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

 

Power To Pardon

/in /by
The power to pardon has been a controversial issue since the times of kings.  Throughout history there has been a concern for the abuse of this power by executives conflicted by a need for the means to offer mercy.  These concerns were no different at the time of the drafting of our Constitution.
 In September 1787, George Mason, designer of the Bill of Rights, expressed his concern about the use of the power of pardon in cases of treason:
 “The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.”
The Anti-Federalist Cato echoed this concern in his #67 letter regarding the power of pardon for treason:
“which may be used to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt;”
Cato, in this letter, will ask the question of the ages as to the application of this power:
“Will not the exercise of these powers therefore tend either to the establishment of a vile and arbitrary aristocracy or monarchy?”
Another Anti-Federalist, Brutus, expressed his concern of this “kingly” power in his letter #1:
“…designing men…will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power.”
Alexander Hamilton counters with a response to these concerns in Federalist #74.  He explains this power has always been a part of the Executive for two very important purposes; first as a way for the executive to offer grace and mercy:
“Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed.” Fed 74,
Secondly, to be an important check and balance upon the judicial branch:
“The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.”
Events of history confirm the need for the ability to apply grace in a rigid criminal code and to correct the overzealous hand of a magistrate.  In spite of the concerns regarding the Executive, the exercise of the power of pardon has often been more of an indication of a corrupt judiciary rather than executive abuse.
Presidents have used the power of pardon from the very beginning of our Constitutional Republic.  President George Washington granted pardoned to those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd President, after signing the repeal of the Alien and Sedition acts, pardoned those who had been convicted of those unconstitutional and arbitrary laws.  Jefferson wrote in his pardon of David Brown:
“That I Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States of America, in consideration of the premises and of divers other good causes me thereunto moving, have pardoned and remitted and by these presents do pardon and remit to the said David Brown…”
The power of pardon for the president is not unlimited.  Article 2 section 2 clause 1 establishes this executive power:
“…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
The president cannot pardon after impeachment.  He can only pardon federal crimes; he has no authority to pardon State crimes.  The president can issue a pardon at any point beginning with the commission of the crime through conviction and even after sentence has been served.  The president cannot issue a pardon before a crime is committed, that would truly make a king

After Charlottesville, VA

/in , /by

Let me start off by saying I do not support, condone, or defend any of the words or actions created by the white supremacist ideology.  However, I am hearing some very dangerous rhetoric coming forward from the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, VA.  We need to understand the danger of this rhetoric, not just for our own safety, but for the security of future generations.

A pastor recently tweeted, “Every person who turns up to a white nationalist rally should be arrested.  This is 2017.”

This pastor speaks out of ignorance and this ignorance will serve to imprison him one day.  Guilt by association is a Marxist principle.   America was formed upon Natural Law, which establishes that all people have a natural right to life, liberty and his property.  Frederic Bastiat makes this point very clear in is book, The Law:

“Each of us has a natural right -from God- to defend his life, his liberty, and his property.  These are the three basic requirements of life and preservation of any of them is the preservation of the other two.”

Among these natural rights is the right to Freedom of Speech.  Freedom of speech is so essential to all freedom that if members of a society are denied this fundamental right, no other rights are secure.  Benjamin Franklin wrote of this in his Silence Dogood letter of 1722:

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech…This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own…”

If members of a society can be limited in their speech by government force, then there is no defense of any life, liberty, or property; no peaceful defense at all.  The consequence of establishing a government punishment of speech is two fold.  First Franklin shows us that without freedom of speech there is no public liberty, no such things as wisdom.  In that understanding, Franklin explains that without freedom of speech, all public liberty of the people is overthrown.

“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.”

Thomas Jefferson expounds upon this principle when he said, “…if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be.”   Without freedom of speech, without the public wisdom that comes from it, all men in that civilization are slaves to the government approved and dictated narrative.

The second consequence to speech controlled by government force is the establishment of a dangerous precedent.   Thomas Paine explains this danger:

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty.  It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to even misapply even the best of laws.  He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

When you invite government to oppress the speech of your enemy, you set a precedent for government to oppress you when the times have changed and the government finds your speech a threat.  This should be the most compelling motivation for this pastor to defend freedom of speech and association.  History is replete with governments punishing religious speech.  This is not a history we should ever want repeat in America.

Freedom of speech and freedom of association go hand in hand.  They are so intimately related, the designers of our Constitutional Republic placed them both in the First Amendment within our Bill of Rights.  You cannot have one without the other.

However, Liberty is not without its limits.  These limitations are necessary for the preservation of Liberty as a whole.  John Leland, a designer of our Constitutional Republic wrote: “Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another.”  Government’s obligation to our rights is to secure them, not regulate them.  Government’s securing of our rights does not involve regulating or punishing speech or freedom of association.  There ought to be only one limiting factor to our liberty, as Leland and Franklin both state, your expression of liberty cannot harm or control the right of another.

“… Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.”

Being offended is not a harm, it is a consequence we must suffer to ensure liberty’s survival. We must prosecute people for their actions, that is true.  But arresting and prosecuting people for what they say or for simply being with people who say offensive things will lead America down a path of government oppression we cannot allow.

We must limit the government’s authority to those actions that result in the harm or control of another.  We cannot give government authority over words or associations.  If we give government this power today to control speech we don’t like, then tomorrow our own words and associations may come under the wrath of government when the government doesn’t like what we have to say.

Liberty is not easy, nor is it simple.  But we must know, as John Adams proclaimed, “Liberty must at all hazards be supported.”  We must also know this truth, we must suffer the rantings of fools to ensure that the voice of truth has its day.  The future generations of America and relying upon us to make the right choices.  We must choose Liberty First.

“I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.” Thomas Jefferson

www.LibertyFirstUniversity.com

Disenfranchising The Voters

/in /by

On Wednesday the Oregon House passed legislation (HB 2927) that would make Oregon award its Electoral College votes only to presidential candidates who win the national popular vote. According to National Popular Vote, this kind of legislation has already been passed by 11 States, (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA).

To be clear, Oregon and these other 11 States are not abolishing the Electoral College but altering it. Article 2 section 2 clauses 2 and 3 and the Twelfth Amendment of the US Constitution require States to establish electors that will choose the president and vice president of the United States.  These States are not eliminating their electoral college, they are eliminating the voice of their citizens and eliminating the legitimacy and relevance of their State’s involvement in the political process. In short, disenfranchising the vote of an entire State.

The process of the electoral college was established for a specific reason.  Because we have failed, for generations, to teach an accurate application of the Constitution, many people like Oregon Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer believe that the electoral college is “flawed and outdated.”  Rep. Keny-Guyer told Oregon Live, “The Electoral College does not fit the ‘We The People’ and ‘One person, one vote’ style of government.  Rep. Keny-Guyer and those who believe as she does simply do not understand why the electoral college was established and how that process protects her individual liberty and the sovereignty of her State.  She also doesn’t understand that neither Oregon nor America are democracies, but instead are Constitutional Republics. The incessant push toward being ruled by majority opinion is supposed to be antithetical to the American character, unfortunately the dearth of real education in America has created an equal scarcity of understanding about America’s fundamental principles.

The process of the electoral college was established to ensure that the person elected to be president of these United States would accurately represent the union as a whole, not favoring certain States while ignoring others.  The office of president, contrary to popular belief, was never designed to be a representative of individual citizens, but rather a representative of the collective interests of the States.  A survey of the powers delegated to the president via Article 2 of the Constitution makes the role of the president quite clear.  He is not the “leader of America,” he is the leader of the military upon declaration of war by Congress.  He is part of the treaty process that makes contractual agreements with foreign governments and the States.  Most everything that the president is to do, he does only with the consent of the Senate (the voice of the States).   Together, the President and the Senate ensure that each State’s interests are represented equally in matters of war, peace, and foreign commerce.  The office of the president was established to be the voice to foreign countries on behalf of the collective States.  Because he is the representative of the States, the electors of the State are to choose their president based upon the person they believe will best represent the principles and interests of their State.

There is no power delegated by the Constitution to the president that authorizes him to directly affect the lives of the people.  The only power held by the president to touch lives individually would be that of the power to grant reprieves or pardons for federal crimes and that was established to be a check and balance upon the judiciary, not a system of personal favors to individuals.  Because the president’s role in government is to be an ambassador on behalf of the States, the States must choose their representative.  The popular vote for president that takes place within the State ensures that the principles and the interests of the people of that State guide and direct the electors in their choice of president.  These subtle distinctions are hard for Americans to grasp since we perceive our nation to be a unitary whole where the states provide support to the central government that directs them. We have forgotten that our republic is a collection of independent sovereign States who created D.C. to represent their interests.

However, the national popular vote movement takes us even farther away from our Constitutional structure by further removing the independence of the States, and eliminating the voice of the people within those states.  This legislation proposes that once a popular vote is complete across the nation, each elector of the State must choose the person elected by popular vote regardless of the collective choice of his fellow State citizens.  This legislation mandates that each State submit to the popular choice, regardless of whether that candidate best represents the interests and principles of the people of that State.  Through popular vote, the individual States would become completely irrelevant in the processes of the federal government.  The president would no longer be required to ensure all States’ interests were represented in matters of foreign affairs.  The president’s only concern, throughout the entire four years of his terms, would be to make sure the select few States, with the greatest voting population, were happy and pleased with the execution of his power.  It would be like Georgia surrendering all its voice to New York and legislating themselves out of the political process or like Connecticut asking Texas to decide what is in the best interest of Connecticut.

Future presidents could then ignore all but a few states. All treaties could be focused upon the prosperity and growth of a select few States, at best ignoring the rest, at worst requiring the lesser populated States to enrich the other States via treaties and regulations.  All wars could be conducted in the interest of a few States and all peace could be negotiated to benefit the few over the whole.  Cabinet members and supreme Court justices could be chosen from persons of those few States because there would be no reason to make an equitable search.  Every State that did not hold the majority voting population could be relegated to being a spectator in the entire political process.

Charles Cotesworth Pickney, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, summed up what was not only the popular belief of the delegates, but would also become the controlling belief in establishing Article 2 section 1 clauses 2 and 3 of the Constitution.  He classified a national popular vote of the president to be “liable to the most obvious & striking objections.”  He said if the people were to elect the president by popular vote, “They will be led by a few active & designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.”

Not only will the States be silenced in their political affairs nationally and in foreign negotiations, the national popular vote would ensure that the people themselves would be silenced.  What would be the point in voting if you didn’t live in New York, Texas, California, or Florida, where the majority of the voting population resides?  Every presidential election would be chosen by these few States and these few States would grow and maintain their voting power, because the national popular vote system would ensure the enrichment of these States over every other State.  A national popular vote, is in fact an oxymoron, as it would only reflect the voice of the majority, denying every person in their State a voice in the presidential election.

Those who cry for a national popular vote, do so out of ignorance, yet maddening on to their own destruction.  Oregon and States like her will not achieve a greater voice with the elimination of the Constitutional process of the electoral college, they will ensure their political irrelevance from this day forward.

 

Much Ado About Griffin and Portland: Understanding Freedom of Speech

/in /by

 

The mayor of Portland is calling for the revocation of permits for a “March Against Shariah” because the content of the presentation is “untimely.”

Here are the Facts:

  1. The rally will be on federal property so the permits are issued by the federal government.
  2. Although the rally located on federal property, it is in the city of Portland.
  3. The rally is a “March” against Shariah law in America.
  4. The mayor is classifying the organizers of the march as “alt-right” and claims the topic of the rally will be too disturbing to the public.

Kathy Griffin publishes a picture where she is holding a replica of bloody head of Donald Trump.

Here are the Facts:

  1. This is a still photograph.
  2. The purpose of this photo is to make a political statement.
  3. There is no actually call for the beheading of Trump or any plans concerted to organize and carry out the beheading of Trump.
  4. Many people are calling for criminal legal action to be taken against Griffin, because the photograph is so disturbing in its depiction of the President of the United States.

These two stories are so similar it seems almost providential that they are happening relatively simultaneously. These two events address two sides of freedom of speech and give a great opportunity for real liberty education.  Yes, in both circumstances, the speech must be protected and not prohibited or criminalized. But these circumstances illustrate how people can allow emotion to drive their demands rather than the Constitution or liberty.

Benjamin Franklin writing as Silence Dogood explained why freedom of speech is so important and what limits must be placed upon that freedom:

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.”

Being offended is not the definition of hurt nor is offense the control of the Right of another.  The emotional and political limiting of freedom of speech, as history proves, always has dire consequences.

“This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.”  Silence Dogood #8

Freedom of speech should be such a dear right to all Americans that we would rejoice over the fact that something offensive can be spoken publicly.  When government, or the mob, can determine what is offensive or acceptable, then there can be no other freedom remaining.   The purpose of freedom of speech is not so you can call your neighbor bad names, but so that you can freely call those in government bad names and not be persecuted or prosecuted.

This principle is so well established in fact and history that the supreme Court has expressed their opinions on these matters quite definitively.  “A bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson 491 US 397 (1989).  In RAV v. St. Paul 505 US 377 (1992), the court opined that even “hate speech” is to be protected, to include the burning of crosses.

Similarly, the supreme Court has made their opinion of protest and assembly just as clear.  In Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 181 (1968) the supreme Court declared “Any prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a ‘heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity.”  Prior restraint is EXACTLY what the mayor of Portland is attempting to achieve.  According the courts, the mayor shouldn’t be asking for permits to be revoked or denied, he should be escorting the protestors and providing sufficient security for the march to the ensure the safety of the demonstrators.

Local government must “provide police in such numbers as in their professional judgment are required to afford adequate protection to [protesters].” Dunlap v City of Chicago 435 F. Supp. 1295 (1977)

“A police officer has the duty not to ratify and effectuate a heckler’s veto nor may he join a moiling mob intent on suppressing ideas. Instead, he must take reasonable action to protect from violence persons exercising their constitutional rights.” Glasson v City of Louisville 518 F. 2d. 899 (1975)

“Officers must take all reasonable efforts to protect the demonstrators.” Gregory v Chicago 394 US 111 (1969)

What the courts are recognizing is exactly what our 1st Amendment was created to ensure; equal, peaceful voice for all opinions absent of government control or definition.  If one looks at the protests held by our Sons of Liberty, the antics of Kathy Griffin may not seem so extreme.  It was not uncommon for the Sons of Liberty to hold mock hangings of government agents with whom they had become dissatisfied.  Our founders even held mock funeral marches and full funeral services involving effigies of their disliked politicians.  So although Kathy Griffin’s photo may seem shocking to the senses, the foundation of America must declare that it should never be illegal.

Thomas Jefferson, our third President, reminds us that “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

Freedom of speech is the bedrock principle of all wisdom in society.  When the government can make speech of any sort we will suffer the most arbitrary and oppressive governments known to history.

James Madison, also known as the Father of the Constitution described freedom of speech as property.  In 1792, he wrote:

“…a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them… Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

These are the principles that actually make America great.  In a Liberty-minded society the mayor of Portland would be rejoicing that his community is the market place of ideas.  He would be doing everything that he could possibly do to make sure that this political march happens safely and peacefully.  In a Liberty-minded society, although offended, the people would rejoice that someone like Kathy Griffin could make such a bold and picturesque caricature of the president of the United States.  In a Liberty-minded society, the people would know that government control of either of these situations would most literally be the death of American Liberty.

The Liberty solution to those upset by the march in Portland is to peacefully assemble and voice their own opinion.  The Liberty solution to those offended by Kathy Griffin’s photography is to voice their disgust and stop listening to her or anyone who promotes her.  The only legal action available, if any, would be for Donald Trump, the person, to sue her for defamation, but her actions require civil remedy, not criminal.

If we wish to be the America of our Liberty foundation, we must hold fast to these rights, even if they make us feel uncomfortable.  All the people, all of government, even the mayor of Portland, should be dedicated to the unfeigned protection of all speech and assembly, regardless of how we feel about the message.  That is the definition of “freedom of speech.”

Texas Governor Abbott & Sanctuary Cities; The Whole Truth Not Told

/in /by

 

Texas governor Greg Abbott has signed into law statutes “outlawing” sanctuary cities.  Was he right or wrong in doing so?  Once we know the facts, it will be clear that not only did Abbott not do anything wrong, but had an obligation to do what he did.  Legally speaking, Abbott and the Texas legislators did not actually create any “new” laws.  What they did was create a law to require enforcement of the Constitution and the federal laws already on the books.  Abbott and the Texas legislators did not “outlaw” sanctuary cities, the Constitution and federal law already did that.

The Constitution is a contract between the States that created the federal government.  By this contractual agreement, certain powers were delegated to the federal government and the remaining powers were reserved to the States.  The States, in joining the Union, have agreed to abide by and enforce the terms of the Contract.  Also, in doing so, the States of the Union agree that the powers delegated to the federal government will be respected and enforced by the States as long as the federal government is operating by and through the authority of their power delegated by the Constitution.  By the contractual agreement, through the creation of the Constitutional Contract, every State that enters into the Union agrees to the terms of this Contract.

Article 1 section 8 clause 4 vests into the federal government the power to Congress to make “an uniformed Rule of Naturalization.”   It is therefore, and by contract, within the power of the federal government to create the rules for Naturalization.  This power was delegated to the federal government for very specific reasons.   Previous to the Constitution, there was a significant problem with inconsistent standards for foreign people to become and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.  It is not uniform when the terms vary from State to State.  We needed to establish uniformity amongst the States.  There can be different standards of citizenship for people from different foreign countries, but all the different rules must be enforced with uniformity from State to State.

James Madison, designated by history as the Father of the Constitution, explains the problems these inconsistencies create:

“The very improper power would still be retained by each State, of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other.” Fed #42

Madison is explaining that one State’s laws cannot bind those people of another State, as each State is separate and independent in their internal affairs.  For example, California laws cannot be made enforceable with in the State of Texas.  If the States were left to create the rules of naturalization, then one State’s rules would not transfer to the next State.  Each foreign person would have to seek citizenship in each individual State, fulfilling potentially different terms each time.  If citizenship is left to a State by State establishment, there would be confusion throughout the world on what it would take to become a citizen.

What if each State were required to honor the terms of citizenship of the other State, perhaps through Article 4 section 1, “full faith and credit?”  This brings about a series of problems that Madison also brings to our attention in Federalist 42:

“By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence, if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted, of too serious a nature not to be provided against.”

Madison is reminding us about a problem they were having when some States were creating very lax rules of naturalization; allowing people the benefits of citizenship who were actually hostile to the principles that established the Liberty of these States.  When those people, who were unfriendly to the principles of Liberty, obtained citizenship in one State, they would attempt to force other States to honor their citizenship.  Because these States had higher standards of citizenship, they were refusing to do so.  This created several serious problems.

According to Madison, the danger of States allowing people hostile to the principles of America to obtain the benefits of citizenship would created a cascade of serious of problems dangerous to our foundational principles.  Once these “obnoxious” aliens obtain the “benefits of residency” they will possess the power to vote, occupy office, make laws within that State. Finally, with all these powers asserted, these “obnoxious” aliens will exercise a certain degree of influence and control over the federal government, as well.  Madison describes this as bringing about consequences of “too serious a nature not to be provided against.” Fed #42

The whole purpose of creating the federal government was to create a uniform voice for the States in the matters of foreign affairs.  The federal government also holds the responsibility to exercise their authority with the “general welfare” all the States equally in mind while ensuring that people who will threaten the “common defense” and “domestic tranquility” will not be permitted to exercise the benefits of citizenship.

Madison explains that it was for these reasons that the power of naturalization was delegated to the federal government; to prevent these “serious” consequences from becoming a reality.

“The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.”

The power of uniform rules of naturalization was delegated to the federal government so the States will have the ability to agree, through their representatives in the House and Senate, on the uniformed rules to be respected and enforced throughout the States.  By contract, each State is now bound by those rules established pursuant to the Constitution.  Sanctuary cities are unilaterally and illegally breaking the terms of the Constitutional contract established by each of the 50 States.

Because these sanctuary cities are refusing to abide by the uniform rules of naturalization they are actually asserting that their laws are superior to the laws of every other State in the Union; that a city can now dictate to the entire Union the terms and benefits of citizenship upon any alien, obnoxious or otherwise, as they so choose.  Sanctuary cities are the real-time manifestation of the “too serious consequences” Madison said the designers of our Constitution intended to prevent.  The States that allow their cities to go rogue, are acting in concert to violate the terms of the Constitution and they must ultimately bear the responsibility of enforcing the terms of the contract they agreed to.

Sanctuary cities are not only acting unconstitutionally, they are also acting unlawfully.  In accordance with Article 1 section 8 clause 4, Congress has created legal penalties for those who knowingly or recklessly disregard the rules of naturalization and “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection… transport, or move or attempt to transport or move” or to even “encourage or induce” an illegal alien “to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” (8 US Code 1324)  It is not only a crime to actually commit these offenses, but it is a crime to even attempt to do so. Anyone found guilty of violating 8 US Code 1324 is subject to fines, prison or both. However, if it can be proven that this person has committed this act for personal gain, the fines go up and the prison sentence can be as much as ten years.

Sanctuary cities also violate 8 US Code 1611 which sets forth specific federal benefits that cannot be given to illegal aliens.

(NOTE: there is an exception for emergency services in this section)

Section 1611 defines a benefit as follows:

“(A) any grant, contract, loan, professional license, or commercial license provided by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States; and

(B) any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States.”

Additionally, the entire time these illegal aliens are living in these sanctuary cities they will not only be receiving benefits, these cities will be encouraging other illegal aliens to come into the United States while housing, feeding, transporting, and shielding them from prosecution for violating federal immigration laws.

Now, if these sanctuary cities were a person, what would be the punishment for the above violations? The law states:

“for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this [law] occurs…be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or…

Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.”

Finally, if granting these benefits to illegal aliens “was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain” then the punishment is fines under title 18, “imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”

These sanctuary cities have made it clear that they are not going to follow the law.  It is now the obligation of their States to enforce the terms of the Constitution and ensure the enforcement of immigration laws.  It is the obligation of the executive branch of the federal government to ensure that these laws are faithfully executed.  It is the obligation of our Congress to ensure that federal money is not spent by these sanctuary cities in their efforts to disregard the law.

As America engages in this discussion over sanctuary cities, I would hope that these matters of Constitution, law, fact, and history would dominate the narrative.

Train Them Up

/in /by

 

As an educator, I think the most frustrating thing that I see in America today is the near complete abandon of Liberty by an entire generation of people. I read a statistic the other day a statistic that claimed nearly 40% of the generation we refer to as “millennials” believe that speech ought to be regulated by government.  Apparently they believe that speech that offends, speech that makes people angry, or just speech they simply do not like, ought to be regulated…by the government.

Freedom of speech is one of the most bedrock principles of Liberty and one of the first things that the founders of our America defended.  Silence Dogood letter #8, penned by Benjamin Franklin in 1722, shows us just how important this Right of the people is to the defense of all Liberty.

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.”

Freedom of speech is the foundation upon which the Committees of Correspondence were formed, the Sons of Liberty could not have influenced the people without freedom of speech, and Daniel Webster claimed;

“If all my possessions were taken from me with one exception, I would choose to keep the power of communication, for by it I would soon regain all the rest.”

Face it, without a firm understanding in the importance of free speech and the essential free exercise of that speech, our States of America would not exist as governments separate from Great Britain.

But now we appear to have a generation of people who have become so detached from these principles they have no clue as to why they are important and why they must be defended.  I don’t suppose we should be too shocked.  This was an inevitable outcome once we turned education over to government control.  Government and Liberty are enemies.  People in power always want more power, that is a self-evident truth.  Those people cannot have power if those in society are free to exercise their Liberty.

“This sacred Privilege (freedom of speech) is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scare call any Thing else his own.  Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publik Traytors.” Silence Dogood #8

However, Freedom of speech not only means you can criticize those in power, it means you have a duty to do so.  Freedom of speech means that you can publicly oppose the government’s activity.  Freedom of speech means you can challenge the status quo and expose the traitor and hypocrite.  This, as Franklin pointed out, is not what those in government want happening openly and freely.

“That Men ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours deserve to be well spoken of; but to do a publick Mischief, without hearing of it, is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny: A free People will be shewing that they are so, by their Freedom of Speech.”

So how do you get an entire generation who are more than willing to hand over to those in power the authority to control and regulate this most essential and vital freedom?  You train them up in the way of the government so when they get older, that is the way they want to go.  You let government establish the curriculum.  You let those in power rewrite the history.  You teach the youth that they have a right to be happy, comfortable, and safe.  Then you fail to the teach the Liberty principles that established the proper limits of government.  You fail to teach that although Liberty is not comfortable or easy, it is necessary keep from falling into slavery.  Samuel Adams wrote:

“No people will tamely surrender their Liberty nor be easily subdued when knowledge is diffuse and virtue is preserved.  On the Contrary, when the People become universally ignorant and debauched in their manners, they will sink underneath their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.”

Not too long ago Americans were having a discussion about freedom of speech and political cartoons.  Can we “allow” people to draw cartoons of Mohammed and Islam, even though some find that offensive?  It was unfortunate that the discussion was driven by a fear of Islamic Extremism taking over America.  How I would love to see that discussion erupt over some challenging political cartoons about our Congressmen and supreme Court Justices.  If truth be told, and accepted, the American education system, mainstream media, all working in collusion with Washington DC, have all effectuated more damage on the freedom of speech than Isis could ever hope for.

Popular speech needs no protection.  It is the speech that offends, the speech that challenges, the speech that makes us feel bad that requires our protection.  If we allow government to regulate speech because someone classifies it as “hate” or “offensive,” what happens when government is in charge of creating the meanings and definitions necessary to enforce those law?  These regulations may start off as something society feels to be reasonable.  The consequence of a law that seems like a “reasonable” restriction upon Liberty so that others can feel safe, is those in power possessing a greater to oppress.  History proves that it will not be long before government will define these regulations to protect the oppressor and the tyrant.  We must not only tolerate speech that offends us, we must protect it.  It is the only way to to protect all Liberty.  The Liberty you deny others, will be the Liberty lost to you.

“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” Thomas Paine, The First Principles of Government

Samuel Adams gave us another jewel of wisdom when he said, “Let us remember, if we tamely suffer a lawless attack upon our Liberty, we encourage it and involve others in our doom.  It is a serious consideration that should weigh heavy upon our hearts that ages and millions yet unborn will be the miserable sharers of our experience.”

For a long time, I though Adams was talking about our acquiescence to the imposed servitude of permits, fees, and regulations imposed upon our rights by government.  But given today’s generations, I am beginning to wonder if his wisdom is broader than that.  Perhaps he was referring to the consequences of lost Liberty when a society of people love government more than they love their freedom; when generations will become more attached to their comfort and prosperity than they are to their inalienable rights.  After all, throughout history, this has always been the ultimate demise of a society people.
This generation of “millennials” has become so deceived by their training that they have become universally ignorant to the very things that make them free.   They are now more addicted to comfort and security than the need to be free-thinking and free-acting people.  They have been taught for so long that government is their teacher, protector, and provider, they no longer have any desire to exercise their natural right to do these things on their own.  In turn they are ready to hand over the power to regulate their natural right to the greatest natural enemy of their rights; the government.

So when we are rolling our eyes and scratching our heads in bewilderment at the anti-liberty, pro- government mentality of our “millennials,” let us remember, Generation X, we trained them up in this way, how else would we expect them to go?

The Executive and Libel Laws

/in /by

Multi-MSM Headline: Reince Priebus Says WH Wants To Change Libel Laws

Consider the facts:

There are no federal libel laws.  Libel laws are laws created by the States.  Libel is a limit upon speech and is not only not a power delegated to the federal government, but is also a power expressly forbidden by the 1st  Amendment.

“Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech shall not be abridged, nor the freedom of press, the right to peaceably assemble, nor the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Because this power was not delegated to the federal government, it is expressly reserved to the States.  If the federal government, whether it be the executive branch (the White House) or Congress, codified or interfered with a State libel law, it would be completely unconstitutional.  Additionally, law making is a power delegated and reserved to the Legislative Branch.  Therefore, the executive branch, i.e. the executive branch, cannot make libel laws, much less change them.

The supreme Court, however, involved itself in a case of State law libel in 1964, (New Times, Co. v. Sullivan).  In this case, the supreme Court opined that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media knew the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”  The supreme Court has even said that libel and slander are not valid suits when the information is so ridiculous as to be patently false, as in the case of satire.  Perhaps Reince Priebus wants the supreme Court to change the way State libel laws are written?  Wouldn’t that be political or judicial activism?

There are serious consequences for allowing the federal government to exercise a power not delegated.   Alexander Hamilton, warned us to not allow unconstitutional laws created by Congress to have the force of law.

“No law, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid…would allow men by virtue of powers to not only do what they are not permitted to do, but also what they are forbidden.” Fed #78

As Hamilton warns, to allow a federal libel law to have the force of law would be to create an unlimited government:

“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.…To deny this, would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”  Federalist #78

To allow either Congress, the White House, or even the supreme Court to create a law governing this speech, would be to allow the federal government to at best circumvent and at worst disregard the Constitution completely.

Modern America is not a brave new world and the issue of federal libel was not unknow territory for our founders.  In 1688, their executive branch, a king by the name of James II, enforced a libel law that prohibited the church leadership from criticizing the king from the pulpit.  This version of libel was particularly egregious as it made any criticism subject to imprisonment, even if the criticism was based in fact.  The law established that truth was no defense.  In this day, the majority of the courts were more than happy to do the bidding of the executive branch and seven bishops were prosecuted for seditious libel. The enforcement of this law, among several other things, brought about the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the end of the reign of James II.

Benjamin Franklin, writing as Silence Dogood in 1722, reciting the history of James II, made this comment about freedom of speech and press;

“Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors.” Dogood Letter #8

The drafters of our Constitution knew very well the consequences of allowing the central government to create laws that limit the criticism of government.  This history is particularly why they did not delegate this power to the central government and why it was expressly forbidden in the Bill of Rights.  Let us not be a people so ignorant of our history that we end up repeating its mistakes.