The Real War For America

Forget all the Class Warfare and Republican vs. Democrat arguments. The real battle in this country right now is Capitalism vs. Socialism. It is a war of ideology. Obama wants to increase the size of Government and further the expansion of the Nanny state. What happened to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness? The Constitution doesn't guarantee that citizens of this country will be taken care of by others, but that all have the opportunity and freedom to put their hand to the plow and make a way for themselves and their families and to have the freedom to worship the way they want and to bear arms to protect what they have.

The Federal Government is NOT the answer to solving the ills of society and never will be. Name me ONE Government agency that is effective and operates with fiscal efficiency. The Constitution was created to put the primary burden of the social intervention of Government on the states. The states have to do so annually within their budgets. The Federal Government isn't capable of managing that and has been forced for decades to raid the Social Security funds, increase taxes, print more money and borrow from foreign governments just to kick the can down the road.

Rick Perry recently put forth an idea that I have been touting for several years: a part-time Congress. I am glad to see that idea beginning to get some attention. Of course I realize there is no way under the current structure that the “representatives” that are there now would ever vote themselves out of a career. It would have to start with term limits, which should have been in the Constitution from the beginning. The founding fathers saw no reason to put it in there because the original design WAS part-time representation. Back then Congress convened annually for a few months to take care of government business and then went back home to their farms and businesses.

Much of the problem on the Hill today is because all of our so called leaders spend way too much of their time congregating together and furthering the agendas of their crony supporters, instead of advocating for the rights and freedoms of their constituents. With today’s technology, why can’t they work primarily from an office in their home state? They would be more accessible and in tune with the voters. They could do committee meetings by conference call. They could receive proposed legislation by email and actually take the time to READ it before voting on it. They could then convene once or twice a year to debate and vote on the proposals. That was the original design of our representative government, without all the technological advances we have now.

Over the last 50 years we have grown into a culture of those who produce, and those who consume. The consumers now outnumber the producers. That is not sustainable and will eventually bankrupt this country. Where will the masses find their support when that happens? You might want to learn how to plant a garden and learn some principles of self-sufficiency. Isn’t that what the founding fathers had in mind to start with? Everyone work hard to provide for yourself and your families and the Government will guard the borders and waters and protect your freedoms and liberties. That philosophy is barely visible today. We don’t need a new vision for America; we need to restore the original one.

I think it is time we put some new leadership in charge that will treat the Government like a business and start making the tough decisions that aren't driven by political gain. Like Entitlement Reform, Illegal Immigration, Social Security Reform, Tax Reform, etc. We should shut the entire Federal Government down and start over from scratch with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights and tell every American, "If you don't like it, the gates to Canada and Mexico are open for one way traffic."

The Disenfranchised Un-pickers

The first primary of 2012 in New Hampshire went as most people expected with Mitt Romney winning with a double digit margin of victory. Not a surprise, since he has lived in New Hampshire for awhile and was Governor of bordering state Massachusetts. The surprise was the fact that Ron Paul finished second and Jon Huntsman finished third. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich finished virtually tied for fourth with 10% each. Rick Perry received less than 1% after skipping the state.

What is beginning to infuriate me is the fact that there seems to be so much emphasis being placed on the early states picking their choices. Why Iowa and New Hampshire? Do they represent the views and values of the rest of America? Are they the pulse of the Republican Party?

Why is it that two states that have traditionally been “blue states” get to have such an impact on picking who the rest of the country will get to vote on for their nominee? Iowa has 7 delegates and has only gone Republican once (2004) since Reagan was President. New Hampshire has 4 delegates and has gone Republican twice (1988 and 2000) since Reagan. In 1988 they picked George H.W. Bush, who won in a landslide against Michael Dukakis. In 2000 they surprisingly picked George W. Bush over Al Gore, but didn’t vote to re-elect him in 2004.

Not only that, Iowa allows voters to register and participate in their caucus the day of voting. New Hampshire allows Independents and Democrats to vote in their primary. Many pundits use these facts to explain how Ron Paul did so well in both of these states. We aren’t even sure what percentage of the voters were registered Republicans. Is that fair to the people in the “red states” that actually are?

Why can’t all primaries be on the same day? Let’s stop all this nonsense and overspending of money and resources on a few people in a couple of small states that aren’t even solid Republican voters. If candidates didn’t have to put so much focus on the early races they might be able to stay in the race long enough to garner the support they need to make a viable run at the office. Divide up the delegates based on the percentage of votes and see who gets the most in ALL of the states combined.

We have already seen Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain exit the race due to the results of the primary process in Iowa. They were probably the two most conservative candidates in the race. It’s not fair that the early states get to have such a large impact on picking who the rest of us will get to vote for on Super Tuesday? Who will be left on the ballot by then?

South Carolina and Florida are next up. South Carolina is the first “red state” to have its primary and should be the first true barometer for where the constituency is leaning. Florida has always been a swing state and with 25 delegates is the fourth largest state in electoral votes. With the momentum from “sweeping” the first two contests to carry him into these primaries it is possible that Mitt Romney may have successfully run off all challengers by the time Super Tuesday arrives. I don’t know about you but that possibility makes me feel like a disenfranchised un-picker, since I may not have any say as to who the nominee is. This system needs to change so that the “true voice” of the people can be heard.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

The 2012 Presidential Election Cycle has officially begun with the recent Iowa Caucus and the upcoming New Hampshire primary. Election years always make my blood pressure harder to regulate. I can’t help the fact that I am passionate about this country. The last Presidential race and then the 2010 mid-term elections took a toll on me that I frankly didn’t think I would recover from. Yet, here I am again all fired up with another election year.

What is that sound I am hearing? It is the footsteps of all those political surrogates and volunteers marching out of Iowa and on to New Hampshire or South Carolina. The people of Iowa have had their chance to speak, after being courted by all the Republican candidates for the past 6 months. What do the voting results really say about this year’s race? The answer depends largely on which ear you listen to. I try to be unbiased, listen to both sides and think independently, but it is honestly hard to hide my conservative leanings. So what am I hearing about this year’s race so far?

Let’s start from the top with the “not so clear winner” Mitt Romney. Most pundits didn’t expect him to win, so the fact that he did was a bit of a surprise. I don’t consider a winning margin of 8 votes or 25% much to celebrate about. Especially when you consider he easily has the best financed campaign and a four year head start on the field. He basically garnered the same base of support he had four years ago and has remained steady while the other 75% of the voters danced with multiple partners and struggled to pick their date to the prom.

First we had Michelle Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll a few months ago and seemed to be the darling of the tea party conservatives. She stood her ground in the debates and successfully landed a few good blows to some of her opponents. She was probably the main reason Tim Pawlenty exited the race early. Her thunder seemed to dissipate with the entrance of Rick Perry. Perry quickly surged to the top only to later falter after a couple of poor debate performances. Now Bachmann is suspending her campaign and bowing out of the race. I hope she keeps her options open because I think she would be a pretty good Attorney General for the next President.

Rick Perry entered the race and became an instant top tier candidate primarily because of two things. He is very outspoken about his faith, which speaks to the evangelicals in Iowa and his 10 plus years of executive experience as Governor of Texas. Perry is quick to point out that Texas has continued to thrive economically during the recession and has created more jobs than the rest of the country combined during his tenure. While that may be true, it has happened because of policies that were in place before he took the reins. Texas is a right to work state, with no state income tax and business friendly laws. Perry has not polished his message enough to overcome a couple of debate blunders that caused him to slip dramatically in the polls. Perry has vowed to move forward and has strong financial backing, so don’t count him out.

When Perry slipped, Herman Cain thrust upon the scene with his 9-9-9 plan and common sense approach that quickly resonated with voters. The conservative base quickly got behind him thinking it had found an outsider with the charisma and leadership necessary to lead the country. Unfortunately, Mr. Cain succumbed to an onslaught of allegations of sexual misconduct. Most were never substantiated but didn’t have to be. The barrage effectively ran Mr. Cain out of town and sent the conservatives into a frenzy.

Next up to the plate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Due in large part to stellar debate performances, Newt emerged as the new flavor of the week. The man definitely has the awareness and tenacity to handle the task at hand. His ideas are clear and concise on every major issue in the campaign and his directness and candor reflect the experience and wisdom of a man confident in his ability to lead. With over 30 years of public track record and many past transgressions, it wasn’t long before the negative ads began whittling down the pillars of strength that had been erected to portray Newt as the frontrunner. Finishing fourth in Iowa was a huge disappointment after having a near double-digit lead a few weeks ago. Newt is marching on and promising to take the gloves off for the next round.

Finishing third in Iowa was Texas Congressman Ron Paul. With a large faithful and passionate following of supporters, Paul has been holding his own against the other top tier candidates. His stances are the most unique of any candidate. His Libertarian views on State rights, the Federal Reserve and Constitutional Law have been embraced by many and are the core principles behind his support. His foreign policy views and a few odd statements he has made concerning Iran, illegal immigration, and the legalization of marijuana have kept a large number of conservatives from getting behind his candidacy. He has a loyal following of about a quarter of the party but will continue to struggle to attract the necessary broad support it takes to win the nomination.

The surprise of Iowa was former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Losing the Iowa caucuses by a mere 8 votes was a victory by any definition. Rick was underfunded compared to most of his rivals. His surge happened at the right time and his primary support came from the fact that he worked the hardest on the ground, covering all 99 counties of the state. This stealth operation snuck up on the competition and caught them totally off guard. That won’t happen again. The scrutiny will surely intensify moving forward. Will the reliance on grass roots effort carry him to continued success?

Here is my take on the current pulse of the race. Romney is being called the “25 per center” by Obama strategist David Axelrod. He has a point when you consider that four years ago he got about the same percentage and four years later the state isn’t much fonder of him even with his frontrunner status. Why is it Romney can’t seem to break through the threshold into the 30% range? That is an interesting question to ask, especially in Iowa. Many pundits make statements that he is viewed as too moderate, which is why he is enjoying a double-digit lead in more moderate New Hampshire. If that is the case, it shows enough vulnerability to be a concern to the Romney campaign. After all, Iowa has been a blue state in 7 of the last 8 elections.

Most veteran pundits offer the common strategy of winning the independent voters as a key to victory. They also claim that the majority of those independent voters are moderates. If that is the case, then Romney should have won Iowa in a landslide. The fact that he didn’t should dispel that theory. If you add up all the votes of Santorum, Paul, Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann you have 75% of the vote. All of those candidates are considered more conservative than Romney. It is clear that the conservatives far outnumber the moderates, at least in Iowa. The only reason there was not a clear and decisive winner is the division of the conservative vote among five candidates.

Until a clear choice emerges from among those five to unite the conservatives, Romney will continue to be at the top. If the Republicans really want to win in November, they need to unite behind the strongest of the five and merge their strengths into a winning platform of ideas that address the primary concerns of the people. Will that happen in South Carolina, Florida or beyond? Stay tuned, it could get interesting.

Don't Raise The Ceiling, Open The Door

Don’t Raise The Ceiling, Open The Door

So what is the real fear for this Administration if the Debt ceiling is not raised? That we can’t pay our obligations? That grandma won’t get her Social Security check? That single moms won’t be able to feed their babies? The answer is no, although that is what they want the public to believe. What they are really afraid of is their shopping spree will end and when the costs of Obamacare kicks in there won’t be any money to fund it. To that I say, “You should have thought of that before you crammed it down our throats.” Now you want us to allow the Govt. to borrow more and go even deeper in debt. Where does it end?

I’ve been a millionaire in my life, on paper at least, before I made some bad investment decisions and lost it. I’ve also been bankrupt. I’ve lived in the upper tax bracket and I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck. What that has taught me is “DEBT IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR WEALTH”. My successes and failures only affected me and my family, because I was gambling with my own money. I guess you could say I’ve paid millions for my education in balancing a budget. The lessons aren’t any different than many families face every month; learning to live within our income.

My wife clips coupons, shops at thrift stores, yard sales and flea markets all to stretch the spending power of every dollar I make. The thrill of bargain hunting keeps her focused and determined to provide everything we need for as little as possible. In twenty-four years of marriage we have never had a single credit card. Yet through the peaks and valleys we have never gone hungry or not had a roof over our head. My hard work and her thriftiness has always been enough to sustain us.

This country was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Happiness is not a Constitutional right. The freedom to pursue our own course towards our destiny is. The problem with the mindset in the Federal Government today is the ideology of social justice. The current Administration believes that it is their responsibility to level the playing field and that Government is the answer to every social ill in America. While that may sound like a noble cause it is an impossible task to accomplish. The Govt. is trying to be Robin Hood, but it really is the Hood that keeps Robbin’ the producers in this country to fund its agenda. That is unsustainable. You can’t solve problems with other people’s money, because eventually you run out of other people’s money. That is where we are today. The number of producers in the system are outnumbered by the recipients and that gap is going to continue to widen as more baby boomers retire and fewer young producers enter the system.

Here are some facts and the truth that they aren’t telling us. The Federal Govt. collects an average of around $200 Billion dollars, per month. That adds up to $2.4 Trillion dollars a year. That is close to the amount that they want to increase the debt ceiling. In simple math terms, that means THEY are spending almost twice as much as THEY are bringing in. That is irresponsible spending. They also accumulated unprecedented amounts of debt without even passing a budget for over a year. How can a Govt. run without a budget? Quite well actually, when there are no restraints on spending and no limits to the supply of money. This Administration is backed into a corner, because the money supply is almost gone and they don’t want or know HOW to restrain spending.

So they use scare tactics to convince the people that the Govt. tap is going to get shut off and have devastating impact on the everyday lives of all those well deserving recipients at the trough. It will be so horrible when the Govt. can’t fulfill its obligations to take care of the widows, feed the hungry, and help the downtrodden survive. Since when was that the Government’s responsibility anyway? Nothing makes me more nauseous than hearing Obama quote the book of Matthew as his justification for “social justice.”

I’ve read the book many times and have yet to read anywhere in there about the Government being the answer. God is a jealous God you know.

So will defaulting on the debt stop the funding of the current entitlements? Let’s look at some more facts: The interest on the national debt right now is about $20 billion per month. That’s only 10% of the revenue brought in each month. So how can you default if the interest payment is that low? The remaining $180 million can also easily cover Social Security and Medicare payments as well. There is even plenty of money to pay for all of our current military expenditures, although that is an area we are way over committed on. That all adds up to roughly 70% of Government spending. The remaining $60 Billion should then be prioritized on an as needed basis. This is where the sweat begins to develop on the brow of our current leaders. These are the real decisions that they don’t want to make.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, “Prioritizing Government payments won’t work because it would spur deep cuts in other disbursements and still cause investors to shun U. S. Treasury securities.” Isn’t that exactly what needs to happen? Let me ask you a question. If you were China or any of our other “lenders”, which would make you more nervous about getting paid back, continued increase in debt or reduction in debt? That is pretty much a no-brainer. Of course, what do you expect from someone who can’t even do his own taxes right?

There are only two possible solutions to the debt issue. It’s the same solutions every household in America faces daily. We either have to spend less or earn more. It’s really that simple and always has been. The problem is we have two solutions, one from each side of the argument, and both sides’ stubbornness and posturing is not creating any real plan that both sides can agree on that really addresses those tough decisions that neither side wants to make. Nobody can agree on where to cut spending.

“The United States now borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends, prioritizing payments without raising the debt ceiling would force the U.S. to cut 40 percent of all government expenditures. Such spending cuts would have painful implications for people in every walk of American life.” – Tim Geithner, Secr. Of Treasury.

Again more scare tactics, this time directed at military and their families, veterans and government employees. I am not an anti-war libertarian, I believe in a strong military defense. However, do we really need 700 military bases across the globe? Do we really need over a 100,000 troops spread across the Middle East and Africa? Cut the budget, “Open the Door” and bring them home. Give them some much deserved time off with their families and then send them to our borders to “defend” our country.

Now let’s look at Government employees. Are all of them necessary? Are all of the agencies they work for even necessary? Make the tough decisions and audit every single department of Govt. and cut the budgets by at least 10%. When you add up all the employee benefits including holidays, sick days and vacation days, the Govt. probably operates at about 90% staffing already. Wouldn’t paying 10% of the Government employees unemployment be much less strain on the Govt.? Make the tough decision and “Open the Door”.

Why won’t they make these cuts? Because, it would make the Unemployment numbers move above 10% with an election coming up. We can’t fire that many people. If we can run the country without them, why are there in the first place? “Open the Door,” and this time hand them a shovel so they will be qualified to get one of those jobs CREATED by this Administration.

The one area we didn’t discuss is on the revenue side. Of course the quick answer from the left side of the aisle is always increase taxes and stick it to those greedy, wealthy people. I don’t think anyone can argue that increasing revenue should also be a major point of discussion in this Debt Debate. The real debate should be trying to figure out how to raise revenue without having a negative effect on the economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy 5% of Americans who make over $200,000 would help, but would not solve the problem. There aren’t enough of them to pay off the debt even if you taxed them 100%. Besides, most of us either work for or sell products and services to all those wealthy people. Encourage them to spend it.

The revenue source that would provide a continuous stream of income would be to create REAL jobs. Create more taxpayers. How do you do that? For starters, open up drilling and REAL energy exploration like Natural Gas conversion and Clean Coal technology. How fast could we pay off the debt if we had all the money we spend on foreign oil going back into our economy? Reduce the employer matching portion on a new employee for the first year to encourage businesses to train and expand their workforce. We have to get people back to work on REAL jobs so they can pay taxes and spend money, which creates more jobs.One last thing. Where is all that money WE gave to the banks to bail them out? They need to loosen up and loan some of that money out for business expansion and home buying. Both of those will create additional jobs.

Well, gotta go for now. Someone is at the Door.

Will the leader of the Tea Party please step up?

After pondering whether or not I wanted to step into the fire on this issue, here is my response to the NAACP. I AM NOT a leader of ANY tea party organization. Although I do admit to at one time being on the board of a 9/12 Project group and currently on the board of Athens Brigade, a non-partisan poll watching organization.

Personally, I have no problem with the fact that the NAACP is requesting Tea Party leaders to repudiate racism. However, they are missing one major point. The "Tea Party" is not a National Organization and has no "Leader." The Tea Party is not a "Federally Funded Non-Profit Organization" that gets to elect leaders to draft divisive resolutions and use the media to spew racially divisive rhetoric.

I have attended many rallies and events, some “tea party” events, some “9/12” events, etc. What little fringe activity I have witnessed were from outsiders who were sent to infiltrate and discredit the event. They were quickly addressed peacefully, without incident. Although I am sure someone conveniently captured the moment on film and made it to be more than it was.

What the NAACP really wants is for someone to step up and claim leadership of the Tea Party Movement so they can brand them and put a bull’s-eye on their back. If you want repudiation of racism by tea partiers, ask any of them. We all think racism is disgusting. Right now we're disgusted that the NAACP is stirring this up just days after the New Black Panther Party was let off the hook for "documented, blatant racism."

Civil War II: Will history repeat itself? Part 3

Last week we looked at some early disputes over state rights and sovereignty that date back as early as the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment. Depending on which side of the aisle that your political philosophy is influenced by, this issue has different meaning. There have always been disputes between the parties about the size and scope of the centralized federal government and the responsibilities and powers of the individual states to govern inside their own borders.

The Tenth Amendment states: “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.” After the ratification of the Constitution, an amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated was presented, which would have denied “implied powers.” When the Tenth Amendment passed and was ratified, the word "expressly" did not appear in it, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1997, the Court ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment because it required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

There are many laws on the books that require implementation by State Government. However, the difference is states aren’t forced to participate, but are rather “encouraged” to do so through funding directives. Almost all policy regarding education for example requires the states to implement them and the funding for education is based on objectives set forth by the federal government. Other examples are the speed limit law, DUI laws, etc. and those cases the “withholding” of funding for roads and infrastructure for non-compliance is used as an incentive to participate and implement those laws.

In the last couple of years especially, we are seeing quite a bit of legislation and policy that is “unpopular” by the majority of citizens in this country. The recently passed health-care legislation created a major awakening of the people as to the scope of government control. Add other proposals such as cap and trade, immigration reform, financial industry reform, stimulus bills, bailouts, and government takeover of companies and industries and you have widespread unrest and concern in society.

If you look at approval polls, the people’s confidence in Congress is at all-time lows. They simply don’t trust the decision makers in Washington. That is why interest in “nullification”, “state’s rights”, and “state sovereignty” are gaining traction. People sense that the “rejection” of the federal government at the state level may be the best avenue to take. The following are examples of recent activity among the states along these lines:

In 2009-2010 thirty eight states introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Tenth Amendment Center, an organization seeking to promote the concept of state sovereignty, has gathered information on various actions taken by state legislatures in protest to federal actions. The organization is bipartisan. The movement has quietly gained support in a number of states.

§ State Sovereignty Resolutions ("10th Amendment Resolutions") – During 2009, "state sovereignty resolutions" or "10th Amendment Resolutions" were introduced in the legislatures of 38 states; in seven states the resolutions have already passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). As of April 2010, resolutions were introduced or reintroduced into the legislatures of 19 states; so far this year the resolution has passed in five states (Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming).

§ State Sovereignty Bills ("10th Amendment Bills") – In 2010, (Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) Tenth Amendment supporters have introduced "State Sovereignty Bills" (one step beyond the Resolution stage discussed above), which would mandate action against what the state legislature perceives as unconstitutional federal legislation; none have made it past the introductory stage.

§ Firearms Freedom Act Legislation and Federal Gun Laws Nullification – As of April 2010, resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would "declare that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states". The legislation passed in Montana and Tennessee in 2009 and in Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming the following year. South Carolina has taken the issue one step further: in 2010 a bill was introduced which would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the state.

§ National Health Care Nullification – As of March 2010, legislators in 30 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Virginia. Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010. On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance. On March 17, 2010, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill requiring the Attorney General to sue the Federal Government if Idaho residents are required to buy health insurance.

§ State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Acts – As of March 2010, legislators in three states have introduced legislation which would require businesses (and in some cases, individuals) to remit their Federal tax payments to the state Treasurer (or equivalent body) for deposit into an escrow fund. If the state Legislature determined that a portion of the federal budget was not constitutional, or if the federal government imposed penalties or sanctions upon the state for creating the fund, then the money would be withheld.) None have advanced beyond the introductory stage.

§ "Sanctuary city" – another form of protest against enforcement of immigration laws, several United States cities have declared themselves "sanctuary cities", whereby they have ordered the local police department to specifically not work with United States Customs and Border Protection officials to arrest persons illegally residing within the boundaries of the city, and to not inquire as to a person's immigration status, even if the person was arrested.

§ “Immigration Enforcement”—Of course, in the last few months the Arizona Immigration Law has created a national stir on both sides of the issue. Arizona passed a law that basically gives local and state authorities the ability to enforce “federal immigration law” already on the books and to require documentable proof of citizenship be carried by individuals at all times. When the bill goes into effect any person pulled over or interrogated by authorities can be required to provide “their papers.”

We will pick up here next week in the conclusion of this series and also look at “state militias.” Stay tuned.

Civil War II: Will history repeat itself? Part Two

In part one of this series I wrote about the effect slavery had on the Civil War and compared our current issue of illegal immigration and some of the effect it is having on society today. We also looked at the division of the country and how the issue of slavery and states’ rights caused the first Civil War. Now, let’s define states’ rights and their origin and how it applies today.

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution collectively are what is known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. There were many disagreements among the early leaders of this nation after the original drafting of the Constitution. Many were dissatisfied with the limited guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution. That led the founding fathers to further expand and highlight personal rights as well as define boundaries and limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments.

For over 200 years the interpretation of the Constitution has been debated. One of the first major debates was between cabinet members under George Washington’s Presidency. Andrew Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, disagreed on the clause giving Congress all powers "necessary and proper" for carrying the specified powers into effect. Hamilton used his interpretation to establish a national bank and his desired financial program. However, in the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson discovered a bar to congressional legislation of that kind: no power to establish a bank having been delegated to Congress, that power must have been reserved to the states. President Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bills that Congress passed to enact Hamilton's plan. Eventually Jefferson withdrew from the Washington administration.

Jefferson and James Madison organized opposition to it and thus created two political parties with differing views on the subject, The Federalist Party and the Republican Party. The Federalist Party was willing to exploit the "implied powers" of the Constitution, while the Republican Party demanded a "strict construction" of the document. This continues today in the Democratic Party’s continued philosophy of the expansion of the federal government and the Republican Party’s philosophy of less federal government and more state’s rights to govern themselves. That is still the core battleground of political debate in Washington today on most issues and legislation.

The Republicans, still convinced that much of the Federalist legislation was unconstitutional, were further outraged when, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided for the fining and imprisoning of those who uttered anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" against the government, the Congress, or the president. The Republicans felt that was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, which stated that Congress “should pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press.”

There was also disagreement concerning what agency should have the power to decide the question of constitutionality? The Constitution vaguely gives the Supreme Court the power to decide, and the Republicans denied that the Court could rightfully assume that power. They argued that the state legislatures should decide and ably expounded their views in two sets of resolutions, one written (anonymously) by Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky legislature (1798--1799) and the other drafted by Madison and approved by the Virginia legislature (1798). These resolutions asserted the following propositions: The Federal government had been formed by a contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. Whenever it attempted to exercise any additional, undelegated powers, its acts were "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures must serve as "sentinels" to watch out for unconstitutional acts. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. The resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and in demanding their repeal at the next session of Congress, but none of the other states went along with Virginia and Kentucky.

State rights and strict construction were usually the arguments of the party out of power (and have been throughout American history). As long as the Republicans were outsiders, they remained strict constructionists, but once Jefferson became President, they used the full powers of the Federal government to further the agrarian interests they represented. Indeed, they used much more than the rightful and constitutional powers, according to the Federalists, who now adopted the state rights point of view. So, political debate over the power of government is as old as government itself. When you have two opposing schools of thought with legitimate points of view you can have effective and productive government as long as the balance of power and checks and balances are in place. Anytime one party gains too much control and power we lose that balance. That is happening today with strong opposition from the majority of Americans right now that believe the federal government is over-reaching its power.

The first threat of state secession from the union came during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalist Party disagreed with the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. The leader of that opposition, Daniel Webster, tried unsuccessfully to get New England to secede. Jefferson, after his retirement from the presidency, joined in opposing the Federalist-minded judges as "sappers and miners" who were undermining the Constitution. Now doesn’t that sound familiar? That is a major part of the argument today between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Former vice-president John Calhoun was another early leader in the philosophical battles over governmental control. While a Congressman from South Carolina he favored the War of 1812 and advocated protective tariffs, internal improvements at Federal expense, and a national bank. Calhoun was the early architect of a system for state resistance to unconstitutional laws. He refined and elaborated the doctrine of sentinelship that Jefferson and Madison had begun. His theory focused on the assumption that the people (not the government) in each state were sovereign and, in their sovereign capacity, had ratified and thus given validity to both the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. They had done so, he argued, through their delegates in specially elected conventions. In this ratification process he discovered the procedure for dealing with questions of constitutionality. A state convention--not the state legislature as in Madison's and Jefferson's proposal-- could nullify a Federal law. That law would remain null and void within the state until three-fourths of all the states had ratified a constitutional amendment specifically giving Congress the power in question. If they should ever do so, the nullifying state would still have a recourse--secession. Just as a state could "accede" to the Union by ratifying the Constitution, it could "secede" by repealing its ordinance of ratification.

In 1832, South Carolina put nullification to the test when a state convention declared all protective tariffs, particularly those of 1828 and 1832, to be null and void within the state. Calhoun having resigned the vice presidency, presented the case for the nullifiers before the Senate, Daniel Webster, now a senator from Massachusetts, debated the opposing view. Webster contended, "The truth is, and no ingenuity of argument, no subtlety of distinction, can evade it, that, as to certain purposes, the people of the United States are one people." According to the new Webster, a state might secede from the Union, but only on the basis of the right of revolution, not on the basis of any constitutional right. While remaining in the Union, however, a state could not nullify congressional acts, for nullification was no right at all, he maintained.

President Andrew Jackson, agreeing with Webster, denounced nullification as treason and asked Congress for authority to use the army and the navy to enforce the laws. Though the nullificationists had sympathizers in other Southern states, not one of those states officially endorsed the South Carolina stand. Calhoun claimed a victory for nullification when Congress passed and Jackson signed a compromise bill for gradually lowering the tariff. Calhoun came to realize that a single state, unaided, was powerless to interpose against Federal authority. So he set about cultivating a spirit of unity among all the slave states. According to Calhoun, slavery occupied a special place in the Constitution, and in his theory of state rights. He insisted that it was the only kind of property that the Constitution specifically recognized (though, in fact, the document did not mention slavery by name; instead referring to "free Persons" and "all other Persons" and to a "Person held to Service or Labor"). Therefore, nullification could be used to defend or strengthen slavery but not to attack or weaken it. We will pick up here in part 3 of this series next week.