Tenth Amendment Center

DIGG THIS

There’s been quite an uproar over recent comments on Habeas Corpus by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,” Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares “habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless … in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” But he insisted that “there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.”

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn’t exist — a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king’s power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Although you might wonder why this issue qualifies as a concern of the Tenth Amendment, it’s these statements by both Gonzales and Specter that warrant special attention. Their position, if formally adopted by the government, would change the entire structure and basis of the Constitution; from one which created a government of specifically limited powers to one that gives the government all powers not prohibited.

First, more from the Chronicle:

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said this week that Gonzales stood by his remarks but was asserting only that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee habeas corpus.

Aboslutely Correct!

The Constitution, contrary to what many people believe, does not give people rights to free speech, trial by jury, to be armed, or even habeas corpus. In fact, the Constitution does not give people any rights, whatsoever!

Instead of giving us rights, the Constitution simply acknowledges that our rights are natural and inherent, and seeks to prevent that enemy of the ages which has always sought to take away our rights: The Government.

Simply put, the Constitution is a limit on government power. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The founders knew what was so obvious from history, and what remains true today – that the greatest threats to our liberty always comes from our own government.

As the 10th Amendment states so clearly, if the Constitution doesn’t give a power to the federal government, it can’t do it. Period.

Much of what the federal government engages in on a day-to-day basis is in a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment. The statements by Gonzales, Specter, and Roehrkasse are all examples of how the feds have destroyed not only the Tenth Amendment, but the meaning and intent of the Constitution as a whole.

No, Mr. Gonzales, the Constitution does NOT say that every individual is guaranteed the right of habeas corpus! No, Mr. Specter, rights DO exist even if they’re not listed in the Constitution. No, Mr. Roehrkasse, the text of the Constitution does NOT guarantee habeas corpus – the text of the Constitution guarantees that YOU and your accomplices in the federal government cannot take that right away!

What the feds can do in regards to habeas corpus was written quite plainly in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution,

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Nowhere else is Habeas Corpus even mentioned. Thus, since the federal government was not given the power to suspend habeas in any other situation, it can’t do it.

The Tenth Amendment has been repeatedly ignored and directly violated almost continuously since FDR and the New Deal showed it utter disregard in the Great Depression. When the Federal government takes on functions not specifically given to it in the Constitution, in direct violation of the Tenth Amendment, it’s only a matter of time before it starts taking away other rights.

Without a strict adherence to the Tenth Amendment, it’s only a matter of time before the government starts spying on us, opening our mail, creating “free speech zones”, telling us we can’t have guns, and more. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

It’s high-time for “We The People” to start demanding that the Feds start obeying this fundamental law. We are getting alarmingly close to having no rights at all – other than what the government, in its divine mercy, decides to grant us. This landslide must be stopped quickly, and the 10th Amendment is the rule to follow, or we’ll soon find ourselves in an overt dictatorship.

Kudos to the Maine Legislature! InformationWeek Reports:

Legislators in Maine have refused to implement the Real ID Act and are calling on Congress to repeal it.

The Maine Senate and House of Representatives passed a joint resolution Thursday demanding the repeal of the law and announcing they were the first state lawmakers in the country to do so. The resolution states that the Real ID Act of 2005 would place an unfair financial burden on states, threatens privacy, and leaves citizens vulnerable to identity theft. It also states that the law, scheduled to take effect next year, fails to accomplish its mission of improving security.

The first thing to note is that Real ID, in practice, federalizes the driver’s license, which, under the limitations of the Tenth Amendment, has been a province of the states. It’s been this way since 1908 - when Rhode Island passed the first law in regards to driver’s licenses.

Without a doubt, REAL ID turns state departments of motor vehicles into delegates of the federal government. Making national “standards” for driver’s licenses creates a national ID system - nothing more and nothing less. Having your home state put its name on it is little more than an inconsequential smoke screen.

The REAL ID establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of information about American citizens - information that is highly personal - including physical characteristice, residence, social security number, date of birth and name.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security, a dubious federal office at best, is given the open-ended power to require biometric information on these licenses/ID’s in the future.

Remember, it’s not the the abuse of power that’s of the greatest concern, it’s the power to abuse! Once an open-ended power to do something sometime “in the future” is given - it’s nearly assured that some politician will eventually come along and abuse it to their advantage. The power to require biometric information on a federalized identification card leaves many dangerous possibilities open.

While the individual states are not technically forced to accept these standards, any refusal to comply will mean that their residents will lose the ability to get on a plane, receive social security, and potentially, to get a job.

So instead of creating a direct mandate on the states, the feds are blackmailing them into compliance and submission. Only in government is such activity legal. If you were openly engaging in blackmail, you’d probably be hauled off to jail in handcuffs. But that doesn’t happen to the politicians who make up the federal government.

The saddest part about the REAL ID act is that the Constitution was written to prohibit the federal government from exercising such power - direct, or implied. The long-forgotten 10th Amendment is clear. It states that powers not explicitly delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or to the people.

Federal standards for drivers’ licenses - whether enforced through “law” or economic “incentives” (bribery) - show utter contempt for states’ rights and the principles of the Tenth Amendment.

Bottom line: REAL ID violates the 10th Amendment, which severely limits federal power. For now, though, REAL ID resistance must continue. As Maine Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Mitchell stated:

“The federal government may be willing to burden us with the high costs of a program that will do nothing to make us safer, but it is our job as state legislators to protect the people of Maine from just this sort of dangerous federal mandate. I am proud that this state has led the way in taking a stand against Real ID.”

More people and more states must stand up to the federal government and say no!

The Associated Press Reports:

The Senate is moving toward its first vote in more than a decade on the line-item veto, and it’s remarkable how much has changed – particularly the positions of many of the major players.

At issue is a watered-down GOP measure that would allow a president to scrutinize spending bills he signs into law for questionable items and then submit cuts, or rescissions, to Congress for a vote.

Remember, the reason there hasn’t been a vote on this in “more than a decade” is because the Supreme Court struck down the previous line-item veto from Congress as unconstitutional. In a rare decision that opposed Congress and the expansion of government power, the Court rules that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to hand such authority to the President.

Since only Constitutional Amendments, and not time, can change the enumerated powers of the Constitution…this remains true today.

As Justice John Paul Stevens said in 1996:

“the procedures authorized by the line-item veto act are not authorized by the Constitution.”

And, as we state repeatedly here, the “powers not delegated….are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.”

The only way that Congress can give that power to the President is through the passing of a Constitutional Amendment. In his 1996 majority opinion, Stevens concurred:

“If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.”

Proponents of the constitutional change say that this will give the president a “valuable tool” for eliminating waste in the federal budget. But, there’s already a clear and simple veto procedure in the Constitution.

The problem we face isn’t the lack of power for the president to veto line-by-line.

The problem we face is that we have a Congress that passes 100+ page legislation without ever reading it. The problem we face is that our Presidents refuse to veto bills that have “riders” or “lines” in them that are bad for the nation. The problem we face is that we have a government that repeatedly legislates away our rights.

Giving even more power to an already overly-powerful executive branch will do nothing to secure our liberty.

Taking away a great deal of that power will.

The San Francisco Chronicle Reports:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday warned federal judges not to meddle in cases involving national security, following a string of judicial rebukes of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism initiatives.

In a speech to the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, Gonzales said federal judges are not “equipped to make decisions about” actions the president takes in the name of preserving national security.

Let’s be clear here. It is absolutely the role - the mandate - of the judicial branch to make decisions on whether or not the actions of the president (the whole government for that matter) fall within the powers allowed by the Constitution.

But wait, there’s more:

Gonzales added that the judiciary should show deference to the executive branch when national security is involved, because, unlike the Bush administration, judges “don’t have embassies around the world gathering up information.”

Whether or not this is now “official policy” is not the issue. The fact remains that a high-ranking executive branch official gave a “direction” to the judicial branch to stop looking at the constitutionality of the actions of the executive. Sounds pretty strange, doesn’t it?

The federal government cannot legally wield any power that is not specifically granted by the Constitution. According to the Tenth Amendment, powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.”

Nowhere in the Constitution is there a power to allow the executive to direct the judiciary in any way. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a power for the judiciary to decline to ajudicate actions by the government because of a “direction” or “recommendation” by the Attorney General.

Since these powers are not delegated to the federal government, then they must be among those powers reserved “to the states respectively or to the people.” Simply put, the executive branch is not constitutionally empowered to “meddle” in the affiars of the Judiciary, whatsover.

The courts are the last line of defense that “we the people” have to protect ourselves from abuses by the legislative and executive branches. If judges collude with either of the other two branches of government, then the separation of powers, and thus, all hopes for individual liberty, will collapse.

If this becomes policy of the executive, or practice of the judiciary, there will be an absolute need for us to call for the resignation or impeachment of judges who refuse to carry out their duty.

The Washington Post Reports:

Private contractors and other civilians serving with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan could be subject for the first time to military courts-martial under a new federal provision that legal scholars say is almost certain to spark constitutional challenges.

Challenges?? We the people shouldn’t simply “challenge” but instead, make strong demands to stop this, as such power is an outrage to a free society.

The federal government, because of recruiting shortages, lack of desire, or a multitude of other reasons, doesn’t have enough people in the military to fully service the Iraq theater of operations. In response, they spend a great deal more money to hire civilians who freely choose to work there.

Now, of course, the government wants a few scapegoats and show trials - and the Bill of Rights would definitely get in the way. So what’s the response?

Fully take away the rights of those people who have risked their lives, and make them subject to military tribunals.

Even worse, nearly the entire Congress voted in approval.

Here’s a few of the inalienable rights that are stripped from these people:

• Grand Jury Hearings
• Trial by jury

There is absolutely no authorization in the Constitution for the government to arbitrarily take away these rights from people - just based on the location of where they work.

Civilians are to be tried as civilians and soldiers are to be tried as soldiers.
And that’s the law.

From Reuters:

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday introduced a bill that would rescind billions of dollars worth of tax incentives extended to U.S. energy companies and put the money into a fund earmarked for renewable energy.

Sponsors of the Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act, or CLEAN, said it will save U.S. taxpayers about $13 billion over an unspecified number of years, but industry groups said it could hinder U.S. oil companies’ ability to find and develop new energy sources.

Going after “Big Oil” is a top priority of the House of Representatives’ Democratic leadership, which says oil companies have earned record profits at the expense of U.S. motorists paying high gasoline prices.

Although the politicians on both sides of the aisle would like us to think that it’s in their Constitutional authority to engage in subsidies, energy research and the like, we challenge everyone to find one word in the Constitution that authorizes such activity.

The title here is interesting, and may even mislead. While it’s quite good for politicians to “go after” subsidies (and hopefully end them) - it doesn’t do any good at all if they just take that subsidy and give it to someone else.

That’s just what’s happening here. The politicians, acting like a mafia cartel once again, are taking money from one group, and giving it to another. All the while, they continue extracting your tax money for these and other unconstitutional ventures.

They claim this program will “save $13 billion” But remember, virtually every time the government starts a new program, it ends up costing much much more than they advertised in the beginning.

If they told us the truth about these things, the war in Iraq would be paid for by Iraqi oil, the income tax never would’ve gone above 6%, Social Security tax would only be 2%, and on and on, and on.

What really needs to happen is for “we the people” to “go after” big government.

AOL News Reports:

Despite a veto threat from President Bush, the House is approving another key measure the Democrats want.

It’s a bill that would force the government to negotiate with drug companies to get lower prices for Medicare patients. Supporters say the government has more muscle than private insurance plans. And many Democrats complain the year-old Medicare prescription program tilts too far toward profits for the drug and insurance industries.

Let’s be clear here. There’s nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the government to engage in Medicare at all.

A strict constructionist, of course, would find this quite unconstitutional. In fact, to do anything otherwise would be a violation of the words of James Madison, the “father” of the Constitution

“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.”

Medicare is ripe with fraud and waste. There’s millions of dollars of fraudulent claims each and every year. Doctors have to follow rules forced on them by politicians or bureaucrats - not a good way to provide health care, is it?

But then again, to argue against Medicare solely on reasons of cost, need, efficiency, and the like is missing the point entirely.

The constitution does not authorize the federal government to get into the medical insurance business.

Therefore, according to the tenth amendment, the federal government needs to stay out of it. And that’s the law.

From Stateline.org:

A little-noticed change in federal law packs an important change in who is in charge the next time a state is devastated by a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.

To the dismay of the nation’s governors, the White House now will be empowered to go over a governor’s head and call up National Guard troops to aid a state in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies. Up to now, governors were the sole commanders in chief of citizen soldiers in local Guard units during emergencies within the state.

It didn’t matter that ALL 50 governors objected to this concentration of power in the hands of the executive - the Congress simply moved forward by changing the balance of powers through legislation (once again).

More from the article:

Under the U.S. Constitution, each state’s National Guard unit is controlled by the governor in time of peace but can be called up for federal duty by the president.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids U.S. troops from being deployed on American soil for law enforcement. The one exception is provided by the Insurrection Act of 1807, which lets the president use the military only for the purpose of putting down rebellions or enforcing constitutional rights if state authorities fail to do so.

So what did Congress do to avoid this requirement? With the stroke of a pen, they just changed the requirement of the insurrection act to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident”

How does a “natural disaster” now qualify as an insurrection?? Who, then, determines what qualifies as a natural disaster? Will a snowstorm qualify for the president to control the guard, and send troops into our cities? Will a heavy rain? And, when will Congress use another “stroke of the pen” to add even more reasons to have federal military control policing our cities?

It’s not the abuse of power we’re most concerned with, it’s the power to abuse. This unconstitutional move by the federal government gives them, in writing, the power to do two things:

1. federal control of the guard, which is clearly under the jurisdiction of the states - except in “times of insurrection…”

2. Congress has once-again given itself the power to change the Constitution by pure legislation - not constitutional amendment. (this is even more dangerous)

To us, this is clearly an example of the federal government showing us that they can and will change the structure of power as created by the founders. Period.

We find it disgraceful that Congress would violate the original intent of Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and enact legislation that has forced State citizen militias to ‘metamorphosize’ into a national organization that is now primarily deployed outside of the United States.

We call on the governors to hold to their duty - to dispute and refuse to obey unconstitutional laws, and thus to prevent our Guard members from federal control in these and many other situations already in place.

The New York Times Reports:

The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to broaden federal support for embryonic stem cell research, stepping up a confrontation with President Bush over a thorny scientific and ethical issue that Democrats hope to capitalize on in the next election.

The vote, 253 to 174, was not enough to overturn a likely presidential veto of the measure, which would authorize federal support for research using stem cells derived from excess embryos that fertility clinics would otherwise discard.

Apparently, Congress believes that if the feds don’t fund it, such research wouldn’t or couldn’t be done. But, it’s never compassionate to spend other people’s money for political benefit. Federal funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions about what types of research for what diseases will be funded.

As with most government programs, there is nothing, whatsoever, in the US Constitution that allows the federal government to expropriate tax funds from the population for scientific research programs such as stem cell research.

But, the Constitution is not just a good idea, it’s the law…

The powers granted to Congress are for the most part enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. To clarify that Congress is limited only to powers expressly granted to it in the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment was written.

And one of the many powers that were not delegated to the United States federal government was scientific research. Take a challenge and try to find an authorization for scientific research in the Constitution. (here’s a hint, you’ll never find it)

Therefore, to be for federally-funded stem cell research is to be against the Bill of Rights.

The greatest casualty of centralized government decision-making is personal liberty.

The Associated Press Reports:

The House voted to raise the federal minimum wage Wednesday for the first time in a decade, to $7.25 an hour, as majority Democrats marched briskly through their 100-hour agenda at the dawn of a new Congress.

Ebullient Democrats stood and cheered as the final vote - 315-116 - was announced.

While it’s quite clear that poor people making more money is a good thing, it’s also just as clear that there’s nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to enforce minimum wages of any kind. The first minimum wage laws in the US were introduced in 1938 under FDR. The government may claim that this is authorized under the commerce clause of the Constitution, but that is only for inter-state commerce, nothing further.

Under a classical analysis of a minimum wage, some low wage earners are helped by the higher minimum wage, some low wage earners lose their jobs because of the higher minimum wage, and businesses employing low wage earners face higher labor costs. A benefit is delivered to some low wage workers at the expense of other low wage workers and businesses employing low wage workers.

Many countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Cyprus have no minimum wage laws, but rely on employer groups and trade unions to set minimum earnings through collective bargaining.

The Tenth Amdenment Center demands that the federal government stick to the powers that are explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution is not just a good idea, it’s the law.