The End of A Great Experiment

"Congress recognizes no limits on its power. It doesn't care about the Constitution, it doesn't care about your inalienable rights, it doesn't care about the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, it doesn't even read the laws it writes. America, this is not an academic issue. If this health care bill becomes law, life as you have known it, freedom as you have exercised it, privacy as you have enjoyed it, will cease to be." --Judge Andrew Napolitano

"Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance? If Congress gets away with forcing us to buy health insurance, down the line, what else will they force us to buy; or do you naively think they will stop with health insurance?" --economist Walter E. Williams

You Can Support the Constitution or Democrat Healthcare

BUT NOT BOTH

Government

"At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections.

After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution.

The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages.

The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution?

That question is not part of the debate. The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not."

George Mason economics professor Walter E. Williams

10th Amendment Musings

States Rebellion Pending: The 10th Amendment in Action

by Walter Williams

(March 25, 2009)

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it's the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George's actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance -- perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we've become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants -- has made us easy prey for Washington's tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans' characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Eight state legislatures have introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution; they include Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington. There's speculation that they will be joined by Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.

You might ask, "Isn't the 10th Amendment that no-good states' rights amendment that Dixie governors, such as George Wallace and Orval Faubus, used to thwart school desegregation and black civil rights?" That's the kind of constitutional disrespect and ignorance that big-government proponents, whether they're liberals or conservatives, want you to have. The reason is that they want Washington to have total control over our lives. The Founders tried to limit that power with the 10th Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

New Hampshire's 10th Amendment resolution typifies others and, in part, reads: "That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." Put simply, these 10th Amendment resolutions insist that the states and their people are the masters and that Congress and the White House are the servants. Put yet another way, Washington is a creature of the states, not the other way around.

Congress and the White House will laugh off these state resolutions. State legislatures must take measures that put some teeth into their 10th Amendment resolutions. Congress will simply threaten a state, for example, with a cutoff of highway construction funds if it doesn't obey a congressional mandate, such as those that require seat belt laws or that lower the legal blood-alcohol level to .08 for drivers. States might take a lead explored by Colorado.

In 1994, the Colorado Legislature passed a 10th Amendment resolution and later introduced a bill titled "State Sovereignty Act." Had the State Sovereignty Act passed both houses of the legislature, it would have required all people liable for any federal tax that's a component of the highway users fund, such as a gasoline tax, to remit those taxes directly to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The money would have been deposited in an escrow account called the "Federal Tax Fund" and remitted monthly to the IRS, along with a list of payees and respective amounts paid. If Congress imposed sanctions on Colorado for failure to obey an unconstitutional mandate and penalized the state by withholding funds due, say $5 million for highway construction, the State Sovereignty Act would have prohibited the state treasurer from remitting any funds in the escrow account to the IRS. Instead, Colorado would have imposed a $5 million surcharge on the Federal Tax Fund account to continue the highway construction.

The eight state legislatures that have enacted 10th Amendment resolutions deserve our praise, but their next step is to give them teeth.

**UPDATE**A New Morning Routine**UPDATE**

Last night, (Friday 25 July) over the course of several hours, I had email exchanges with various members of the milblog community, including Matt Burden of Blackfive, regarding the original email.
The content, or subject matter, of the email is one Army officer's view of the events of the day.
True or not, the email itself is genuine and was sent by a member of the military.

Snopes has it listed as false, based on their investigations. However there is a final entry on the Snopes page that should be noted.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/afghanistan.asp

Reading the Snopes page would leave one with the impression that the email is false, but the last few paragraphs on Snopes are the enigma.

The author of the email was contacted by Snopes.
He responded and asked that the email be removed because it was intended only for his family. (Good luck with that)

Based on that, the email itself is real.
It is the CONTENT of the email that Snopes is listing as false, not the fact that the email was sent.

When the text of the email was posted on Blackfive, Matt had removed all identifying references, including the Army officer's name, out of respect for his privacy.

When the email itself began its journey through the MAIL system, the person who forwarded it did not give the Army officer the same courtesy.

Here’s a tip for future events of this nature:
REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO IDENTITY.
We owe the members of our military at least that much and it will hinder Snopes investigations which will result in them being unable to give a definite true or false.
(Whether that’s a good or bad thing remains to be seen.)

I will respectfully ask that you backtrack and send this back up the line to your respective email loops.

S/F
**UPDATE ENDS**

Most of you know I spend my day in a pickup truck monitoring construction procedures at a power plant somewhere in central VA. I have my laptop, wireless card, a few books and the FM radio.

I am usually listening to country music, cause I love country music. However, with the current political climate, I have been scanning the dial for alternatives to the usual fare, until Glenn Beck comes on, and then Rush.

Yesterday, I hit the seek button and found 93.1 The Wolf, a country music station I had not heard before. The song playing was one of my favorites, "I Don't Even Know My Last Name" so I left it there and listened.

The song finished and over the airwaves came the voices of two of the most Southern individuals I have ever heard, besides my friend Tankerbabe.

The morning show on 93.1 is called Rick and Bubba. They are AWESOME. It's morning FM conservative talk radio. No games, no yuck it up, just straight talk from two Americans who absolutely get it, interspersed with great country music.

Today, imagine my surprise as I listened to these two fine individuals interview one of the smartest men in the country, none other than Dr Walter E Williams, Proffessor of Economics at George Mason University. It was great.

Then, in between doing some work stuff, I happened to hear Rick and Bubba talking about this piece of internet lore and wondering if it was genuine. Since it was posted on Blackfive by someone I know personally, I immediately called the show, spoke to a very nice young lady and encouraged her to visit Blackfive and verify the authenticity. I then sent them the link to that post and also this post, which is another report on the messiah's visit to our brave military fighting the War on Terror.

I offered to provide any information they needed to verify to their listeners that the stories are indeed actual emails from deployed military.

Since any information on the internet is susupect, any time you know for a fact that the story is true, every attempt should be made to spread the accurate information, with as much diligence as we provide to discounting stories that are not true.

FAIR TAX BLOGBURST 12-20-06

Please note: The following references Walter E. Williams' article, The Fair Tax Book, published 12/13/06. --f.m.

by Jonathan of Publius Rendezvous

I came across this article several weeks ago from one of my favorite columnists. Professor Williams has a very succinct way of conveying complicated topics and themes. If you are not a regular reader of his, you should at least check out his regular column at Townhall.

In this piece, Professor Williams tackles the Fair Tax, and as we would hope he describes some of the highlights and benefits that would be reaped upon its passage.

If enacted, the Fair Tax would eliminate: the federal individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate and business taxes, capital gains tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and estate and gift taxes. These taxes would be replaced by a 23 percent sales tax on all goods and services sold at the retail level. The Fair Tax would be revenue-neutral in the sense that it would replace the revenue from current federal taxes; thus, it would change the way government is funded. Our current tax code is an abomination, and we desperately need that change. The time Americans spend simply complying with our tax code comes to 5.8 billion hours of record-keeping, filing taxes, consulting, legal and accounting services. Breaking those hours down to a 40-hour work week, it translates into a workforce of 2.77 million people. That's more than the workforce of our auto, aircraft, computer and steel manufacturing industries combined.

The Fair Tax has much to recommend in its favor, such as being a more efficient form of taxation. It would go a long way toward protecting our privacy and preventing Congress from using the tax code to micromanage our lives. The Fair Tax is an excellent idea, but only under three conditions: first, the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment that created the income tax; second, a provision fixing the tax at, say, 23 percent; and third, a constitutional amendment mandating that a tax increase requires a three-fourths vote of Congress. Notwithstanding any provisions within the Fair Tax, if the Sixteenth Amendment weren't repealed, down the road we'd find ourselves with a national sales tax and an income tax.

But, what I found to be the most interesting is the Professor William's take on the prospects of the passage of the Fair tax. Seeing it as a tremendous obstacle, Professor Williams is quite pessimistic in outlook. While we here at the Fair Tax Blogburst respectfully disagree with this synopsis, his underlying rationale for the difficulty of passage of the Fair tax cannot be ignored.

You say, "Williams, it sounds as if you don't trust Congress." I don't trust Congress any farther than I can toss an elephant. During the debate prior to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, congressmen said that only the rich would ever pay income taxes. In 1917, only one-half of one percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid one percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply propaganda to dupe Americans into ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment.

Here's my prediction: The Fair Tax will never become law. The two most powerful congressional committees are the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees. These committees write tax law, and as such they are able to confer tax privileges on some Americans at the expense of other Americans. The Fair Tax would reduce or eliminate this form of congressional privilege-granting power and, subsequently, campaign contributions from the beneficiaries would dwindle.

The method used to finance the federal government is very important, but I've always argued that government spending is the true measure of its impact on our lives. If there were a Fair Tax, what's to stop Congress from deficit spending or inflating the currency? Deficit spending and inflation are simply alternative forms, albeit less obvious, of taxation.

You say, "What's Williams' solution?" My solution is an amendment limiting federal spending to a fixed percentage, say, 10 percent of the gross domestic product. You say, "Why 10 percent?" If 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it certainly ought to be good enough for Congress.

The question we must ask is "What makes Williams think that this will pass any easier than the FairTax?" The outcome is doubtful for the exact same reasons that Williams argues would doom the FairTax -- the committees which decide where certain monies are spent can also confer privileges on some Americans at the expense of other Americans. Limiting spending to 10% would eliminate much of the congressional privilege-granting power, and corresponding campaign contributions.

The one thing that the FairTax has behind it is the power of a grassroots organization. Ultimately, this is still a government of, by, and for the people. It is up to us to see that our representatives perform as we believe they should. It is up to us to insure passage of the FairTax bill. We must take Mr. Williams arguments for the FairTax and spread them as widely as possible, while ignoring his pessimism. Together, we can get this done.

And maybe in the meantime we can also cut spending, thus reducing the amount of tax required for the FairTax. Now isn't that an idea?