The Constitution as “Default Deny”
19. Jun, 2009 
33 Comments
by Kody Dickerson
This is the fundamental concept of the role of the federal government:
“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.”
That’s the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. If observed and respected to the same extent that the First Amendment is, for example, it alone would go most of the way to guaranteeing our basic freedoms, including those enumerated in all of the other Amendments.
The Tenth Amendment effectively cast the Constitution as a “Default Deny” policy against a large and oppressive government. Default Deny is a term used in computer networking to describe a set of firewall rules that deny all network communication from anywhere and to anywhere unless it’s specifically allowed by an administrator.
Similarly, the Tenth Amendment clearly disallows the government from exercising or granting itself powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution itself. Those powers instead lie with the state governments and individuals.
The founders believed in distributed government. They expressed the idea that wherever possible, problems and disputes should be addressed locally. If a family had a dispute, the family should resolve it. If a town had a local issue that needed to be addressed, it should be addressed locally, and so on from the county to the state and finally to the federal level.
Those most familiar with the ideals, values, morals and habits of the locality and people who are affected by the problem should be the ones to fix it. A bureaucrat in Washington, DC is ill-equipped to rule effectively on issues affecting Forks, WA. A problem should only be elevated to the next level if a conflict arises between two or more families, towns or states. This is bottom-up government.
This is a form of government that empowers individuals as much as any form of government ever has. This is the most effective way to manage a geographically and demographically diverse country while maintaining universal freedom and property rights.
Since it was written, all of the branches of government have worked to find ways around Constitutional limitations, to justify its violation, and to extend the power and influence of government in our lives. It’s often done with the blessing of the people.
The problem is that even if an idea is popular, it’s completely illegal if the Constitution disallows it. There are specific methods described in the Constitution itself which would allow for changing it, but these are constantly ignored out of political expediency, ignorance and pure malice.
Those who most favor a “living” interpretation of the Constitution, one in which the Constitution should be ignored or bent or broken are the ones who’ve driven the country to its current state of lawlessness and unsustainability. These people are a class of elites that believe they can truly govern best from the top down, dictating to states, towns and families how best to live their lives. This class of elites were originally known as the Progressives.
Most of the damage done against the 10th amendment was done, unsurprisingly, by New Deal progressives under FDR. At that time, the Roosevelt administration was attempting to centrally manage resources and control prices of commodities.
In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that, “although activities may be intrastate in character when separately considered, if they have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions, Congress cannot be denied the power to exercise that control.”
Basically, they’re saying that even if you, say, operate a mining business in a single state, the stuff you mine may have a substantial impact on commerce in other states, and therefore the Congress can regulate your ass. That might seem like a stretch, since after all, once you sell what you’ve mined, it’s not really any of your concern anymore.
And yet, because of this interpretation, the federal government became dictator to the individual.
But it gets better.
In an attempt to control wheat prices, the New Dealers sought to restrict the amount of land that farmers could devote to wheat production in order to stabilize the price of wheat.
In one case, a farmer named Roscoe Filburn was allotted 11 acres of his own land to use for wheat production. Filburn instead planted about 22 acres, intending to sell the output from the allowed 11 acres, and use the extra he produced on the other acreage for himself. And so it went to court.
In the Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, the justices ruled that had Filburn not used his own home-produced wheat for himself, he would have had to purchase it on the open market, and therefore he was affecting interstate commerce. Yes, that’s right. Growing your own food is an interstate commerce issue. Thank you, progressivism!
So if something as simple as growing your own wheat on your own farm (or by extension, growing your own tomatoes in your back yard) can be regulated by the federal government under the commerce clause, then the commerce clause can pretty much be used to regulate anything.
The 10th amendment is virtually dead. The federal government controls all. If one amendment can be interpreted beyond it’s intentions in such a way that it becomes meaninglessness, then really any amendment is meaningless. The end result is that the federal government can dictate what an individual can and cannot do with his own personal property.
Whether that power is ultimately used for good or for bad doesn’t matter. It is tyranny.
Progressive statism is a slow, incremental disease. But little moves can have massive consequences. Even letting defenses down temporarily for “emergency” purposes invites permanent, unwelcome change. If you believe in conservatism, then always trust conservatism.
When in doubt, always stay true to what the founders tried to leave for us.
Kody Dickerson maintains a blog at Kodewords.com
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Thought I'd test the fancy new commenting system. Seems pretty good.
Great article, too – by the way! And yes, we need to defer to the ideals of the founders. Too bad that doesn't happen in washington very often. especially considering the name, and all.
Very often? I'd say it almost never happens!
You've got that right. People often ask me what the federal government does that's a violation of the constitution. I always say that it would be far easier to look at it the other way around.
Well said Mr Dickerson. Please everyone contact your local state congressman and senator and push them to reassurt the states 10th ammendment rights.
You're right – we definitely can't rest easy here. It's going to take a flood of calls and pressure from "we the people" to ensure that our state politicians have the courage to stand up and resist where necessary.
And don't neglect to contact and keep educating your state's legislative representatives, too. The feds aren't going to relinquish control without continuous pressure from the states.
Kodewords, you're absolutely right. We the people can't just sit back and wait for things to happen. And, clearly, voting the bums out in federal office isn't working either. Continual, firm but respectful pressure on state legislators will have an effect in time. And loads of support and praise for those who take a constitutional position sure can't hurt either.
The federal government controls all. If one amendment can be interpreted beyond it’s intentions in such a way that it becomes meaninglessness, then really any amendment is meaningless.
As I've said many many times before, if the ninth and tenth amendments can be rendered effectively meaningless, then the whole Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution itself is rendered meaningless. It's not just the amendments that are affected, anymore than it is just the production of wheat and/or the manufacture of wheat products.
Terry – quite true. The entire system is flipped on its head….there's very little that this government does that's actually in line with the constitution anymore.
Michael, thanks. Let me just say that I fully understand that it is a lot easier to nitpick an article than it is to write a quality article that doesn't contain some problem that jackasses like me go about nitpicking. But, you know…
Anyway, allow me to offer a perspective that I don't think gets near enough attention these days, and that I will illustrate by simple analogy.
I like the mining analogy, I just read this morning that Libby Montana was handed 125 million of Federal money to cleanup it's asbestos problem.. Montana is playing selective politics. They don't mind ignoring their sovereignty for handouts, But they will fight tooth and nail for sovereignty when it comes to gun rights
Hey Montana!, you can't have your cake and eat it too!.. you either are…. or you are not!.
Larry – you hit the nail on the head. State governments will need to resist on every level. But, I don't expect this right off the bat. For the time being, I will continue to applaud every effort like the Firearms Freedom Act – and will encourage them to take additional steps in the future.
If the states ever figure out that the federal government depends on them, not the other way around, for its subsistence, then … look out!
Terry, I'd take that a step further – it the PEOPLE ever figure out that the federal government depends on them…..then look out!
Point taken.
Thomas, I like the new system…Good on yu!;)
…I think that one of the fundamental problems with the way we tend to interpret the constitution and its provisions, what the intent of the founders was and so forth, and that which is the underlying cause of most of the errors we unfortunately enter into, is that we tend to see the world (and the constitution) from a part-to-whole, rather than a whole-to-part perspective. If I gave any one of you a brown box (with no markings on it) containing a 5000 piece puzzle, you'd have no idea what the completed puzzle was supposed to be, and you'd speculate endlessly in an attempt to figure it out. The individual pieces (or parts) only make sense in the context of the whole puzzle. Otherwise they're simply pieces of a larger whole that we can have no knowledge of except by blind luck.
…I also think that this part-to-whole approach is ultimately a result of the quality (or the lack thereof) of the educational apparatus in America. I mean, we spend our youths being educated in part-to-whole methodology, or, passing from grade to grade wherein our teachers and instructors attempt to form the whole progressively by giving us the individual parts a few at a time. But that's not the way education should work. Proper education should involve the transmission of the whole image first, and then to begin to break it down into its various parts and their meaning in the context of the whole puzzle.
Beyond that, the analogy gets a little complicated. The point, though, is that if we're to turn this thing around, we're going to have to completely revolutionize the way we think.
Interesting stuff.
And just to add…I'd actually say the biggest problem with the quality of our education system is —- that it's run by government!
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>You've got that right. People often ask me what the federal government does that's a violation of the constitution. I always say that it would be far easier to look at it the other way around.</DIV> <DIV style=\”FONT: 10pt arial\”>
Makes sense. I'm an anarchist myself. Just one step removed from Libertarianism! But, a return to the Constitution would certainly go a long ways towards We, the People becoming a nation of individuals exercising our right to self-determination, instead of this big brother corporate system we have now. So, when are we all going to secede?
I can see many places where an anarchist (an individualist, right?) and I could be allies. We both want government out of our lives. I can deal with a state government far better than this criminal one in DC
This video made the rounds a while back, but I think it illustrates the idea that the founders had greater affinity for the anarchist end of the political spectrum than they did for the authoritarian. Given that, I would much rather see the national argument be between Republicans and Libertarians instead of between Republicans and the current incarnation of Democrats. I'm by no means an anarchist, but I think an anarchist and I could have a good conversation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY
Michael wrote:
And just to add…I’d actually say the biggest problem with the quality of our education system is —- that it’s run by government!
Well, I have a theory about that too, and it’s hidden beneath the term I used above– “educational apparatus.”
See, my understanding of the term “education” is that it comprises “all that series of instruction and discipline intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, form the manners and habits of youth, and to fit them for usefulness in their future stations.” -Noah Webster (Father of American Education)
The reason I frequently use the term “educational apparatus” is because I think education comprises more than the public school system, aka, government schools. I think there are three primary spheres of education, (1) the home, (2) the local community and local religious institutions, and (3) the formal education system, or the public schools. I agree wholeheartedly that the federal government should not control, regulate, or otherwise busy itself in any way with education, period. But I don’t have a problem with the states and local communities doing so — working in conjunction with the other spheres, not against them.
To your point, the main reason the other educational spheres (the home and the local communities) do not have, or have not had, a significant counter impact on what the government schools have wrought on the minds of modern Americans (and what that is ain’t good!) is precisely because the federal government ultimately controls and regulates education, its philosophy, its methodology, the curriculum content, the whole bloody works. And virtually all of us were educated in the government schools five days a week, eight hours a day, so we really only know one educational philosophy and methodology — the one we learned. Indeed, most homeschoolers use the exact same methodology that the government schools use. Even churches and private schools have adopted it. The only real difference being that the former generally add to theirs scripture verses and so forth.
But anyway, yes, by all means, get the federal government out of education period! It was never intended to be an instrument of education, nor to make the legitimate members of the educational apparatus its instruments.
Great theory terry,
I think a lot of the problem has been our complacency in the way our country has been run. Public Schools taught us about the founding fathers, convienantly picking and choosing the juiciest of colorful information that led to our Independence….. and then we sit back and rest on our Laurels.. At Home we celebrate the 4th of July,.. enjoying the fruits from the challenges and risks that our founding fathers took to put this country on the map… and we again rest on our laurels…Our Local community, and Religious Institutions, although well meaning, push the latest politically correct issue, whether it be the welfare of children, community volunteer work, or some other charitable cause, yet you never see them embrace the idea of independence from Federal intervention such as organizing local programs to financially support a project so federal intervention isn't necessary.
We are never taught that Freedom and Liberty are an ongoing fight. That we need to be diligent in recognizing situations that can and will snatch our freedom from us, or that it is done by staying actively involved in our local communities with the emphasis on self reliance. A Model of this mentality is the Mormons.
For far to long we have as Americans, have boasted of our freedoms and liberites, resting on the back of our founding fathers, we here our Politicians pay lip service to freedom and Liberty, all the while selling us out in DC.
If we as Americans could manage to muster up half of what the Iranians have over their election, we would be in a 180 degree spin back to where we were. It makes me wonder at the end of the day just how much backbone Americans really have.
Nobody has really pushed back significantly on the federal power grab. Now some states are picking up on the 10th amendment. The problem we have is that it is the courts themselves, the Supreme Court in particular, who have twisted and stretched the powers of governments at all levels and they will be the ones ruling on any 10th amendment based challenge. If some of our justices suddenly decide to accept an honest interpretation of the constitution we may have a chance, but with the thinking common inside the beltway, this is highly unlikely. This doesn't mean we should not use this before trying other methods of redress.
Good point, Richmondeagle. If we rely on a federal court system that is hostile to the principles of the 10th amendment – strictly limited government – then we're sure to lose the battle.
The goal is to get this information out in the public sphere, energize people to basically evangelize the message and then find the courage to stand up for our rights….with or without supreme court "permission" to do so.
The emergence of the Commerce Clause as a “new” source of federal power was addressed in a speech by Alfred Clark before the Oregon Bar Association on September 2, 1943. Mr. Clark stated, in part:
"Today, in a very real sense, law no longer governs the American people. They are governed by regulations, orders and directives issued by one or the other of our multiple Federal bureaus. I am not now referring to war regulation and the like, but to conditions existing before the war, and which, unless the trend is checked, are likely to continue and to intensify after the war is over.
This has been accomplished, to a very large extent, through a new and, in many aspects, a startling interpretation of the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution, which is now being used to obliterate the States and convert our system into a highly centralized form of government, exercising uncontrolled police power in every State, over all, or nearly all, local affairs and industries.
Lately the new and expanded construction of the commerce clause is being supported by a doctrine at first vaguely stated, but now taking definite form. This doctrine is that Congress has the right, without any constitutional limitations whatsoever, to legislate on, and to regulate any and every matter affecting our way of living, if done with the asserted purpose of promoting the general welfare.
The obvious trend of national legislation under the impact of Executive and bureaucratic pressure, and the obvious trend of judicial decisions in upholding and construing this legislation, is to expand Federal control so as to embrace almost every phase of the social and economic life of the American people.
Ours is a dual system of government, often described, but not recently, as an indestructible union of indestructible States. This is the system set up by the Constitution.
The commerce clause of the Constitution is now pressed into service as the basis for asserting the power of unlimited control and all regulation of all local and State affairs.
Congress may now, with the approval of the Supreme Court, deny to any commodity, produced in any State, access to interstate transportation facilities for any reason, or indeed, for no reason whatever.
The power to exclude any goods from commerce is now declared to be unlimited.
Each State may now, at the will of the Federal Government, be compelled to become an isolated, self-contained, economic unit, cut off from any commerce with other States or foreign nations, unless it yields complete control and regulation of its industries to the Federal Government. Agriculture, mining and manufacturing are now held to be in interstate commerce, and all phases subject to Federal regulation."
After discussing several decisions by the Supreme Court, Mr. Clark explained the chain of causation, as defined by the Court, to be followed in determining what is interstate commerce:
"This may sound to you like a soporific nursery rhyme. Not so. On the contrary it is modern judicial logic…
Indeed, if Junior decides to emulate Popeye and insists upon a double portion of spinach at the dinner table, thus increasing the demand on the market, and lessening the supply to meet the demand, his act may so affect interstate commerce as to bring him within the ambit of Federal control."
In the New York convention debating ratification of the Constitution in 1788, Alexander Hamilton warned of the consequences if the States ever lost their powers:
"The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. These must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate."
This is exacting what is happening and the American people continue to beg for more federal control over their lives.
Skylolo – I think you're right on the money here. Isn't a definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? And yet, so many people keep going back to the feds to solve virtually everything.
I’m new to this and very motivated. This discussion is very helpful.
I’m wondering where I might find a Power Point talk or maybe a primer (online) that I can use to educate some local patriots about this matter?
Tom, it’s definitely exciting news. In fact, we’re reporting just minutes ago that the FL Senate is now considering state sovereignty too.
We can definitely assist you in preparation to educate your local group – contact our grassroots director, Bryce Shonka, for assistance. You can reach him at bryce@tenthamendmentcenter.com