribly burning questions, but part of the whole ball of wax.

 

More importantly, since the Breitbart investigator claims to have irrefutable proof of Barry's Indonesian Citizenship, can a dual citizen (American and Indonesian in this case, for example) legally apply for F-1 or J-1 student status in the US? If so, can s/he do so AFTER s/he has re-entered the US of A? Everything I've so far read is that a foreign student must apply at an American Consulate overseas BEFORE entry; that s/he must, in fact, be a bonafide alien; that to change their non-immigrant status (which Barry apparently wasn't) after entry requires considerable, if not insuperable, hoops to navigate. And if Barry was a US Citizen, despite his dual citizenship, how could he have been even remotely eligible for F-1 or J-1 status? More fraud by his having hidden his dual citizenship from I-20 school authorities?

 

On a related note, I had read some time ago that a Palestinian friend, Khalidi Mansour, had arranged college funding from Arab benefactors for US Citizen Barry's higher education expenses. If true, that would render the issue of dual citizenship irrelevant for purposes of determining how Barry was financially able to attend Occidental, Columbia and Harvard. But, if Barry did attend those schools, why did none of his classmates know of him? Were the universties paid off so extravagantly by Khalidi's well-heeled Arab friends that Barry's actually attending classes was unnecessary ? Who knows? Well, Barry, Khalidi and the school adminstrations, of course.

 

Endless questions still.

 

Still searching, but, at the moment, I have considerably more questions than answers about Mr. Enigma. And we all know Barry WON"T divulge his sealed records. So, the mystery, the questions, the anxiety continue.

Also, and most importantly, would the framers have recognized a dual citizen as being eligible to be president? Absolutely not.  Aftreall, the framers' whole purpose of obliging a presidential candidate to be a "natural born citizen" was to prevent dual allegiances. To put the dual citizenship problem to rest, wouldn't Barry have been required to somehow conceal his Indonesian citizenship upon his return to the USA, this to eliminate any qualification issues to run for prez?

Though I've never seriously doubted his US Citizenship, his "natural born citizenship" is quite another matter. On the NBC issue, the shameless and nonstop disinformation and obfuscation on the part of his acolytes and apologists have been nothing short of mind-boggling, infuriating and entirely unhelpful.

One thing this sorry episode has taught me: if intelligent, hard-working, educated and otherwise upright Germans could have been persuaded to buy into and excuse tyranny, then ANY person in ANY country at ANY time can also succumb to the razzle-dazzle of a glittering smile & false promises. That reality should be extremely troubling to us all.

Sadly, while the truth inevitably comes out, it is often at a terrible price to both innocents and perpetrators alike. In the end, however, we may all have to pay that awful price. Just hope it's sooner rather than later. Would be nice to get it all behind us--the sooner the better.

Another concern: IF Barry is denied a second term at the ballot box, will all of these matters be properly investigated and appropriate punishment meted out to all violators? Or will the investigations be dropped? I honestly don't know what I can reasonably expect anymore of our terribly corrupted political system.

With the prospect of punishment staring Barry and his Progressive minions in the face, my guess is that they will stop at NOTHING to prevent their defeat at the ballot box in November. And then there's the intervening lame-duck period between the election in November and the possible swearing in of a new President in January 2013. All sorts of mischief can be perpetrated during that period in the interest of "national security".  That prospect should give us all pause. All I can say is it's going to be one helluva six months ahead of us. Anything can happen. My advice: buckle up, keep your family and friends close, and be ready for anything.

Is it too Late to Restore Constitutional Order?

Though the first sentence in Article II of the Constitution provides that “ executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”, none of the Framers or Ratifiers at any time suggested that this sentence would grant any executive authority beyond  those specific powers enumerated in Sections 2 and 3. 

In short, presidential powers are well-defined and limited to faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress and, with studious and proper legislative oversight, to preside over foreign affairs.  A Chief Executive's violating these obligations was determined by the Founders  to be a “breach of trust” and, therefore,  grounds for impeachment and removal from office.                                                                                

Clearly, over the years, Executive powers under both Democrat and Republican chief executives have grown exponentially  to the extent that the range of those exercised powers would stagger our republican Founders. (That said, the extent to which Barack Obama has usurped authority is beyond staggering. His actions in this regard have been manifestly impeachable. And it is my guess that should Republicans sweep both the House and Senate in November, this President, if re-elected, stands a better than even chance of facing impeachment and removal from office. And despite the civil unrest that might result from such a remedial action, impeachment is precisely what our Founders and the Constitution they crafted would have counseled.)

So, how did this dangerous expansion of presidential powers come to pass? Very simply, because government, a creature of human nature, is, if ineffectively checked, predisposed to expanding its authority and power. And in designing the Constitution, the Framers were painfully aware of and warned against this natural tendancy toward centralization and, ulitmately, tyranny. Not surprisingly, despite their warnings we've permitted ourselves to slip into the clutches of Statism and lawlessness.

For whatever reason--much of it having to do with the enormous growth in the federal government and its expansion into areas never envisioned by the Founders or sanctioned by the Constitution--Congress has ceded or otherwise delegated enormous powers to the Executive Branch and, by extension, to that branch’s officers and departments. The catastrophic result of this irrresponsible congressional delegation of powers and judicial consent is twofold: an imperial presidency and an essentially unchecked Fourth Branch of government, that being the nearly omnipotent federal bureaucracy which, in  a real sense, manages our increasingly unwieldy and intrusive federal government apparatus.  

Thus, we must now accept the crystal-clear reality that “throwing the bums out” in Congress is no longer a viable remedy; it is merely a desperate, shortsighted and delusional reformist’s rallying cry “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.  In truth, only if the wings of the Executive Branch are clipped and the unbridled Fourth Branch is downsized and more properly supervised by Congress, "the people's house", can genuine constitutional order be restored.

Tragically, what NO ONE has been talking about in this campaign is the need to reign in BOTH the Executive Branch and Leviathan’s runaway bureaucracy which have been eating away at the very vitals of our republic.  Only by deliberately restricting presidential powers to those which faithfully comport with the Constitution, and both eliminating or drastically reducing the power of the Fourth Branch of government can our inexorable slide toward tyranny be arrested.

Is it too late? Probably. And if that’s the case, then the several States, at the insistence of an aroused citizenry, should re-examine their unhealthy association with an increasingly corrosive central government no longer faithful to the Constitution or to the People. In faithful pursuit of constitutional order, States must understand that they are duty-bound to strike out on their own, either unilaterally or in alliance with like-minded sister States.

Thus, the burning question for me is this: no matter the terrible price one must pay, should a patriot who values his liberty continue to routinely and blindly submit to the self-destructive, albeit high-sounding, Lincolnesque notion of “indivisible unity”? Not no. But, Hell no!

Unless constitutional order is restored, I dare say that disunion ought, of necessity, be embraced. And given the chasmic ideological divide existing in the country, I really don't believe disunion anything but inevitable.

“I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive; most bad government has grown out of too much government; the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the cause which impel them to the separation.” (Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776)

Happy 4th of July!

Though our political representatives are entrusted with the responsibility of selflessly honoring their pledge to defend and uphold the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, on this, the 236th birthday of our Republic, let no American patriot ever forget that, ultimately, it is "We the People"--not Congress, not the President, and most certainly not the Supreme Court--upon whom lies the sacred duty to ensure that our Constitution and our individual liberties are properly safeguarded.

As Liberty's Keepers, the Final Arbiters, it is We the People who are Supreme. It is we who are ultimately responsible for determining what is and what is not constitutional, what is just and unjust, and what constitutes tyranny and treason.

We are, therefore, duty-bound to fully restore the Republic to its former glory, the first step toward achieving that lofty goal being the eradication of the Progressive contagion which currently plagues all levels of our increasingly intrusive government.

Constantly challenged and often overwhelmed by a litany of stupefying Progressive outrages, it is easy to simply surrender, to disengage; but to save our republic, patriots cannot--must not-- fold. Our duty is to relentlessly and fearlessly re-assert our God-given rights to constitutional self-government and individual freedom. We must never accept anything less ever again. More to the point, we must no longer tolerate nor otherwise accommodate the Progressives' ruthless and pernicious effort to fundamentally transform the United States into a utopian tyranny.

And always remember this: the Constitution cannot defend itself. That responsibility lies squarely upon our shoulders. Shirk that sacred duty and we condemn ourselves and our posterity to oppression and meaninglessness.

("...[you have] a Republic, if you can keep it." Benjamin Franklin, when emerging from Constitution Hall in Philadelphia, 1787.)

Federal Imperialism vs State Territorial Sovereignty

For a painfully long time now, our federal masters and their judicial enablers have ignored and, to my way of thinking, flagrantly violated the Constitution with impunity. All too often, Supreme Court rulings have served to override equity, common sense, constitutionality and original intent.

And so long as black-robed, unelected and unaccountable judicial oligarchs, aka judges–as well as the submissive states themselves–allow “judicial supremacy” to trump “constitutional supremacy” on a whole host of consequential constitutional issues, our economic growth will be hobbled, our liberties diminished, state sovereignty degraded, constitutional order imperiled and common sense abandoned.

To wit, per Art 1.8.17 of the Constitution and provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, and despite a veritable cesspool of clubby, contrived and revisionist court rulings over the years through which I was barely able to wade, it appears glaringly obvious to me that our federal overseers are occupying millions of otherwise productive acres within the several states without the “concurrence” of those states and without constitutional justification.

Article 1.8.17 (“Enclave Clause”) granted power to 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 [i.e. the District of Columbia], 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, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” Crystal-clear what the original meaning is here despite the shamelessly self-serving litany of subsequent spinmeistering on the part of our judicial overlords, lap dogs of the federal government.

Clearly this clause meant that the people of the states empowered Congress to exercise complete jurisdiction and authority over all lands or facilities purchased within a state, provided it was with the consent of the legislature of that state, and that such lands would be used for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.” Clearly implied in this clause is that the several states, the immediate fiduciary agents of the people, reserve the right to assume title to all lands within their borders which are not being used by the federal government for the specific purposes provided in the clause, that being “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings.”

It is also important to note that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the enumerated power of complete jurisdiction and authority over state territory; thus, state retention and ownership of public lands stems from the 10th Amendment which reserves all rights to the states which are not specifically granted to Congress. The twisted and carefully crafted Delphic court rulings notwithstanding, the original meaning seems abundantly clear to me.

Art 4.3.1 allowed a mechanism for the formation and admission of new states into the union, and Art 4.3.2 described the extent of congressional authority over federal territory within those states. Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled that federal property applies only to the territory at the time of the Constitution’s adoption and is considered public land only until that territory is granted statehood and the national debt incurred by the Revolutionary War is paid. In other words, temporary federal control over those lands.

In accordance with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was re-enacted after the Constitution’s ratification, all new states were to be admitted to the union on the basis of full equality with the original thirteen states. It was generally understood that as territories were granted statehood, the people of those states would acquire title to all lands within their state boundaries—except, of course, those lands granted to the feds for those well-defined purposes cited in Art 1.8.17.

To help pay down the national debt, Congress assured the states of full title to those lands not used for federally sanctioned purposes when that land was sold off. The following then became the established policy for new states:

1. The feds would retain all ungranted public lands.
2. The feds guaranteed that it would dispose of these lands as soon as possible.
3. The new state would acquire jurisdiction over these lands as fast as they were sold to private individuals.
4. States would be admitted on the basis of “equal footing” with the original 13 states (each of which retained complete ownership/control over their respective territories.

As a result, all states east of the Mississippi and those comprising the Louisiana Purchase eventually acquired title to all but a very small portion of the land lying within their state boundaries.
However, following our war with Mexico, Congress inexplicably digressed from this policy and virtually eliminated the sale or disposal of federal lands in the western states. This resulted in Congress’s retaining major portions of those state lands, this in seemingly direct contravention of the Constitution and of the Northwest Ordinance. Essentially, the federal government became the sole owner and manager of nearly 30%, or a whopping 650 million acres, of America’s landmass, for the constitutionally unspecified purposes of maintaining national forests, national parks, national monuments, Indian reservations, coal and oil reserves, lands leased to farmers and ranchers, and resources-rich so-called “wilderness areas”. And, of course, the cost to taxpayers for maintaining the sprawling federal bureaucracy in order to manage these federally controlled lands is in the billions of dollars.

Federal defenders of this overeach breathlessly point to the so-called “property clause” (Art 4.3.2) which provides that “Congress shall have power to dispose of and make any needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and any territory or property belonging to the United States.” Clearly, doesn't this create a convenient constitutional ambiguity by contradicting the original intent of Art 1.8.17? Does this not exact restrictions on the western states, which had never been imposed on earlier states? So much for states being admitted into the union on “equal footing” and “full equality” with earlier states. Is federal retention of 30% of America’s real estate really a “necessary and proper” exercise of federal powers? For me to believe that would require a willful suspension of common sense.

To give you an idea of how much state land is now imperially held by the feds, check this out: NV 85%, AL 70%, UT, 60%, OR 53%, AZ 47%, CA 45%, WY 42%, NM 42%, CO 37%, and poor Alaska 96%! Note: 65% of federal land holdings are located west of the Mississippi and a paltry 1% of all federally controlled land in the country is currently being utilized for those specific purposes cited in Art 1.8.17. One must wonder why these lands are still being held by the feds. Pay off the Revolutionary War debt? Gee, I don’t think so. Lofty, if not entirely contrived, constitutional justifications? Or, more likely, the relentless federal grasp for power and, today, a way to placate a host of environmental allies by denying the states and the country access to those climate-warming pollutants such as oil and gas.

Regarding the Enclave Clause, James Madison stated that “the public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.” But, have the courts sought the concurrence of the states? Nope.

Clearly, the federal government is occupying millions of acres without the “concurrence” of those states, but maintain their grip with the twisted and self-serving judicial sanction of federal Courts intent upon expanding and strengthening federal power.

So, what is the recourse of the several states? My opinion, which is shared by many other originalists, is that in keeping with the doctrine of state sovereignty, original intent and the 10th Amendment, states should simply legislatively assume title of all lands not being utilized by the federal government as specified in the Enclave Clause. Of course, to placate the courts and public opinion, states should first sue the federal government to acquire title. And since the states will not prevail in such a lopsided judicial struggle, they should then rightfully and unhesitatingly assert their 10th Amendment rights by immediately assuming direct ownership and control of what I have dubbed the “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.

But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, and heavily bribed states have the backbone to hazard the restoration of their constitutional sovereignty and honor? Ah, yes, that’s the burning question.

The constitutional issue aside for a moment, in truth the achievement of energy independence alone should provide ample motivation for the states and their people to step up and take back their land, which is illegally held by the feds. And should the states fail to assert their rights under the original constitution, they should quietly accept their bondage and compliantly move on with their drab, submissive lives.

“An injustice unchallenged is justice denied.” Author Unknown

“In the Constitution, the term state most frequently expresses the combined idea…of people, territory and government. A state, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries, and organized under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.” State of Texas v White (1868)

“Nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to absurd or unjust consequences.” Abraham Lincoln (1861)