The Second Amendment And Slavery

/in /by

The Second Amendment & Slavery

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

In an TMZ interview with Larry King recently it was said that the 2nd amendment was created by “Southern senators so they could ward off slaves uprising.”  Yes there was slavery in the colonies and it was not confined to the South. Yes there were pro-slavery states pressuring convention delegates.  However not everyone was pro-slavery and the right to bear arms was not something foisted upon the nation by those who wanted to continue the abominable trade. The oversimplification in the Larry King interview of this complex history presents a sad distortion and denies many honorable and brave people of color their proper station in history.

It doesn’t take extensive research to discover that the very first man to give his life in our battle for independence was a freed slave by the name of Crispus Attucks.  Crispus Attucks not only gave his life so we could be free, but was one of the most honored patriots of this time.  The Boston Globe reported that Attucks’ funeral was the most attended funeral in the history of Boston.  This armed, freed slave fought for our freedom.

American history also reveals battalions of freed slaves that fought for our independence.

Peter Salem was one such hero.  As a freed slave, Salem is credited with having killed Major Pitcairn, resulting in the American victory over the British troops in the very famous battle of Bunker Hill.  Salem would receive many honors for this feat, even the praise of General George Washington.  This armed, freed slave fought for our freedom.

Americans should learn of the Bucks of America, Ned Hector, and of the George Middleton, a free black man and colonel in a Massachusetts Militia.  Middleton was a hero among those who fought in our war for independence.  Upon his retirement from duty, in 1796, Middleton started the “African Benevolent Society,” a charitable organization to care for the needs of the widows and orphans of those black soldiers who fought in our war for Liberty. All those armed, freed slaves, fought for our Liberty.

Mr. James Forten the son of free blacks, at 14 years old, heard the public reading the Declaration of Independence in the streets of Philadelphia.  Forten then joined the Navy to fight against the British oppression of the American colonists.  He was taken captive and given the option of living with a captain of the British Navy as a slave companion of the captain’s son.  Forten was told he would have comfort and provision like he had never known in America, if he would only agree to stop fighting and return to his life as a slave in Britain.  Forten, as a young man, responded: “I have been taken prisoner for the liberties of my country, and never will prove a traitor to her interest!”  He ended up spending 7 months in a British prisonship for his devotion to freedom and liberty.  This armed, free black man, fought for our freedom.

Let us not forget Prince Whipple, the freed black man who fought along side General George Washington and is seen in the very famous painting of Washington crossing the frozen Delaware River.  These are but just a few examples of the many armed freed slaves who fought for the new America.  .  Several of our States had a provision, that gave permanent freedom to all slaves wanting to fight for Liberty and independence.  This history means there are some free men who gave their only free breath so America could be free and Americans do not even know their names.

I could write extensively of the reams of documented conversations in which the American founders held the right to bear arms out to be an essential right to protect a nation from government tyranny and oppression, not a means to subjugate slaves. In fact, the man known as the Father of the Bill of Rights, George Mason from the southern colony of Virginia, notably created the Fairfax Resolves of July 1774 which declared that slavery should be done away with. This matched the strong sentiments he expressed in an essay in 1773:

“That slow poison…is daily contaminating the minds and morals or our people. Every gentleman here is born a petty tyrant. Practiced in acts of despotism and cruelty, we become callous to the dictates of humanity, and all the finer feelings of the soul. Taught to regard a part of our own species in the most abject and contemptible degree below us, we lose that idea of dignity of man which the hand of nature has implanted in us for great and useful purposes.”

One cannot look at the strong abolitionist sentiment in many of the founders’ writings and accept such a simple broad-brush of history as put forth by Larry King and others like him. Many in our founding, both black and white fought against the evils of slavery. Many fought for it. Eventually good triumphed over evil. To trot out racial division every time we want to win an argument, not only dishonors all of those who sowed seeds and spilled blood to move us closer to liberty for all, it threatens to grow an irrational hatred that serves the best interests of no-one.

We need a renewed vigor for truth in history in America.  We need to learn about the Liberty we possess that so many before us fought to secure.  We cannot preserve our freedoms while denying the history that won them.  Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

Liberty First University has courses particularly to educated on this history and the principles that drove the creation of our Constitutional Republic.  Please visit www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com and review the following courses to better educate yourself against these errors of history:

  1. Slavery and the American Founders
  2. Forgotten Founders
  3. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: The Second Amendment

States Ignoring the Constitution & Rules of Naturalization

/in /by

States Ignoring the Constitution & Rule of Naturalization
By KrisAnne Hall, JD

An Illegal Alien has been appointed to California government and has become the poster child for WHY our founders delegated to Congress the power to create a Uniform Rule of Naturalization.

Ironically, there was a discussion during the ratification of our Constitution on why it was necessary to establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization. Once again, a disregard for the Constitution and its intent has America experiencing a crisis that our founders sought to prevent.

Prior to our current Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, each State was left to determine, independently, the terms of citizenship. James Madison, Father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist 42;

“The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization, has long been remarked as a fault in our system…”

Madison goes on to describe the condition of confusion thrust upon all the States because of a lack of standard for the benefits of citizenship. For example, one State would establish a very lax standard for citizenship where another State would establish a very strict standard. This disparity created chaos when people would travel or move from one State to another. Madison asks the question, what would happen if a person who is banned from citizenship in one State, obtains citizenship from another State and then demands the benefits of citizenship from that State from which they were originally banned?

“An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity;”

Madison then explains to avoid these consequences both “embarrassing” and “potentially very serious” our Constitution delegated the authority to Congress to establish a uniform rule to obtain the benefits of citizenship.

Liz Mateo, claiming those benefits of citizenship through the State of California, is not a citizen by the terms established through the Constitution by law. Mateo has lived her life experiencing the benefits of that citizenship she does not legally hold. She got a doctorate level of education from Santa Clara University School of Law. When she graduated, she was not grateful for these benefits, however, she declared, “[E]verything is dedicated to Oaxaca, Mexico!! to that land that I miss so much.”

In addition to her education, Mateo has now been appointed to serve within the California State government. As a new member of California’s representative government, one of her chief concerns is that illegal aliens are “under represented” in American government. Mateo clearly has a great deal of confusion about the terms of citizenship established by law. One can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if Mateo were to leave California and expect to experience these same benefits in a State that is actually complying with the terms of citizenship created through the Constitution. As Madison supposed, what will also be the more “serious consequences” when people like Mateo continue to expect the benefits of citizenship while remaining ignorant and even hostile to the Constitution itself? And what will be the “serious consequences” in all of America if we continue to ignore these historical truths by allowing States like California violate the supreme law of the land?

The governors of every other States must immediately take a stand against this violation of the Constitution. Each State should issue resolutions of condemnation and sanctions against California until they come into compliance with the terms of the Constitution. The people must demand that the federal executive branch continue to enforce the Uniform Rule of Naturalization, even in California. If California refuses to come into compliance with the Constitution the other States need to have a serious discussion amongst each other and Congress regarding the ability of California to remain a part of the Union.

States like California are not just ignoring the Constitution, they are also ignoring the history and wisdom used to write the Constitution. Their blatant disregard is thrusting America into the embarrassment and chaos our founders actively sought to prevent.

Learn what you need to know about our Constitution and government at www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

 

Una Lección Sobre el Control de Armas

/in /by

Dear Liberty Student: Because Liberty is the possession of all; because we have a duty to share the truth; it has long been a desire for us to reach everyone with the good news of Liberty.  We now have a volunteer that is helping us translate this important education into Spanish.  Last month this article was also translated into Polish! Will you help us teach Liberty globally by sharing this article far and wide?  To read and share this article in English click here: https://goo.gl/5AR85N  Liberty First!  KrisAnne Hall

Estimado estudiante de Liberty:  Porque la libertad es la posesión de todos; porque tenemos el deber de compartir la verdad; Desde hace tiempo, es un deseo para nosotros llegar a todos con las buenas nuevas de la Libertad.  Ahora tenemos un voluntario que nos está ayudando a traducir esta importante educación al español. ¡El mes pasado este artículo también fue traducido al Polaco! ¿Nos ayudará a enseñar Liberty globalmente compartiendo este artículo por todas partes?  Para leer y compartir este artículo en inglés, haga clic aquí: https://goo.gl/5AR85N ¡Liberty Primero!  KrisAnne Hall

 

Una Lección Sobre el Control de Armas

KrisAnne Hall, JD

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

 

Lo que muchos ciudadanos y legisladores no entienden es que el gobierno federal no tiene el derecho de impedir que un ciudadano respetuoso de la ley posea CUALQUIER arma de fuego. Todo el argumento para el control de armas se basa en una premisa falsa. La segunda enmienda no se trata de autodefensa de criminales.

Tan desagradable que pueda ser para esta sociedad moderna decir en voz alta, histórica y constitucionalmente hablando, el derecho de la gente a tener y portar armas siempre ha sido un derecho a protegerse de aquellos en el poder que quieren esclavizarlo. Si los Estados Unidos desea participar en un debate real sobre el derecho de tener y portar armas, debe enfocarse desde la perspectiva correcta.

La Constitución y su historia son inequívocamente claras en esto. Aquí hay una pequeña lección de historia de la 2da Enmienda para que podamos defender nuestros derechos para que no se conviertan en privilegios otorgados por el gobierno.

Todo lo que necesitamos saber fue explicado por nuestros fundadores en los años 1787-1788. La primera lección viene de George Mason. George Mason, junto con James Madison, se conoce como el “Padre de la Declaración de Derechos.” Me parece a una buena persona escuchar cuando se trata de cualquier parte de la Carta de Derechos es alguien que se conoce como su “Padre”. Mason primeramente explica la razón que debemos portar armas, y adivina qué; no tiene nada que ver con la caza ni el tiro al plato … o la lucha contra asaltantes.

“Hace cuarenta años, cuando se formó la resolución de esclavizar a America en Gran Bretaña, un hombre hábil, (Sir William Keith), gobernador de Pensilvania, aconsejó al Parlamento británico desarmar al pueblo; que era la mejor y más efectiva manera de esclavizarlos; pero que no deberían hacerlo abiertamente, sino debilitarlos, y dejarlos hundirse gradualmente, desanimando totalmente y descuidando a la milicia ciudadana. [Aquí, el Sr. Mason citó varios pasajes a este respecto.] ¿Por qué no deberíamos brindarles protección contra el peligro de destruir nuestra milicia ciudadana, nuestra fuerza real y natural? El gobierno general debería, al mismo tiempo, tener algo de ese poder. Pero no necesitamos darles el poder para abolir a nuestra milicia ciudadana.” George Mason, Convención Ratificadora de Virginia, 14 de junio de 1788

A Woman on a Mission of Liberty

En las palabras del “Padre de la Carta de Derechos”, tenemos armas para no quedar esclavizados por el gobierno federal. Pero el Sr. Mason no termina su lección allí, continúa asegurándose de que sepamos quién es la milicia ciudadana y esto es contrario a lo que la mayoría de los políticos de hoy profesan.

“Señor Presidente, un digno miembro ha preguntado quiénes son las milicias ciudadanas, si no son las personas de este país, y si no debemos estar protegidos del destino de los alemanes, prusianos, etc., por nuestra representación. Pregunto, ¿Quiénes son las milicias ciudadananas? Consisten ahora en todo el pueblo, excepto unos pocos funcionarios públicos. Pero no puedo decir quién será la milicia ciudadana del día futuro. Si ese papel sobre la mesa no este alterada, la milicia ciudadana del día futuro puede no consistir en todas las clases, altas y bajas, y ricos y pobres…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 16 de junio de 1788

Entonces Mason explica que “We The People” somos la milicia ciudadana a portar armas para evitar ser esclavizados por el gobierno federal Y para protegernos de la tiranía de NUESTROS REPRESENTANTES, cuya negligencia nos lleva a sufrir el mismo destino de las naciones extranjeras.

La segunda lección viene del gran patriota Noah Webster. Hablando sobre la amenaza de un gobierno central abrumador, explica con gran claridad la razón por la cual nuestros fundadores intentaron armar a toda la ciudadanía.

“Otra fuente de poder del gobierno es la fuerza militar. Pero esto, para ser eficiente, debe ser superior a cualquier fuerza que exista entre las personas, o que puedan mandar: porque de lo contrario esta fuerza sería aniquilada, en el primer ejercicio de actos de opresión. Antes de que un ejército permanente pueda gobernar, la gente debe ser desarmada; como lo son en casi todos los reinos de Europa. El poder supremo en los America no puede imponer leyes injustas con la espada; porque todo el cuerpo del pueblo está armado, y constituye una fuerza superior a cualquier banda de tropas regulares que pueda, bajo cualquier pretensión, ser criada en America. Una fuerza militar, al mando del Congreso, no puede ejecutar ninguna ley, pero tal como las personas perciben que es justa y constitucional; porque ellos poseerán el poder, y los celos instantáneamente inspirarán la inclinación, para resistir la ejecución de una ley que les parece injusta y opresiva “. Noah Webster, un examen de los principales principios de la Constitución Federal, 1787

No hay necesidad de interpretación. Estas instrucciones están escritas en inglés simple. ¿Por qué portamos armas de acuerdo con Noah Webster?

  • Para evitar el dominio de un ejército permanente;
  • Para evitar que el Congreso ejecute leyes injustas e inconstitucionales;
  • Para evitar que el Gobierno Federal se vuelva injusto y opresivo;
  • La gente que porta armas debe ser SUPERIOR a un ejército controlado por el Congreso.

La lección número 3 proviene de un fundador al que se hace referencia en seudónimo como Carta de un granjero federal (muy probablemente Richard Henry Lee, escritor de la Resolución que declara la independencia). El Sr. Lee explica,

“para preservar la libertad, es esencial que todo los ciudadanos siempre posean armas, y se les enseñe por igual, especialmente cuando son jóvenes, cómo usarlas; tampoco se desprende de esto, que todo promiscuamente debe ir al servicio real en cada ocasión. La mente que apunta a una milicia ciudadana selecta debe estar influenciada por un principio verdaderamente anti-republicano; y cuando veamos a muchos hombres dispuestos a practicar en él, siempre que puedan prevalecer, no es de extrañar que los verdaderos republicanos sean para protegerlo cuidadosamente.” Carta del Granjero Federal # 18 25 de enero de 1788.

El Sr. Lee explica que es nuestro deber no simplemente portar armas, sino SIEMPRE portar armas. Es probable que el Sr. Lee se revuelva en su tumba ante la idea de que tenemos que pedir permiso al gobierno para portar un arma de fuego. ¿Qué tal esa directiva que también debemos enseñar a nuestros hijos a portar armas?

Nuestras lecciones finales hoy vienen de Patrick Henry. El Sr. Henry fue probablemente uno de los campeones más apasionados del deber del ciudadano de portar armas. Nadie puede analizarlo como Patrick Henry.

“Cuida con celosa atención la libertad pública. Sospeche a todos los que se acercan a esa joya. Lamentablemente, nada lo preservará, sino que la fuerza será absoluta. Cada vez que renuncias a esa fuerza, inevitablemente estás arruinado “. Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention 5 de junio de 1788

“¡Oh, señor! deberíamos tener buenos momentos, de hecho, si, para castigar a los tiranos, ¡solo era suficiente reunir a la gente! Tus brazos, con los que puedes defenderte, se han ido; … ¿Alguna vez leíste acerca de cualquier revolución en una nación, provocada por el castigo de aquellos en el poder, infligidos por aquellos que no tenían ningún poder? Lees sobre un acto antidisturbios en un país que se llama uno de los más libres del mundo, donde unos pocos vecinos no pueden reunirse sin el riesgo de ser fusilados por una soldadesca contratada, los motores del despotismo. Podemos ver tal acto en America. “Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention 5 de junio de 1788

Bueno, ahí lo tiene, una educación histórica y veraz sobre su derecho a tener y portar armas. La educación es fácil de encontrar y fácil de leer. ¿Por qué nuestros políticos y medios de comunicación están empeñados en diseminar la mala educación y las mentiras? Tal vez repitan las mentiras porque intentan desarmar a la gente, porque saben, como lo hicieron nuestros fundadores, que una ciudadanía armada es la última línea de defensa contra la tiranía absoluta.

Un debate apropiado sobre el derecho de uno a tener y portar armas NO es uno que esté enmarcado en términos de si puede sentirse a salvo de las personas malvadas y depravadas, llenas de odio y mallice, que quieren lastimarlo. NUNCA se sentirá seguro de esas personas y esas personas no dejarán de existir solo porque USTED no tiene permitido poseer un arma de fuego legalmente. ¿Por qué? Porque esas personas no se preocupan por las leyes y siempre encontrarán la forma de herir y destruir, con o sin leyes de armas.

Si la sociedad es honesta e históricamente precisa, la única pregunta que tiene alguna relevancia para el debate sobre el control de armas es:

“¿Confía Ud. en los que están en el gobierno, ahora y para siempre en el futuro, para no tomar su vida, libertad o propiedad a través de la fuerza del gobierno?”

Si la respuesta a esa pregunta es “no”, el debate sobre el control de armas ya ha terminado.

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

The General Welfare Clause: Its Not About Money

/in /by

Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Constitution reads:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”

From this clause, many have construed the “general Welfare” statement to grant practically unlimited power to Congress to collect and spend the tax payers’ money on whatever cause Congress may invent for the “good” of the government or the people.  Is that what the designers of our Constitution intended when they penned those words “general Welfare?”

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and 4th President suggests that the meaning of the “general Welfare” clause is the exact opposite.

According to the father of the Constitution the powers delegated to the central government “are few and defined and those that remain in the States are numerous and indefinite.” Federalist #45.

Madison also explained that those powers are “reserved to external objects” of “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” He also stated that the central government’s power to tax is intended to be limited to those powers. Federalist #45

Madison clarified the meaning of this often abused “clause” in 1792 during the Cod Fishery Bill debate. Specifically, that the General Welfare clause is not a delegated power of its own but a description of the purpose of the limited and enumerated powers described in Federalist 45. The General Welfare clause, he explains, was added to describe the purpose of the limited powers being delegated to the central government, for example, so the central government could use those powers for the “general Welfare” of the union, rather than for the benefit of one State over the other. This debate make it crystal clear, that this is not a blanket power to “do anything you can think of” to promote the so-called general welfare. It is in fact a limitation to direct that the power be wielded equitably.

In this debate Madison warns of the consequences of interpreting this clause as a general boilerplate power, rather than a description of the intent that the limited powers be used to the general benefit of the entire union. He says if the general welfare clause takes is erroneously given such a broad meaning then we will have a govt that is far more expansive than what the Constitution authorizes:

“…for if the clause in question really authorizes Congress to do whatever they think fit, provided it be for the general welfare, of which they are to judge, and money can be applied to it, Congress must have power to create and support a judiciary establishment, with a jurisdiction extending to all cases favorable, in their opinion, to the general welfare, in the same manner as they have power to pass laws, and apply money providing in any other way for the general welfare….

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.” James Madison, On The Cod Fishery Bill, Granting Bounties, 1792

It is relevant to note in this discussion that Madison is remarking that it would be an unconstitutional expansion of power for the central government to involve itself in areas such as education, roads, social welfare, and law enforcement. He is speaking to his colleagues in extremes to show his point that interpreting the clauses in this way would result in an unlimited central government, a notion that would have been highly offensive to the men involved in this debate. And had they not been convinced that the central govt was barred by the Constitution form intruding into these areas, they would have never ratified the Constitution.

So according to the Father of the Constitution, the General Welfare clause does not give power or permission for federal involvement in the internal affairs of the States. And to the contrary, once we see the adoption an erroneously expansive interpretation of the general Welfare clause, and see federal involvement in our schools, local governments, roads, and every minute affair of our lives, we will know we have a absurdly out of control federal government.

As Madison himself said,

“I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America; and what inferences might be drawn, or what consequences ensue, from such a step, it is incumbent on us all to consider.”

Because we have turned Constitutional interpretation over to the musings of those in power, we have allowed those entrusted with the preservation of the Constitution to “transmute”  into something other than a Constitutional Republic. In an arrogance magnified by ignorance, the political elite have decided that the wisdom sown into our founding documents and expressed in the profuse writings of its framers does not need to be consulted.

The fact is, this wisdom is tied to over 700 years of lessons in history and 5 foundational Liberty Charters, not to mention the political philosophers and writers that the designers of our Constitution diligently consulted. The question is, where is such negligence leading us? What kind of government are we allowing? Into what have we been transmuted? And as James Madison asked “What consequences might ensue?”

The Supremacy Clause: The Constitution Is Supreme

/in /by

The Supremacy Clause: The Constitution Is Supreme

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause.  This clause in our Constitution is often misquoted, misapplied, and misinterpreted.  Those who support an overgrown and supreme federal power like to use this clause to beat the States into a powerless submission to every asserted federal authority.  Is that really what the designers of our Constitution meant when they placed this clause into the Constitution?

The Supremacy Clause reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;  and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

A plain reading of this text tells us several things:

  1. This Constitution, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
  2. The Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance to the Constitution are the supreme Law of the Land.
  3. Treaties made under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land.

The Constitution, through this clause has been established as the highest standard of Law regarding the federal government.  The Laws of the United States are below the Constitution.  The Treaties of the United States must be made under the authority of the Constitution.  As far as the federal government is concerned, there is nothing higher than the Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton explains the underlying principle of this clause in Federalist 78.

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

James Madison explains in Federalist 45 that the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined and those powers are to be principally exercised upon foreign affairs, such as war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce.

According to Hamilton, when the federal government exercises powers that have not been delegated through the Constitution, the acts performed through that unauthorized power are null and void.   What that means is, if Congress passes a law and that law is not made consistent with the powers delegated by the Constitution, then that law is completely invalid.  Thomas Jefferson reasserts this concept in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798:

“Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.”

The Supremacy Clause codifies this very principle;  that any law made by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is no law at all.

A law made by Congress that is not made pursuant to the Constitution, is not authorized by an expressly delegated power, it is not the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State are NOT bound by it.  The Supremacy Clause does not make every law of Congress, every act of Congress, every federal regulation, or every supreme Court opinion superior to State laws and State Constitutions.  It is the exact opposite.  The States agreed amongst one another to be bound by their mutual compact – the Constitution – not to subject themselves to every whim of their creation.

The Supremacy Clause, in fact, puts the federal government on notice that their every act is limited by the powers delegated through the Constitution.  The Supremacy Clause is NOT a limit of State authority, it is not a statement of supremacy of the federal government over the power of the States.  The Supremacy Clause tells those in the federal government that their power is limited by the Constitution and that the States do not have to submit to any imposed authority of the federal government that is not made consistent with the powers delegated by the Constitution, which the States themselves created.

Rights vs. Benefits

/in /by

Rights vs. Benefits – By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Some Americans seem to be confused about the difference between Rights and Benefits.  Influenced in part by manipulative politicians and pundits, this confusion has clouded the minds of the unsuspecting.  Here is a typical example of this confusion on Twitter:

 

How many people have you heard proclaim that there exists a right to healthcare, birth control, abortion, or some other government granted thing? Do they truly not understand what a right is? Are they being deceptive or are they deceived? Those Americans caught up in this deception are chasing after benefits, not rights.

A Right is something that you possess inherently by the nature of your creation, (although it may cost to protect it it) it is not confiscated from another on your behalf.  A benefit is payment or privilege given to you at the cost of another’s property. Money must be confiscated from another citizen in order to pay for a benefit.

Rights

Samuel Adams, designer of our Constitutional Republic described rights as being “evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.”

Another political philosopher, Frederic Bastiat writes with great clarity on the meaning of Rights and how government relates to those Rights:

“Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”

Rights aren’t created by legislation. Rights are not granted by government. Rights precede government. Government is created to protect rights. Artful political leaders deny our Right to keep and bear arms, while at the same time asserting that the benefit of healthcare is a right.  Yet, not only does life, the production from that life (property) and the right to that production (liberty) exist prior to governmental organs, but the right to protect those things from forceful taking is inseparable from the rights themselves.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” – Samuel Adams.

“Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?”  Frederic Bastiat

If you must wait for government to protect your life, liberty, or property and are not free to do that yourself, then those items do not belong to you, they belong solely to whomever you have relinquished that right of protection.  For if those in government choose not to protect you, or unable to protect you when you could otherwise protect yourself then you are in essence a slave, a ward of the state – you are not free. Your rights are forfeited to those upon whom you depend.

Benefits

Benefits on the other hand are not inherent and must be taken rather than protected. The gifts of God are rights.  The gifts of government, are benefits.  Those benefits may fall into the categories of healthcare, subsidies, or any assistances bestowed upon people using money collected from other people, otherwise known as taxes.  A person does not have a right to healthcare paid for by others, that is a benefit.  A person does not have a right to welfare or monetary assistance, those are benefits.  Rights belong to all people, benefits are only available to those who are a part of a defined group, subject to the terms decided upon by others.  Rights are not given by government, so they should not be taken by government.  Benefits can be given and taken based upon transitory terms. Benefits have to be agreed to, legislated into existence, and supported by transfer of property. Rights are inherent and must only be recognized and defended. Their existence does not depend on taxes or any other property transfer.

People have a right to life.  People have a right to defend life.  You do not have a right to birth control, any more than you have a right for someone to buy you a car, pay for your vacation or buy your groceries. Other citizens paying for your birth control is a benefit, not a right.  Abortion is taking life from another, and that is contrary to Natural Law and the natural right to life. One cannot be said to have a right to take another life or cause another life to cease.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution were incorporated to serve as reminders to the American people of the rights that belong to all people as a matter of Natural Law.  These first ten amendments do not contain clauses about healthcare, welfare, or prosperity; because if they did, they would be called the Bill of Benefits instead of the Bill of Rights.

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

America: A President Or A King?

/in /by

America: A President Or A King?

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Great study and deliberation was conducted in designing the office of the president.  What was the designers of our Constitutional Republic chief concern? That the president would become a king.

“The safety of the people in a republic depends on the share or proportion they have in the government; but experience ought to teach you, that when a man is at the head of an elective government invested with great powers, and interested in his re-election, in what circle appointments will be made; by which means an imperfect aristocracy bordering on monarchy may be established.” Anti-Federalist #67

When creating the office of the president our founders had many things to consider.  The first consideration was, would this executive purpose be best fulfilled with a committee, a tribunal, or one person.  In the current climate, it was concluded that the power of the executive should be vested in one person, as an ambassador behalf of the States, to other nations.  But having just thrown off the bonds of kingly rule, how could the designers of our Constitution ensure that this one person, over time, would not accumulate power and become the king they never wanted?  The answer, limited and concurrent authority.

Article 2 of the Constitution enumerates the limited authority delegated to the executive.  The student of the Constitution will have to admit that the power delegated to the executive is considerably less than the power delegated to congress.  As a matter of fact, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison describe the power of the president of being less than the power of most Governors of the States.

The president is intended to have very few powers and practically no autonomous power.  The primary purpose of the executive is the be an ambassador on behalf of the States to foreign affairs.   Therefore, the majority of the power exercised by the president must be approved by the Senate (the representative body of the States) before it becomes binding.  In that limited capacity, the president is authorized to negotiate treaties with foreign governments.  However, the president cannot make any treaties autonomously.  Before a treaty becomes law, it must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and be found to be consistent with the delegation of the authority in the Constitution.

“The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description.” Federalist #69

The president is the commander in chief of the military, but only under a declaration of war by congress.  The president is denied the power to declare war specifically because of this desire to prevent him from becoming a king and so America could avoid the kingly consequence of frequent wars.  James Madison explained;

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl.” James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 2 Apr. 1798

The president is authorized to nominate members of the supreme Court and cabinet, but the official appointments are a power reserved to the Senate.

“The President is to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices …The one (the President) would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other (the King) is the sole author of all appointments.” Federalist #69

The president is tasked with making suggestions to the Congress, he is not empowered to make demands or circumvent the legislative authority.  The president is able to veto a law, but his veto can be overturned by Congress. The president is not authorized to write laws, make laws, or overturn laws that are constitutionally valid.

“The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature, for reconsideration; and the bill so returned is to become a law, if, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses. The king of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament.” Federalist #69

Executive orders of a president are not equivalent to law, nor can they change or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress.  Executive orders were created so the president, as the leader of the executive branch, could send orders and instructions to agencies and agents within the executive branch.  Any executive order that attempts to alter or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress; any executive order that attempts to exercise authority over a person or a State outside the executive agency, is an unlawful executive order, contrary to the Constitution, and is therefore invalid.

The president cannot create a tax, eliminate a tax, or even raise or lower a tax, that power is reserved to the House of Representatives alone.

“The one (President) can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other (a King) is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin.” Federalist #69

The president is only authorized to spend the money Congress apportions to the executive branch, therefore any debt incurred by the federal government is not the product of the president, but due to the spending of Congress.

Even the autonomous powers of the president are limited.  The president is authorized to issue pardons but only for federal offenses and not in the case impeachment.

“…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Article 2 section 2 clause 1

Finally, as Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist #69, the president is not authorized to make citizens out of aliens and he is not authorized to confer the benefits of citizenship on any person.  These, again, are powers reserved to Congress.

“The one (the President) can confer no privileges whatever; the other (the King) can make denizens (citizens) of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.” Federalist #69

The American colonists didn’t simply separate themselves from Great Britain, they declared independence from kings forever.  Their purpose was to ensure the Blessings of Liberty not just to themselves, but to all future generations.  They knew the only way to do that would be to keep the president very limited in power. Their purpose was that America would never again have a king.

A Lesson On Gun Control

/in /by

A Lesson On Gun Control

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

 

What many citizens and legislators do not understand is that the federal government has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning or possessing ANY firearm.  The entire argument for gun control is built upon a false premise. The second amendment is not about self-defense from criminals.

As unpleasant as it may be for this modern society to say outloud, historically and constitutionally speaking, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has always been a right to protect yourself from those in power who want to enslave you. If America wants to engage in a real factual debate on the right to keep and bear arms, then it must be approached from the proper perspective.

The Constitution and its history is unequivocally clear on this.  Here is a little 2nd Amendment history lesson so we can defend our Rights from becoming government bestowed privileges.

Everything we need to know was explained by our founders in the years 1787-1788.  Lesson one comes from George Mason.  George Mason, along with James Madison, is referred to as the “Father of the Bill of Rights.”  Seems to me a good person to listen to when it comes to any portion of the Bill of Rights is someone who is referred to as its “Father.”  Mason first explains the REASON we are to bear arms, and guess what; it has nothing to do with hunting and skeet shooting…or fighting muggers.

“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

In the words of the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” we bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t end his lesson there, he continues by making sure we know WHO the militia is and this is contrary to what most politicians profess.

“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation?  I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

So Mason explains We The People are the militia who bear arms to keep from being enslaved by the federal government AND to protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations.

Lesson two comes from the great patriot Noah Webster.  Speaking on the threat of an overpowering central government, he further explains, with great clarity, the REASON our founders intended the entire citizenry be armed.

“Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”  Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

There is no interpretation need.  These instructions are written in plain English.  Why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster?

  • To prevent rule by a standing army;
  • To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws;
  • To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive;
  • The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress.

Lesson number 3 comes from a founder referred to in pseudonym as Letter from a Federal Farmer (most likely Richard Henry Lee, writer of the Resolution Declaring Independence).  Mr. Lee explains,

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”  Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.

Mr. Lee explains that it is our DUTY to not simply bear arms but to ALWAYS bear arms. Mr. Lee is probably rolling over in his grave at the idea that we have to ask permission of the government to carry a firearm.  How about that directive that we also must teach our children to bear arms?

Our final lessons today come from Patrick Henry.  Mr. Henry was probably one of the most passionate champion of the citizen’s duty to bear arms.  No one can break it down like Patrick Henry.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

“Oh, sir! we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone;…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors can not assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.”  Patrick Henry Virginia Ratifying Convention June 5, 1788

Well, there you have it, an historical and truthful education on your Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  The education is easy to find and easy to read.  Why are our politicians and media talking heads bent on disseminating miseducation and lies?  Perhaps they repeat the lies because they intent on disarming the people, because they know, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.

A proper debate on one’s right to keep and bear arms is NOT one that is framed in the terms of whether you can feel safe from wicked and depraved people, full of hate and mallice, who want to hurt you. You will NEVER feel safe from those people and those people will not cease to exist just because YOU are not allowed to legally own a gun. Why? Because those people do not care about laws and they will always find a way to hurt and destroy, with or without gun laws.

If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has any relevance to the gun control debate is,

“Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?”

If the answer to that question is “no,” the gun control debate is over.

Key To Understanding the Constitution

/in /by

When a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, a founder of our Constitutional Republic, what kind of government the States created, he answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  The key to keeping that Republic exists in the understanding how the Constitution was designed to function.

The Constitution of these United States is not arbitrary.   It is a document of standards established to keep the GOVERNMENT from becoming arbitrary.  These standards were not invented by the men who wrote the Constitution.  These standards were axiomatic truths that had proven themselves for over a millennium. Many of these truths can be found in five historic liberty charters, the very liberty charters that gave birth to America’s founding documents. The US Constitution is not an invention, it is an inheritance.  Those who claim that America’s Constitution is vague, arbitrary, or even irrelevant do so because they are uneducated about where our Constitution came from and why it was formed.

The US Constitution and the govt it created was designed to protect Liberty.   This purpose is declared in the Declaration of Independence.   It is recorded in the Pre-amble to the Constitution. And The Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amds) was incorporated into the Constitution to trigger an alarm when this liberty is being threatened.  And yet, nothing in either of these three documents is an invention of the men who wrote them.  Everything, every principle of government, every security to Liberty, and even at times the very language itself was taken from lessons learned from over 700 years of history and five essential Liberty Charters.  It is this history that proves that the Constitution is not an arbitrary, living breathing document, but a document designed from blood-bought lessons in the historic struggle between liberty and tyranny.

Once this history is understood, today’s claim that the Constitution is irrelevant falls away and we begin to see not only how the Constitution is designed to limit government and preserve Liberty, but why we must adhere to this standard.  The living breathing deception can only exist by eliminating these historical truths and isolating men from their own history.

Originalism or original intent means looking at the history that gave us our founding principles and realizing why they are important, it means understanding the Constitution in its historical context. This is the only way to ensure that this government operates to preserve the essential principles of liberty, to ignore the origin of our constitutional principles is to invite the same threats that prompted the necessity of their protection.  To throw off the lessons of history invites despotism and inequality, apathy and corruption, slavery and oppression.

Originalism is the shield against slavery, masters, and oppressors.  Originalism not only understands these essential principles of liberty, but embraces it with the knowledge that Liberty was the stated goal of the designers of the Constitution.  Originalism is not only the correct legal way to apply the Constitution, it is the only way that guarantees and secures Liberty.

Originalism declares, “we don’t care what the mob says, we don’t care what the powerful say, we will ensure that all are treated equally with dignity.  We are not ruled by mob mentality, but by the principles of Liberty because we know our history.”

However, a living breathing constitution is arbitrary.  It creates government that is dependent upon current social trends and the will of the powerful.  It is just another name for a Banana Republic.  A living breathing constitution allows those in government to say there were no cell phones in 1789 so we have the right to arbitrarily control your communications.  The living breathing constitution allows those in government to say since there was no internet in 1789, we can define who is a journalist and what can be said.

A living breathing constitution gives power to the oppressor through interpretation by the powerful, the majority, or the deceptive who distort history.  So if the majority or the powerful decides that one group of people deserve less or more protection, less or more property, less or more liberty, then there is no recourse for the powerless or the minority.  A living breathing constitution is slavery.

If we ignore that history and the Constitution in its proper context ceases to be the fixed standard for govt, then we are left to be ruled by the powerful or by the whim of the majority or by those at the controls of information who would distort history and truth.  If we do not know these essential principles of liberty and where they came from, we cannot evaluate and ensure the solutions are proper and not tragic.  Some call these unseen consequences, but when you can see through the lenses of history you know that they are no unseen; they are proven facets of human nature.

There is no magic pill.  History and truth tells us there is no quick fix.  If we truly want to make America great, we must reacquaint ourselves with some essential truths.  Without these foundational building blocks, we cannot achieve the successful ends we are all looking for and we continue to spin our wheels, haphazardly maneuvering government, sometimes to good ends, sometimes to destruction.  Our problem is that our policies are not driven by these foundational principles, but instead are driven by the phantoms of prosperity or security.

Our Constitution is not arbitrary and neither are the solutions.  They are time tested and essential.  The designers of our Constitution put these solutions in our hands.  It was the greatest gift they gave us…the opportunity to self-governance.  It’s time we remember who we are and the power that we hold.  I am convinced that Reconnecting with this truth will reignite the lamp of liberty. Let’s learn from history so we will not be doomed to repeat its mistakes. Let’s stand for liberty today so our children will not have to bow tomorrow.

Reignite the lamp of liberty today with the knowledge our founders expected us all to know: www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

Learning From Natural Disasters: Federal Aid

/in /by

Patrick Henry, designer of our Constitutional Republic said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”   What history lessons about the design of our republic can we learn from natural disasters?

As Americans we believe in helping each other in time of need, so the question is not SHOULD we help, but where should disaster help come from? Looking at the design of our Republic, here are some hard observations.

Constitutionally there is no delegation of authority for the federal government to act as emergency funding services for the States.   James Madison, father of the Constitution and 4th president declared before congress in 1792:

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

If the power is not expressly delegated through a specific Article, section, or clause, then the federal authority does not lawfully exist.  The only way to change or expand federal power is through the amendment process described in the Constitution which in either process includes the creators of the Constitution, the States.  No single branch of the creation can expand its own power by any other means. Remember:

  1. Congress cannot expand its own or another branch’s delegated power by legislative act. Alexander Hamilton, a designer of our Constitution wrote in Federalist #78: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”
  2. The President has no authority to change the Constitution; he doesn’t have the authority to make laws of any sort. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 1 section 1. Since any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is invalid, the president making legislative acts, is a clear violation of the Constitution and per se in valid.
  3. The Judiciary cannot expand federal power beyond the Constitution. James Madison, addresses such a violation in 1800: “…dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…”

If elected representatives in Washington DC cannot identify the Article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal government to engage in emergency funding services to the States, then that authority, very plainly does not legally exist.  Any reference to a congressional act, does not create that authority.  If legislative act is the only authority, then as Hamilton so accurately announced, that legislative act is void and no law at all.  A supreme Court opinion, nor series of opinions cannot be the basis for undelegated authority since the judiciary cannot exercise or sanction any authority that is not tied down to a specific power delegated through the Constitution. The existence of executive agencies designated to perform a function beyond the grant of the Constitution cannot provide legal justification for pretended authority.

Sadly, what we hear is that “We must have the federal government’s help; without it we cannot function.”  According to William Pitt, the Younger, in 1783 “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”  The purpose of the Constitution is to “preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The plea of necessity over the limited nature of the Constitution is yet another unconstitutional argument. This cry of necessity is annulled because the terms of the Constitution binds the federal government to expressed powers. If the people through their states want the Federal government to have a new authority then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities.  To put forth any or all of these extra-constitutional assertions as legal justification for powers that are not enumerated is to suggest that the Constitution is NOT the foundation for the rule of law in our Republic. In that case, then Congress, the President and the courts would have ZERO authority, because without the Constitution they have no basis to even exist.

So how should relief be handled?

If the federal government wasn’t stealing and extorting money and power from the people and their States to fund and operate all their unconstitutional federal agencies and programs throughout year, the States would have plenty of money to manage their own disasters.  Under a properly operating Constitutional Republic, our States would have a surplus beyond our modern comprehension and the States (in addition to the millions in private donations we see after major disasters) could individually provide relief as they see fit. In fact, the designers of our Constitutional Republic speculated about unexpected burdens that one State may not be able to handle.  Throughout the eighty-five published Federalist Papers, the authors of these papers repeatedly assert that the establishment of the union of the States would create a fiduciary relationship between the States.   This “brotherhood” would create a feeling of friendship and duty amongst the States for economic and defensive support.  They postulated that if there were such an unforeseen and unreasonable burden placed upon one State, the remaining States would voluntarily and individually administer aid as their citizens felt appropriate.  The designers of our Constitutional Republic never once asserted that the federal government would have the authority to engage in charity in any form.  As a matter of fact, they spoke against the federal exercise of charity on multiple occasion.

James Madison proclaimed before Congress in 1792, that for the federal Congress to engage in public charity with tax dollars, “would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

He repeated this truth in 1794, when he said most definitively: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

There is no reason and no authority for the feds to become involved with these kinds of domestic affairs. However, because America has been errantly trained for over 150 years that this is the purpose of the federal government, most do not even have an inclination that their cries for federal aid are transmuting the mutual brotherhood of the States into a “nanny-hood” of the federal government.

Study a complete course on the proper power placement of the State and Federal governments here: www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com