Post-operative Ileus.....

OK, so this posting isn't about anything political or social.


And no, I'm not a medical expert by any stretch of the imagination.


What I am is a son who has watched his father go through more surgeries during his lifetime than any person should have to undergo.  An average of one major surgery every one-and-a-half years for the last 40 years.  Back.  Knees.  Wrists.


The long surgeries all have one thing in common - post-surgical ileus.


Getting the digestive tract working again after receiving anesthesia for several hours is a problem faced by thousands of patients every day.  And despite the best efforts of medicos to treat this problem pharmacologically, for many patients the problem will persist for days on end - the most serious cases resulting in even more surgery to correct the digestive tract complications that can occur.  Medicines, suppositories, enemas, all are tried in an effort to get the ol' poop shoot working again, but for many, these measures are insufficient.


Such was the case of my father with his most recent surgery.  After spending nearly eight hours on the operating table for his most recent back surgery, he suffered from a severe case of post-operative ileus.  Doctors, including a professor of gastroenterology, tried everything for nearly a week to kick-start his system.  Everything they tried failed.  One morning, I received a call from dad.  To say that he was in distress would be an understatement.  I asked him for the exact diagnosis of his condition - post-operative ileus - and then began digging.   I found a paper in the American Medical Association archives relating to post-operative ileus.  There was the usual discussion of the nature of the problem, and a significant portion of the paper was devoted to pharmacological intervention.  But buried in the paper was a section dealing with non-pharmacological remedies for this condition.  And that is where we got our answers.


You see, post-operative ileus is the result of several factors.  


First, the patient is typically required to fast for 12 to 24 hours prior to major surgery.  Nothing is remaining in the stomach, and most of the contents of the intestines are passed.  This means that there is nothing remaining to stimulate the muscles of the digestive tract to function properly.


Second, the intestinal tract is home to beneficial bacterial flora which aid in the digestion of food.  When the digestive tract is emptied during fasting, those bacteria begin to die off - meaning that the ability of the digestive tract to function properly is also compromised.  What isn't killed off during the famine known as fasting is finished off by the drugs that are administered during the course of a surgery.


Third, anesthesia does more than put one's lights out; it can paralyze muscles in the digestive tract, as well.  Somehow, those muscles must be re-awakened.


So what can one do to reduce the likelihood of a prolonged bout of post-operative ileus?  What I provide here is based mostly on our own observations of what has proven effective.


First, as soon as possible after surgery, begin chewing gum.  Yes, that's right.  Chew gum.  While one may be on a highly restricted diet immediately after surgery, even relying on IVs to deliver nutrition and hydration, chewing gum initiates the flow of digestive juices throughout the digestive system.  It is a placebo for the digestive system.  Chewing gum three times a day for an hour beginning postoperative day one begins the flow of digestive juices and can produce significant results.  In a randomized, prospective, controlled study on gum chewing as a method to stimulate bowel motility after laparo-scopic colectomy for colorectal cancer, the patients who chewed gum 3 times a day starting postoperative day one until oral intake experienced the passage of first flatus an average of 1.1 days earlier than the control group (day 2.1 vs 3.2). The first bowel movement for gum-chewing patients occurred by post-operative day 3.1, versus postoperative day 5.8 for the control group (Mechanisms and Treatment of Postoperative Ileus, Andrew Luckey, MD; Edward Livingston, MD; Yvette Tache ́, PhD, p 211).


Second, increase intake of fiber.  Fiber stimulates the muscles of the bowels and goes a long way to insure bowel health and proper function.


Third, as soon as possible, begin intake of pro-biotics, particularly acidophilus.   As was observed previously, drugs administered during surgery kill beneficial bacterial flora in the gut; taking pro-biotics repopulates the digestive tract with the beneficial bacterial flora that is so necessary to effective digestion.


In our experience, the combination of these three things can bring about a much more speedy resolution to the problem of post-surgical ileus.

An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code

The following letter, signed by more than 80 economists, was sent to the President and Congress.

An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code

Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress, and Fellow Americans,

We, the undersigned business and university economists, welcome and applaud the ongoing initiative to reform the federal tax code. We urge the President and the Congress to work together in good faith to pass and sign into federal law H.R. 25 and S. 25, which together call for:

• Eliminating all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations,

• Eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes,

• Abolishing estate and capital gains taxes, and

• Repealing the 16th Amendment

We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax code, including payroll withholding taxes.

We are calling for elimination of federal income taxes and federal payroll withholding taxes. We endorse replacing these costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient taxes with a progressive national retail sales tax, such as the tax plan offered by H.R. 25 and S. 25 – which is also known as the FairTax Plan. The FairTax Plan has been introduced in the 109th Congress and had 54 co-sponsors in the 108th Congress.

If passed and signed into law, the FairTax Plan would:

• Enable workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits,

• Replace all federal income and payroll taxes with a simple, progressive, visible,

efficiently collected national retail sales tax, which would be levied on the final sale of newly produced goods and services,

• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities, up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the current tax code,

• Collect the national sales tax at the retail cash register, just as 45 states already do,

• Set a federal sales tax rate that is revenue neutral, thereby raising the same amount of tax revenue as now raised by federal income taxes plus payroll withholding taxes,

• Continue Social Security and Medicare benefits as provided by law; only the means of tax collection changes,

• Eliminate all filing of individual federal tax returns,

• Eliminate the IRS and all audits of individual taxpayers; only audits of retailers would be needed, greatly reducing the cost of enforcing the federal tax code, 

• Allow states the option of collecting the national retail sales tax, in return for a fee, along with their state and local sales taxes,

• Collect federal sales tax from every retail consumer in the country, whether citizen or undocumented alien, which will enlarge the federal tax base,

• Collect federal sales tax on all consumption spending on new final goods and services, whether the dollars used to finance the spending are generated legally, illegally, or in the huge “underground economy,”

• Dramatically reduce federal tax compliance costs paid by businesses, which are now embedded and hidden in retail prices, placing U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in world markets,

• Bring greater accountability and visibility to federal tax collection,

• Attract foreign equity investment to the United States, as well as encourage U.S. firms to locate new capital projects in the United States that might otherwise go abroad, and

• Not tax spending for education, since H.R. 25 and S. 25 define expenditure on education to be investment, not consumption, which will make education about half as expensive for American families as it is now.

The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair, complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs conservatively top $225 billion annually – costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid by consumers.

The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be “fixed,” which is amply demonstrated by more than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing more than 2.8 million words).

Our nation’s current income tax alters business decisions in ways that limit growth in productivity. The federal income tax also alters saving and investment decisions of households, which dramatically reduces the economy’s potential for growth and job creation.

Payroll withholding taxes are regressive, hitting hardest those least able to pay. Simply stated, the complexity and frequently changing rules of the federal income tax code make our country less competitive in the global economy and rob the nation of its full potential for growth and job creation.

In summary, the economic benefits of the FairTax Plan are compelling. The FairTax Plan eliminates the tax bias against work, saving, and investment, which would lead to higher rates of economic growth, faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher standard of living for the American people.

The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:

• no federal income taxes,

• no payroll taxes,

• no self-employment taxes,

• no capital gains taxes,

• no gift or estate taxes,

• no alternative minimum taxes,

• no corporate taxes,

• no payroll withholding,

• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,

• no personal tax forms,

• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and

• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.

No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.

We believe that many Americans will favor the FairTax Plan proposed by H.R. 25 and S. 25, although some may say, “it simply can’t be done.” Many said the same thing to the grassroots progressives who won women the right to vote, to those who made collective bargaining a reality for union members, and to the Freedom Riders who made civil rights a reality in America.

We urge Congress not to abandon the FairTax Plan simply because it will be difficult to face the objections of entrenched special interest groups – groups who now benefit from the complexity and tax preferences of the status quo. The comparative advantage and benefits offered by the FairTax Plan to the vast majority of Americans is simply too high a cost to pay.

Therefore, we the undersigned professional and university economists, endorse a progressive national retail sales tax plan, as provided by the FairTax Plan. We urge Congress to make H.R. 25 and S. 25 federal law, and then to work swiftly to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Respectfully,

Donald L. Alexander Professor of Economics Western Michigan University

Wayne Angell Angell Economics

Jim Araji Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Idaho

Ray Ball Graduate School of Business University of Chicago

Roger J. Beck Professor Emeritus Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

John J. Bethune Kennedy Chair of Free Enterprise Barton College

David M. Brasington Louisiana State University

Jack A. Chambless Professor of Economics Valencia College

Christopher K. Coombs Louisiana State University

William J. Corcoran, Ph.D. University of Nebraska at Omaha

Eleanor D. Craig Economics Department University of Delaware

Susan Dadres, Ph.D. Department of Economics Southern Methodist University

Henry Demmert Santa Clara University

Arthur De Vany Professor Emeritus Economics and Mathematical Behavioral Sciences University of California, Irvine

Pradeep Dubey Leading Professor Center for Game Theory Dept. of Economics SUNY at Stony Brook

Demissew Diro Ejara William Paterson University of New Jersey

Patricia J. Euzent Department of Economics University of Central Florida

John A. Flanders Professor of Business and Economics Central Methodist University

Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D. William Paterson University

Gary L. French, Ph.D. Senior Vice President Nathan Associates Inc.

Professor James Frew Economics Department Willamette University

K. K. Fung University of Memphis

Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D. Professor of Economics and Finance Mount Holyoke College

Dave Garthoff Summit College The University of Akron

Ronald D. Gilbert Associate Professor of Economics Texas Tech University

Philip E. Graves Department of Economics University of Colorado

Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired Foundation for Economic Education

John Greenhut, Ph.D. Associate Professor Finance & Business Economics School of Global Management and Leadership Arizona State University

Darrin V. Gulla Dept. of Economics University of Georgia

Jon Halvorson Assistant Professor of Economics Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D. Professor of Economics & Applied Decision Sciences Department of Economics Missouri Western State College

James M. Hvidding Professor of Economics Kutztown University

F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D. Professor of Economics and Finance The University of Louisiana- Monroe

Drew Johnson Fellow Davenport Institute for Public Policy Pepperdine University

Steven J. Jordan Visiting Assistant Professor Virginia Tech Department of Economics

Richard E. Just University of Maryland

Dr. Michael S. Kaylen Associate Professor University of Missouri

David L. Kendall Professor of Economics and Finance University of Virginia's College at Wise

Peter M. Kerr Professor of Economics Southeast Missouri State University

Miles Spencer Kimball Professor of Economics University of Michigan

James V. Koch Department of Economics Old Dominion University

Laurence J. Kotlikoff Professor of Economics Boston University

Edward J. López Assistant Professor University of North Texas

Franklin Lopez Tulane University

Salvador Lopez University of West Georgia

Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D. Professor of Economics Carthage College

Glenn MacDonald John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Strategy Washington University in St. Louis

Dr. John Merrifield, Professor of Economics University of Texas-San Antonio

Dr. Matt Metzgar Mount Union College

Carlisle Moody Department of Economics College of William and Mary

Andrew P. Morriss Galen J. Roush Professor of Business Law & Regulation Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Timothy Perri Department of Economics Appalachian State University

Mark J. Perry School of Management and Department of Economics University of Michigan-Flint

Timothy Peterson Assistant Professor Economics and Management Department Gustavus Adolphus College

Ben Pierce Central Missouri State University

Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics University of Alaska

Robert Piron Professor of Economics Oberlin College

Mattias Polborn Department of Economics University of Illinois

Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D. Department of Economics Towson University

Barry Popkin University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill

Steven W. Rick Lecturer, University of Wisconsin Senior Economist, Credit Union National Association

Paul H. Rubin Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics & Law Department of Economics Emory Univeristy

John Ruggiero University of Dayton

Michael K. Salemi Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor of Economics University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dr. Carole E. Scott Richards College of Business State University of West Georgia

Carlos Seiglie Dept. of Economics Rutgers University

John Semmens Economist Phoenix College Arizona

Alan C. Shapiro Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson Professor of Banking and Finance Marshall School of Business University of Southern California

Dr. Stephen Shmanske Professor of Economics California State University, Hayward

James F. Smith University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill

Vernon L. Smith Economist

W. James Smith Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Professor of Economics University of Colorado at Denver

John C. Soper Boler School of Business John Carroll University

Roger Spencer Professor of Economics Trinity University

Daniel A. Sumner, Director, University of California Agricultural Issues Center and the Frank H. Buck, Jr., Chair Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis

Curtis R. Taylor Professor of Economics and Business Duke University

Robert Vigil Analysis Group, Inc.

John H. Wicks, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Economics University of Montana

F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D. Canisius College

Mokhlis Y. Zaki Professor of Economics Emeritus Northern Michigan University

The Bush Doctrine....

September 11, 2001:

"We will make no distinction between the

terrorists who committed these acts and 

those who harbor them." 

September 20, 2011:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or

safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in

every region, now has a decision to make.

Either you are with us, or you are with the 

terrorists. From this day forward, any 

nation that continues to harbor or support

terrorism will be regarded by the United

States as a hostile regime."  

Pakistan got off easy.

Seal Team 6

Gentlemen - 

Thank You and Congratulations on

a job well done!

Oo-rah!!!

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..."