|
Written by Ann Shibler
|
|
Monday, 08 March 2010 15:21 |
|
 Arizona state legislators have responded to the rapidly growing constitutional movement that champions states’ rights by introducing the Freedom to Breathe Act in order to protect the state from the unconstitutional actions of the federal government. Primary sponsors for Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1050 that would essentially nullify any federal cap and trade legislation are Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen, Senator Ron Gould and Senator Chuck Gray.
The resolution states that Arizona has, through the legislature the “exclusive authority to regulate anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and substances produced by mechanical or chemical processes, including agricultural operations and waste operations.”
Citing the Tenth Amendment several times, the text of SCR 1050 gives a good history lesson in constitutional principles. In particular, the resolution demonstrates a solid understanding of the Tenth Amendment and enumerated powers, and the intent and meaning of the words at the time of ratification. There is even a statement that describes the relationship of the United States and the people of Arizona as a compact, something far too few understand.
While the federal government’s position is that cap and trade legislation falls under the commerce clause, SCR 1050 concisely explains that it does not:
At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Enumerated Powers were not meant or understood to authorize Congress to prohibit any aspect of interstate trade except as necessary and proper to prevent state law from engaging in local protectionism and otherwise solely to ensure that interstate trade occurs smoothly and efficiently among the states.
At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Enumerated Powers were meant and understood not to grant Congress general police powers or the power to regulate the purely internal affairs of the states or their people...
At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the Enumerated Powers were not meant or understood to authorize Congress to regulate wholly intrastate manufacturing or noneconomic activities...
Jeffersonian principles abound in the text of SCR 1050, which should be used as a model for other states’ nullification efforts. Hats off to the state of Arizona for seeking to secure the authority that is rightfully its own under the Constitution over commerce and non-economic activities.
Of course, there are detractors. A blogger at www.blogforarizona.com disliked “Arizona’s supremacy over the federal government,” by calling the Freedom to Breathe Act, “We Want To Secede Over Environmental Laws and Regulations Act.” The Sierra Club had a similar re-titling for it, “Another nutty measure brought to you by the Arizona Legislature,” and urged their followers to oppose the attempt to deflect an unconstitutional federal mandate.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1050 could use a boost from Arizona’s concerned citizens. Arizona residents are urged to email their state legislators (this link can be used only by residents of Arizona to send emails to their state legislators) in support of SCR 1050, which is intended as a ballot measure. Explaining and educating friends and neighbors as to the importance of such a measure is essential for a state to retain the right to judge for themselves the constitutionality of a federal law, and to refuse to enforce such an unconstitutional federal imposition. |
|
|
Written by Larry Greenley
|
|
Friday, 05 February 2010 08:56 |
|
 Calling all constitutionalists! Here's a bill you'll be glad to support: The Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 450 and S. 1319, "To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes."
Here's the key provision of H.R. 450 (S. 1319 reads virtually the same): "Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress."
Sixty members of the House are already cosponsors of H.R. 450. There are 22 cosponsors of S. 1319 in the Senate.
Take advantage of the heightened receptiveness of Congress in this momentous election year featuring a rapidly growing constitutionalist movement to help convince your representative and senators to support the Enumerated Powers Act.
Use these bills to put the pressure on your representative and senators to adhere to the Constitution. Phone and email them. Ask them to cosponsor these bills and work to bring them to the floors of the House and Senate for a vote. Get them on the record on their support or lack of support for obeying the Constitution.
Also use these bills to vet and influence candidates for the House and Senate in your area. The goal is to have a majority of constitutionalists in Congress that will abide by the enumerated powers of the Constitution. |
|
Written by JBS Staff
|
|
Wednesday, 09 December 2009 11:03 |
|
 From its inception one month after the attacks of 9/11, the government’s overreaction termed the Patriot Act spurred objections from privacy groups, civil liberty groups, and constitutionalists. Over time, it became clear that not only is the Patriot Act ineffective -- no criminal trial conviction ever resulted from one of the provisions, while the Justice Department says another provision has yet to be used. But it has greatly diminished citizens’ once-constitutionally protected civil liberties, as part of a disturbing trend toward a more intrusive approach by the government into the everyday activities of Americans.
Now with certain provisions of the Patriot Act about to expire at the end of 2009, the Senate is set to disentangle itself from the healthcare debate long enough to address the issues in response to the Obama administration’s wish to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
The three provisions most under scrutiny will be the Records provision, Roving Wiretaps provision, and the Lone Wolf provision. The Records provision gives federal investigators access to all business, hospital and library records to search for “any tangible thing” of a terrorist suspect if there is a court order provided by a special federal court. The Roving Wiretaps provision authorizes government tracking capabilities in the form of wiretapping without a name or specific target as a focus, which is sometimes labeled a “sneak and peek” method. The Lone Wolf provision allows the use of secret surveillance for spying on non-americans if they are suspected of terrorist activities not tied to any specific organization.
One provision not set to expire is the national security letters (NSLs). The FBI uses the very secret NSLs to obtain private financial and communication records of Americans. A NSL does not require legal permission and usually includes a gag order, so innocent Americans have virtually no privacy or protection if the government decides to investigate them. Ex-FBI special agent and now a counsel for the ACLU Michael German said, “What the national security letters do is allow them [the FBI] to collect information about people they don’t suspect of doing anything wrong,”
Currently there are two bills in the House and one in the Senate that contain different approaches and proposals to the various expiring provisions. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are said to be working toward an agreement so that a consensus and passage can be quickly reached.
The version in the Senate, S.1692, is the Leahy/Feinstein bill, which would reauthorize all three of the questionable provisions until the end of 2013. H.R. 3845 sponsored by John Conyers (D-Mich.) would reauthorize the Records and Roving Wiretaps provisions, allowing the Lone Wolf provision to lapse. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) introduced his version, H.R. 3969, into the House and it is said to mimic the Leahy/Feinstein bill in the Senate.
While H.R. 3969 has not made its way through the various committees yet, H.R. 3845 has and is the most likely candidate to be moved forward. It is already poised to skip any formal markups. However, it would still have to be reconciled with the Senate bill.
Limiting the size and scope of the Patriot Act is not altogether a bad idea. But in order to stop the growth of a totalitarian state and return to our constitutional principles of limited government, the Patriot Act would need to be eliminated altogether.
Contacting your senators and representative and urging them to oppose the reauthorization of any aspects of, or amendments to, the Patriot Act via H.R. 3845, H.R. 3969, or S. 1692 will put them on notice that you expect them to maintain our constitutionally guaranteed liberties and protect citizens from the overreaching arm of government. |
|
Written by Larry Greenley
|
|
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 13:00 |
In this era of trillion dollar legislative bills for an economic stimulus that's not working, a government takeover of health care, and cap-and-trade energy taxes to supposedly reduce global warming, millions of Americans are "awakening" to the need to limit the federal government by insisting that Congress adhere to the Constitution. Some of these newly awakened Americans have concluded that amending the Constitution would help get our nation back on track, while forgetting that our biggest problem is that our elected officials already pay little attention to the Constitution's limitations as it is. Why would they pay attention to some new amendments? Instead of working on amending the Constitution, we must first organize a massive educational campaign about the constitutional solutions to our nation's problems in order to create sufficient grassroots understanding to bring about the election of a majority of constitutionalists to Congress.
Meanwhile, some of these newly awakened constitutionalists observe that although Congress will not propose certain amendments that would appear to be useful additions to the Constitution, Article V provides a second way that amendments can be proposed, a constitutional convention (con-con). However, these same newly awakened Americans all too easily overlook the risks involved in a con-con. Click here to view a 36-minute video, "Beware of Article V," that exposes the unacceptable risks that would be involved in convening a constitutional convention at this time in our nation's history.
Furthermore, most Americans are not aware of the successful 25-year campaign by the John Birch Society and other constitutionalist organizations to preserve the Constitution by preventing the calling of a con-con. Click here to read "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," which will bring you up to date on this campaign. This article also includes two color-coded maps: (1) showing the high water mark of the movement to call a con-con based on the desire for a balanced budget amendment; and (2) showing the eleven states (also joined by a twelfth state, Wyoming in 2009) where the state legislature has voted to rescind all previous calls for a con-con.
On November 10, 2009, Professor Kevin Gutzman promoted the idea of a constitutional convention during his appearance on the Glenn Beck TV Show. Here's the video:
Even though Glenn Beck has posted an excellent position statement on his website in opposition to calling a constitutional convention, several guests on his FoxNews show in 2009 have also promoted the con-con concept. Click here to read "Another Endorsement of a Constitutional Convention on Glenn Beck." This article includes a link to video of Gutzman's appearance as well as links to the "Beware of Article V" video and "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention" article referred to above.
In a nutshell, the majority of constitutional scholars agree that an Article V constitutional convention cannot be restricted as to what amendments it would consider and ultimately propose, which means that the delegates to such a convention would be free to consider a whole range of changes to our Constitution as well as even considering a whole new constitution. Given the present state of understanding of the Constitution among the American electorate, it is inadvisable to convene a body of delegates with such broad powers to revise our Constitution. After this constitutional convention would "propose amendments," the amendment(s) would then be submitted to the states (either legislatures or special state conventions according to the Constitution, but possibly some other means proposed by the constitutional convention itself following the precedent of our original Constitutional Convention in specifying the means for ratification of the Constitution) for ratification. Although 3/4s of the states would have to ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution, there is still the all-too-real risk that a harmful amendment or series of amendments could be ratified due to the extraordinary influence exerted on American voters and their representatives by powerful elites in our news media, government, educational institutions, and foundations.
Starting in late 2008 and continuing on through 2009 there have been several individuals and organizations that have decided to make the calling of a constitutional convention a top priority, and have begun contacting state legislators throughout the nation to support their project.
Preserving the Constitution from the threat represented by calling a con-con will require the hard work of constitutionalists throughout the United States. Personal contact through office visits and phone calls are a must ( Click here for contact information for your state legislators.). Your tools include "Beware of Article V" ( free online and as a DVD), "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention" ( free online and as a reprint), "Another Endorsement of a Constitutional Convention on Glenn Beck" ( free online), and "Model State Con-Con Rescission Resolution" ( free online). If you'd like to join with others in your state to help prevent any con-con call, or where appropriate to help bring about a rescission of all previous con-con calls, go to the JBS.org Freedom Campaign - National group, join the group (requires registration), and send a message to the group's creator.
To supplement the necessary personal contacts mentioned above, click here to send a prewritten, editable email message in opposition to a con-con to your state legislators. While email messages cannot equal the impact and effectiveness of personal contacts, they can play a role in an overall campaign. Please be sure to personalize your emails for maximum impact.
A constitutional convention has been prevented from being called over the past 25 years through the hard work of members of the John Birch Society and like-minded groups and individuals in personally contacting their state legislators of both parties and making them aware of the risks involved in calling a con-con. This is truly a nonpartisan issue. Whenever the time has been taken to present the risks associated with a constitutional convention to state legislators, the majority of both parties have voted against calling for a con-con. Not only have no additional state legislatures called for a con-con for the past 25 years, legislators in 12 states have become so thoroughly convinced of the dangers of a constitutional convention that they have voted to rescind (repeal) all previous con-con calls in their states.
Whenever we have enough understanding of constitutional principles among the electorate to make it relatively safe to call a constitutional convention, we'll also have the political environment for electing a majority of constitutionalists to Congress where any necessary amendments could be proposed and submitted to the states for ratification without the risks inherent in a constitutional convention. |
|
Written by Larry Greenley
|
|
Thursday, 12 November 2009 15:24 |
|
 In light of the strenuous and successful campaign by the John Birch Society and other constitutionalist organizations over the past 25 years or so to preserve the Constitution by preventing the calling of a constitutional convention (con-con) as provided for in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, it was very disappointing to see a well-known constitutional scholar, Professor Kevin Gutzman, promote the concept on the Glenn Beck TV Show on Tuesday, November 10 (see embedded video below). Judge Andrew Napolitano was the substitute host due to Beck's appendicitis operation. As documented in my article, "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention," posted on TheNewAmerican.com on June 23, both Professor Randy Barnett and Judge Napolitano had endorsed the idea of a constitutional convention on the Beck show earlier this year.
Although the idea of calling a constitutional convention has been promoted on Glenn Beck's TV Show several times this year, it must be pointed out that Beck posted a "Note from Glenn" on his website (below an article by Judge Napolitano dated May 15, 2009) in which he strongly opposes a con-con. Here's Beck's excellent position statement disavowing the whole concept of calling a constitutional convention:
Let’s be clear that no one is calling for a Constitutional Convention. The Judge has outlined what would need to be done, legally, in order for the 10th Amendment to have some real teeth put back into it. No one really wants a Constitutional Convention. Nobody on the left or the right really pushes for one for two reasons. First, no matter how limited the scope of the proposed constitutional convention if one actually takes place it’ll be almost impossible to restrict the changes that could be made to the Constitution. Remember that when the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia for their constitutional convention their orders were to do nothing more than “amend the Articles of Confederation.” By day three they had unofficially agreed to abolish the Articles and create a new form of government. If a constitutional convention were held today there would be no limits on what they could do and it’s very possible we end up with the Constitution shredded and in tatters. I don’t want to take that risk.
Second, I don’t trust our current crop of politicians to do the right thing. I don’t see a modern-day George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, or James Madison. All I see are selfish politicians willing to do anything to get re-elected. I don’t want to put the future of my children and grandchildren in their fat money-stained fingers.
So let’s hold off on the constitutional convention but move forward with the gun legislation in Montana, Utah, Texas and other states in an effort to have the Supreme Court re-consider the 10th Amendment. Good people doing great things is all it takes to return America to what our Founding Fathers intended Her to be—a bastion of freedom and liberty!
-glenn
To give you some more context for why I say it was disappointing to hear Professor Gutzman recommend a con-con, here's an excerpt from "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention":
Although attempting to get the federal government back under control by amending the Constitution is very appealing to many conservatives and constitutionalists, it does not address the primary problem. The primary problem is that the three branches of the federal government do not adhere to the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders. Surprisingly, this indifference to the Constitution began with some of the decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall nearly 200 years ago. Over the years this indifference has grown slowly, but with the advent of the Obama presidential administration combined with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, we’re now witnessing almost daily naked displays of raw, unconstitutional usurpations of power by the federal government with regard to states, businesses, and individuals.
In this environment, simply amending the Constitution would not be sufficient to get the government back under control. However, there are numerous individuals and groups that still advocate constitutional amendments as the solution....
In a nutshell, the argument against calling for a constitutional convention is that once convened, such a convention would be free to consider and propose whatever amendments to the Constitution that it deemed beneficial. Which is to say that such a convention could become a “runaway convention” in much the same way that the Constitutional Convention that produced our current U.S. Constitution was a runaway convention that disregarded the guidelines under which it was convened. While most Americans are very thankful for the Constitution produced by our original Constitutional Convention in 1787, most Americans and certainly most state legislators, when fully informed of the downsides involved, oppose the convening of a new constitutional convention in our day. (For a video presentation of the arguments against a con-con, see the 36-minute “Beware of Article V” video on YouTube.com or BirchTube on JBS.org.)
Warren Burger, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, argued along the same lines when he vigorously opposed convening a constitutional convention in a letter he wrote to Phyllis Schlafley of Eagle Forum on June 22, 1988:
I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the Confederation Congress "for the sole and express purpose."
Here's the video of Professor Gutzman promoting a constitutional convention on the Glenn Beck TV Show on November 10:
After watching the video above of Professor Gutzman's recommendation for calling a constitutional convention, be sure to watch "Beware Article V," an excellent video produced by the John Birch Society in 1999 and embedded below that exposes the downsides of calling a constitutional convention.
If you agree that calling a constitutional convention would be too risky in the present political environment, then you should be contacting your state legislators in strong opposition to a con-con to be sure that they don't succumb to any new movement to have state legislatures petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. To understand the complicated situation of just how many states would be required to trigger a con-con, read "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention."
Your best educational tools for convincing your state legislators to oppose a con-con are the "Beware Article V" video above (also available on DVD) and a reprint of "Dangers of a Constitutional Convention." |
|
|
