The Commerce Clause versus the Ninth Amendment....

Congress has used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify numerous restrictions of the inalienable rights associated with firearms ownership protected by the Second Amendment. And yet, the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is clearly what has taken place. The enumeration to congress of the right to regulate commerce, which historically meant that congress was responsible to REGULARIZE (encourage the free-flow of) commerce, not restrict it, has been used to disparage and deny the inalienable rights associated with firearms ownership retained by the people under the Second Amendment.

With that in mind, it it time for all of us to bring pressure on our representatives to repeal such laws. The Gun Free School Zone Act is one such example; there are many others ("assault" weapons, hi cap mags, etc.). Congress, under Bush (who signed the original GFSZA in 1990), argued that, since the commerce clause gives it the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since nearly all firearms (or their individual components) must be obtained via interstate commerce, congress has the right to restrict the use of firearms. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, explicitly reserves the right of firearms ownership, use, and carry to the people. So my question is this: since such legislation is clearly a violation of the Ninth Amendment (making the legislation illegal and, therefore, unenforceable), why was it allowed to proceed in the first place, and why has it been allowed to remain and be enforced? The followup question is, since it has been allowed to remain, why is legislation and legal action to repeal such laws on the basis of the Ninth Amendment not being actively pursued?

Our legislators won't do it if we don't make it a priority. We are coming into an election year. There needs to be a groundswell of communication from the firearms owner community to those currently in office demanding the repeal of all firearms-restrictive legislation based on the commerce clause. This must be one of the litmus tests that determines whether a candidate is worthy of our consideration. Simply stating that firearms ownership is a "political right" as Gingrich recently did is not enough; we need to see a solid commitment to the principle that firearms ownership is an inalienable right protected by both the Second and Ninth Amendments of the Constitution.

Open Letter to Sen. Carl Levin....

December 20, 2011

Senator:

While I appreciate the lengthy response I received recently regarding my request that you support eliminating the Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA), I find the substance of your response to be very disturbing.

Sir, your first duty is the defense of the Constitution - not the furtherance of the Brady Campaign.  You have taken the following oath numerous times over your long career in the US legislature:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

And yet, as I have observed the policies you have pursued over the years, I find it troubling that so many of them result in increasing restrictions on the fundamental rights - the inalienable rights - guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights.  Our Second Amendment right is one such example.

Your response to me indicates that you believe that the solution to the problem of criminal activity involving firearms is to do away with the Second Amendment altogether - even though you didn’t say that in so many words.  And yet, as the shooting in Norway, a nation with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world, indicates, there is no way to stop an individual determined to commit a crime involving a firearm from obtaining and using one.  Washington, DC, Chicago, IL, and other such cities that so heavily regulate access to firearms are also the cities with the highest gun-related crime rates, while the FBI’s own statistics clearly prove a direct correlation between increasing numbers of legal firearms ownership and decreases in crime.

In 2000, the CATO Institute published the following report:

Gun Control: Myths and Realitiesby David LampoThe number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a "Million Mom March" to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother's Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it's easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case.

 Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.

 1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.

 False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

 2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

 False. Contrary to President Clinton's claims, there is no "gun show loophole." All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non- commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.

 3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.

 False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

 4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.

 True. The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. 5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.

 False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that "waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides."

 6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.

 False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let's hope more people are catching on. (Lampo, David. "Gun Control: Myths and Realities." May 13, 2000. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706 ).

While the idea of doing away with access to firearms may have a certain utopian attraction to some, reality teaches a different lesson - and it is a lesson that was well understood by leaders of the past.

Thomas Paine wrote, "...ARMS LIKE LAWS DISCOURAGE AND KEEP THE INVADER AND THE PLUNDERER IN AWE, AND PRESERVE ORDER IN THE WORLD AS AS WELL AS PROPERTY. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms [added observation -- I find Paine's point here highly debatable; history clearly demonstrates that, were all the world destitute of arms, someone would still develop weapons as a means of imposing their will on others], for all would be alike; but since some WILL NOT, others DARE NOT lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. HORRID MISCHIEF WOULD ENSUE WERE ONE HALF THE WORLD DEPRIVED OF THE USE OF THEM; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves (emphasis added)."  Paine understood that there will always be those who resort to weapons as the means of obtaining their ends, whether in international or interpersonal relations.  And while the notion of relying on law enforcement is a noble one, it is also naive.  Law enforcement is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent - even in a police state.  It will always take time for them to respond, by which time, in the vast majority of cases, the damage is already irreversible.  The recent incident in Detroit involving an 11 year old girl’s 911 call during a break-in, to which it took law enforcement 21 minutes to respond, is ample proof of this fact.

Here are other such examples:

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction" -- St. George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in Blackstone Commentaries, 1803

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe on the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent ‘the people’ of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms… " -- Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," Pierce & Hale, 1850 pg. 86-87"The great principle is that every man be armed.... everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

Senator, you have made a practice of justifying such legislation by appealing to the vaunted Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  And yet, as the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution clearly proclaims, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The Commerce Clause does not override the Second Amendment of the Constitution - regardless of your personal desires and agenda.  The right to bear arms is clearly one retained by the people.  The Danbury Baptists, in their letter to President Thomas Jefferson, made the following observation regarding the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name,person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

As was true of the above-referenced observation regarding the freedom of religion, our right to bear arms is not the object of legislation.  It is not a favor bestowed upon us by a beneficent legislature.  It is a fundamental, inalienable right protected by our Constitution.  And just as it true that freemen should not have to endure degrading and condescending behavior on the part of their legislators because of their religion, it is likewise true that freemen should not have to endure the same because of the exercise of the inalienable right guaranteed us in the Second Amendment.  

To those who have the eyes to see, it is manifestly evident that gun control laws have neither prevented outlaws from obtaining firearms, nor have they prevented them from carrying those same firearms into zones designate as “gun-free.”  Enacting even more gun control laws will not accomplish this task; it will only serve to continue furnishing outlaws with defenseless targets.  It may be cliche, but it is also unassailably true that where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  I sincerely hope, although I am not naive enough to truly believe this to be possible, that you will reconsider your position and return to your sworn duty to defend the Constitution - the whole Constitution.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011....

I sent the following resolution to my state legislators urging them to instruct our congressional representatives to remove section 1031, giving the President unconstitutional, unlimited power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charges or trial, from the NDAA of 2011.

I urge you to do the same.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS on Wednesday, March fourth, 1789, "THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added...", and

WHEREAS "...the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution...", and

WHEREAS said amendments were ratified by the legislatures of the several states December 15, 1791, and

WHEREAS the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees the citizens thereof that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized...", and

WHEREAS the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the Untied States guarantees the citizens thereof the right to due process, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" and

WHEREAS the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the Untied States guarantees the citizens thereof that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence....", let it be

RESOLVED that the Legislature of the Great State of Michigan does hereby recognize and declare that section 1031 of S. 1867, the United States Senate's National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, authorizing the President of the United States to send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians, including citizens of the United States, indefinitely without charge or trial based on suspicion alone is a fundamental violation of the rights embodied in the first amendments to the Constitution that were demanded by the conventions of the States as necessary to prevent the federal government from abusing its enumerated powers, and does hereby call on the duly elected representatives of the Great State of Michigan to the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives to vigorously pursue such actions as shall be necessary to remove section 1031 from S. 1867.

The Wisconsin "Mitten"......

If Wisconsin is so eager to be represented by an article of clothing, then I suggest this! It looks a lot more like the state of Wisconsin than any mitten!

Let's not forget - Wisconsin is better known for its cheese than just about anything else!  Leave the mitten to Michigan!

Re-framing the Second Amendment Debate.....

If firearm owners and the organizations that represent them hope to win the debate regarding the Second Amendment right to bear arms, then the entire debate must be re-framed.


For far too long, this debate has been framed by those who oppose a constructionist view of the Second Amendment solely in legal terms.  Therein lies the problem.  As any debater can tell you, the first axiom of debate is that the side that frames the debate ultimately wins the debate. 


As was true of the fight to secure the right of minorities to vote, among other social issues, we will only truly make ground when we come to realize that the Second Amendment expresses a human right.  The Bill of Rights is entirely about human rights, those rights that were recognized by the States as having been bestowed upon humans by God Himself. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because, as originally written, the Constitution, masterpiece that it is, failed to provide protections for these most basic rights.  It was for this reason, to insure that the Constitution did not create yet another all-powerful centralized government that had no regard for the inherent rights of its citizens, that the Bill of Rights was created in the first place.  Before the right to bear arms is a legal right, it is first a human right.


This recognition will change the complexion of the debate that surrounds current treatments of the Second Amendment. The sooner firearm owners and the organizations that represent them come to terms with this realization, the sooner we will begin to re-frame this debate in terms of a basic human right, and the sooner we will be able to establish a firmer legal foundation for our right to self-defense and the accompanying right to bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment.

Why Businesses Must Recognize the Individual's Right to Carry.....

At some level, I have always known this to be true, but the recent situation with Frank Eckl, a disabled veteran who was denied his civil and legal right to be accompanied into the eating area of a Grand Rapids, MI, area restaurant by his service dog, Spruce, brought this issue into clearer focus.  You see, our right to self-defense is as much a civil right as is our right to be accompanied into a business by a service animal, or the right of minorities and women to have access to privately-owned businesses and clubs.  It is as critical a civil right as our rights of speech, religion, association, press - all of the rights protected under the Bill of Rights, which are all summed up as our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The fact that self-defense - at any place and any time - is a civil right has gotten lost in the emotional arguments advanced by those who would selectively determine which rights they choose to allow us to exercise.  The laws exist to protect those rights, and they are CIVIL rights before they are LEGAL rights.

So when we make the argument that we cannot legally mandate that an owner of a privately-owned business/manufacturing facility/place of commerce or employment allow someone who is exercising their right to self-defense access to their property while carrying on their person the means to protect that right, the argument doesn't hold up.  We have hundreds of laws, both state and federal, that override those private property rights, especially when the private property is a business/manufacturing facility/place of commerce or employment, to insure that the civil rights of patrons and employees are recognized and protected.  Our laws tell the owners of these private properties that they must admit service animals; they must admit minorities; they must build their properties in such a way as to accommodate the rights of the disabled to have full access to their private property, including the kinds of bathroom fixtures they must provide, the width of doorways, or the number of parking places that are reserved for their exclusive use - just to give a few examples.  These laws not only tell them what they may or may not do on their privately-owned property, they also require them to make such provisions at their own expense and subject them to legal penalties if they fail to make such provisions.

So why must the owners of such privately-held properties be required to allow a citizen carrying their legally-owned sidearm onto their property?  Because civil rights are our God-given, natural rights, and the law does not allow them to pick and choose which civil rights they will allow to be exercised.

Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists....

The letter from the Danbury Baptist to Pres. Thomas Jefferson:

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious
liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter
between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you
enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association, Nehemiah Dodge
                                                     Ephraim Robbins
                                                     Stephen S. Nelson

Jefferson's response - perhaps one of the most misconstrued letters in the history of our nation: 

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect, I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.

While the religiosity of Thomas Jefferson may be a matter of debate, his steadfast adherence to other principles is not. 


The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson out of a growing concern that the government was beginning to venture into areas that would jeopardize religious freedoms, perhaps to the point of naming a state religion, as had been done in England. Three points are of great concern, and Jefferson's response to their letter tells us much about the Constitutional extent of the authorities enumerated to the government.

First, the Danbury Baptists expressed their concern that the right to religious freedom was being treated by the government more "as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights..."  Second, they asserted that "...the president of the United States is not the national legislator..."  Third, they further asserted that "...the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state..."

Jefferson's response is telling, both by what he explicitly states, and what he leaves untouched.   His response regarding the "...wall of eternal separation between Church & State..." is directed solely at the government; he clearly states that the wall was one-way, addressing the stated concern that religious belief and practice were being treated as favors instead of inalienable rights. The "eternal wall" to which he referred preserved the right of the individual conscience, recognizing that such matters were between God and man, while severely limiting the government's ability to intervene in such beliefs and practices. He clearly enunciates the principle that the governance of religious exercise is the sole concern of each religious sect. At no point does he give any indication that, conversely, religious belief has no place on public life.


This is what he explicitly addresses. His failure to address the second and third assertions is equally significant. Jefferson is consistent (going back to the Kentucky resolutions) in maintaining that the federal government is to have as little impact on the daily lives of citizens as is possible. The President has no power to legislate on his own; he can only execute legislation developed by Congress. In the same manner, and contrary to what we are witnessing today, Congress is powerless to devise legislation that is at-odds with the laws of the individual States.

With Jefferson's views so clearly communicated, one has to wonder how such contrarian notions as those underlying our government in this day could ever have been developed.

Time for the States to Resume Their Rightful Role as the Overseers of the Federal Government....

Over the course of the last year I have once again been reminded just how important is our Bill of Rights.  In some very significant ways, it is even more important than the Constitution it amends.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights share one critical component, however - both required the ratification of the States, an explicit recognition of the supreme place occupied by the States in our republican form of government.


It is that component that elevates the Bill of Rights to a position of supremacy over the Constitution.


According to the Preamble, the Bill of Rights was demanded by the States in order to restrict Congress from over-regulating our lives, to insure that basic rights were safeguarded from a potentially power-hungry centralized government.


The States first created the federal government by ratifying the Constitution.


The States then formulated measures intended to restrict and regulate the federal government.


It is time once again for the States to exercise their rightful role to bring Congress back into compliance with the Bill of Rights, to insure that Congress exercises its Constitutionally-enumerated powers in a manner consistent with the preservation of the rights enshrined in that first set of amendments to the Constitution.

Will We Bow to Fear? An Open Letter to Michigan's Legislators (Originally posted 1/12/2011)

Senators,

As the following article warns us, a couple of legislators are going to use the unfortunate events that transpired in Arizona to try to push through legislation that will seriously limit our freedom of expression and speech.  I urge you to please read this article, and then, with John Green, the father of 9 year old Christina-Taylor Green (who died in the Arizona shooting), refuse to bow to fear:  “In a free society, we’re going to be subjected to people like this, but I prefer that to the alternative...”  I urge you to vote against this legislation when it is brought to the floor.  We have sacrificed enough of our freedoms in the effort to remain insulated from fear and insecurity.

Will We Bow to Fear?  by Michael Maharrey

“And the things that we fear are a weapon to be held against us…” 

Rahm Emanuel had the gall to say it out loud, but the principle seems to exist inside the skull of virtually every politician on the planet – you don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste. 

Less than 48 hours after a man gunned down Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the politicians quickly went to work capitalizing on this horrible act. 

Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., announced Monday that he plans to introduce legislation making it a federal crime to use symbols “that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.” 

“The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” Brady said during a CNN interview.  (emphasis added)

While Brady shuts down expression,  Rep. Carolyn McCarthy seized on the shooting to advance her pet cause – gun control. The New York Democrat wants Congress to ban high capacity ammunition clips for handguns. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) says he was prepared to introduce a similar bill in the Senate. 

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Lautenberg said in a statement. “These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market.” 

It’s easy to scream, “We have to do something!” and demand immediate action when caught up in the emotion of a national tragedy. But that reaction roots itself in fear. And as Peart wrote, fear serves as a weapon far deadlier than any 33 bullet clip. 

Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 8 that people will willingly hand over their liberties when staring into terror’s face. “To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”  Politicians understand this and use it to their advantage, twisting tragedy into opportunites to consolidate power and advance their causes.

Keeping this in mind, perhaps we should slow down for a moment – pause in the heat of our emotion and consider Benjamin Franklin’s admonishment.  
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” 

Amazingly, a voice of sanity comes from a man who truly suffered a loss in this tragedy. 

John Green’s 9-year-old daughter died Saturday. Christina-Taylor Green was born on 9-11 and was the only girl on an all boy baseball team, intelligent and interested in the political process. 

As the father of a daughter, I can’t even fathom John’s suffering. If anybody has a right to lash out and make demands, he does.


But he refuses to bow to fear. 


“In a free society, we’re going to be subjected to people like this, but I prefer that to the alternative,” he said. (Bolding added)

Time for the FairTax (Re-post)

We need a system under which tax incentives are not necessary, and a tax system under which loopholes are non-existent. We have tried the income tax and business tax systems, but they are riddled with loopholes, and those who are at the lower end of the scale usually end up paying more of the cost. We have tried incentivizing businesses; that helped put us into the financial hole in which we now find ourselves, because A) the government provided more tax abatements than it was receiving in revenues, and B) too many companies took advantage of the abatements as short-term profit grabs, and then split without ever producing the promised long-term jobs. The idea of relying on income taxes when individual income is down means that revenues are down as well, so that idea makes no sense, and with IRS non-compliance figures estimating that Michigan is losing as much as $2.2 billion each year because of illegals, we need a system that somehow taps into their earnings - something an income tax fails to do. In short, the system under which we have been operating for generations - under administrations of BOTH parties - has failed miserably.

It is time to switch to a broad-based consumption tax with no loopholes to which everyone contributes regardless of legal status or source of income.

The Michigan FairTax would:

* Let us keep our entire paychecks by eliminating tax withholding.

* Replace Michigan’s current complex and unfair tax system with a simple, no loophole, retail sales tax on all new goods and services with an effective tax rate of 0 - 9.75%.

* Make taxation visible to the consumer.

* Provide a more stable revenue source and raise the same amount of money for Michigan government.

* Eliminate tax on necessities via a “prebate”. 

* Require public approval for increases.

* Eliminate current sales tax, Personal Income tax, Michigan Business Tax, Personal Property Tax, 6 mill State Education Tax on business and sales tax on all business purchases. 

* Make Michigan products more competitive with out-of-state/foreign products and return jobs here by lowering the cost of doing business in Michigan.

What would be taxed?

* All new consumer goods and services, at the time of sale. 

* All new titled goods (homes, vehicles, boats, trailers)

What would NOT be taxed?

* Business to Business Transactions

* Most used goods, including vehicles (Tax paid at the time of sale when item was new. Sales tax on homes, new or used, is paid at closing)

* Tuition 

* Insurance Premiums 

* Savings, Investments 

* Charitable Giving Taxes paid to federal/local governmental units 

* Loan, Car and Mortgage Payments (Tax is paid at the time of sale when item is new, or at closing of homes - new or used)(Information taken from Michigan FairTax, a brochure produced by the Michigan FairTax Association)

There is no tracking of income, no worrying about indexing a standard deduction to factor in the cost of living, inflation, or anything else. You buy it, you pay tax on it. It's that simple. The more you buy above the federal poverty level, the more taxes you will pay. The FairTax taps into both illegally obtained income as well as that of illegals because everyone has to make purchases. It is that simple. With an income tax, if you don't track it and declare it, you can't tax it. And by including the prebate, a monthly tax return sent out in advance of the month, we also insure that those below the poverty level pay no taxes on any necessity.

So, again, there is nothing to track, nothing to adjust, you know exactly how much tax you are paying for a given item (no tax pyramiding - hidden taxes). You keep your entire paycheck, your employer doesn't incur the costs associated with tracking and reporting your income.  With no taxes on business to business transactions, we can get rid of tax abatements and still attract new business -- including the movie industry. Analysis of this system shows that it will at least be revenue-neutral, and in all likelihood will increase revenue -- in addition to making Michigan the premier location in which to locate a business.

It is time to make the switch. Slash and burn doesn't work; this does. Our state's future depends on it.  You can use the links in the right column to find your Michigan legislators and let them know that you support the FairTax -- and so should they!

PS -- The same concept will work at the national level, as well!

The Solution to the Problem of a Federal Government Run Amok

The solution to the problem of a federal government run amok is provided for us in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was demanded by the States to keep the federal government, created by the acts of each sovereign state as they ratified the Constitution, in check, to prevent it from assuming unfettered powers. In the words of Jefferson, "...to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go....In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

The first two paragraphs of the Preamble of the Bill of Rights provide a template by which A) the federal government may obtain additional authority, or B) such authority may be restrained, but to do so in such a way as to "...bind [it] down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution":

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution...

This bit of parliamentary procedure has been left out of most studies of American government, but they are critical to our understanding of the relationship that is supposed to exist between the states and the federal government.

First, a need for additional authority, or the need to restrain authority, is recognized ("THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."). While the needs addressed in the Preamble were identified by the states, they could just as easily identified by Congress.

In response to the identified need, legislation appropriate to address it is formulated, debated, and vote upon by the Congress. Since it applies directly to resulting federal authority, a two-thirds majority in both houses is required for passage ("...in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring...").

Once the legislation has been formulated, debated, and passed by congress, it is then sent to the States for their ratification ("...the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States..."). Note that the States have the right to approve or reject any or all of the provisions contained in the proposed legislation ("...all or any of which Articles..."). Since the proposed legislation would have the effect of expanding or restraining federal authority, a three-quarters supermajority of state legislatures must approve the legislation for it to be passed ("...when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures...")!!!

This is the template that was utilized to create and empower the federal government in the first place, and this is the template that must once again be employed if we are to bring our federal government back into accountability to the states, and more importantly, the citizens.

Second Amendment Trumps the Commerce Clause....

Letter 2 sent to my legislators regarding the need to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act.

To My Legislators:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

According to the Preamble, the Bill of Rights exists to do one thing - restrict the power of the federal government to over-regulate the citizens of this country.  Any power enumerated in the Constitution must be utilized in accordance with the restrictions laid out in the Bill of Rights.

With that in mind, the Second Amendment restricts Congress’ ability to restrict access to and carrying of firearms under the Commerce Clause - not the other way around!  You cannot use the Commerce Clause to violate the clearly defined protections accorded citizens in the Bill of Rights.

It is time for the GFSZA to be repealed.

Letter to my Legislators to Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act

October 12, 2011

Rep. Justin Amash, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Carl Levin

Washington, DC

To My Legislators:

HR 2613 was sent to the Judiciary Committee in July of 2011.  This bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) is critical for the safety of our citizens across the nation.  The simple fact of the matter is that the GFSZA has done nothing to DISCOURAGE illegal weapons in school zones across the nation.  In the 21 years that have passed since the initial passage of the GFSZA, the percentage of students carrying guns to school has dropped only two percentage points, from 7.9% to 5.9%, and there are no objective data to prove that this drop is anything other than a societal shift completely unrelated to the GFSZA.  During the same time period, however, there have been 217 gun-related events in areas covered by the GFSZA resulting in 627 casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  The objective data clearly demonstrate the failure of this legislation.

Not only does the GFSZA not prevent weapons from being carried on school property, it also insures that anyone faced with a weapons-related situation while on school property is completely defenseless.  The average person is forbidden to carry a firearm on school property.  Those who are licensed by their state to carry must, under the terms of the GFSZA, do so openly but may not actually fire the weapon in self-defense within 1,000 feet of a school property without facing criminal charges themselves.  So not only are persons on school property forbidden to defend themselves, anyone living in the surrounding neighborhood is also forbidden to use a legally-owned firearm to even protect their own property - a blatant violation of the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  According to the research, waiting for police to respond as one’s only legal recourse under the GFSZA does nothing but insure that the body count will be significant.  For every minute it takes police to respond to a weapons-related situation, another three casualties can result.  In a city like Detroit, where the average response time to a 911 call is 24 minutes just to arrive on-scene, the results of the GFSZA would be nothing short of disastrous.

Finally, as was already alluded to, while the GFSZA is in-line with current interpretations of the Commerce Clause, which has been turned into Congress’ license to grab unlimited power, something that was never intended by the framers of the Constitution, it is a blatant violation of the protections that were demanded by the legislatures of the States that ratified the Constitution and were enshrined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.  The Preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly states this concern:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

The Second Amendment is there for a reason, and blithely overriding its clearly-defined protections is something that should NEVER happen.  In elevating the commerce clause as it has to give itself power to regulate anything merely by asserting that something was provided by way of interstate commerce at some point in its history, Congress has shown the fears of those delegates to be very well-founded; Congress has turned misconstruction and abuse of its power into a highley-developed art form.  Congress is using the Constitution to violate the Constitution.  The Second Amendment clearly states that citizens have the right to bear (carry) firearms.  It does not define the nature or origin of that firearm, nor does it relegate the carry of that firearm to defined spaces.  And in that respect, under the clearest declaration of protection accorded by the Second Amendment, the GFSZA is a gross violation of the  protections that were demanded by the Conventions of the States.

It is time for the GFSZA to be repealed.

Sincerely,

HR 2613: Time to Repeal the Gun-Free Zones Act of 2009

From Congressional Record S7920-7921

THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1995

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds....Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30- day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis?......

With these words, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, a revision of the original 1990 bill, was voted upon and eventually signed into law.


This bill constitutes yet another power grab based upon the perceived authorities granted congress under the now-infamous Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  Since nearly everything has an effect on interstate commerce, congress has seized upon this clause as a nearly infinite source of ever-expanding federal power.   But one must ask whether this Act, implemented with the stated goal of reducing gun-related violence in schools, has actually achieved its goal in the twenty-plus years that have passed.  One must further ask whether the Act is truly in-line with the expressed intent of the Constitution.


First, let's address the Act's efficacy.


The earliest numbers this author was able to obtain relating to the prevalence of firearms on school property were published by the CDC in 1993.  According to the statement quoted above, 1993 was a much worse year for guns on school property than 1990, the year the Act was originally signed into law.  The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report issued by the CDC reflecting a reporting period from February through May of 1993 indicated that "...22.1% of students nationwide had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) during the 30 days preceding the survey."  Of the 22.1% of students, the report indicates that 7.9% (one-third) had carried a firearm.  Skip ahead now to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance report published June 4, 2010.  The data for this report indicated that, "Nationwide, 17.5% of students had carried a weapon (e.g., a gun, knife, or club) on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey....Nationwide, 5.9% (roughly one-third, added) of students had carried a gun on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey."   Intellectual integrity dictates that we acknowledge that there was a small  decrease (5%) in the number of weapons in general, and firearms in particular (even smaller percentage, 2%) in the twenty-plus years that passed since the signing of the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) in 1990.  The number of weapons overall has decreased slightly while the ratio of weapons in general to guns in particular has remained constant.  But the question that must be addressed is this:  how much of this increase is actually attributable to the GFSZA, and how much of this is simply a naturally-occurring societal shift?  Unfortunately, the anti-gun lobby has been so gung ho to prove their case that no one seems to have actually addressed this question.  When a similar downward trend was observed in Michigan relating to an increase in the number of citizens holding concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) and a decrease in violent crime (a 14% decrease in 10 years, versus only a 2% decrease in firearms carried on school grounds since the GFSZA was initially signed into law 20 years ago!), opponents were quick to assert that this trend could not conclusively be linked to the increase in CPL holders.  Given the lack of any objective data to the contrary, this author must make the same assertion regarding the coincidental link between signing the Act in 1990 and the decrease in guns on campuses.


Given the considerable resources that have been made available to establish the GFSZA, one would expect to see a much more substantial decline in both the number of weapons making it to school grounds and the numbers of shootings that have resulted; a 2% firearms reduction over twenty years is hardly something about which to exalt, and as has been noted in other posts, the GFSZA has hardly prevented the mass shootings it was designed to forestall.  Since the Act was initially signed into law in 1990, there have been at least 217 gun-related incidents on the premises of educational institutions, resulting in 627 total casualties (deaths/injuries/hostages).  This means that, if we add the 2% reduction back in (the reduction from 7.9% to 5.9%), the GFSZA MAY have prevented a total of 4 additional events and 12.5 casualties in twenty years.  You be the judge: just how effective has this Act been?


Efficacy, however, is only one consideration.  Constitutionality is the other consideration.


As has already been observed, the US Congress has transformed the Commerce Clause of the Constitution into its own personal power bank.  But at what cost to other provisions of the Constitution?


When the Constitution was first ratified by the legislatures of the States, great concern was expressed because of the lack of protections it provided to the individual citizen.  Having just seceded from an all-powerful monarchy, there was justifiable fear that, in time, the US could become a mirror image of Britain, with total power resting in the hands of an unaccountable centralized power structure.  As it has turned out, their fears, which led to the ratification of the Bill of Rights, were justified.  The Commerce Clause has been used to subjugate all other provisions of the Constitution - freedom of speech, assembly, and chiefly, the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  While the Commerce Clause can be interpreted in such a way as to provide congress with nearly inexhaustible authority, the Second Amendment explicitly guarantees the right of citizens to provide for their own protection by carrying firearms - no interpretation is necessary.  Take a good look at the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. (emphasis added)

The Bill of Rights does not limit the nature or origin of the firearm, nor does it place any restrictions on the location in which a firearm may be carried.  History tells us that legislators used to carry firearms into the chambers of Congress - something that has been explicitly outlawed in the interceding years.  This basic right, accorded by both God and Constitution (see author's post, A Theology of Church and Personal Protection), has played an integral role in the development of our country, providing protection from totalitarian rule not available to other countries.  While Congress may be able to argue that the GFSZA is in line with their own understanding of the Commerce Clause, it is most certainly a violation of the explicit protections provided in the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment restricts the Commerce Clause - not the other way around.


Whether in science or sociology, there is always a point at which an experiment must come to an end.  The objective data tell us that we have reached that point with the GFSZA.  It is time for the Judiciary committee to bring HR 2613, which would repeal the GFSZA, to the floor of the House of Representatives for an up or down vote.  If our Representatives truly wish to do right by their constituents, they will see that the GFSZA experiment comes to an end.