The Myth of American Indivisibility

No nation is immutable; historically, nations evolve and devolve. And there's no historical precedent which would uphold the assertion that America will be an exception to this rule.

And though our Founders had hoped their carefully crafted Constitution which created a confederated republic would remain intact in perpetuity, none deluded themselves into believing that, for better or for worse, the inherent depravity and falllibility of man wouldn't inevitably, and likely irretrieveably, alter both the nature and structure of American society and government. Thus, from a historical perspective, the reconstruction of our society and its model of governance is likely inescapable.

Today, there is a degenerative ideological struggle for the very soul of our nation, both political and cultural. The increasingly acrimonious contention between big government (centralization of authority) and small government (decentralization of authority) proponents has led to a deeply polarized American citizenry along what may be accurately described as statist/socialist and constitutionalist/capitalist lines. In truth, political, economic and cultural indications clearly suggest that this ideological divide is most likely irreconcilable. But, take heart. This in no way pre-ordains a bloody clash of arms for these "united States" to peacefully and satisfactorily readjust to this tectonic ideological divide. Although secession is no longer merely a remote possibility, what shape this readjustment will take in the end is anyone's guess.

But, first, let's very briefly examine the enduring myth that secession is illegal, unconstitutional, treasonous, or otherwise constitutionally prohibited.

Not even Daniel Webster, a particularly ardent nationalist and respected orator, could prove that the Constitution was anything but a compact, aka contract, among the States and with the federal government requiring all parties to that contract to abide by the clearly defined terms of that agreement. As has always been the case, when a party violates the terms of a duly executed contract, that contract is, of course, null and void.

We need but to look to history to understand that even at its inception and early development, liberty-loving Americans have never been of one mind. Just as the thirteen colonies individually abolished their political bands with England, eventually acceding to confederation and, subsequently, to a "more perfect" constitutional federal union, a nationalist would, indeed, be sorely challenged to show that any of the States ever freely, knowingly or contractually surrendered or otherwise delegated their fundamental rights as sovereign entities to an ominipotent, overarching national government. Quite the contrary. Representatives of the original 13 colonies, which had individually agreed to secede from British rule, eventually fashioned a constitutional federal system of governance which painstakingly incorporated the core unifying principle of state co-equality and dual sovereignty in a constitutionally balanced federal system of governance.

In the Treaty of Paris (1783) which concluded the Revolutionary War, Britain explicitly recognized the independence and sovereignty of each of her 13 former colonies as did the American delegates who signed the treaty. Thus, from the outset, and most certainly during the drafting and ratification of the constitution, state sovereignty and the core principle of co-equality was enshrined with nary a word of protest or disagreement on the part of the framers, ratifiers or from the people themselves.

Since ratification of the Constitution in 1787, North Carolina and Rhode Island being the last States to join the union in 1790, Americans have been buffeted by threats of and movements toward secession in the north, south, east and west--NOT, as revisionists would have us believe, just in the south. State nullification of federal laws and civil disobedience have characterized America's experiment in constitutional self-government since its inception. Though the War of Secession in 1861 - 1865, erroneously described by revisionist historians as the "Civil War", seemed to have put an end to the notion that the several states "are and of right ought to be free" of unconstitutional constraints on their liberties by their co-equal partners in union, nullifying or otherwise repudiating federal overreach have become as commonplace today as they were before the War of Secession, aka War of Northern Aggression. In fact, as the ideological divide has sharpened in recent years, state and citizen resistance to federal encroachment has become even more pervasive and assertive than even before 1861. (Just type nullification or secession 2010, 2011 in your browser. Or go to the 10th Amendment Foundation or 10th Amendment Center for a comprehensive examination of historical and contemporary nullification actions. You'll be astounded by the relevance and sheer number of serious nullification and secessionist movements in today's America.)

Even Abraham Lincoln, often ideologically convoluted on the subject of secession and the sanctity and inviolability of the union, posited on the floor of Congress in 1847 that "any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world." And in his 1861 Inaugural Address, he proclaimed that "whenever the people shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." So much for indivisibility in perpetuity. Not even the pre-eminent "one nation, indivisible" advocate himself believed that.

Logically, since secession was never in any way prohibited under the constitution, under the 10th Amendment, therefore, States have clearly reserved the right to secede from the union. In fact, contingent upon their ratification of the Constitution, and without any voices of objection raised by either the Framers or other states, Virginia, Maryland and Rhode Island explicitly reserved their right to secede, i.e. to  reassume those powers granted to the federal government, should their sovereign rights be violated by the latter.(Note: Virginia cited its conditional ratification of the Constitution as a legal basis for her subsequent Ordinance of Secession.)

As H. Newcomb Morse points out in the Stetson Law Review, "because the Constitution did not forbid secession, then every state acceding to the Constitution had the implied right of seceding from it" as well. To wit, the 10th Amendment clearly stipulates that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Slamdunk obvious to all but the hardened big government nationalist that nullification and secession remain perfectly constitutional and anything but treasonous .

Further, in the Madison Papers, James Madison observed that implicit in the contractual relationship between the states and the federal government "a breach of any one article by any one party [to this contract], leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved." Thus, if the Founders intended the union to be legally indissoluble, would not the Framers and Ratifiers have specifically included that prohibition in the Constitution? Of course. And given that the northern armies were withdrawn from southern states only after those states had each incorporated into their constitutions a clause specifically relinquishing their inherent right to secede in the future, a reasonable person must logically conclude that the inherent right of secession most certainly exists, and that only a gun barrel to the heads of the southern states compelled those states to relinquish what is still an inviolable and inherent constitutional right. Like, how could the states surrender a right unless they had it in the first place? Also, were any leaders of the defeated Confederacy tried for treason by the victorious North? Nope! As Gene Kizer noted in his Right of Secession, "there were no treason trials against former Confederates because any one trial would likely prove the legal right of secession, and imminently practical Northerners were not about to lose in a court of law what they had won on the battlefield."

Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 reaffirmed state sovereignty and independence and the absolute right of the states to determine for themselves when the Constitution which embodies the state-federal contract is violated by the federal government. In short, Jefferson observed that "the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the priniciple of unlimited submission to their General Government." And in his draft Declaration of Protest in 1825, Jefferson noted that while the states greatly valued the "blessings of their Union" that "they would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers."

Without specifcally reviewing the litany of American nullification and secessionist activities here, the reader is encouraged to research, among others, the following nullification and secessionist events in our country's history: New England's Hartford Convention which set New England on the course of secession, precluded only by the sudden conclusion of the War of 1812 in 1815; the Tariff Compromise of 1833 which merely delayed the inevitable constitutional showdown between the South and the North; nullification by ten northern states of the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1850; the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 authored by Jefferson and Madison in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc.........

In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the word "accede" (agree to), which is the opposite of the word "secede", was liberally used to describe the legal relationship between the ratifying States and the Union. And to short-circuit any specious argument that the Constitution was not a co-equal compact between the States and the federal government, these quotes from James Madison himself:     

"That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal
government as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties." (Virginia Resolutions of 1798)

"[The Constitution is] a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity." (Madison's ltr to Mr. Everett in 1830)

Some have and will continue to desperately advance the argument that the preamble of the Constitution speaks about "We the People" as the forgers of the Constitution, thus undermining the compact argument, the latter which forms the legal basis for the right of a state's withdrawal from the union. In fact, the Constitution was, indeed, ratified by the people of each state, but in special State constitutional conventions and not directly by the people. Thus, it is obvious that the Constitution was not ratified, (acceded to) by a referendum of the general American population of a non-existent supreme nation state. In fact, the use of the words "We the People" in the preamble was necessitated by the practical matter of the Founders not being able to accurately predict which of the States would eventually accede (join) and which would not. Thus, listing the individual sovereign states in the preamble as parties to the union before all States actually acceded was impractical. In fact, had the Convention listed the States and all but one acceded, then the "union" would have been invalid owing to an absence of unanimity. Thus, the Constitution applied only to those states which ratified it which, at the beginning, consisted of only nine of the thirteen States. Implicit then is the fact that from the outset States were not and could not be coerced into joining the union. Thus, ratification was a strictly voluntary process and the framers never delegated authority, either explicitly or implicitly, to the federal government or to any of the other states to coerce individual states into joining or remaining in the union.  

An astutue and highly regarded student of American democracy, Alex de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America,  observed that "the union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the conditon of one of the same people. If one of the States chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be diffcult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Governement would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."

That said, what most folks don't know and precious few historians will tell them is that the South did not simply awake one morning and heedlessly gallop headlong into a glorious, rebel-yelling War of Secession merely to keep slaves in bondage. Not at all. Secession was carefully debated and some of the greatest legal minds of the day were engaged in those debates. Of singular importance in the South's decision to peacefully withdraw from the union--and only with the consent of the citizens in each state--was the conveniently overlooked fact that for decades the onerous federal taxation of the South had effectively retarded the South's industrial development, thus arguably ensuring its prolonged dependence upon slave-based agriculture. To wit, an estimated 70% of all federal taxes were paid by 6 million Southerners, all of which was spent in the North and West where nearly 20,000,000 citizens resided! Clearly, a disproportionate and unconstituional burden on the South. Also, for years high-minded Northern Abolitionists actively and illegally aided and abetted slave revolts in the south which resulted in considerable insecurity and tumult. Of fundamental importance too is the fact that the wealthier North which relied upon a captive Southern market to sustain its prosperity was averse to allowing the South to peacefully withdraw from an increasingly unproductive and economically onerous union with the North. Thus, though reluctant to make the break, the South, feeling itself victimized and bereft of reasonable options, could no longer rationally justify its remaining in the union at any cost. And, of course, that was their right then, and it remains the constitutional right of all states today.

And this extremely important point: though Art 1.10 of the Constitution reads, in part, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation...without the consent of Congress", as a practical matter the southern States did not violate this article in 1861 because they hadn't confederated or allied themselves with one another until AFTER each had separately withrawn from the Union. Only after they had each withdrawn from the united States of America did they individually opt to become members of a new Union, that being the Confederate States of America.

So, whether the revisionists and nationalists like it or not, both nullification and secession are completely legal and respected constitutional principles. Clearly, our Founders would solidly espouse the view that if nullification were to fail to safeguard individual liberty, constitutional order and the rule of law, then secession would be the only reasonable, albeit unfortunate, lawful recourse.

Back now to America's transformation and our path forward.

When in the 50's Nikita Khruschev warned that the Soviet Union and Communism would "bury" the USA and the West, he was only half right. I believe that the American union as we know it is being "buried", but it is Americans who are doing the shoveling and the Progressives who are hastening the process.  Since the advent of Progressivism over a century ago, America's transformation has been underway. What the Soviets couldn't accomplish by bluster and intimidation, Progressives have been striving to achieve with surprising success and rapidity. But, not all Americans have been content with that conversion.

Greatly contributing to the accelerating political and cultural polarization in the country is the current President's tactical reliance on racial politics and class warfare to further exacerbate those societal divisions necessary to "fundamentally transform the United States of America", the goal of which is to usher in a welfare state something totally foreign and, indeed, anathema to most Americans.

In a persuasive article appearing on the FactsNotFantasy blog, author Alan Caruba succinctly summarizes the accelerated makeover Obama and his predecessors have been perpetrating. To wit, the federal government has seized control of one-sixth the nation's economy, by "asserting control over the provision of healthcare", the administration has seized control of GM and Chrysler "arbitrarily casting aside the rightful expectations of their bondholders and other creditors", the administration is favorably considering a UN treaty "that would render the Second Amendment null and void", the administration has sued AZ for enacting an immigration law that mirrors its own and has joined legal forces with foreign countries to similarly sue AZ and other states who are attempting to stem the tide and cost of illegal immigration into their territories, the FCC is asserting its control over the internet despite a court order to cease and desist, and the explosion of an overreaching and extremely costly federal empire of agencies with "no legitimate basis in the Constitution" has become the order of the day (Dept of Education, EPA, Dept of Energy, to name a few). And as the big government tide continues with breathtaking rapidity, grassroots and state-level pushback has begun in earnest. Nullification and secessionist movements are growing in popularity and strength, and both options are now considered by many thoughtful Americans as perfectly legitimate and even inevitable.

If Americans cannot soon reverse the Progressive/Statist tide and return to their constitutional and republican roots, the slide toward disunity is most certainly irreversible.

Finally, being inevitable in the human experience, change should not necessarily be feared or stubbornly resisted. If the cultural and political changes serve to safeguard the liberty, security and happiness of a society, then it should be embraced. However, should the changes occasion a reckless disregard for individual rights and the individual pursuit of happiness, then it is up to "we the people" to re-direct the course of events. Unity simply for the sake of unity is hollow and self-defeating. The challenge, then, is to either 1) forge a workable division of the union which would safeguard state and regional self-determination, or 2) fully restore federalism as orginally intended by our Founders, this to preserve our political unity while protecting diversity among the states. The only other choice is for us all to quietly submit to an authoritarian national government.

What shape the eventual transformation takes is completely in our hands, and that is precisely where it should be. And with the November 2012 elections looming, the shape of things to come may be clarified sooner than any of us could have imagined.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certqain unalienable Rights, that among these, are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of Governmetn becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Governement, laying its foundaiton on such Principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a desire to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Governement, and to provide new Guards for thier future Security." Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

"The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the General Government." Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

"It should be remembered that the founders, by their own actions, showed that they considered liberty more precious than unity." Robert F. Hawes, Jr. One Nation, Indivisible? 2006

"The ultimate authority, no matter where any of its derivatives may be found, resides in the People alone." Thomas Jefferson

JUST SAY "NO MORE!!!"

ON THIS JULY 4TH, and after a few years now of trying to write many of what I had hoped were some sober and well-researched informational posts, allow me the luxury of simply blowing off steam for a moment. Hey, it's therapeutic.

Anyone willing to take the time to honestly and objectively examine Obama's background and his transparently un-American associations, statements and actions should be justifiably horrified and deeply incensed. Only if one is completely brain-dead or otherwise disengaged can one fail to share this anger and trepidation.

Only the willfully ignorant and both the soulless political hacks and self-serving recipients of public largess are still capable of shamelessly and delusionally denying the obvious: Marxism has taken hold in the highest rungs of our government; the feds are out-of-control and unrepresentative; Congress has abdicated far too many of its constitutional responsibilities to an increasingly imperial Presidency and to his unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats; we the people, the States and our "representatives" have allowed an activist and unaccountable judiciary to repeatedly flout the Constitution with impunity and to arbitrarily dictate what the Constitution says; and, as  a result, our rights and liberties have been rapidly eroded and our economy drained of its vitality.

There are times when a citizen needs to fearlessly speak up, stand tall, be boldly honest about what's clearly going on around him and be willing to be criticized for his principles and integrity. And, yes, if need be s/he must even be willing to sacrifice his/her own life in defense of America and the Republic for which it stands.

As Lincoln asserted, "Silence makes cowards out of the best of men." Thus, if we are to resurrect our Republic, we must reject our hitherto squeamish silence in the face of growing tyranny.

For those who care to do any honest and objective research, historical evidence manifestly and irrefutably demonstrates that for decades the Communist/Progressive movement in America has ruthlessly sought the undermining of American culture by systematically eroding patriotism, morality, the sanctity of the family and spiritual beliefs, the cultural building blocks of the most exceptional, wealthiest and freest nation the world has ever known. Well, at least up until recently, that is.

Toward achievement of his utopian ends, Obama, true to his pre-inaugural pledge made to his vacuous fawning fans who ignorantly propelled him into office, has stuck like glue to his plan of  "fundamentally transforming the United States of America". And, tragically, he is but a hair's breath away from fully accomplishing this iniquitous goal.

With the connivance of, among others, ACORN, ACLU, NEA, Nat'l Socialists of America, the Progressive Congressional Caucus, the Environmentalist Movement, a complicit leftist-dominated media which has morphed into a propaganda mouthpiece for the Progressive agenda, bubble-headed Hollywood elites, all manner of Soros-funded socialist front organizations, and a veritable throng of what Lenin succinctly dubbed "useful idiots" on the left, Obama, whose eligibility still remains in serious doubt, was elected in 2008 and his incremental anti-American Marxist makeover remains on course.

We must bear in mind that neither Obama nor his Progressive minions, aka Marxists, will stop at anything to ensure that America as we know it has been completely transformed into a socialist utopia with these thugs at its helm. And even were Obama not re-elected, it will still require years of conscientious effort to undo the nearly incalculable damage already wrought by these ideological vermin.

Any sober student of history knows full well and without equivocation that Socialism and Communism have been and will always be notorious failures and painfully costly in both blood and treasure. We know that Socialism is meant for the masses, not for the elites who impose it on the rest of us. At the people's expense, the governing elites will manage to live in the lap of luxury while we lowly plebeians are compelled to eke out a living in the Progressive's fetid egalitarian paradise.

In truth, Marxism and liberty simply cannot peacefully co-exist. They are like oil and water. The Progressive ideology is the implacable enemy of this country's traditions, values and republican form of governance. And for patriots to attempt to accommodate or otherwise appease this alien ideology is not only suicidal, but as treasonous as Progressivism itself. (Let's no longer shirk from calling Progessivism what it really is: the enemy within.)

It 's well past time to say NO MORE!!! It is well past time to fully take back our country or risk irretrievably losing it in its entirety for ourselves and our posterity.

If the ballot box no longer serves the purpose of effectively safeguarding liberty and restoring constitutional order, then patriots must be fully prepared to courageously, proudly and unyieldingly resort to Civil Disobedience. States must unhesitatingly and boldly assert their 10th Amendment right to Nullify unconstitutional laws/edicts/rulings regardless of the offending federal branch from which they originate. And if this mode of resistance somehow fails to restore constitutional order then Secession must be on the table, this if we are to prevent Progressives from utterly destroying what remains of our Republic, its tattered Constitution, and our way of life.

I urge all patriots to unashamedly and fearlessly assert their God-given unalienable rights by putting this government on notice that we're not going to take it anymore. At every turn, liberal insanity and mindless political correctness must be confronted head-on. No more backing off merely to achieve an empty, short-lived Chamberlainian peace. No more indoctrination of our youth and no more government profligacy to advance parochial political and alien ideological agendas. If this means massive marches on Washington and even occupation of our government buildings, inclusive of the White House, aka the People's House, insisting that our state legislatures summarily nullify ALL unconstitutional laws/edicts/rulings emanating from our runaway and Marxist-infected federal government, openly disobeying/ignoring federal rules, restoring illegally held federal lands to the States, and drilling without federal sanction, among other appropriate acts of lawful and rightful defiance, then so be it. The restoration of constitutional order and economic sanity must be our rigidly unshakeable goals.

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again: an indivisible union at any price is folly for it merely invites more tyranny; routinely submitting to federal overeach merely to "keep the peace" or to "demonstrate civility" is delusional and, ultimately, self-destructive. If we can't enjoy constitutional order in all the states, then let's enjoy it in at least a portion of those states. And if that means secession, a time-honored constitutional and God-given right, then let's seriously begin that conversation now before we are all lulled into a quagmire of submission and oppression from which there will be little chance for  peaceful deliverance. Also, we must remain actively engaged in grassroots patriotic organizations and do what we can to link ourselves and our organizations with other patriotic groups around the country, this to enhance our credibility and to more effectively influence our nation's course. And, naturally, on the local front, we should continue to be actively involved in our local political party machine to help restore respect and adherence to constitutional principles from within.

Finally, we must fearlessly speak up with clarity, knowledge, commonsense, and with the Constitution and, yes, the Bible as our guide. Speaking truth to power should become second nature. And remember this: the Constitution cannot defend itself. That respnsibility ultimately devolves on We the People.

Silence in the face of tyranny is cowardice and, worse, treasonous. Facing down liberal elites is the heigth of honor and patriotism. Do it!

Wishing you all a happy, safe and reflective 4th of July!

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants; the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Oiler Quote Distinguishes Capitalists, Socialists

Editorial, Published D&C 05/18/2011

During the Democrats' shopworn and meaningless scolding of oil executives last week, ExxonMobil's Rex Tillerson may have iterated the quintessentially perfect anti-socialist sound byte for the next election: "We don't believe in shared sacrifice. We believe in shared prosperity."

Wow! Powerfully poignant.

Like no others, those words succinctly differentiate the raw distinction between socialism and capitalism, liberals and conservatives, progressives and republicans. Rex would have made Ayn Rand of Atlas Shrugged fame blouse-busting proud.

These straightforward, enlightening and winning words must become part of the GOPs electioneering repertoire.

Initial Reaction to BHO's Disclosure of BC

Is the "silliness" over, as our thin-skinned and insufferably arrogant Prez characterized the BC issue today? Yes. The "silliness" is over.

But, is the eligibility issue settled? Nope!

Why?

Without rehashing what should be--but clearly isn't--obvious to the dissembling press and to both Obama sycophants and defenders, the founders understood that for one to be a "natural born citizen", words which appear only in the Presidential Clause of the Constitution, one needs to have been born within the jurisdiction of the US (jus soli) AND AND AND be born of US citizen parents (jus sanguinis). At a minimum, to be a natural born citizen a person's father, from whom a person's nationality is derived (per E. Vattel's Law of Nations to which our framers subscribed) must have been a US citizen, this to preclude what the framers believed to be the awful prospect of a president with dual citizenship and loyalties.

His father was a Kenyan, a British subject, at the time of Barack's birth. Period.

So, assuming that the long form birth certificate FINALLY disclosed by the White House today is the real thing, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't, we've still only solved half the riddle.

In all the mealy-mouthed and deliberately mendacious MSM discussions about the elusive birth certificate, what has continually been lost in the cacaphony is the central issue of "natural born citizenship". Like many others who had reasonable doubts about Obama's place of birth, I had always felt that even if he had been born on the White House balcony, his presidential eligibility remained in serious constitutional doubt. And so it does today. Nothing has really changed.

In my humble estimation, what Obama, aka Mr. Transparency, intended to pull off today was a clever and cyncial ploy to fatally undermine the credibility of the so-called "birthers", thus shutting down all further probes into his background (education, associations) which still remain shrouded in needless mystery and disturbing suspicion.

And one other lingering question which I'm sure few want to hear: did he legally lose his US citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia? And if so, was his US citizenship properly restored upon his return to the USA? I still don't know the answer to this unsettling question. And until I do, this constitutional issue remains very much alive.

One interesting side note: all along, many detractors on the right (like Karl Rove, among others) speculated that Barry, the quintessential political thug that he is, would deliberately keep the birth certificate issue alive until he was able to divulge the certificate at a politically sensitive moment in his re-election campaign, this to utterly destroy the credibility of the birthers on the left, right and in the middle. Well, even Barry understood that this festering BC issue was weighing heavily against him, and he also knew that it was becoming increasingly more difficult to stop further probing unless he made a big show of disclosing his BC. Thus, his precipitous and haughty disclousre of his BC today which he hopes will effectively end any further questions about his murky background and eligibility.

And you know what?  Sadly enough, this strategy just might work. Enough Americans might actually believe that birthers are nothing more than pesky, wild-eyed conspiratorial theorists blinded by their loathing of Obama, his race and his leftist ideology, and that Obama's integrity and virtue have been unfairly sullied by these brigands. Well, he can hope that's what most Americans will believe. But, if I were he I wouldn't count on it.

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 case 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 digression breathlessly point to the so-called "propery 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, does this not 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 necessarily 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 those “royal federal reserves” lying within their state boundaries.

But, do the chastened, weak-kneed, heavily bribed and statist-infected 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)

"Birthright Citizenship": Is Anyone Reading the Constitution?

Mindful of the litany of revisionist case law since the Constitution's ratification, it is clear that stare decisis is a judicial principle fraught with constitutional perils. Why? One corrupted court ruling inevitably leads to another, compounding the corruption of original intent merely for the shortsighted and self-serving purpose of sanctifying precedent—a surefire judicial recipe for eventually ruling the Constitution out of existence. In this regard, Thomas Jefferson was right when he viewed with horror the growing menace of a runaway Supreme Court which increasingly valued “judicial supremacy” over “constitutional supremacy”.

First off, let me point out that amending the constitution in order to deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens is totally unnecessary. Since the 14th Amendment already very clearly stipulates that children of aliens cannot be legally granted US citizenship on the basis of birth place alone (jus soli), at most a congressional act or a clear-headed, originalist SCOTUS ruling is all that is needed to clarify and restate what the 14th Amendment already clearly says. Original meaning must always trump revisionist case law and interpretations. Otherwise, for what purpose do we have a Constitution?

As said, the inescapable result of judicially ignoring original intent and meaning is to pile corrupted case law atop corrupted case law. To wit, in Plyler v Doe (1967), SCOTUS, relying on the revisionist Wong Kim Ark (1898) opinion and failing to consult the actual meaning of the 14th's “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording, ruled that children of illegal aliens who simply reside in a state may be considered to be within the jurisdiction of the US for the purpose of determining their child's citizenship. In effect, Wong Kim Ark and Plyler simply ignored the plain text of the 14th, thus violating their sacred oath to faithfully uphold the Constitution. If nothing else, these rulings readily attest to the inherent corruptibility and unreliability of mere mortals and self-deified jurists in particular.

When fervently invoking Wong Kim Ark, what the birthright adherents fail to tell you—probably because many of them are either honestly ignorant or willfully dismissive of the facts—is that this ruling, made out of whole cloth, arrogantly contradicted Elk v Wilkins (1884) which, in keeping with the 14th, ruled that birthplace alone (jus soli) was insufficient grounds to grant US Citizenship.

The contrived Wong Kim Ark ruling also blatantly ignored the earlier Supreme Court discussion of the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse cases wherein the court noted that “the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude ...children of ministers, consuls, and citizens and subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Clearly, the Wong Kim Ark majority didn't allow facts to get in their way. Like liberals today, they follow precedent when especially when it suits their ideological predispositions and political agendas.

You may recall that the 14th's framers were painstakingly specific about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A quick review of those particular quotes which so many on the left have either deliberately ignored or overlooked clearly shows-- irrefutably--that, unlike the majority opinion in this case, the 14th's framers understood that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was synonymous with “not owing allegiance to any foreign power”. The point: you cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if you are legally subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Duh. But, very briefly, here again is what the 14th's framers actually said:

First, Sec 1992 of US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power...are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Framer Sen. Trumbell noted that the goal of this statute was “to make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US.” He went on to explain “all persons born in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens; this means subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. And what do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Sen. Trumbell didn't mince words. He didn't say temporarily or partially within US jurisdiction, but completely within US jurisdiction. With that explanation from a principal framer of the 14th, how then can the most ardent birthright citizenship advocate reasonably and clear-headedly trumpet the merits and judicial reliability of Wong Kim Ark? In truth, the objective and honest among them can't without at least a little embarrassment. But, sadly, that won't stop them from mindlessly railing against birthright citizenship opponents.

Concurring with Trumbell, Sen. Jacob Howard asserted that "the word 'jurisdiction' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US.” Obviously, he wasn't talking about a temporary visitor or illegal entrant with foreign ties.

In 1866, Cong. James Wilson of the House Judiciary Committee asserted “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of a foreign government.”

Framer John Bingham said that this statute meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.” (Finally, a definition of "natural-born citizen".) Clearly, then, the jurisdictional status of the child's parents (jus sanguinis) was every bit as important as the birthplace of the child in determining a child's citizenship. Thus, US citizenship is predicated on BOTH birthplace (jus soli) and parentage (jus sanguinis). Of course, that's clear, but the agenda-driven left just doesn't want to hear of it.

And this: if one's allegiance to the US can be properly determined by birth alone in the US (jus soli), then why do we require legal immigrants to renounce their allegiance to their motherlands for purposes of naturalization? In short, folks, the Wong Kim Ark ruling is not only baffling, it makes absolutely no sense at all!

Also, in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, legally indefensible though it is, shouldn't it be of more than passing interest to note some mysterious wording in that ruling as well?

The ruling: “A child born in the United States, of parent[s] of Chinese descent, who, at the time of
of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and
residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed
in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time
of his birth a citizen of the United States.”

Huh? So, were they legal permanent residents or did they simply possess a permanent domicile in the US? Talk about gratuitous and enigmatic rulings: like, how many illegal aliens over the years had a permanent domicile/residence in the US while illegally present? Quite a few, I suspect. By what twist of logic does those conditions confer US citizenship on the their children?  Just asking. Frankly, despite a rather exhaustive search I can find no scholarly explanation for this conspicuously incoherent ruling. Upon what previous ruling did the court draw those words? Certainly not from the 14th's framers, and most certainly not from the Constitution's founders! That alone should give our erudite lefty friends at least a modicum of intellectual pause. But, probably not. They apply the law to fit their agendas, and casually ignore that which doesn't advance their political game plan. Heaven forbid should they stoop to seeking original constitutional intent and meaning.

Another point: the court's majority justified their ruling on the basis of English common law. What?!?!? US citizenship law had absolutely broken with English common law tradition after independence (which included the tortured English doctrine of “perpetual allegiance” over which America clashed with Britain in the War of 1812). Sen. Howard clearly explained that the citizenship clause was based upon “natural law and national law”, never in any way alluding to English common law. (Note: from all I have read, E. Vattel's concept of a child inheriting his/her father's citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis), regardless of birthplace, manifestly dominated US legal history after independence, and it was E. Vattel's Law of Nations which so profoundly influenced our founders and the 14th's framers.)

Also, if anyone takes the time to read the dissenting opinions in this grotesque ruling, one would be regaled with thoughtful and scholarly constitutional analysis. But, that's not what the left wants. It wants a solid and burgeoning voter bloc, this to keep their sorry lot in power. But, I do have to ask what possessed the majority in Wong Kim Ark to rule as they did. It certainly wasn't their strong sense of fidelity to the Constitution. Compassion or snuff?

So, in summary, the legality of birthright citizenship is a breathtakingly obvious hoax perpetrated by judicial revisionists and encouraged by stridently vocal ideologically-driven birthright citizenship adherents. At this point, all we can reasonably hope for is a sober and timely SCOTUS review which, hopefully, will do the unthinkable, that being actually upholding the rule of law. Sure hope that's not too much to ask. But, I'm not holding my breath...

“A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge's refusal to consider legislative intent.” Justice John Paul Stevens re the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

"Elastic Clause" Misunderstood

Editorial Published D&C 3/7/11

In a recent letter, the writer, alluding to the constitutionality of "Obamacare", asserted that the so-called "elastic clause" of the Constitution grants the federal government power to do whatever it deems "necessary and proper"--clearly a colossal misunderstanding of our founders' intent.

I suspect this misguided writer also believes that the "supremacy clause" grants unlimited power to the federal government, and that, therefore, executive, judicial and congressional authority "necessarily and properly" trump "constitutional supremacy".

If the writer's assumption that unbridled federal power is somehow constitutionally defensible, then why bother having a Constitution at all? Why don't we all just obediently submit to federal will in all matters and be done with America's noble experiment in constitutional governance?

Obamacare's "individual mandate" is a gross violation of the Commerce Clause, and we continue to tolerate such perversions at our own peril.

Jim Delaney
Greece