The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax
By Publius Huldah
A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.
Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. 1
Yet this monstrosity is pending in Michigan as SB 306 2 and in North Carolina as HB 366. 3 Legislators in four States, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, have already passed it.
Let’s look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment:
It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending
Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt. That’s a good idea?
Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree. States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?
Section 4 is a joke: Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress? Congress won’t even impeach a President for Treason.
How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden
Section 5 says:
“No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….” [italics mine]
What is a “general revenue tax”? Section 6 defines it:
“…’general revenue tax’ means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…” [italics mine]
Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of “general revenue tax” for that term:
“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….”
There it is: All that’s needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us. And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.
Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new “end user sales tax” 4 which would replace the income tax – this “end user sales tax” is passed by a simple majority of both houses.
So! Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress:
- Two-thirds of the members of both Houses can impose a new sales tax and/or value-added tax in addition to the income tax; or
- A simple majority of both Houses can impose “a new end user sales tax” which replaces the income tax.
Which option will Congress choose?
Our Constitution Doesn’t Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax
Article I, §8, clause 1 says:
“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…”
Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax. Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:
“a national sales tax would be an “impost” (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…” [see comment 19].
We may not properly use DeMoss’ redefinition of “impost”!
We must use the definition of “impost” our Framers used: The Federalist Papers say an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports. Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up. See for yourself that an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “impost” as:
“…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.”
Do you see?
National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not “excise” taxes. Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. 5 It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).
“Taxes” at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.
Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose. Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants. Our Framers limited Congress’ taxing power to:
- the apportioned direct taxes at Art. I, §2, clause 3;
- the duties or imposts on imports at Art. I, §8, clause 1; and
- the excises at Art. I, §8, clause 1.
A sales tax is none of the above. A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods. A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide”.
We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.
We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.
And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax: first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; 6 and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.
There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!
Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list. See the list HERE.
Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let’s cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.
Endnotes:
1 Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers: If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it. That’s how our Constitution already controls federal spending.
All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget. This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment. It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending – the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.
2 Leon Drolet’s article of July 10, 2015, and Sam Easter’s article of July 8, 2015, about SB 306 pending in Michigan don’t mention the new national taxes.
3 Matthew Burns’ article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn’t mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is “Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself.” So the solution is to massively increase Congress’ taxing powers?
4 “End user sales tax” is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.
5 Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering “revenuers” began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.
6 The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE. Since then, they have claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes. Are we too gullible to be free? PH
Nine Myths From the Convention of States Project by Judi Caler
Rita Dunaway, staff counsel for the Convention of States Project (COS), wrote an article,
Five Myths about Article Five, which turns the Constitution on its ear. Ironically, her article challenges five premises that are true, while invoking at least 9 myths of her own.
In fact, the very name “convention of states,” is being used by Article V convention advocates to deceive state legislators into thinking an Article V convention can be controlled by state legislatures; it cannot.
Rita’s Myth #1: A “convention of states” is the only “medicine that can cure the disease of federal overreach…”
False: What did our Founders really say we must do when the federal government usurps power? They never said, “When the federal government ignores the Constitution, amend the Constitution.” Instead, in addition to electing faithful representatives, they advised Nullification.
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” – Thomas Jefferson; Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
According to the Tenth Amendment Center, “Nullification is any act, or set of actions, that results in a particular law being rendered null, void or even just unenforceable within a particular area.” Nullification applies only to unconstitutional acts of the federal government – to usurpations of powers not delegated.
States, local governments, your County Sheriff or even The People can follow the advice of James Madison and refuse to comply with unconstitutional federal laws right now, without risking our Constitution through a convention. In fact, there were over 200 bills introduced less than one month into the 2015 state legislative season to do just that.
Rita’s Myth #2: The purpose of Article V is to protect The States and The People from an overreaching federal government.
False: Amendments are meant to correct errors, not to protect The People from an overreaching federal government. Alexander Hamilton at the constitutional convention on September 10, 1787 pointed out that amendments remedy defects in the Constitution. And he tells us in Federalist No. 85 (paragraph 13) that useful amendments would address the “organization of the government, not…the mass of its powers.”
You cannot “fix” federal usurpations of undelegated powers by amending the Constitution to say the federal government cannot do what the Constitution never gave it the power to do in the first place.
Rita’s Myth #3: The reason the drafters added the convention method of proposing amendments to Article V was to give the states a way to bypass Congress.
False: If Article V were meant for states to bypass Congress, it would have bypassed Congress! Article V gives Congress the power to “call” a convention; and Article I, Section 8, last Clause gives Congress the power to make whatever laws are “necessary and proper” to carry out the powers vested by the Constitution, e.g. Article V.
It’s true that George Mason wanted states to be able to make amendments without the assent of Congress and in a manner which did not depend on Congress. However Mason lost on this issue and refused to sign the Constitution.
Rita’s Myth #4: A “convention of states” is different than a “constitutional convention” because of the source of authority of each. The former derives its authority from Article V itself and is limited to proposing amendments to the Constitution we have; whereas at the constitutional convention of 1787, The States gathered pursuant to their residual powers as individual sovereigns.
False: The only convention for proposing amendments is one called by Congress. And Congress has total power to organize and set it up. But once the delegates assemble, they are the sovereign representatives of The People, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence (paragraph 2) and have the right to alter or abolish our form of government and institute a new one.
Advocacy groups are using semantics to change the meaning of the term “constitutional convention.” According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a “constitutional convention” is defined as “a duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of The People of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution.”
COS cannot have it both ways. They cannot proclaim the enormous power of an Article V convention to take back our government; and, at the same time, rein in delegates and deny their sovereignty.
Rita’s Myth #5: We know how an Article V convention would operate.
False: Neither COS nor anyone else can guarantee what will happen at an Article V Convention. There are no precedents. With our Constitution at risk, are we to assume 200-year-old “customs” in conventions between a few states would prevail?
Proof that there are no rules for operating an Article V convention is that various organizations of state legislators, including the Assembly of State Legislatures (ASL) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), are working furiously to hammer out rules. However, any finished product of such groups will have the “force” of a suggestion only.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report issued April 11, 2014[1] confirms that Congress most likely will claim authority over the power to organize and set up an Article V convention. Because of lack of precedent and so many unknowns, the CRS Report suggests on page 27 that they’ll have to call a convention to see what sort of convention they’ll get: general, limited or runaway!
Rita’s Myth #6: The reason we haven’t had an Article V convention yet is because there have never been 34 applications requesting a convention on the same topic.
False: This is speculation. Since Congress is given the power to “call” a convention, Congress decides how to count the applications. The hundreds of applications sent in thus far may not have met Congress’s criteria in terms of wording, timing, or any number of factors; or perhaps Congress has resisted calling a convention for reasons of its own.
Rita’s Myth #7: A limitation on the topic is necessary in order for state legislatures to provide instructions to the delegates.
False: There is nothing in Article V that calls for instructions to delegates. Since delegates can do whatever they want once the convention is convened, delegate instructions serve only as a gimmick to secure legislators’ votes on applications by giving them a false sense of security in thinking they can control what is totally out of their hands.
Rita’s Myth #8: Topics for an Article V convention can be limited so that convention delegates cannot re-write the entire Constitution once they assemble.
False: The delegates who represent “We the People” have the inherent right, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, to alter or abolish the Constitution and disregard any limitation placed on them by state legislatures, Congress, or anyone else. This is what happened at the constitutional convention of 1787 which was called by the Continental Congress for the sole purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. The result was a new Constitution with a new mode of ratification. There is nothing to prevent that from happening today.
Rita’s Myth #9: There are adequate safeguards in place to assure state legislators are in control of a convention, e.g. topic limitations, the ability to recall delegates, and the ultimate safeguard which requires 38 states to ratify any ill-conceived or illegitimately advocated proposal.
False: Delegates to an Article V convention would have more power than the federal or state governments and cannot be controlled by state laws. Topic limitations and Delegate recalls may be ignored. Also, Delegates may make their proceedings secret, as they did at the “amendments” convention of 1787, and they may vote by secret ballot. If this happens, States won’t know what is going on at the convention. If the States don’t know what is going on at the convention, then how will they determine whether to recall their Delegates or criminally prosecute Delegates who “violate their oaths” to obey the instructions of their states?
Furthermore, the ratification process may be changed. The Articles of Confederation required all of The States and the Continental Congress to ratify amendments. Nevertheless, the framers wrote a new Constitution with a ratification requirement of only 9 states (3/4 of those present). One Constitution waiting in the wings for a convention to be called would establish a dictatorship and require ratification by a referendum called by the President!
The only guarantee of power state legislatures have in the Article V convention process is to apply for a convention. Legislators are being duped by Article V convention advocates into believing they can necessarily control the convention rules and the ratification process. Congress controls the “call” and after the convention convenes, the delegates can do whatever they want, including rewrite the Constitution. Does anyone really believe that radical factions with ill-intentions will politely sit on the sidelines and relinquish the opportunity to participate in the demise of our beloved Constitution?
Judi Caler lives in Nevada City, California and is Article V Issues Director for Eagle Forum of California. She is passionate about holding our public servants accountable to their oaths to support the Constitution we have.
[1] The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress, Thomas H. Neale, April 11, 2014.
Camp Constitution 2015
Camp Constitution’s 2015 annual family summer camp concluded Sunday at the Toah Nipi Christian Retreat Center in Rindge, NH Attendees came as far as Texas, Florida, and Michigan. Guest instructors included constitutional attorney, and author, Mrs KrisAnne Hall, Mr. Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center and one of the nation’s leading experts of Agenda 21, Earl Wallace, author of the “Three Dimensional Leader,” Pastor Garrett Lear, the Patriot Pastor, Dan McGonigle, author of “Execute the Laws to Restore the Republic,” and Rev. Steve Craft.
In addition to the excellent instruction, campers and staff alike took a field trip to the Boston Tea Party Museum, and a trip to the Massachusetts State House where they were greeted by State Representative Leah Cole. Other activities included an outreach to the neighboring town of Winchendon, MA were campers distributed copies of the U.S. Constitution to business owners and local elected officials, and a hike up Mt. Monadnock in nearby Jaffrey, NH.
Recreational activities at the camp included wiffle ball, volley ball, basketball, swimming, boating, and even ballroom and line dancing instruction.
The camp published a daily newspaper which contained the results of the daily room inspection. interviews of instructors, and other items. Each year, staffers choose two super campers, one boy and one girl. This year’s winners were Jillian Kalis and Mike Smith.
Plans are already being made for next year’s camp which will run from July 10-17 and be held at the Toah Nipi Retreat Center. For camp pictures, please visit our Facebook page. Videos of camp activities and classes will be posted on the camp’s Youtube Channel
Camp Constitution 2015 Pictures
MUSKET TRAINING & PICTURE ARCHIVE
During this year’s fabulous camp, the newspaper staff collected over 1400 photos from several cameras during the course of publishing the daily camp newspaper. Campers and staff interested in downloading choice photos should go to the archive here. I expect the archive to be online for a few months, but there is a considerable amount of disk space associated with the archive, so it will most likely be removed to dvd storage at some point. Get your photos while they are available! The sample photo was taken during the musket training provided by “Patriot” Pastor Garrett Lear. Andrew Affleck, Junior Patriot Camper, fires a blank round with guidance & instruction by the good Pastor. The lesson included fundamental facts about the concept of a militia, the duty and requirements of those who served, the tools of the trade and inspirational dialog. This was an extremely popular event with the entire camp.
The Declaration of Independence by Pastor Garrett Lear, The Patriot Pastor
On July 4th, we celebrate one of the most solemn days in American history, the signing of the Declaration of Independence. It was a transforming moment in the history of North America, which changed the British colonies into a self-determining nation.
It is easy today, 239 years later, amidst the celebratory parties, barbecues, and fireworks displays, to forget that American independence was not inevitable and did not happen overnight. It was a hard-won victory that required a struggle of more than 30 years and great personal sacrifice from many men and women. And on July 4, 1776, that victory still hung in the balance.
At first, the future citizens of the United States wanted only to preserve their rights and liberties as British citizens. The colonists strongly opposed the acts of trade enacted by the British Council in 1760, authorizing, among other things, search warrants on any pretext, and the Stamp Act of 1765, which levied heavy taxes on the colonists without their own parliamentary representation, seeing in these laws a violation of the rights guaranteed by British common law. When it became clear that insisting on their rights would not be enough, those opposed to tyranny took action on that sultry July day in 1776 and declared independence from Great Britain. The gravity of this act was not lost on any present at that meeting of the Second Continental Congress. The Declaration, as far as the British sovereign was concerned, was a deliberate act of treason and the signatories were all in danger of their lives. Benjamin Franklin quipped to his fellow representatives at the signing, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
The War of Independence marks a second stage, although it began 15 months before the signing of the Declaration, at the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775, and ended in 1782 with the signing of the Treaty of Peace in Paris. The third and final stage reached its conclusion when Congress ratified the Constitution in 1789, bringing into being a new country and a new kind of government.
A contest of principle
But the great work of the American struggle for independence was not winning the conflict of arms. The birth of liberty was a contest of principle. At each stage, the struggle for independence was met by individuals, providentially prepared with minds and spirits trained to the issues of the times. The Declaration of Independence was the standard heroically waved in this war of ideas because it annulled the idea that men were subjects to any tyrannical powers and affirmed the natural right to be self-governed. The tie to British rule was dissolved by one common act, the signing of that document. It made Americans into members of a distinct community in relation to each other, bound by the laws of nature and the Union. It was the opening to a new era in the science of government and in the history of mankind.
From “John Quincy Adams on the American Revolution,” The Christian History of the American Revolution, Consider and Ponder
“Crimes of the Educators” by Alex Newman and Sam Blumenfeld Not Wanted at the Thomas Crane Library
A few weeks ago, I stopped by the Thomas Crane Library in the historic Quincy, MA, and donated a copy of “Crimes of the Educators by Alex Newman and Sam Blumenfeld. Yesterday, I found this E-mail in my inbox:
Hello Mr. Shurtleff,
Thank you for thinking of the library for your book donation. I am sorry to say that it does not meet our selection criteria. It will be at the circulation desk for you to pick up at your convenience. Thank you.
Deirdre Sullivan
Acquisitions Librarian
Thomas Crane Public Library
40 Washington Street
Quincy, MA 02169
Selection criteria? It sound like one of those vague terms that means “We don’t want your book because it exposes something the masses don’t need to know.” Well, I did a search of the libraries “selection criteria, and found such gems as “Heather Has Two Mommies,” a book promoting the Lesbian lifestyle, and “At Swim Two Boys,” a novel that can be defined as “homoerotic.” So, it looks like the library’s gate keepers have told us just what they mean by “selection criteria.”
A friend of mine who happens to be a retired school teacher was a bit outraged and contacted the library. This was the response she received:
Thank you for email regarding the recent donation of the book “Crimes of the Educators” by Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman.
All gifts of books and other materials for the library’s collection are subject to the same criteria used for purchased materials. For non-fiction works, some of the relevant criteria are accuracy, authoritativeness, literary quality and readability, relative importance in comparison to other works on the subject, and availability of the material at nearby libraries.
Based on an examination of the book and the lack of any authoritative critical reviews, our collection development librarian has determined that “Crimes of the Educators” doesn’t meet our selection criteria and will not be added to the collection.
We do strive to develop a balanced and objective collection of materials that provides a diversity of perspectives. On the topic of public education, the following recently published titles are available at the Crane library:
· The Teacher Wars by Dana Goldstein
· One Nation Under Taught: Solving America’s Science, Technology, Engineering & Math Crisis by Dr. Vince M. Bertram
· The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education by Diane Ravitch
Although “Crimes of the Educators” will not be added to our collection, it is available from at least two other Old Colony Library Network libraries, including the Thayer Library in Braintree. Whenever we do not select an item for our local collection, we are always happy to help patrons get what they want either at a nearby library or via interlibrary loan borrowing.
Sincerely,
Megan Allen
The book met the criteria for the neighboring library but not Quincy’s. The book “Crimes of the Educators” is a hard back book published by World Net Daily. Co-author, Alex Newman is an international journalist, educator and consultant who has lived in different parts of the world, and speaks four languages. The late Sam Blumenfeld, was a former editor for Grosset and Dunlop, had his own book publishing business, has authored over 10 books, had his articles appear in dozens of publications including “Boston Magazine, and “Reason,” has lectured in all 50 states, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. He even did a stint as a substitute teacher in the Quincy public schools. Now let’s examine the real reason why the gatekeepers at the library don’t want folks to read it. Here is a portion of books’ introduction:
“In the United States, the socialist utopians a new and unique method of conquering a nation: by dumbing down its people, by destroying the brainpower of millions of its citizens. The plan to dumb down America was launched in 1898 by socialist John Dewey, outlined in an essay titled “The Primarcy education Fetich.” In it he showed his fellow progressives how to transform America into a collectivist topiary taking over the public schools….”
The book has chapters exposing death education that leads to suicides, the drugging of children for the purpose of treating ailments caused by educators themselves, the moral dumbing down of our children, the making of a Black underclass, and the latest scheme of the “progressives” bankrolled by Bill Gates, Common Core.
Ms. Sullivan asked me to come by and pick up the book. I suggested she keep it and put it on display in September when the hypocrites at the Thomas Crane Library have their banned book week
http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140919/NEWS/140915767
Readers are encouraged to buy a copy of the book, and donate it to their local libraries. it is available on Amazon:
http://www.slblf.com/crimes-of-the-educators.html
I was a close friend of Sam Blumenfeld and had the opportunity to interview him about his book on Camp Constitution Radio a few months before he passed:
Camp Constitution at the Flag Day Parade in Dedham, MA
Camp Constitution had a float at the Dedham, MA Annual Flag Day Parade Sunday evening June 14. We had campers and staff from Camp Constitution hand out over 500 copies of the U.S. Constitution, 800 Camp Constitution pamphlets, and about 6 bags of candy. We were well received by the attendees young and old alike who appreciated getting the Constitutions and candy. Along the route, we asked one question to those receiving the Constitutions: What are the first 10 Amendments called? Sadly, only a handful knew the right answer. This is why our mission is so vital, and this is why we need to start more summer camps, and more outreach events. Interested in being part of the solution? Contact us. Host a presentation on how to start a camp in your area. 
Sam Blumenfeld, Author, Homeschool Pioneer, and Camp Constitution Instructor Passes Away
Camp Constitution lost a great friend with the passing of Samuel L. Blumenfeld. Sam passed away on June 1, a day after 89th birthday. Sam was born in New York City on May 31, 1926. His parents were immigrants from Poland. He was educated in New York City public schools which taught intensive phonics, and where the principal would recite the 23th Psalm over the PA system each morning. Sam served in World War II in the Northern Italy Campaign towards the end of the war. He wrote a few poems of his experiences in the war. He graduated from New Your City College, and, travelled to Europe to study. He also visited an Italian family he befriended during the war. Sam went to work for several publishing companies including Grosset and Dunlop. A life-long anti-communist, Sam founded the American Friends of Algeria, and later The American Friends of Katanga. In his library where rare documents concerning these two organizations including a letter from Dr. Moise Tsombe whom Sam visited in 1964. Sam went to work for “The Review of the News” a weekly conservative magazine published by The John Birch Society. He was instrumental in the founding of the Jewish Society of Americanists. He started his own publishing company, Coleridge Press, which published a biography of Lillian Nordica, a famous opera star.
While an editor for Grosset and Dunlop, he was asked to join a reading reform organization founded by his friend Watson Washburn, a New York Attorney. Sam was surprised to learn that American students had a reading problem. Mr. Washburn told him to read “Why Johnny Can’t Read” by Rudolph Fleish. This book set him on a life-long crusade to promote intensive phonics. Sam researched how the look-say method of reading was introduced in the U.S., and was the first person who had the moral courage to expose the conspiracy to deliberately dumb-down the American people. He travelled in all 50 states speaking to groups on the subject. He was a regular at homeschool conventions, Tea Party rallies, radio and talk shows. Sam’s books included “How to Start Your Own Private School.” The NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, “How to Tutor, and his last which he co-authored with Alex Newman “The Crimes of the Educators.” We were pleased to help with Alex Newman’s visit to meet Sam a few days prior to his death. His most influential work was his book “Alpha Phonetics.” This workbook was used by several generations of parents to teach their children how to read. Sam’s work influenced hundreds of thousands of people.
Sam was a supporter and instructor at Camp Constitution. He bequeathed his library and papers to Camp Constitution’s director knowing that Camp Constitution will help keep his work alive for generations to come. Sam was a national treasure who will be greatly missed. Camp Constitution created a collection of Sam’s work on its scribd.com page and will be uploading many of his writings in the moths to come. Here is a link to the scribd page: https://www.scribd.com/collections/14209868/Sam-Blumenfeld
States Need Budgets–but Enumerated Powers Limit Federal Spending by Publius Huldah
States Need Budgets – but Enumerated Powers Limit Federal Spending
By Publius Huldah
We will never solve our political and fiscal problems if we continue in our present state of ignorance of the fundamental distinction between the federal Constitution and the State Constitutions.
With our federal Constitution, we created a national government to which we delegated only a handful of enumerated powers. If you would trouble yourself to read the federal Constitution, this fact would jump out at you and hit you over the head. [THIS simple chart will get you started.]
The federal government doesn’t need a budget because Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers. Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out the handful of delegated powers, and then it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes. 1
And if you read your State Constitution, you will see that those who ratified it [foolishly] created a State government of general and unlimited powers subject only to the exceptions carved out by its Declaration of Rights. 2
Since State governments were created to possess general and unlimited powers, State governments may lawfully spend money on just about anything they want. 2 Accordingly, State governments need budgets to limit their spending to receipts.
But Federal Spending is limited by the Enumerated Powers
The federal Constitution lists the items Congress is permitted to spend money on. If you read through the federal Constitution and highlight the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will have a complete list of the objects on which Congress is lawfully authorized to spend money. Here is the list:
- The Census (Art. I, §2, cl. 3)
- Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate (Art. I, §5, cl. 3)
- Salaries of Senators and Representatives (Art. I, § 6, cl. 1)
- Salaries of civil officers of the United States (Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §1, cl. 7)
- Pay the Debts (Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & Art. VI, cl.1)
- Pay tax collectors (Art. I, §8, cl.1)
- Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with Indian Tribes (Art. I, §8, cl.3) 3
- Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
- The mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
- Attorney General to handle the small amount of authorized federal litigation involving the national government (e.g., Art. I, §8, cls. 6 & 10)
- Post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
- Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
- Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9 & Art. III, §1)
- Military and Citizens’ Militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
- Since Congress has general legislative authority over the federal enclaves listed in Art. I, §8, next to last clause, Congress has broad spending authority over the tiny geographical areas listed in this clause.
- The President’s entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries (Art. II, §3); and
- Since Congress had general legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken up into States, Congress could appropriate funds for the US Marshalls, federal judges, and the like for that Territory (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).
So! That’s about all Congress is authorized by our original Constitution to spend money on. 4 Did I leave anything out? To find out, take 20 minutes and, armed with a highlighter, read carefully through the original Constitution and see for yourself.
Let’s look at some of the appropriations bills passed by the First Congress: 5
- HERE is the Act for the establishment and support of Lighthouses, Beacons, Buoys, and Public Piers, of August 7, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. I, §8, next to last clause);
- HERE is the Act providing for the Expenses which may attend Negotiations or Treaties with the Indian Tribes, and the appointment of Commissioners for managing the same, of August 20, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. I, §8, clause 3 & Art. II, §2, cl. 2);
- HERE is the Act providing for the establishment of the Post Office, of September 22, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 7); and
- HERE is the Act providing for the compensation of federal judges and the Attorney General, of September 23, 1789 (expenditure authorized by Art. III, §1 for the federal judges; & for the AG, Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §2, cl. 2 & Art. I, §8, last clause)
Read these appropriations bills: They are single subject, short, easy to understand, and illustrate how appropriations bills ought to be written.
So, do you see? Congress is to make the appropriations for the objects of the enumerated powers delegated to the national government.
Pursuant to Art. I, §9, clause 7, Congress is to periodically publish a Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures.
We don’t need a federal budget because the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money.
Accordingly, the federal Constitution doesn’t provide for a Budget. We never had a federal budget until Congress passed the unconstitutional Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.
We got the crushing federal debt because for 100 years, Congress has been IGNORING the existing constitutional limits on its spending. Most of Congress’ spending is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the delegated powers.
The Answer to our political and fiscal problems is already laid out in the federal Constitution: Downsize the federal government to its enumerated powers and return the usurped powers to the States or the People.
Why are Some Pushing for a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA)?
Many of those clamoring for a federal BBA don’t know about the fundamental distinction between the federal and State Constitutions. But they want to do something about the out of control federal spending; they are told a BBA is the answer; and so, without giving it much thought, they jump on the bandwagon.
But others have an evil agenda in pushing for a BBA – an agenda so evil that if they disclosed it, most Americans would reject it:
All versions of a BBA transform our federal Constitution from one which created a national government with only a few enumerated powers to a national government of general and unlimited powers. This is because BBAs substitute a “budget” for the enumerated powers; and accordingly, the national government would become lawfully authorized to spend money on whatever they put in the Budget!
That unlimited spending power on whatever they want is what would transform the national government into one of general and unlimited powers.
To add insult to injury, while all versions of a BBA pretend to limit spending; they actually permit increases in spending and increases in debt whenever a majority votes to do so. 6
Conclusion
When the history of our time is written, do not let it be said that the American People were too lazy and stupid to be free. Do not let tricksters take away our glorious Heritage. Wake up! Stop applications for a convention for a BBA from being passed in your State. If your State has already passed such an application, educate your State legislators and get them to rescind it.
Endnotes:
1 The constitutional powers of the national government were supposed to be exercised with the proceeds of excise taxes & impost tariffs, with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population.
2 The powers of State governments are also restricted by the federal Constitution: The list of prohibited powers at Art. I, §10, and by those few powers delegated exclusively to the national government.
3 HERE is the proof of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause.
4 The 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments increased the powers and spending of the federal government by expanding federal powers & litigation against the States and The People. It was necessary to amend the Constitution to remedy the defect of slavery; but there was a better way than the 13th -15th Amendments.
5 HERE is a helpful site for locating early Acts of Congress. Once you have the title and date of an Act, you can find the official source at the Library of Congress: e.g., THIS provides what one needs to find the official edition HERE.
6 Compact for America’s pretended BBA is actually a tricky device for imposing a national sales tax or value added tax on the American People – on top of the income tax – and does nothing to limit federal spending. Yet deluded State Legislators are now proposing it in Michigan as SB 306. You can find a short and simple section by section analysis of Compact for America’s BBA HERE.
Searching for “Marriage” in the Fourteenth Amendment by Publius Huldah
Searching for “Marriage” in the Fourteenth Amendment
By Publius Huldah.
During April 2015, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges and consolidated cases. The questions presented for the Court to decide are: 1
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a State to license a marriage of two people of the same sex?
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage of two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state? 2
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” [emphasis mine] 3
Obviously, §1 says nothing about “marriage” or “homosexuality”. So how can it be said to authorize the supreme Court to FORCE States to accept same sex marriage?
Simple! All they have to do is redefine “liberty” in §1 to get it to mean whatever they need it to mean in order to get the result they want in the cases before them.
And that is precisely what the supreme Court has been doing. In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “privacy”, and “privacy” means you can kill your baby. The Court said under Part VIII of their Opinion:
“…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”
In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), they looked at the word, “liberty”, in §1 and said it means “consulting adults have the right to engage in private acts of homosexual sodomy”:
“We conclude the case should be resolved by determining whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment…” (1st para under II)
“…The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct …” (3rd para up from end) [emphasis mine]
Do you see? The supreme Court uses the word, “liberty”, in §1 of the 14th Amendment to justify practices they approve of and want to force everybody else to accept. 4
And by claiming that these practices constitute “liberty rights” which arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, they evade the constitutional limits on their judicial power.
I’ll show you.
The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts is Strictly Limited by The Constitution!
The Constitution does not permit federal courts to hear any case the Judges want to hear. Instead, a case must fall within one of a few categories before federal courts have jurisdiction to hear it.
Article III, §2, clause 1, lists the cases federal courts have the delegated authority to hear. They may hear only cases:
- Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [“federal question” jurisdiction];
- Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction]; and
- Cases between two or more States; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States; and certain cases between a State and Citizens of another State or Citizens or Subjects of a foreign State [“diversity” jurisdiction].
Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 83 (8th para):
“…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction…” [emphasis mine]
If a case does not fit within one of these categories, federal courts may not lawfully hear it.
In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton explains the categories of cases over which federal Courts have jurisdiction.
Since the “right” to same sex marriage is claimed to arise under §1 of the 14th Amendment, we will focus on Hamilton’s discussion of cases “arising under this Constitution”; or, as Hamilton puts it, cases:
“…which concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]
“Expressly contained”. Hamilton then gives examples of such cases: If a State violates the constitutional provisions which prohibit States from imposing duties on imported articles, or from issuing paper money [Art. I, §10], the federal courts are in the best position to overrule infractions which are “in manifest contravention of the articles of Union. [i.e., Constitution]”
Do you see?
So! Where are provisions addressing marriage and homosexuality “expressly contained” in our Constitution?
The answer any competent 8th grader should be able to give is, “Nowhere!”
Fabrication of “constitutional rights” in order to Usurp Judicial Power.
So now you see how Justices on the supreme Court evaded the constitutional limits on their judicial Power: They fabricated individual “constitutional rights” so that they could then pretend that the cases “arise under the Constitution”!
But power over abortion, homosexuality, and marriage is nowhere in our Constitution delegated to the national government over the Country at Large. 5
The supreme Court has usurped power over these objects. Their opinions are void for lack of jurisdiction and are proper objects of nullification. 6
It is time for The People and The States to man-up and smack down the supreme Court. Scrape the Court’s barnacles off Our Constitution! State Legislatures must make laws directing all State and local governments and Citizens to ignore such usurpatious opinions of the supreme Court.
Endnotes:
1 The briefs of the parties are HERE. The Questions Presented are set forth on pages 2 & 3.
2 If a same-sex marriage is contracted in one State pursuant to the laws of that State, are other States obligated, under the “full faith and credit clause”, to acknowledge the marriage as valid? Article IV, §1 states:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” [boldface mine]
At the time of our Framing, “marriage” does not appear to have been encompassed within “public Act or record”. In Federalist No. 42 (next to last para), Madison comments on the clause in connection with criminal and civil justice. An Act of the First Congress (May 26, 1790) which implemented the clause addresses laws made by State legislatures. An amendment to the 1790 Act (March 27, 1804), addresses “records” which may be kept in any public office of the State. But this cannot have included marriage records because a number of the original 13 States recognized common law marriage. And even for States which required formalities (e.g., Virginia), marriages could be accomplished by publication of banns and subsequent recordation in church and parish records – which were not “public records”. Marriage licenses issued by the States were a later development. The meaning of the clause which prevailed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified remains until changed by formal Amendment to the Constitution. So the full faith and credit clause does NOT require States to recognize marriages contracted under the laws of other States.
3 Professor Raoul Berger shows in Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights.
Professor Berger shows in Chapter 11 (page 222 of his book) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta. It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials – to judicial proceedings in courts of justice. It does not involve judicial power to override State Laws!
In short, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was to protect freed slaves from being lynched, imprisoned, or having their stuff taken away except pursuant to the judgment of their peers after a fair trial! It had nothing to do with “liberating” the American People from moral laws established thousands of years ago.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is badly written, uses vague terminology, and violates the “expressly contained” rule. One has to read, as Professor Berger did, the discussions in Congress and the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1864 to know what § 1 is about. But our moral and spiritual decline began in the early 1800s; from there, intellectual collapse quickly follows.
4 They even claim the right to keep on redefining “liberty” to include additional practices they might in the future want to force everyone to accept. They said in Lawrence v. Texas:
“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. (majority opinion, next to last para) [emphasis mine].
5 Because Congress has “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the federal enclaves described at Art. I, §8, next to last clause; Congress may make laws addressing these objects for those limited geographical areas. See also Art. IV, §3, cl 2. And pursuant to Art. I, §8, cl. 14, Congress may make laws addressing these objects for active duty military personnel.
6 The short and clear paper HERE proves that nullification of unconstitutional acts of the national government is the remedy advised by our Framers. One cannot honestly dispute this. PH