Time for Action....

This is a call for action.


As calls go, it is quite simple.


If we wish to see our trade deficit with China disappear and see manufacturing return to our shores, I make the following challenge.


Beginning May 1, 2011, I would like to challenge everyone to boycott all products manufactured or produced in China.  I am talking about a national boycott of everything made in China.  I know it won't be easy, but it is certainly necessary.  Look for products that are either made in the USA whenever possible.


And then take the next step.  Contact your representatives in Washington and demand that we implement trade policies that will protect our industries and workers, and that will encourage companies to bring manufacturing back to the US (http://www.house.gov/, http://www.senate.gov/).  Former Pres. George W. Bush had it wrong - sending our manufacturing to other countries is NOT beneficial for the US; concentrating solely on development of new technologies, while crucial, does not provide the earnings multiplier, the critical financial component that gives stability to our economy and drives further R & D, that manufacturing provides.  If one concentrates solely on R & D, the earnings for a given product end with the sale of the design to a manufacturer, whereas the manufacturer continues to realize income for as long as they manufacture and sell the product.  Not only does the manufacturer benefit, but the employees and community at-large also realize benefit from continued production of goods, thus multiplying the investment made by the manufacturer. This is what must be returned to the US if we are to shore up our economy once again. 


Will you join the boycott? 

Time to Drill...

For at least the last two generations, environmentalists have effectively maintained a hammerlock on legislation that would allow U.S. petroleum companies to actively pursue and develop sources of oil within the continental United States and surrounding waters.  To be sure, despite advances in drilling technology, there is always an element of risk in such operations, as was so clearly demonstrated in the Gulf of Mexico recently.  Publicly, the appeal of environmentalists has been fueled by promises of alternate energy sources that are always just around the corner, always just out of reach - and always require more funding to make them a reality.  The more brazen among them simply argue that the only way to accomplish the goal of transitioning society to new technologies is to allow petroleum prices to escalate to the point that consumers will have no choice but to make a switch, regardless of the costs to themselves and the economy.  As a result, despite years of promises, litigation, and the investment of multiplied billions of taxpayer dollars, we have yet to see such vaunted technologies produced in quantities and at a cost that would make it possible for the average citizen to finally make the switch.


Make no mistake; we have a responsibility to make use of natural resources in a manner that is beneficial not only to mankind, but to ALL the inhabitants of the earth.  According to Genesis, mankind was placed on the earth to husband and cultivate its resources - to produce beneficial and sustainable results that are consistent with God's intended purpose in creation.  So we have a mandate to make use of resources in the manner that is most benign - which includes the pursuit of alternate energy sources.


Having said that, it must also be acknowledged that, for the foreseeable future, our economy is fueled by, well, FUEL.  Petroleum-based products are foundational to literally every field of endeavor in the United States.  To pretend that we can simply flip a switch and transform our entire economy overnight based on mere promises of emerging technology may be every environmentalist's dream, but it is far from the reality with which we live.


So the question at-hand is this:  Do we continue to allow environmentalists to hamstring the nation, to continue to hold it and our fragile economy hostage to the possibilities of technology and the tender mercies of oil producers that are becoming increasingly hostile to us, or do we recognize the reality before us and act accordingly -- while continuing to work for the development of alternate technologies?


The answer is clear.  The effects of ever increasing fuel prices range far beyond our own borders.  Because of our integration in the world economy (a subject for another time), increases in pricing here in the U.S. ultimately effect economies around the world.  It not only drives up the costs of manufactured goods, foodstuffs, and services that are consumed here, but also the costs of such items that are exported to foreign markets -- making it more unlikely that foreign consumers will choose imported over domestically-produced goods and services.  You can guess the effect that has on jobs here at home.  And it doesn't stop there. Increasing petroleum prices have a profound effect on the charitable mission of the U.S. as well, increasing the cost to respond to foreign disasters such as the earthquake and tsunami that just struck Japan, and thereby limiting the amount of assistance that can be brought to bear.


Reports that have been emerging for years confirm that the United States is home to oil deposits that could, if the limitations imposed through environmentalist lawsuits were lifted, have significant impact on domestic oil and gas supplies.  Existing oil fields in the continental U.S. contain approximately 40.5 billion barrels of oil; offshore deposits, over 100 billion.  The Bakken oil fields - upwards of 4.3 billion barrels of oil, and over 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  The Green River deposit, estimated to hold between 800 billion and 1.5 trillion barrels of oil.  Oil sand deposits in the U.S. are estimated to contain about 32 billion barrels of oil.  The Marcellus formation, estimated to contain over 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.


The obvious answer to our dilemma is to allow more drilling.  We have the means to do so in a far more environmentally-conscious fashion, recent events notwithstanding, and our economy demands, not just from the standpoint of producing fuel, but from a jobs standpoint as well, that the restrictions be lifted and companies be allowed to develop the resources we have at our disposal.

Reasons to Consider the National FairTax Proposal...

In the debate regarding the national FairTax, proposed as a replacement for federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes, it would appear that, while it isn’t bliss, ignorance is certainly rampant.

First, the FairTax is progressive.  At the beginning of each month, each legal household receives a tax refund in anticipation of the coming month’s expenditures called a “pre-bate.”  The amount of this check is based on the federal poverty guideline and insures that the first $22,500 of spending is exempt from taxes.

Second, the FairTax is a graduated tax, based on a household’s level of spending.  Households that fall below the poverty line pay no taxes, while a family of four spending at the $58,280 level would have an effective tax rate of 11.5%, compared to a 17% effective rate under the current system; the more that is spent, the more that figure would increase to a maximum of 23%.  So contrary to what several have asserted, that middle or lower class earners will bear the brunt of this taxation, this is clearly not the case.

Third, the FairTax, by doing away with corporate income taxes, helps once again draw business to the United States because of the lower cost to conduct business. It does away with the need to use tax abatements as a means of attracting new companies to our country - a means of attracting business that is inherently prejudiced against existing companies and amounts to the federal government picking and choosing winners and losers.  It also provides an unheard-of incentive for US-based corporations operating overseas to bring home the more than $13 TRILLION in foreign-earned profits that now sit in foreign banks.  Can you begin to imagine the impact such an infusion of funds would have on our economy?  The jobs that would be created or returned to this country?  Under the current system, as explained by former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm in response to a reader's question regarding Michigan's Film Tax Credit in the November 2, 2009, edition of Time Magazine, "You can't give tax credits to everybody, because somebody's gotta pay for them."  By shifting the tax burden to consumption of both goods and services rather than income, we can incentivize all businesses, making it more likely that they will choose the US as their base of operations, which, in turn, will also increase the amount of spending that takes place as more Americans go back to work.

Fourth, the FairTax does away with the one thing that truly forces the middle class to shoulder the brunt of the tax burden under our current system -- loopholes.  An individual with a good tax attorney or CPA is able to avoid the lion’s share of their tax obligation because of the myriad of loopholes that exist in today’s tax system - loopholes created BY the wealthy FOR the wealthy.  Anyone who can afford to pay, which, by definition, excludes most middle and lower incomel earners, can shift their tax obligation to those who cannot afford such help.  The argument has been made that such a shift is unfair and immoral, but the only system that truly addresses this inequity is the FairTax because of its complete lack of loopholes.

So to those who are convinced that our traditional tax system holds the answers, although the condition of our economy would seem to indicate otherwise, I would encourage you to take a moment to check out the data for yourself.  $22 million have been invested in this research, and it is yours to study at http://www.fairtax.org.

Posse Comitatus and Border Security...

"It is time to rescind the existing Posse Comitatus Act and replace it with a new law. The old law is widely misunderstood and unclear. It leaves plenty of room for people to do unwise and perhaps unlawful things while trying to comply with their particular version. It certainly does not provide a basis for defining a useful relationship of military forces and civil authority in a global war with terrorism. The Posse Comitatus Act is an artifact of a different conflict-between freedom and slavery or between North and South, if you prefer. Today's conflict is also in a sense between freedom and slavery, but this time it is between civilization and terrorism. New problems often need new solutions, and a new set of rules is needed for this issue.

President ... and Congress should initiate action to enact a new law that would set forth in clear terms a statement of the rules for using military forces for homeland security and for enforcing the laws of the United States. Things have changed a lot since 1878, and the Posse Comitatus Act is not only irrelevant but also downright dangerous to the proper and effective use of military forces for domestic duties." Col. John R. Brinkerhoff, US Army (Retired)

Regardless of your position on illegals, it cannot be denied that the situation on our border with Mexico has gotten seriously out of hand. The violence has escalated to unprecedented levels, and is making further inroads into our nation. Incursions like those initiated recently by Mexican soldiers, who ventured onto US soil for the purpose of removing evidence from a crime scene implicating one of their citizens, driving off FBI agents who were investigating that scene in the process, cannot be tolerated. The video from that day clearly showed that it was OUR territorial integrity that was violated, not the other way around.

It is said that fences make good neighbors. Whether physical or abstract, clearly defined and defended borders have the same effect.

Until Posse Comitatus is replaced by another guideline that makes more sense in this day and age, the Army and Air Force will continue to be governed by it unless waived by the President. However, according to Col. Brinkerhoff, the Marine Corps and National Guard are NOT limited by Posse Comitatus ("Does not apply to the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the Department of Defense has consistently held that the Navy and Marine Corps should behave as if the act applied to them. Does not apply to the National Guard in its role as state troops on state active duty under the command of the respective governors. May not apply to the National Guard (qua militia) even when it is called to federal active duty. The Posse Comitatus Act contains no restrictions on the use of the federalized militia as it did on the regular Army."). According to Major Craig T. Trebilcock, Judge Advocate General Corps, U.S. Army Reserves, "...one of the express missions of the Guard is to preserve the laws of the state during times of emergency when regular law enforcement assets prove inadequate." If we are unable, or lack the political will, to defend our own borders and territorial integrity, then we have no business sending our troops around the world to die for the integrity of the borders of another country. It is time to release the Guards to, at the very least, perform the duties for which they were expressly created.

Like charity, defense begins at home.

Immigration and the Federal Government: The Constructionist Views of Jefferson and Madison

The following resolutions were penned by Thomas Jefferson (the Kentucky Resolutions) and James Madison (the Virginia Resolutions) in 1798; both sets of resolutions were adopted by the respective legislatures of those states. Both men believed that the Constitution was, essentially, a compact between otherwise autonomous states, the resulting federal structure being what Jefferson termed a "general government for special purposes" possessing very narrowly-defined authority. Contrary to the current government stance that the federal government alone has authority to regulate and enforce immigration, Jefferson argues "That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government..." the Aliens and Seditions Acts of 1798 were seen as threats to States' rights, and the writings of these two men have direct bearing on the continuing debate regarding the administration's argument that it, alone, has the authority to regulate and enforce immigration.

"The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798


1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.


2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.


3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “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”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, arid that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


4. Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.


5. Resolved. That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.


6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by said act intituled “An Act concerning aliens” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided that “no person shalt be deprived of liberty without due progress of law”; and that another having provided that “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to public trial by an impartial jury, 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 defense;” the same act, undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without heating witnesses in his favor, without defense, without counsel, is contrary to the provision also of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void, and of no force: that transferring the power of judging any person, who is under the protection of the laws from the courts, to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behavior”; and that the said act is void for that reason also. And it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the general government who already possesses all the Executive, and a negative on all Legislative powers.


7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.


8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has a sedition act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, 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; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. 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. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.


9th. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly."

James Madison, who earned the sobriquet, "Godfather of the Constitution", authored a similar resolution that was adopted by the Virginia Legislature in December of the same year.

"Virginia Resolution of 1798


RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.


That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.


That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.


That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.


That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.


That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.


That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.


That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.


Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798."

It is clear that both men believed that the authority to regulate and enforce immigration was reserved to the individual state, that it was NOT one of the authorities delegated by the Constitution to the federal government. Jefferson's assertion, stated clearly and without equivocation in his first resolution, stands in stark contrast to the prevailing administration argument that it, alone, has authority to regulate immigration: "...that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers..."

"Senator Debbie Stabenow supports bill to stop lawmaker pay if government shuts down"

The article reporting the Senator's support for this bill, written by Jeff Cranson of the Grand Rapids Press and published on 3/1/11, made this observation:

"The bill, introduced last week by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Bob Casey, D-Penn., would also stop pay if the government cannot pay its bills because the debt ceiling is not raised."

Sorry, but raising the debt ceiling is not an option. The unfettered ability of Congress to raise the debt ceiling is what got us into this financial mess in the first place, to the point where we can't afford the interest on our outstanding debts and nations are beginning to turn away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency -- something that will absolutely devastate our economy, just as it did the economy of Great Britain when the world turned away from the pound sterling. Cutting is going to hurt; failing to cut is going to kill us. 

In fact, I would go the other way. Unless congress finds a way to fund the government, cut spending, and LOWER the debt ceiling, they shouldn't be paid. And by the way, the better part of a trillion dollars in TARP funds (somewhere around $800 billion) is still supposedly setting unused. It isn't much in the greater scheme of things, but paying those funds back would at least be a start toward lowering our debt ceiling. The longer those funds set in that account unappropriated, the more likely it is that they will slowly disappear in the same way money from social security disappeared, and there will be nothing to show for it.

It all boils down to the words from the movie, The American President: "Americans can no longer afford to pretend that they live in a great society." More precisely, legislators can no longer afford to pretend that they live in a great society. We can no longer afford to raise the debt ceiling to underwrite the operations of the UN, every other troubled country in the world, inequitable fields of trade, and pay for multiplied billions of dollars of entitlements here at home. It simply cannot be done. And since Congress has been unable to police itself and its spending, we need to take the same approach to Congress as any responsible parent would to a child who spends recklessly -- by taking away the credit card and forcing them to ask permission before creating any new spending powers.

The template to accomplish this 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 have been 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 it supposedly represents.  If this approach could be utilized two hundred years ago to set up the government, considering the archaic methods of transmitting the proposed legislation to the individual states that were at their disposal, we can certainly employ it today with even more effectiveness.