Constitution Party Candidates File For Office

For Immediate Release

February 24, 2010

Contact: Donna Ivanovich, State Chairman: (314) 956-6181
Chris Tomlinson, Communications Director: (417) 543-0808

Constitution Party candidates will participate in Missouri’s August primary for the first time since 2004. Declarations of Candidacy were filed in Jefferson City on the opening day, February 23, 2010, including multiple candidates for the office of U.S. Senate. Others filing included two U.S. Representative Districts, one State Senate, and multiple State Representatives.

“Unlike the other political parties, before they file their candidacy, our candidates are thoroughly vetted with a 25-page questionnaire to determine their knowledge of the proper role of government “, reported State Chairman, Donna Ivanovich. She went on to say that, “candidates, who are approved in this process are then supported and endorsed by the Party. These candidates have pledged to support the restoration of constitutional government and will legislate law that will defend our great American principles of individual liberty.”

“The Constitution Party is America ’s fastest growing political party, and while the Republicans and Democrats have been losing supporters, this Party is exploding in growth. As the discontent mounts in our nation and state, our opportunities to elect Constitutional Americans have never been greater,” concluded Ivanovich.

Tea Party Hijackers

by Raymond Kish

“The Tea Party needs to make a choice between an “R” or a “D”, or so says Sarah Palin. The GOP rock star told an audience full of Tea Party members in Arkansas on Tuesday night, Feb. 16, that the Independents, who make up the Tea Party movement, need to start thinking about picking a party.

I think she is right.  The Tea Party needs to make a choice, but not from within the two-party system that Palin claims we are stuck with. The Tea Party needs to decide right now whether they are going to let this movement be stolen by failed establishment candidates, or whether or not it is going to press forward and elect independent and third party candidates.

We do have choices, and they are not limited to Republicans and Democrats.

The Tea Party, from its beginning, was formed in response to the failure of both parties to listen to the will of the people.  For Sarah Palin to suggest that we should pick between those same two failed parties is an insult. The rank in file members of the Tea Party movement should throw their current leaders out on their ear for allowing a movement of independents and Constitutionalists to be highjacked by either party.

Palin rightly points out that the Tea Party is not a Political party and cannot run candidates, but she is wrong to say there are only two choices because there is another choice: The Constitution Party. The Constitution Party has candidates running for office all across the United States, and the Constitution Party platform fits the Tea Party like a glove.

The Republicans and Democrats share the blame for our current economic crisis, and neither party has any real solution on how to fix it. Both parties gave us bailouts and stimulus programs adding mountains of debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back. In spite of all that money being spent, we still had 473,000 people file for unemployment benefits in the second week of February and have lost over 8 million jobs since 2007. With a track record like that, there is no reason whatsoever that America should choose between either party currently in power.

To say we have to pick between two incompetent choices is absolute lunacy. What America needs to do right now is make the decision not to return either Party back to Washington or any State office for that matter. Vote in a party with American ideas; a Party who has an American view of how the government should be run; a party that realizes that the Constitution is more than a word you say at a rally to get some applause. They need to vote in The Constitution Party.

If Palin was a true tea party patriot, she would not be asking us to choose between a Marxist party and a Fascist party.  She would be leading her followers to a truly American party. . . . . The Constitution Party.

We are a nation, who is ruled by the consent of the governed.  It is time the people remove their consent from the two establishment parties and put a Constitution Party candidate into office. The only way for both establishment parties to get the message is for both establishment parties to lose. To vote for either a Republican or a Democrat is to give your consent to two political parties who have made a living out of betraying the American people, our Founding Fathers and our Constitution, which each one swears fidelity to upon taking office.

America, don’t be fooled.  Neither establishment party can be trusted. Send the hijackers packing, and let’s continue to build upon a truly great movement of the people.

Chuck Baldwin on Fox Business Channel

Patriots: Ignore the Sirens’ Call!

By Mike Simmons
Franklin County Chairman
Constitution Party of Missouri

As the mythical character Odysseus passed by the island known to be inhabited by the Sirens he ordered his men to plug their ears with wax. Odysseus knew that if his sailors heard the beautiful Sirens’ call they would be lured to their deaths.

How fitting is that just last week the Republican National Committee met on a similar island in Hawaii and spoke of wooing and luring the votes of the tea party movement and patriot uprising?

The Constitution Party is putting out a call to all tea parties, patriots and America loving citizens to plug your ears! Do not be lured in by the Republican Party’s call for it will surely lead to the death of our country. Ignore the sweet sounding melody of moving back to the right and promises that if given just one more chance they will get it right.

Tea parties and patriot uprisings peppered the calendars last year and filled our nation’s capital on September 12, 2009, but just a few months later the GOP is delighted to have won the Ted Kennedy seat in Massachusetts despite the fact that they filled it with a pro-choice moderate who has admitted that he would support nationalized health care in a different form. The citizens of Massachusetts could not avoid the Sirens’ call.

A few months earlier in the NY 23 election the GOP chose to offer us Dede Scozzafava as their candidate and fought tooth and nail to stop the more conservative and better candidate Doug Hoffman from winning. It is clear that the GOP is more concerned with filling seats with warm bodies not quality constitutionalists. Why else would they refuse to consider requiring a “purity-test” for candidates in last weeks meeting?

The Republicans might have a conservative platform but what’s the point? They have clearly shown the propensity to ignore it and have yet to hold any of their leaders accountable to it. How have Olympia Snow and Arlen Specter been working out for the past few decades? Where was the accountability to the platform? When Bush and the GOP voted for “No Child Left Behind” the only thing that was left behind was their accountability to the platform.

I am asking and calling for all tea party patriots to ignore the call of the GOP and focus your efforts into a party that will hold candidates accountable. Not only do we have candidate accountability as a plank in our platform we actually deny candidates that do not support the platform. When you go to the polling booth and vote for a Constitution Party candidate you can rest assured that you will know exactly where he/she stands on the issues and that we will hold their feet to the fire.

It Is A Madhouse Out There

by Chuck Baldwin
January 12, 2010

I think we need to face it: 2010 is more than a new year; it is also part of a new era in which all vestiges of normalcy and common sense have been left behind. In other words, it is a madhouse out there. Let me give you some examples of what I’m talking about.

Example Number One: In the world of anti-gun elitists, only common people are not allowed to defend themselves.

According to the Richmond (North Carolina) Times-Dispatch, “A sheriff says a North Carolina state senator shot one of two intruders at his home and hospital officials say the man is in fair condition.

“Multiple media outlets reported that Columbus County Sheriff Chris Batten said that 74-year-old Sen. R.C. Soles of Tabor City shot Kyle Blackburn late Sunday afternoon.”

According to the report, “Batten says the shooting occurred when two men went to the senator’s house and tried to kick in his front door. No charges have been filed.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. If the fellows were indeed breaking into his home, I’m glad the senator defended himself with a firearm. The miscreant deserved to be shot. Chalk up another one for the right to keep and bear arms. “What’s the problem?” you ask. The problem is, the good senator is one of the most anti-gun politicians in North Carolina. According to gun owners in NC, Soles has made a career out of opposing lawful gun ownership for the general public. In other words, in R.C. Soles’ world, his life is worth defending with a firearm, but your life or family (and mine) can go ahead and rot.

Soles is typical of Big-Government elitists who will allow themselves the luxury of all kinds of personal protection, while denying it for the common man. They hire professional bodyguards (does anyone remember Ted Kennedy’s personal bodyguard who was caught trying to take multiple loaded weapons–and over 100 rounds of ammunition–into the Capitol Hill building a few years back?); build exotic security fences and surveillance systems; and personally obtain firearm permits that are routinely denied the common person. Then they gladly take millions of dollars from gun control zealots to finance their Big-Government, anti-freedom agendas.

My question is, how does an elitist gun grabber like R.C. Soles get elected and reelected in the great State of North Carolina?

Example Number Two: With little notice, President Obama has signed Executive Order (EO) 12425, which grants complete immunity to foreign police agencies, thereby allowing them to potentially arrest American citizens on US soil with no constitutional protections or considerations afforded those arrested. (This EO also effectively allows INTERPOL to successfully hide any and all potential information and evidence it has from the American public–including evidence of Obama’s birthplace.)

This action is so draconian and deplorable it is difficult to put in words.

According to the Washington Examiner, “Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act].”

See the story at:

http://tinyurl.com/obama-frees-interpol

Of course, not only could US citizens be subjected to unconstitutional treatment at the hands of foreign governments operating freely on American soil, how do we know that our own federal government would not use foreign police organizations to do their dirty work for them? The answer is, we don’t.

The fact is, this new executive order makes it even more convenient for already overreaching federal police agencies to bypass and ignore constitutional protections for the American citizenry. Good grief! Under this EO, they would not even be required to submit to the Patriot Act, which, in itself, grants the federal government almost unlimited power to arrest, interrogate, and incarcerate just about anyone they want–with almost no constitutional accountability. But, now, this EO removes virtually every constitutional protection that may yet be intact by authorizing foreign police organizations to arrest and incarcerate American citizens at will–with ZERO accountability or oversight.

Of course, all of this is done in the name of fighting terrorism, which leads to:

Example Number Three: In order to fly commercially, the American people are now being required to remove not just their shoes–but also their clothes.

After the failed Christmas Day terrorism attempt on a Delta flight approaching Detroit, Michigan, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is planning to spend $25 million of “stimulus” funds to install 150 new full-body scan machines in airports around the country. This is in addition to the 40 full-body machines that are already in use.

Make no mistake about it: when you step into a full-body scan machine, you are being undressed in front of the screener. Do you really want TSA agents gawking at the nude body of your wife and daughters? And speaking of daughters, will someone please explain to me why these TSA agents are not guilty of watching child porn? After all, they are spending all day long looking at nude bodies–including the nude bodies of little children! If you did this, you would be arrested, incarcerated, and required to register as a sex-offender for the rest of your life. Yet, TSA agents will now be allowed to look at the nude bodies of little children and get paid for it!

Furthermore, what is to prevent the agents from storing the naked images they look at and sharing them with their friends? After all, the peeper (screener) is housed in a private room, completely removed from the public.

Then there is also the question of the risk of radiation. Any amount of radiation can increase the likelihood of cancer, which is why most medical experts advise pregnant women and children to avoid the use of radiation machines altogether.

And as Bill Press asks, “What if it doesn’t work? What’s next? We already know. The latest terrorist plan is to plant explosives inside a body cavity and detonate the bomb with a cell phone. Experts admit that, had Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab done so, no full body-scanner would have picked it up.

“So that scary new greeting at airports . . . could get even worse: ‘Welcome to the Friendly Skies. Now take off all your clothes–and bend over.’ A full search of body cavities may be next on TSA’s list of ways to keep us safe. Still want to fly home for Mom’s birthday?”

See Bill’s column at:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121301

Think of it: we’ve spent nearly $100 billion on national security intelligence gathering, and yet, the federal government allowed this Abdulmutallab idiot–a foreigner commonly known to be a security risk–to board an American jetliner. (While at the same time, police agencies are instructed to be on guard against American citizens who may have voted for Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin, or returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans.) But that’s just par for the course with the powers that be these days. They routinely allow people to fly into America from countries known to be sympathetic to terrorist organizations. Furthermore, our national borders are open sieves for virtually any and all illegal aliens. And just watch: it won’t be long into this new year before Barack Obama and John McCain join together in another push for amnesty for illegals. But now, you and I are being required to be electronically strip-searched when we want to board a commercial airliner.

Bill Press also makes a good point by comparing the “war on terror” with the war against drunk driving. He says, “Consider drunk driving. The best way to stop it would be to station a cop outside every bar to test every customer leaving the premises. No matter how much we abhor drunk driving, Americans would never tolerate that–even though drunk drivers killed 11,773 people in 2008. Only 876 people died worldwide in plane crashes.

“Same with airline security. We must accept the fact that there will always be risks. The idea that we have to choose between safety and privacy is not only a false choice, it’s a dangerous one. For once we give up even the tiniest slice of our privacy, we’ll never get it back.” Amen.

Or, as Benjamin Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

If we were really serious about making airline travel safer, we would immediately cease and desist from this incessant infatuation with meddling into the internal affairs of foreign countries, stop invading and occupying foreign countries, and stop our own State Department and CIA from sticking their noses where they don’t belong–which only serves to agitate the world against us. We’d stop giving out travel visas to people from countries sympathetic to terrorists; seal the US border–especially the southern border; and allow pilots, policemen, and any other citizen lawfully qualified to carry a firearm to carry those weapons on board the aircraft. (It was, after all, an American citizen–not an Air Marshal or other federal agent–that stopped and subdued Abdulmutallab.) But instead, we continue to push the envelope toward a police state. One could even get the idea that our federal government may actually want terrorists to enter our country and board our airplanes so that they might use them as an excuse to exact greater and greater acts of oppression upon the US citizenry.

“Oh, yeah! I’m way out of line!” (To quote Jay Leno.)

Like I said, it’s a madhouse out there. And it appears to me that the lunatics are running the asylum.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2010/cbarchive_20100112.html

Get Your Comfy Pillows Ready

By: Mike Simmons
County Chairman
Constitution Party Of Franklin County

Why should we get pillows ready, you ask?

America has made its bed and now it is time to lie in it.

At this point it seems inevitable that Congress will pass the National Health Care Bill and drive the final nail in the coffin of liberty. If and when this bill is made into law, the country will enter into a downward spiral that it will most likely be unable to come out of.

In my opinion you can trace the downfall of this country back to four distinct events or entities. The first is in the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court granted itself power that has been left unchecked for over 200 years. The second event occurred when Abraham Lincoln wiped his mouth with the Constitution; the northern states invaded the South and all of the states lost their power to reject the federal government. The third event occurred when Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans to let the government take care of them with welfare and Social Security.

The final entity that has led to this country’s demise is none other than the Republican Party.

The Republicans you ask? But they oppose nationalized health care! Nero opposed the fall of Rome, but he chose to fiddle. Right now the Republicans are playing a mean fiddle. Where were Republicans in the 1990s when they controlled the House and Senate? What conservative legislation did they pass? Where were Republicans when Bush passed No Child Left Behind and gave the government more control over our children’s education?

They were spending money like John Edwards in a beauty shop! You have to give Democrats credit; they are doing exactly what they promised in their campaigns. If you voted for a Democrat, you are getting exactly what you voted for, the same is not true for Republicans.

Vote for a Democrat and the country will go over the proverbial cliff at 70 mph. Vote for a Republican and the country will go over the cliff at 65 mph. If you are unhappy with where the country is heading, I encourage all of you to get out of the car! Stop voting for the same two parties that have run this country into the ground.

The time for change is now. We cannot afford to wait any longer. Our Congress may be driving the nail into the coffin of liberty, but thankfully our liberty is given to us by God, not government. Will you take back your liberty?

New Year’s Resolutions For Constitutionalists

By Mary Starrett

As another year comes to a close and a new decade beckons I’m looking past my frivolous resolve to exercise more and eat less. Instead, I imagine a wish list compiled by Americans who yearn for a return to government bound by the limits of the Constitution. What would such a list look like? When a minority of colonists stood up to a tyrant king over two centuries ago they did so because they believed that freedom didn’t look anything like Red Coats quartered in village homes rifling through papers at will. Likewise, I’d like to see hordes of citizens resolve to refuse to have their bags turned inside out while they are groped and prodded at airports by bloated TSA agents. Agents who’ve been given the authority to intimidate Americans while open borders invite dangerous foreigners in with impunity.

I’d also like to see something on that Resolutions list that would require lawmakers to acknowledge the Constitutional mandate to protect us from that ongoing invasion at our southern border that threatens our lives, health, safety and economy. Fixing that insult would mend the injury by government which requires us to pay for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, education and prison beds for those who invade us.

I’d like to see a list of New Year’s Resolutions for this country written by Americans so well versed in the Constitution that despite what their elected officials tell them, no ‘Act’ allowing warrant-less searches and wiretaps would pass through Congress even if it were stamped with the word ‘Patriot’.

I’d like to note on that list a promise by elected officials that they would actually thumb through the Constitution and admit there’s nothing in there that says people can be forced to buy health insurance for themselves or people they don’t even know. I imagine that a resolution like that would have rendered the push for socialized medicine unnecessary, and then billions of dollars of debt for a scheme like mandated health care wouldn’t be heaped on the backs of taxpayers who haven’t even been born yet.

I’d like to see a resolution by newspaper reporters and news anchors that promises they’d be making some noise about the dangerous climate fostered by the Department of Homeland Security by labeling those who “defend the Constitution” as “terrorists.” In addition, promising to devote some ink and airtime to the inconvenient fact that humans are not to blame for global warm- uh climate change, and also giving some credence to the request Americans are making to ascertain their president’s eligibility to hold office.

How about a New Year’s Resolution written by the more than 50% of Americans who now claim they are against abortion saying they’re at long last sickened enough by the thought of 50 million dead babies to demand an end to the sacrament of abortion?

I’d like to see a resolution that meant we could look forward to televised accounts of smiling US troops disembarking from planes which flew in from Iraq, Afghanistan and the more than 100 other countries we sent them to play Globo-cop. And I’d like to see a resolution that demands the United States not get involved in any more unconstitutional wars.

It would be encouraging to see a resolution for the new year that demands an end to computerized “black box” voting, federal bailout programs, an end to ACORN and La Raza’s ride on the tax payer gravy train, acknowledgement that “cash” for anything, whether down payments for homes or old cars is not only adding to the deficit but making it harder to end the insanity of the nanny state.

I’d like to see a resolve to end “free trade” which was pushed by both Republicans and Democrats and which has destroyed industry, agriculture and the jobs that propped up a vibrant and upwardly mobile middle class. That trade we now call “free” has cost us more than jobs. Tainted food, lead in children’s toys, contaminated dry wall and cheap slave labor products are anything but “free.”

A happy new year would also involve a resolution to move away from the duopoly that’s choking the life out of political choice. I want to know that in the new year, in states all across America, ballots will list a real option on voting day; that we’ll get to vote our conscience and not have to choose between ‘Socialist A’ or ‘Socialist B’ representing what amounts to one menu item on different colored plates.

I know I’m not alone in wishing for resolve to elect a president and Congressional representatives who will place US sovereignty over treaties and commitments to the UN or other world bodies.
While I’m at it I’d like to see Congress resolve to put a circle and a slash through the logos of unconstitutional federal entities like the Department of Education, Energy, and the FDA, IRS, and foreign aid programs, the Federal Reserve, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and the NAU.

I’d like to see it resolved that in 2010 The “parchment barrier” against tyranny- James Madison’s term for the Bill of Rights- will be revived, restored and reintroduced to the rest of our countrymen and that more of them will start working to make that barrier strong again.

© 2010 Mary Starrett – All Rights Reserved
Mary Starrett was the Constitution Party candidate for Oregon governor in November, 2006, a TV news anchor and talk show host for 25 years and a radio talk show host for 5 years.

Executive Director, Oregonians for Life, Board of Directors, Christian Family Adoptions.

She is currently the Communications Director for the Constitution Party. The Constitution Party is the fastest-growing minor political party (www.ballot-access.org) and is made up of Americans who believe a return to constitutional government is imperative.

E-Mail: mstarrett@constitutionparty.com

Marine Captain Resigns Diplomatic Post In Afghanistan.

“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States presence in Afghanistan.”

Rad full letter at link below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

Freedom’s Destruction By Constitutional De-Construction

by Chuck Baldwin’s Son: Timothy Baldwin
October 16, 2009

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today's column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney's Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is the author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also regarded as one of America's leading spokesmen for State sovereignty.]

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a “more perfect union” (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Indeed, those who proposed such a national system of government (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison) would not have the people of the states aware of this proposal for fear of outright rejection of the Constitution and for fear that they would remove their delegates from the convention altogether, giving no chance of success for the ratification of a new Constitution. It was hush-hush for good reason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was so tactful on the subject that he did not even present his nationalistic notions as a constitutional proposal, but only as his ideas of what America should be. (Ibid., 123) Despite these proposals, in the end, it was a federalist system that prevailed–a union of states and not a union of people, whereby the states retained complete and absolute sovereignty over all matters not delegated to the federal government. The states were indeed co-equal with the federal government. So, what was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?

The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (but rejected) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to “negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union.” (Ibid., 207) Hamilton, and his like, would have loved it had this national principle of supreme sovereignty been accepted by the delegates. Thankfully, it was not accepted. In fact, as the convention progressed, what became apparent to those who advocated for this national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified.

History proves with absolute certainty that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the US Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15)

So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America’s history and the US Constitution would say, “The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress’ power to reach the internal affairs of a State.” It is the “living Constitution” idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution. Interestingly, the “living Constitution” idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional “construction” that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The “living Constitution” idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America’s War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)

The ludicrous proposition of a “living Constitution” begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution’s framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?

How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention? After all, Hamilton and Madison both admit throughout the federalist papers that the states have complete and absolute sovereignty regarding the powers retained by them and granted to them by the people of each State, just as any foreign nation would. Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the only check on power is another independent power and thus, the only real power that could check federal power was State power. They even expected that the states would use their sovereign and independent power to the point of being the voice and, if necessary, the “ARM” of the people to implement a common defense against the federal government.

Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the federal government can never force the states out of existence and can never strip them of their rights and powers possessed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, except as delegated to the federal government. They even refer to the states’ right of self-defense in this regard to resist federal tyranny. Was this mere “bait and switch” rhetoric to get the people of the states to ratify what they thought was a pure federal system? How can the states possess the absolute sovereign power to check federal tyranny when they are bound to submit to the federal government’s interpretation of the Constitution? The two positions are necessarily incompatible with each other. To say that you have power, so long as I say you have power is to deny your power altogether.

Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the “supreme law of the land.” Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America’s earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.

But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted–not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the “supreme law of the land” and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed “supremacy” clause of the Constitution. What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery.

America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive “construction.” If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers’ form of government? Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!

In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the “more perfect union” of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a “more perfect union” as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!

Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism–the principles upon which America was founded–then this supposed federal power of constitutional “construction” will in fact be our freedom’s destruction.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091016.html

These Are Not Negotiable

by Chuck Baldwin
October 13, 2009

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies.”

I would argue that we, like our patriot forebears, have also endured “patient sufferance.” For at least a half-century, we have patiently endured the erosion and abridgment of our freedoms and liberties. We have watched the federal government become an overbearing and meddlesome Nanny State that pokes its nose and sticks its fingers in virtually everything we do. We cannot drive a car, buy a gun, or even flush a toilet without Big Brother’s permission. We are taxed, regulated, and snooped-on from the time we are born to the day we die. And then after we are dead, we are taxed again.

In the same way that Jefferson and Company patiently suffered up until that shot was fired that was heard around the world, we who love freedom today are likewise patiently suffering “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” In fact, I would even dare say that these States United have become a boiling caldron of justifiable frustration and even anger.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon us to very seriously and thoughtfully examine those principles that we absolutely will never cede or surrender. We have already surrendered much of the freedom that was bequeathed to us by our forefathers. We are now to the point that we must define those principles that form our “line in the sand” and that we will not surrender under any circumstance. Either that, or we must admit to ourselves that there is nothing–no principle, no freedom, no matter how sacred–that we will not surrender to Big Government.

Here, then, are those principles that, to me, must never be surrendered. To surrender these liberties to Big Government would mean to commit idolatry. It would be sacrilege. It would reduce us to slavery. It would destroy our humanity. To surrender these freedoms would mean “absolute Despotism” and would provide moral justification to the proposition that such tyranny be “thrown off.”

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Men without guns are not free men; they are slaves. Men without guns are not citizens; they are subjects. Men without guns have lost the right of self-defense. They have lost the power to defend their families and protect their properties. Men without guns are reduced to the animal kingdom, becoming prey to the Machiavellians among them who would kill them for sport or for their own personal pursuits. As King Jesus plainly ordered, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) This we will do–at all costs.

The Right to Own Private Property

Like the right of self-defense, the private ownership of property is a God-given right that is rooted in the Sacred Text. As God told Moses, “Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour’s landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it.” (Deut. 19:14)

In fact, the history of Western Civilization is replete with the examples of free men who were determined (even at the cost of their very lives) to defend the right to own property. Without private property rights, men are reduced to serfs and servants. Like chattel, they feed themselves by another’s leave. This we will not do.

The Right to Train and Educate Our Children

Education has never been the responsibility of the State. From time immemorial, education has been the right and responsibility of the family. This, too, has its foundation in the Sacred Volume. “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. 6:4)

Therefore, the absolute right of homeshooling or private/parochial/Christian schooling must never be surrendered. Homeschooling, especially, is fundamental to freedom. It is not a coincidence that throughout history, most totalitarian governments forbade parents homeschooling their children. Any government–federal, State, or local–that forbids, or even restricts, the right of parents to homeschool their children has taken upon itself the uniform of a tyrant.

The Freedom of Speech and Worship

Speech and worship are matters of the heart and conscience (Luke 6:45; John 4:24). Only tyrants seek authority over matters of the heart. But, of course, that is what tyrants do: they seek to control men’s thoughts and beliefs.

Hence, the alternative media is essential to liberty: the Internet, short wave radio, as well as independent magazines and periodicals. It is almost superfluous to say that there is no such thing as a free and independent press among the mainstream news media today. In fact, the major media more resembles a propaganda machine than it does a free press.

The same can be said for most of the mainstream churches in America today. They more resemble havens for politically correct, Big-Government ideology than they do bastions of Bible truth. Therefore, home-churches and non-establishment churches are increasingly requisite to a free people.

The Right to Determine One’s Own Healthcare

The marriage of Big Government and Big Medicine has created a healthcare monster. Already, the dispensing of medical treatment is micromanaged by Big Brother in a way that has resulted in skyrocketing costs and inferior care (and in some cases, even death). President Obama’s universal health care initiatives that are sure to come (in one form or another) will only exacerbate an already untenable situation.

Free men and women absolutely have the right to refuse vaccinations for themselves and their children. Forced vaccinations (of any kind) are an assault against the very foundation of freedom. Free men have the right to choose their own physicians, their own hospitals, their own insurance programs, etc. They also have the right to refuse any and all of the above.

God is Creator. He is also Healer (Exodus 15:26). Therefore, how men choose to seek God’s healing is a private matter between them and God. Alternative medicine is a right. Already, our military personnel are used as human guinea pigs to test a variety of drugs and chemicals. Public schools also require forced vaccinations. And now the push is on to force the general population to take the Swine Flu vaccine. At the current pace, it won’t be long until all alternative medicines and treatments will be illegal and the federal government will be America’s doctor. This is not acceptable.

The Right to Life

2000 years of Western Civilization have perpetually reconfirmed that life is a gift of God. Both Biblical and American history repeatedly honor God as the Source and Sustainer of man’s existence. Therefore, evils such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia must be vehemently resisted. It is bad enough that any government (especially one such as ours) would legalize abortion, but the concept of FORCED abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia could only be regarded as a despotic attack on life and liberty of the gravest proportion. In fact, under Natural Law, such an attack would remove said government from the protection of Heaven and would place it in a state of war.

The Right to Live as a Free and Independent People

God separated the Nations (Genesis 11). Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we Americans maintain our independence and national sovereignty. We simply cannot (and will not) allow ourselves to become part of any hemispheric or global union.

There they are: seven freedom-principles that are not negotiable. As Jefferson said, we are “disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.” But cross these lines and free men must do what free men must do: “throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/donate.php

© Chuck Baldwin

This column is archived as http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091013.html

Next Page »