I can’t help it! I always seem to refer to the Constitution. Bad habit I suppose, as it seems to have been almost totally ignored by the mountebanks and phonies who call themselves our Representatives, Senators, and now, a non-citizen President. Remember, I don’t have the unblemished professional probity and highest professional standing, as do these duly elected representatives in the velvet lined enclave known as Washington D.C. I have no degrees, and I suspect my only qualification for writing these opinions, is that in the 8th grade I was told that I had an IQ of 158, I read 40 or more books a year, never watch commercial TV, and use my mind for something other than the base on which I comb my hair.
Ron Paul was the victim of a universal campaign of smears, vilification and laughter, similar to the Goldwater outrages by the media, and what did it get us? John McCain, and when he picked a superb running mate, the media was, and has been at it again. My pick for the 2012 election? Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Sarah Palin. I am thinking of having bumper strips printed to that effect, and I will send one with each confirmation. This paragraph has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment. Just idle thoughts.
Now, about the Tenth Amendment: It 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.” The Constitution is sort of like the Sermon on the Mount, as is found in Matthew chapter six. It is a positive document, giving some powers to an intended small federal government. It is not a Ten Commandments, as found in Exodus chapter 20. The Ten Commandments are a sort of negative affair, telling adherents what they cannot do. The Constitution tells government what it can do, and believe me, it is doing far more than it has permission to do!
When the Constitution was written and submitted for signing, it was never going to pass, unless a “Bill of Rights” was added, and these are the first Ten Amendments. The Eleventh, was not added until six years after adoption. The Tenth, plainly gives no permission for what 90% of the federal government is doing, or should I say “committing,” since in my opinion they are and have been ’committing’ heinous crimes of unauthorized, illegal, unconstitutional, power grabbing. The crime is doing what they have no Constitutional authority to do, and forcing us to pay for it with ever decreasing valued currency, and ever more harassment from D.C.
So Far, twenty states have passed legislation, simply stating that they have had it, and will have no more. In Texas (don’t mess with Texas), Governor Rick Perry has threatened secession, and, no, the War Between the States, did not solve that problem. How could the D.C. problem be solved by Texas and other states, and still remain in the Union? Easy. The governor, would simply tell his citizens that he was no longer going to accept any dollars from D.C., nor pay any more taxes to D.C. at the state level. Federal agents, mandates, and other D.C. rules and orders would be ignored, and the state would not collect any more fuel taxes, taxes on telephones, or federal taxes on anything. The State of Texas or others, would simply divorce themself from D.C. and the Tenth Amendment would be obeyed. Citizens would be free to decide whether they would pay income taxes into the federal treasury. The Tenth Amendment covers state connections with D.C., not the individual citizens.
Texas, or any of the other 49, if they decided to obey the Constitution and still remain in the Union, could do the same thing. Interstate Highways and US highways would remain intact, but states would maintain them with state taxes, as they already do anyway. No more federal speed limits or specifications on manufactured goods, or cars. Commerce between the states would continue as usual. The postal service, which is certainly Constitutional, would remain, as would the electric grid ,and other interstate connections. Schools would be free from D.C. meddling and instructions. There would be no more arguing about how much money the states paid into D.C. and how much they got out. None would go in, and none would come out. All the federal agents and harassers would be out. All would be just fine, and Texans would rejoice at their new freedom from D.C. Texas farmers and ranchers would do with state services and regulations, and if the state chose to limit or subsidize anything, it would be the state that did it, not some enormous, uncontrollable, incommunicable, money grabbing, octopus of inefficiency, headquartered in D.C.
The Union is a sacred thing, and I think it must be preserved, but without the D.C. Gang. There is another item or two which would conflict if Texas or other states, did the above. That is the dollar and currency thing. The Constitution says, under Article One, Section Eight, that the Congress shall have the power to “Coin Money (and) regulate the value thereof.” The money has no value, since Nixon removed the last vestige of gold backing, and the coins are made of base metals, so that question might be up to argument. Even if it had value, Section Ten, in a seeming contradiction, says that, “No State shall…coin Money.” And then two sentences later says that, (No state shall) “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Does this mean the states have to use dollars, but can coin all the official gold and silver state coins they choose? If states made silver and gold coins, as the Constitution says, maybe their gold and silver coinage would make D.C.’s scrip a laughing stock. Then there are the U.S. Representatives and Senators. Since Texas and other states have not left the Union, but left the tangled, expensive D.C. Gang’s bureaucracy and costs, they would continue to hold office and vote as they saw fit.
The President would still be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of the several States,” as Article Two, Section Two permits. The Congress could still declare war, as the Constitution says in Article One, Section Eight, but remember, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Vietnam, and Korea were not voted upon by the Congress. Also, the Constitution allows for no “executive orders,” so states upholding their Tenth Amendment rights, would not have to obey one. No Constitutional provision is there for any federal welfare or handouts of any kind, to any individual, group or organization. Under Article Three, Section One, the Constitution calls for ’inferior’ courts to the Supreme Court, but such ’inferior’ or federal courts, as we now call them, are limited in their judgmental capacity to only certain things, such as matters concerning maritime, ambassadorial, and conflicts between the states. No federal court is given permission to do 90% of what they do, which is an obvious violation of the Constitution, and which courts would be mostly dissolved in the states which decided to take their stand for liberty and freedom from D.C.
The Constitution has no “civil rights” clauses either, and according to Article One, Section Nine, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight…” This prohibited the import of slaves after 1808, but doesn’t it also say that the states can control their own civil rights, integration, borders, and immigration? Unheard of, but it’s in the Constitution. If Texas, other states, or all of them decided to throw off the albatross of the D.C. Gang, which is hanging around their collective necks, the cry of freedom would be heard around the world.
The Constitution provided that the individual states were to be competitive. One state may have lower taxes, better weather, more beauty, better roads, or is friendlier than the others. The states were to compete with each other for business, tourism, and residency, and not be throttled by a sea of inept, power hungry bureaucrats and tax collectors. The D.C. Gang, has for all practical purposes made the states non-competitive and as look alike in government as peas in a pod. The Founders never wanted it that way, and neither do Americans today.
Self-governing, is what we all practice on a daily basis. We control what we eat, where we go, what we buy, where we work, when we sleep, who we choose for our mate, church, and associations. We choose what restaurants we go to, what brand of gasoline, chicken, furniture, and car we buy, and all should be without the interference of Washington D.C. We govern ourselves quite nicely, and balance our budgets in the process. Washington D.C. can do none of this, and has found it impossible to balance its budget or exercise any form whatsoever of even the most rudimentary self-control. Twenty states have decided that they want out of the D.C. governance, and Texas has threatened to get out all together. A few years ago, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho together, threatened to do the same, as did California, and all had and have the same reasons. They want no more federal governance, and want the Tenth Amendment obeyed. They, like you and I, want to govern ourselves. The Tea Parties were massive protests against what we find that we have had enough of, and this is a warning of a possible upcoming revolt, if D.C. pays no heed.
When a Glenn Beck can come on the scene, and immediately fan the flames of outrage and rebellion, as he has, the D.C. Gang had better take notice.