An Open Letter to Pre. Obama Regarding His Administration's Blatant Violations of the Constitution

Mr. President,

Your administration has taken surveillance of American citizens farther than any administration to-date. And since the NSA is monitoring everything these days, particularly the postings of conservatives, I feel relatively certain that they will stumble across this posting.

I agree with a past leader of our country who was far wiser than you regarding the lengths to which you are going to "keep us safe:" 

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

James Madison

I am well aware that your predecessor set up a system whereby he thought he could skirt the Bill of Rights with impunity, a system your administration is now taking to lengths never before imagined. I am aware that it was the republicans who pushed through the so-called "patriot act," an act which you condemned as a senator, but of which you take full advantage today. I condemned your predecessor's and the republicans' attempts to skirt the Constitution, as I condemn yours today. I will state this plainly: an unConstitutional law is an illegal law. A law that purports to protect the Constitution by violating it is an illegal law. A law that infringes upon the rights explicitly guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in the name of the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, or Sovereignty Clauses is an illegal law. That this is true is declared in the Supreme Court decision, United States v. Cruikshank, 1875:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PARTICULAR STATE OF WHICH HE IS A CITIZEN TO PROTECT AND ENFORCE THEM, AND TO DO NAUGHT TO DEPRIVE HIM OF THEIR FULL ENJOYMENT. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE." 

These attempts to circumvent the Constitution, to implement unConstitutional laws, must end now, and those who have promulgated these policies must be held accountable for breaking their oath of office, which requires them to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. They have become what they profess to hate.

The Bill of Rights v. the Clauses

The battle lines are being drawn.  The fields of battle are varied, but they share one commonality: whether they concern federal abortifacient mandates, gun control, or the health mandate, all represent conflicts between enumerated Constitutional rights and the big three clauses - the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution.

A number of states have initiated legislation to reassert their rights under the Tenth Amendment to nullify federal legislation that conflicts with those rights.  The typical federalist answer is that the big three clauses trump the rights of the States or the People.

Here is my response to appeals to the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses: 

"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.  

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.  

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; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution..." (all caps added). 

 
The stated intention of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the abuse of power by the federal government by restricting the very clauses to which many in Congress have appealed. Simply stated, the Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights SUPERSEDE the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses - regardless of whether federalist-minded judges agree with that truth. The Bill of Rights was ratified by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, which was absolutely necessary because Washington was opposed to many of the provisions it contained (it is interesting to note that the Preamble of the Bill of Rights says nothing about the President SIGNING it, only that it was ratified by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and by a three-quarters supermajority of the legislatures of the States). Why? Because the provisions of the Bill of Rights  would have served to diminish the absolute power of the federal government. George Washington's circular letter to the governors of the States and his retirement address both declare his unswerving belief that this would be detrimental to the future of the country, that an absolutely supreme, all powerful, centralized government to which the States and the People were in absolute subservience was the only way to insure our future. We can see where Washington's beliefs have taken us as our Constitutionally-enumerated rights continue to be eroded by a power-hungry government that represents its own interests and agenda.

Remember: the United States was created by the States.  The principle established in the Bible is that the potter has power over the clay.  It is inappropriate for the clay to say to the potter, "Why have you made me this way?"  So it is supposed to be in the relationship between the States and the federal government.  The States created the federal government.  The States, therefore, retain the power to determine the extent to which federal authority is allowed to go.

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.