Constitutional Minute #26 What is “Federalism”?
I’ll explain it.
In short, it is the elevation of the State level of government over the authority of the federal government on most subjects.
“Federalism” was implemented beautifully by our Framers in our Constitution.
How many State governors understand and practice this??
To put it another way, when forming the central government, the States reserved to themselves the power to address ALL matters with the exception of those few matters exclusively given to the central government…and that was very few!!
Does the federal government have authority to regulate mortgage bailouts, medical care, pensions, family matters, education, housing, food stamps, tattoo removal, “community redevelopment”, light bulbs, minimum wage and the like?? NO!
How do we know? Because these are not listed among the enumerated powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution (the one document every elected representative takes an Oath to support).
Does the federal government have authority to issue patents and copyrights? Yes!
How do we know? Because Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 8 delegates this power to Congress.
The federal government isn’t supposed to have anything to do with our lives, liberties and properties except as follows:
- Other than those in military service, it has very little lawful criminal jurisdiction over us;
- It has no civil jurisdiction over us unless we file for bankruptcy; if we are inventors or writers, it secures for us the rights to patents and copyrights;
- It makes rules for naturalizing new citizens, and it delivers our mail! (Art I, Sec 8 and Art III, Sec 3, U.S. Constitution).
That’s basically it, Folks!
Source here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/basic-concepts-of-government/
Bob Hilliard
wethepeoplehandbook@gmail.com
Constitution Minute #27 States’ Militia vs Illegal immigration
First: What is the “Militia”?
Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) tells us:
“The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service.
The militia of a country are the able-bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.”
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 15 grants to Congress the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to [among other things] “repel Invasions”.
So! One of the functions of the Militia – that body of weekend warriors trained by the States and whose officers are chosen by the States, is to defend the States against Invasions.
But what if the federal government refuses to act?
Alexander Hamilton provides the answer in Federalist No. 29.
“…it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy…
True, it was contemplated that the “United States” would normally be the entity which protects the States against Invasion (Art. IV, §4). But when the federal government has demonstrated its determination that the States are to be overrun by invaders, then the States are within their Retained Sovereign Rights to employ the Militia to defend their People from those into whose hands the federal government has demonstrated its determination to deliver them.”
So, clearly, the Sovereign States may use their State Militias and engage in War to defend themselves from the Invasions.
Notice Hamilton did not suggest lawsuits as the answer!
Neither did Madison. Neither did Jefferson. Etc.
For more study (and there is much more), go here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/the-invasion-of-arizona-the-remedy-when-the-federal-government-refuses-to-do-its-duty/
Bob Hilliard
Constitutional Minute #25 President eligibility – Part 2 of 2
So! Who decides who is eligible to be president? How is this handled? Who makes the ruling? Do we “file a lawsuit” and let federal judges decide?
Slap your hands!”, our Framers would say. They would say, “READ THE CONSTITUTION AND SEE WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!”
Read the 12th Amendment. That sets forth the procedures for election of President and VP. Note that ELECTORS are supposed to be the ones making the selection – not The People. [There is a reason for that.]
For an illustration of how this works, go HERE (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/national-popular-vote-goodbye-sweet-america)
So! Assume we followed the Constitution on this issue and we get to the part where Congress is counting the votes as provided by 12th Amendment. And Lo! Congress discovers that the person who got the most votes for President is NOT QUALIFIED by reason of age, or not being a natural born citizen, or not having been for at least 14 years a Resident within the United States.
Obviously, it’s Congress’ job to make the ruling – to make the call – on whether the President and VP – selected by the ELECTORS – are qualified under Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.
So what happens if Congress finds that the person with the most votes for President is not qualified? We look to Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment. It tells us what happens. “..if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, the Vice President elect shall act as President “ Now, read the rest of that Section. We would also need to see whether Congress has made any of the authorized laws providing for such contingencies.
So, under the Constitution as written, it is Congress’ job to make the call as to whether the President elect and the VP elect are qualified.
This is NOT an issue for the federal courts to decide. That is because this is a “political question” – not a “legal question”.
And what if Congress gives an ineligible person a pass – as they did with Obama? WELL THEN, SHAME ON US – BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECTED THEM.
Constitution Minute #26 What is Federalism
I’ll explain it.
In short, it is the elevation of the State level of government over the authority of the federal government on most subjects.
“Federalism” was implemented beautifully by our Framers in our Constitution.
How many State governors understand and practice this??
To put it another way, when forming the central government, the States reserved to themselves the power to address ALL matters with the exception of those few matters exclusively given to the central government…and that was very few!!
Does the federal government have authority to regulate mortgage bailouts, medical care, pensions, family matters, education, housing, food stamps, tattoo removal, “community redevelopment”, light bulbs, minimum wage and the like?? NO!
How do we know? Because these are not listed among the enumerated powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution (the one document every elected representative takes an Oath to support).
Does the federal government have authority to issue patents and copyrights? Yes!
How do we know? Because Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 8 delegates this power to Congress.
The federal government isn’t supposed to have anything to do with our lives, liberties and properties except as follows:
- Other than those in military service, it has very little lawful criminal jurisdiction over us;
- It has no civil jurisdiction over us unless we file for bankruptcy; if we are inventors or writers, it secures for us the rights to patents and copyrights;
- It makes rules for naturalizing new citizens, and it delivers our mail! (Art I, Sec 8 and Art III, Sec 3, U.S. Constitution).
That’s basically it, Folks!
Source here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/basic-concepts-of-government/
Bob Hilliard
wethepeoplehandbook@gmail.com
Constitutional Minute #25 President eligibility – Part 2 of 2
So! Who decides who is eligible to be president? How is this handled? Who makes the ruling? Do we “file a lawsuit” and let federal judges decide?
Slap your hands!”, our Framers would say. They would say, “READ THE CONSTITUTION AND SEE WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!”
Read the 12th Amendment. That sets forth the procedures for election of President and VP. Note that ELECTORS are supposed to be the ones making the selection – not The People. [There is a reason for that.]
For an illustration of how this works, go HERE (https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/national-popular-vote-goodbye-sweet-america)
So! Assume we followed the Constitution on this issue and we get to the part where Congress is counting the votes as provided by 12th Amendment. And Lo! Congress discovers that the person who got the most votes for President is NOT QUALIFIED by reason of age, or not being a natural born citizen, or not having been for at least 14 years a Resident within the United States.
Obviously, it’s Congress’ job to make the ruling – to make the call – on whether the President and VP – selected by the ELECTORS – are qualified under Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.
So what happens if Congress finds that the person with the most votes for President is not qualified? We look to Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment. It tells us what happens. “..if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, the Vice President elect shall act as President “ Now, read the rest of that Section. We would also need to see whether Congress has made any of the authorized laws providing for such contingencies.
So, under the Constitution as written, it is Congress’ job to make the call as to whether the President elect and the VP elect are qualified.
This is NOT an issue for the federal courts to decide. That is because this is a “political question” – not a “legal question”.
And what if Congress gives an ineligible person a pass – as they did with Obama? WELL THEN, SHAME ON US – BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECTED THEM.
Bob Hilliard
Constitutional Minute #23 Wanted: Critical reading skills (again)
We have been told for ages that the President is permitted to make a “recess” appointment of someone whose nomination has already been blocked by the Senate (Article II, Sec. 2, clause 3); that once the Senate goes into recess, the President may slip in there and make a “recess” appointment of his rejected nominee!
Rubbish.
The constitutional plan (Article II, Sec. 2, clause 2) is that the President nominates – the Senate confirms or rejects the President’s nomination. This is the “check” which Our Constitution imposes on the President’s nominations. The purpose is to protect us from the loons, incompetents, or toadies whom various presidents have, from time to time, nominated.
NOW let us see what Our Constitution says about recess appointments. Article II, Sec. 2, clause 3 says:
“The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” [emphasis added]
Is this not clear?
If the Senate did not approve a president’s cabinet pick, is this a vacancy that happened during a recess? Turn your thoughts away from when the recess happens. Concentrate on when the vacancy happens!! Have we elected people who cannot even read English?
Check It Out In The Federalist Papers # 67 and #76.
Now you know how to look things up in Our Constitution and check it out in The Federalist Papers. Political consultants, journalists, TV pundits, talk show hosts, candidates for office, people in Congress, in the Executive Branch, and sitting on Federal Benches don’t know how to do this. So you must do it and spread the Word if we are to restore our Constitutional Republic.
For more details and links to original sources, go here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/recess-appointments/
www.buildingblocksforliberty.org
Constitutional Minute #22 Amendments and Critical reading skills – Part 3 of 3
Examples of reading amendment language. We’ll provide the interpretation. You decide.
Sample #1: “Section 1. Total outlays of the government of the United States shall not exceed total receipts of the government of the United States at any point in time unless the excess of outlays over receipts is financed exclusively by debt issued in strict conformity with this article.” Source: H. J. Res. 32, Mar. 19, 2021
This says: “We will not spend more than we take in unless we find a way to spend more than we take in.”, yes? Next……………..
Sample #2: “No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a roll call vote”. Source: S. J. Res. 12, 105th Congress, Jan. 28, 1997
This says we will not raise taxes unless, of course, we vote to raise taxes, yes? Next…………….
Sample #3…. ‘‘Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly
chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress…”
Source: S. J. Res., Hyde-Smith, Feb. 2021
Where is there any authority in the Constitution for Congress to link spending to the GDP? So, this is no restriction at all! It is a new authority to spend (linked to GDP), not restricted to the “enumerated powers” only!
Sample #4: Amendment suggested to get rid of the unconstitutional executive (administrative) agencies:
“All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. ”This says that as long as these unconstitutional executive agencies are reauthorized, they stay! In effect, they legalize agencies that are currently unlawful.
Source: Constitutional Lawyer Mark Levin’s amendment to “limit the federal bureaucracy” (Page 99-100 The Liberty Amendments). He has five more in his book that do the opposite of what he claims. Some constitutional expert!
For more on this, you can go here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/mark-levins-liberty-amendments-legalizing-tyranny/
Constitutional Minute #21 The very idea of amendments – Part 2 of 3
Be very careful what you wish for regarding amendments. They can appear ideal and appeal to our desperation, but in reality, mean exactly the opposite. I will illustrate some of those in a later “Minute”. You might be shocked. As we previously said, statecraft is serious business.
Are amendments effective? Let’s take just a few examples.
- We have federal laws on prayer in public. The First Amendment did not prevent that.
- We have federal laws on guns, ammo, and firearm manufacturers. The Second Amendment did not prevent that.
- Our God-given privacy rights have been tossed aside by the federal government. The Fourth Amendment did not prevent that.
- We have federal laws on minimum wage, where to drill – or not drill for oil, air bags in cars, and hundreds of other objects. The Tenth Amendment did not prevent that.
Still think amendments are a good idea?
When amendments correct defects in the Constitution, (per George Mason as he said on June 11, 1787), they are clearly a good thing. The 12th and 13th Amendments, like the 11th Amendment, corrected defects in the Constitution. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment extended Citizenship to the freed slaves and provided constitutional authority for the much needed federal Civil Rights Act of 1866.
In Federalist No. 84 (10th para), Alexander Hamilton warned against adding a Bill of Rights to our Constitution. Under a Constitution of enumerated powers, the government may lawfully do only what the Constitution permits it to do. So
“…why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? … it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power…”
And he was right!! Why say Congress “shall not infringe” (2nd Amendment) when there was no power in the Constitution for the federal government to infringe to begin with? Same holds true for the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. Can you find others? (Hint: Take a look at the 19th just for one example.)
Bob Hilliard
wethepeoplehandbook@gmail.com
Constitutional Minute #20: The very idea of amendments – Part 1 of 3
Heed the words of Daniel Webster in his 4th of July Oration, 1802:
“The politician that undertakes to improve a Constitution with as little thought as a farmer sets about mending his plow is no master of his trade. If that Constitution be a systematic one, if it be a free one, its parts are so necessarily connected that an alteration in one will work an alteration in all; and this cobbler, however pure and honest his intentions, will, in the end, find that what came to his hands a fair and lovely fabric goes from them a miserable piece of patchwork.”
Statecraft is serious business which requires systematic study to master. Do we have statesmen at any level of government, (federal, State, or local), that dare compare to our founders? Regrettably, it would be hard to name even one in today’s world!
Those who have read Article I, Sec.8, clauses 1-16 of our federal Constitution know that it delegates only a handful of powers (over the Country at large) to the federal government.
They also know that, for the last 100 years, the federal government has violated the Constitution by usurping thousands of powers not delegated.
So what do we do about it?
Those who lobby for amendments say that when the federal government violates the Constitution, the solution is to amend the Constitution.
Now think about that:
When a spouse violates the marriage vows, is the solution is to amend the marriage vows?
When people ignore speed limits, is the solution to amend the speed limits?
When people violate the Ten Commandments, is the solution to amend the Ten Commandments?
Of course not! The solution is to obey your vows, obey speed limits, obey the Ten Commandments,…… and obey the Constitution!!
Bob Hilliard
wethepeoplehandbook@gmail.com
www.buildingblocksforliberty.org
Constitutional Minute #19 Just imagine what would happen?
What would happen if we turned over a new leaf and voted only for “what”, not “who”?
The “what” is the Constitution. It should be the standard by which we measure our candidates for votes. It’s the Supreme Law of the Land (Article VI). If candidates for public office do not campaign on issues that are consistent with the Supreme Law of the Land , then why should they get the vote?
For starters, if we required Congress to stay within the enumerated powers, two things would happen:
Firstly, the job of US Senator or Representative would be so boring, few would want to be reelected.
After all, how many times can you revise the bankruptcy code (authorized by Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4); fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (authorized by Art. I, Sec.8, cl.5); and organize the Patent and Copyright Office (authorized by Art. I, Sec.8, cl.8)?
Secondly, there would be no opportunity to get rich while in Congress, build a power base, and have “prestige”. So the office would no longer attract those who go into politics for the sake of their own egos, pocketbooks, and depraved lust for power.
And if we also stopped pouring out the blood of our young people and incurring ever more debt to pay for our constant military meddling all over the world, there would be very little for Congress to do.
After the cleanup period, the job of US Senator or Representative would become so boring – and so financially unrewarding – it would be seen as a civic duty to be stoically endured for a short time – instead of a cushy ticket to personal wealth, power, prestige, and a luxurious taxpayer funded retirement for life.
Bob Hilliard
Buffalo, Tx.
wethepeoplehandbook@gmail.com
www.buildingblocksforliberty.org