Perri Nelson's Website

For those we lost, We will not forget 09/11/2001

“If the bank loans you a million dollars, the bank has a problem. If the bank loans you a billion dollars, the US government has a problem.”
— Mark Steyn, September 17, 2008

“Actually, if the bank loans you a billion dollars, the U.S. Taxpayer has a problem.”
— Perri Nelson, September 17, 2008

A step over the line

Published Tue, Oct 9 2007 9:25 AM
Technorati Tags: Courts, Federalism, States Rights, Founders

I'm sure that if you've read my rantings here you've figured out by now that I think the federal government has amassed considerably more power than it was ever authorized under the constitution. I'd like to see a return to the government our constitution authorized.

I'd also like to think that I'm a realist. It just isn't going to happen in my lifetime. At least, not without more people thinking about what the constitution actually says instead of what they want it to mean.

Our constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal government to only those necessary to bind the states into a single nation so that it could put a unified face before the world. Governance and provision for the people was a power that was left to the states.

Today the left wants the federal government to provide ever more and more social services, at the expense of the richest of the taxpayers. Things like social security, medicare, and the SChip program are not things that the federal government has any business providing.

Whether these programs are beneficial or not isn't the point. Whether they are popular or not isn't the point. The federal government has exceeded its authority and usurped powers that rightly belong to the states to provide them.

If these programs provide benefit to the people, and if the people really want them, then they aught to be provided by the states, with programs tailored to the needs of the individual states. The federal constitution reserves the power to do this to the states.

Thomas Jefferson understood this. The PatriotPost's Founders Quote Daily quotes him regarding the foundation of our government.

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 15 February 1791)

Sadly, that single step was taken long ago when the supreme court declared a "property right" in an appointed office. The court declared that it had no jurisdiction in that case, but went on to establish for itself a role that the constitution did not give it, that of final arbiter of how the constitution should be interpreted.

It's too bad that Alexander Hamilton was wrong when he wrote Federalist #81. He was trying to respond to the objection that

"The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. ... But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless."

He stated that

This upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.

The case of Marbury v Madison proved him wrong regarding the "false reasoning". All it took was a single chief justice to decide that a power never granted to the court in fact belonged to it.

That single step over the line was the beginning of a judicial oligarchy that has replaced our republic. A small group of unelected and essentially unaccountable men and women now have complete authority over the federal, state, and local governments.

The congress takes on powers that were never granted to it and the supreme court aids and abets them. Congress authorizes social programs that are the province of the states and the supreme court looks on with approval. Congress enacts laws that restrict our freedom of political speech (McCain-Feingold comes to mind) and the supreme court blesses them.

And now nothing restrains the federal government from taking power that does not belong to it.

Cross posted at NW Bloggers.

Comments (0) | Trackbacks (2)

irtexas trackbacked with "You are SEO tagged!"
Shadowscope trackbacked with "SEO Tag?"

Crooks and liars

Published Tue, Oct 9 2007 12:07 AM
Technorati Tags: Elections, Courts, ACLU, Politics

It's a truism isn't it that all politicians are liars? The left is very fond of the claim that "Bush Lied, People Died", even though it's been refuted many times. We all know that President Clinton lied. In fact he committed perjury. Of course he was "only lying about sex", so it wasn't a big deal. Heck, the media even praised him for his ability to lie smoothly.

People expect politicians to lie. Campaign promises are made to be broken. Candidates regularly inflate their resumes. Elected officials lie about their records and the records of their rivals all of the time.

The truth can be a very elusive thing in politics. Speaking the truth about a politician can even get you in trouble with the Federal Elections Commission if you do it in the sixty days prior to an election. We have the "corruption" of our elected officials to blame for that. After all, the corruption of public officials was one of the primary arguments that Sen. McCain used to advance the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law.

Politicians though have always been above such things. Censorship and the suppression of citizens' rights to free speech is necessary to avoid corrupting influences in politics. It doesn't matter which side of the political aisle you're on.

As an example, consider the ill-fated immigration reform bill. People that read it recognized it for what it was… amnesty for illegal immigrants. Talk show hosts and bloggers spoke out against it, and their voice was heard… by the people. The people overwhelmed their Senators with phone calls, email and faxes urging them to defeat the amnesty bill.

What was the Senators' response? They complained that the people were "unduly" trying to influence them. They argued for restrictions on talk radio, because Rush Limbaugh was trying to run the country. The so-called "fairness" doctrine reared its ugly head once again.

Never mind the fact that the first amendment to the constitution says (emphasis added):

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

Despite these words, which were intended to protect the political speech of the people, our politicians have time and time again placed restrictions on political speech. The excuse is that they want to avoid the appearance of corruption, and the supreme court has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

So what do you think happened when the state of Washington enacted a law that banned politicians from intentionally lying about their opponents?

Well of course it was challenged.

Last Thursday, the supreme court of the state of Washington handed down its decision. Like so many court decisions these days, it was a split decision. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that by a vote of 5—4 the justices decided that lying in political campaigns is protected speech.

"The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment," Justice Jim Johnson wrote in the majority opinion.
The dissent called the decision "an invitation to lie with impunity."

It's not often that I find myself agreeing with the American Civil Liberties Union, but this is one of those occasions. This was a victory for free speech. The government has no business regulating political speech.

Now if only Sen. McCain and a few other Senators that don't like it when the people speak could be convinced of that.

This linkfest is for the 9th of October, 2007.

If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

Comments (2) | Trackbacks (28)

<	October, 2007					>
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
30	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31	1	2	3

Perri Nelson's Website

A step over the line

Crooks and liars

Archive

Posts for 10/9/2007

About You

Useful resources

A few links

My Other Blogs

Blogshares Related Links