Q. What can I read that can give me a serious overview of the true impact of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 on South Carolina?

A: I think the question of the impact of the protective tariff on South Carolina is the wrong question to ask. It is something of a diversionary tactic, for reasons I will try to explain below.

The questions to ask about that period of American history are 1) was the protective tariff just?; 2) was it good policy?; 3) was it constitutional?. A believer in free markets and constitutionally limited government can only give a resounding NO to all these questions.

It was not just South Carolina that objected to the tariff. From the earliest national period John Taylor’s writings and John Randolph’s speeches, along with many other Southern spokesman, were eloquent and firm on the unjustness of the “protective” tariff. From 1824 on, every Southern legislature strongly condemned the tariff. The only difference was that only South Carolina was willing to go to the extent of actual nullification. This was not because South Carolina had suffered any more than others, but because South Carolina was the only State in which decisions could be made without the input of national party leaders who wanted to avoid hard issues.

From 1824 on it was apparent that the manufacturers intended a high and permanent system of tariffs, which had not been obvious before, when tariffs had been thought of as revenue measures with perhaps “incidental” protection. The term “lobbyists” was first used in America in the 1820s for the agents of the New England/Pennsylvania manufacturers who began to haunt the legislative halls and hold out inducements to congressmen. The acts of 1828 and 1832 were blatant examples of log-rolling rather than policy decisions. The latter was also deceptively presented by the Jackson/Van Buren forces as a remedy to tariff opponents.

It was not only the South that vigorously opposed the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. The Northern free market men like William Gouge and Condy Raguet exposed the tariff and approved South Carolina’s action, and public meetings of Northern merchants and craftsmen denounced the protective tariff as did Democratic conventions in many Northern States at that time and later.

Historians have tried with considerable success to divert the question to an emphasis on South Carolina. The hidden assumption is that the tariff policy is so self-evidently good that there is something peculiar about South Carolina to explain the strong opposition. It must be exhausted soil and declining prosperity (or more recently fears over slavery) that drove South Carolinians to blame their problems on others. This is just a transmission of the claims of the tariffites’ propaganda of the time. New Englanders, then as now, were extremely self-centered and self-righteous. They said in Congress that the South’s economic problems were because Southerners were, unlike them, lazy and unproductive. (Calhoun pointed out that Southerners produced almost all of the country’s foreign trade in an open market while those who complained of Southern lack of enterprise enjoyed a protected domestic market.) Many New England spokesmen said that opposition to such a self-evidently good policy was itself treason. Not nullification, mind you, but opposition to the protective tariff was in itself declared to be treasonous. The historians who concentrate on “the effects on South Carolina” work from a basic assumption that Southerners are too stupid to know their own real interests, are always wrong and deceptive in their politics, and are naturally inclined to be traitors.

So, to approach the question of the tariff as an issue of the peculiarities of South Carolina is a diversion from the larger question of the impact of the tariff on the American economy as a whole. How can any freemarketeer doubt that the impact was unjust? Even more so because it not only benefited one group of people, but it also, on phony grounds of patriotism, diverted wealth from the South to certain interests in the North in a government that was supposed to benefit all parts of the Union. It was this (far more than the slavery issue) that drove Southerners to begin to question the value of the Union. Was the North to get all the benefits and the South to bear all the burdens?

What was the impact of the tariffs on South Carolina? This is an empirical question that, like any complicated situation, can be argued all sorts of ways. It would seem to be axiomatic to advocates of free markets that a government policy that artificially raises the costs of goods for the benefit of a particular interest is harmful. But in a sense that is beside the point. What was the economic effect of the Tea Tax on the American colonists in 1775? The point was that it was an unfair imposition based on an exercise of doubted power.

You can get a good overview of the Southern case from the section on Free Trade in my The Essential Calhoun, especially Calhoun’s speech on the tariff of 1842. Also my article on “Free Trade…” in the Genovese festschrift, Slavery, Secession, and Southern History, ed. Robert Paquette.

Q. How about the constitutional question – is there really no good constitutional argument on behalf of tariffs for protection?

A. There is no question that the Constitution gave certain taxing powers for the purpose of providing the general government with a source of support. The tax on imports was the best way to do this. It was paid by the consumer to the degree of consumption of imported goods, largely luxury items or highly specialized materials and equipment. Equally there is no question that a protective tariff is anti-revenue – using a law for a different purpose than that for which the power had been granted. The Supreme Court held that it was a political question, that it could not look beneath the law itself to its intentions or effects. In the Philadelphia Convention, proposals that the new federal government have the power to lay protective tariffs and to charter corporations failed to carry. As Tom DiLorenzo has recently reminded us, the Hamiltonians cavalierly disregarded the limits on federal power in both these cases in pursuit of their mercantilist, mimic England, agenda. It is perhaps also worth pointing out in this connection that the Constitution absolutely forbade any tax on exports.

Q. And finally, do you believe nullification would have to involve convening a special convention of the people, or could it conceivably be carried out by a state legislature?

A. The South Carolina nullification of 1832 was enacted by a convention of the people especially called for the purpose. By the South Carolina constitution such a convention could only be called by a three/fourths majority of both houses of the legislature. The South Carolinians wanted to make it clear that the act was a high constitutional one – based on the primary sovereignty of the people – like the acts that had made the State independent in 1775 and had ratified the Constitution in 1788. However, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, which laid out the power and right of state interposition against unconstitutional federal acts, were done by the legislatures.

A couple more points. “Nullification” was a derogatory, negative-sounding term invented by the opponents of the right. The proper name is State Interposition.

The historians tell us that Nullification of the tariff by South Carolina failed and federal supremacy was vindicated. That is not quite the truth. One can make a good case that it was a success. The historians note Jackson’s proclamation against nullification but they never mention that there was a great outpouring of public opinion against Jackson’s proclamation. The proclamation raised the possibility of the coercion of the people of a State by the federal government. Many people, North and South, were more alarmed by that than they were disturbed by nullification. (By the way, Webster DID NOT win the Webster-Hayne Debate. In the Senate, the press, and public opinion, Webster was the clear loser).

Nullification was a success. To defuse the crisis, Congress in 1833 passed the Compromise Tariff by which the tariff would come down by stages over the next ten years after which it would be at a revenue-only. Not bad for a small State against the world. True, the Whigs sought to forget and violate the compromise in 1842 but they did not entirely succeed and the most free-trade tariff in our history was passed in 1846. This would not have happened if it had not been for the action of “our gallant little State.”

Q: What is the proper reply to the states which, objecting to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, cited Article III, Section 2 as evidence that the Supreme Court is indeed the arbiter for disputes of power between the federal government and the states?

A: The States that took the position you cite were those deeply invested in Federalist hegemony – devoted to constructing a strong federal judiciary to control what they regarded as the evil and unenlightened masses. They said so very plainly. Was not this position thoroughly repudiated in the Kentucky and Virginia documents themselves, followed immediately by the triumph of the “Principles of 1798″ party in the elections?

Clyde Wilson [send him mail] was a professor of history but is recovering nicely, thank you. He is the editor of The Papers of John C. Calhoun.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The financial system our federal government created in 1913 and thereafter maintained has created nothing but iron chains around the hands, feet and necks of the states of America. Unfortunately, most Americans do not understand the unconstitutionality and dangers of this system (mostly because of a lot of brainwashing over the years). When politics begin to affect the wallet, however, many Americans all of a sudden become politically active and “righteously” indignant. This sadly reveals that principles of truth are not priority. But if a person even cares about America’s history, principles of freedom as accepted by our forefathers or the natural and revealed laws of God, he has to admit that one of the most fundamental elements of freedom is financial freedom. These fundamentals confirm the right of individuals to work in exchange for other items contracted for by the engaged parties, to reap all the benefits and rewards of his labor, skill and intellect without the unjust or unauthorized interference of anyone else, including government. Our Declaration of Independence categorizes this natural right as the “pursuit of happiness,” meaning property, which money certainly is.

Despite financial freedom being considered a natural right, our federal government has ignored this right and principle of freedom; and today, it controls virtually every aspect of money, starting with money’s very creation (i.e. printing) through the inaptly-named, Federal Reserve System (created in 1913 by Congress). But the idea of this system did not come from our forefathers. In fact, based upon the principles of individual freedom, self-government and limited government, our founders rejected the federal government’s power to print money by giving only this power to Congress in Article 1, Section 8: “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Moreover, States agreed (by ratification of the U.S. Constitution) that they would only be limited as follows relevant to money and currency: “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Since 1913, the federal government has been perpetually acting unconstitutionally; and today, States are forced to violate the U.S. Constitution and accept fiat money as tender in payments of debts.

Even a shallow scan of America’s history reveals that our founders and ratifiers considered the constitution to be worth nothing more than fire starter if Congress had the power to print money and create a fiat monetary system. Consider of a few of our founders’ position on the money system we have had since 1913 (citing from, George Bancroft, History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the Continent [to 1789], Volume 6, [New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1890], 301–303) (Emphasis added):

“[George] Mason of Virginia had a MORTAL HATRED TO PAPER MONEY.”

“[The ratification of the U.S. Constitution] is a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money, which can in no case be necessary. THE POWER MAY DO HARM, NEVER GOOD. Give the government credit, and other resources will offer. “(Oliver Ellsworth)

“PAPER MONEY CAN NEVER SUCCEED WHILE ITS MISCHIEFS ARE REMEMBERED; and, as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.” (James Wilson).

“Rather than give the power [to congress to emit bills] I WOULD REJECT THE WHOLE PLAN [of the Constitution].” (John Langdon)

“[Under the ratified version of the U.S. Constitution], THE PRETEXT FOR A PAPER CURRENCY, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, WAS CUT OFF.” (James Madison)

“[Nathanial] Gorham favored STRIKING THE WORDS [in the Constitution, allowing Congress to “EMIT BILLS”] without a prohibition inserted in the document, feeling that if the words were to stand, this could lead to the issuance of paper money.”

“Pierce Butler remarked that paper money was a legal tender in no other country in Europe, and he wanted to DISARM THE GOVERNMENT OF SUCH POWER.”

“George Read stated that if the words [and emit bills] were not struck, IT WOULD BE AS ALARMING AS THE MARK OF THE BEAST IN REVELATION.”

“This is the interpretation of the [Article 1, Section 8] clause…History cannot name a man who has gained enduring honor by causing the issue of paper money.” Ibid., 303. Contradicting these sound lessons and mandates of human history, the U.S. Constitution and natural law (meaning, the value of commercial exchange should have actual value, not pretend value), the federal government has for nearly 100 years operated under a fiat financial system, printing money out of thin air, being backed by nothing of substance, increasing the federal debt, causing inflation, decreasing the value of our contracted-for work, diminishing our future investments, and jeopardizing the lives of millions (just to name a few). Do you think that a country is living in freedom when this takes place?!

The very implementation and structure of the Federal Reserve System is corrupt, considering the most basic principles of a free society, as it puts the power of the fiat money market into the control of a few unelected and uncontrolled people. The danger of this system was recognized immediately by financial experts after its implementation. Consider what Professor John Holdsworth observes in 1914: “It is obvious that a board clothed with such powers can exercise an enormous influence either for good or ill upon the new system. Success or failure…will depend largely upon their ability, wisdom, and tact.” John Thom Holdsworth, Money and Banking, 6th Edition, (New York: Appleton, 1914), 353. Is the definition of “oligarchy” coming to mind?

The creation of our Constitutional Republic was to place the power of securing individual natural rights under the constraints of a fixed constitution into the hands of many who would be affected by its abuse: that is, the people and their agents! The federal system was entirely a check and balance upon all powers in the federal government: checks by the people directly, checks by the other branches of federal government, checks by time itself and checks by the state governments. Yet, the Federal Reserve System literally removes one of the most fundamental natural rights (property) from the control, oversight and power of the people and of their closest representatives (Congress and the State governments). America’s monetary system is without a doubt despicable, unnatural, fraudulent and dangerous.

So, what is our federal government going to do about it? What have they done since 1913? Nothing! I believe we can say with certainty they will continue their legacy. Sure, we know Congressman Ron Paul (and maybe a few others) has attempted to make a difference in this area (See, H.R. 4683, The Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007). God bless him for his lone-wolf efforts. However, even with a Republican-controlled federal government from 2000 to 2008, nothing has been done to bring the Federal Reserve into accountability and responsibility, much less to termination–all this after nearly 100 years of this corrupt system being woven into the fabric of our states and even the entire world. We can say with assurance that putting our hope in the federal government to control the monster it has created is misplaced. It is disgusting how the federal government usurps the delegations and trusts of its power, violates the principles and limitations of the constitution, does nothing to reverse the usurpations and expressly revert these powers back to the states and the people. Still, every year, they expect that we vote for them and look to Washington D.C. for the answers to our problems. What a racket of tyranny! Yet, most take the bait. I would not trust them with taking caring for my dog.

There is, however, an alternative solution–one that our founders expected in cases of federal usurpations: the STATES. What has to be concluded here is that since the federal government does not possess the power to create this fiat system, it of course has acted unconstitutionally since 1913, depriving individuals, the people and the states of the powers they retained under the ninth and tenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Being sovereign, the states have the power to do what their constitutions give them power to do in this regard. As a result, the States must take courage to use of their inherent sovereignty: they must be energized by the force of truth, the fire of freedom and the passion of the people. The state governments must recognize this: we, who demand justice, demand that our states retake powers that rightly belong to us, terminate powers that have wrongly been usurped by tyrants, and create within our borders a free and independent system of finance and commerce.

The States must recognize and proclaim once again that,

“Paper money has no hold, and from its very nature can acquire no hold, on the conscience or affections of the people. It impairs all certainty of possession, and taxes none so heavily as the class who earn their scant possession by daily labor. It injures the husbandman by a twofold diminution of the exchangeable value of his harvest. It is the favorite of those who seek gain without willingness to toil; it is the deadly foe of industry. No powerful political party ever permanently rested for support on the theory that it is wise and right. No statesman has been thought well of by his kind in a succeeding generation for having been its promoter.” Bancroft, History of the United States of America, 304.

Freedom for a Change

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his website.

Copyright (c) 2010 Timothy Baldwin

Around the country, twenty two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.

Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.

NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS

Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that “no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.”

No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations – period.

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:

“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government”

and

“where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”

In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.

INTERPOSITION

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people

(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.

(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.

Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.

The final goal? It’s a long way off – a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking Page for Current Nullification Efforts

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

One result of diluting the Tenth Amendment for the last century is a federal government which has nearly eliminated any limits which had been placed upon it.  Tonight, we compare two examples of overreach from overly powerful central governments in the American experience.

Writs of Assistance

According to Our Country (1877) in the Public Book Shelf, writs of assistance were  “warrants to empower them (agents) to call upon the people and all officers of government in America to assist them in the collection of the revenue, and to enter the stores and houses of the citizens at pleasure, in pursuit of their vocation”.  These warrants were granted to secret agents who had been sent to “collect information about the character and temper of the people, and bring together facts and conclusions that would enable ministers to judge what regulations and alterations might be safely made”.

Many of us will remember from our own education that these writs of assistance comprised one of the flash points leading up to the revolutionary war.  James Otis, arguing against them in the Superior Court of Massachusetts said in 1761, “It appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book” and “No Acts of Parliament can establish such a writ. Though it should be made in the very words of the petition, it would be void. AN ACT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION IS VOID”.  According to The Concord Review, Otis’ argument represented a turning point in the life of John Adams, and the birth of Independence in America.

National Security Letters

Fast forward 240 years to the Patriot Act, which contains a controversial provision known as National Security Letters.  Napolitano says that (as with many other recent bills) the Patriot Act was rushed through congress, unread, in an “emergency”.   According to the FBI, a national security letter (NSL) is “a letter request for information from a third party that is issued by the FBI or by other government agencies with authority to conduct national security investigations” in another context, this might sound like a search warrant.  The FBI also says “In the post 9/11 world, the National Security Letter is an indispensable tool”.  Note what they don’t say.  Nowhere on the FBI’s page does it say that NSLs are authorized by any branch other than the executive branch.  Like writs of assistance, but unlike a search warrant, NSLs are executed and approved by the same branch of government.

It’s a bit of a diversion from the fundamental issue, but some might claim that this power is only used to catch terrorists, so law abiding citizens don’t need to worry about it.  Well….  According to Napolitano, as of 2007 not one single person had been convicted of terrorism based on evidence obtained through an NSL, or even the Patriot Act.  Besides, as Thomas Paine wrote, “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

Abuse

Apparently, even the NSL bridle is too restrictive for our central controllers.  According to Wired magazine, the FBI issues 40,000 NSLs per year (still think they’re only targeting terrorists?), but even that is not enough.  The FBI requested and obtained still more information using exigent letters and other informal processes.  And in a not-so-surprising surprise, the executive branch declared that skirting the rules like that was not illegal.

Conclusion

It is not surprising that we see some parallels between our government, in Washington, DC and the British government of colonial times.  Our founders recognized that it is the nature of government to follow this consistent pattern.  To try to prevent this in America, as we all know, they developed a system of checks and balances.  One of the checks which has been far too neglected is the Tenth Amendment.  We see that even before the revolution, Liberty minded people like James Otis recognized that a law which claims to usurp our inalienable human rights is no law at all.  The Tenth Amendment is the tool which the founders gave us to remind our federal government of that fact.  If we want to restore limits to our government, before it’s too late, we need to remind our state officials, loudly and often, about the tenth amendment.

Steve Palmer is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

James Madison once observed that “it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.” Fear of foreign perils, Madison realized, can easily persuade a freedom-loving people to voluntarily part with liberties they would otherwise consider indispensable. In Thomas Jefferson’s words, the people are “made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves.”

In making such statements on the forfeiting of precious rights during times of foreign danger, Madison and Jefferson were speaking from experience. In the 1790s, a number of Americans feared that the democratic excesses of the French Revolution would be exported to the U.S.

They believed French agents were plotting to destroy the Constitution and overthrow the federal government. Wild rumors spread that Jefferson, Madison, and other members of their Republican Party planned to offer assistance to a French invasion force supposedly sailing across the Atlantic. To make matters worse, an undeclared naval war soon erupted between the U.S. and France.

This environment of fear and distrust led to the passage of the most illiberal legislation of the early national period: The Alien and Sedition Acts. Enacted by Congress in the summer of 1798, the Acts prohibited criticism of the federal government and gave President John Adams the power to deport any alien he viewed as suspicious. This legislation made a mockery of the First Amendment and deprived aliens of basic due process of law.

To combat the Acts, Jefferson and Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. In these Resolutions, Madison and Jefferson accused Congress of exceeding its powers and declared the Alien and Sedition Acts void. Times were so tense that Madison and Jefferson hid the fact of their authorship because they feared prosecution under the dreaded Sedition Act.

Although the American people originally applauded the Acts, in the elections of 1800 they threw out of office many of the Acts’ supporters. Jefferson was also elected to the presidency and he suspended all prosecutions brought under these shameful measures. This so-called “Revolution of 1800” brought the crisis of the Alien and Sedition Acts to a close.

Today, similar to the 1790s, Americans sense a threat of danger from abroad. In the aftermath of the Sept. 11th attacks, Americans are concerned that terrorism will claim more innocent lives. Consequently, few voices of opposition were heard when Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Under this legislation, government investigators can more easily eavesdrop on Internet activity, FBI agents are charged with gathering domestic intelligence, Treasury Department officials are charged with creating a financial intelligence-gathering system for use by the CIA, and the CIA is permitted use of evidence garnered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps.

In addition, George W. Bush signed an Executive Order providing for secret military tribunals to try suspected foreign terrorists. These courts do not apply the principles of law and rules of evidence that are used in the trial of criminal cases in U.S. district courts.

Fortunately, these measures are rather mild when compared to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. For example, nothing in the measures infringes on freedom of speech like the Sedition Act. Americans are free to applaud, criticize, or vilify government officials. Nevertheless, federal authorities have augmented their power to pry into the affairs of innocent Americans. With regard to the Internet, Big Brother monitors our e-mail communications and where we surf on the Web.

Moreover, under Executive Orders, non-citizens suspected of terrorism are denied the safeguards of due process of law—the very principles that form the foundation of the American justice system. Inasmuch as these tribunals are such a departure from the high standards of our system, the procedures employed by these military tribunals should concern citizen and non-citizen alike.

Without a doubt, the Sept. 11th attacks changed the U.S. forever. Terrorists can’t take our freedoms away, but our politicians will continue to make America a more regimented society if we let them. Although action is required to deal with the threat of terrorism, let us not forget the lessons of the Alien and Sedition Acts and Madison’s aphorism about the loss of liberty at home in the face of danger from abroad.

Let us also be mindful of our freedoms, but, at the same time, take the necessary actions to vanquish this new foe. Such a balance is delicate, but also essential.

William J. Watkins, Jr. is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. and author of the Independent Institute book, Reclaiming the American Revolution.

Originally published December 6, 2001

Copyright, The Independent Institute. Permission is granted to reprint or broadcast this article if credit is given to the author and to The Independent Institute.

For all their professed love of reason and logic, libertarians can be damned unreasonable sometimes. Consider this post from the blog Live Oaks on the supposed injustice of the Tenth Amendment:

Glenn Beck… recently made a statement on his radio show that the states have a right to institute universal health care, hand out free cars, etc. if the citizens of that state want such things. He stated that the federal government is barred from such actions, but the states are not. In other words, he is not opposed to violating individual rights; he just wants it done on a more local level.

This is a typical approach by conservatives… They do not challenge the premise that the individual must be forced to sacrifice for the “common good”–they merely want to argue over who will make that determination.

…This isn’t a defense of individual rights; it is an invitation for the states to establish fifty separate tyrannies.

I will be the first to admit that Glenn Beck is very confused about some aspects of liberty and federalism (particularly involving Abraham Lincoln), but he has this part exactly right.

Unfortunately, the fear of local despotism is a common and misguided complaint of libertarian opponents to the Tenth Amendment movement. Many of them seem to think that because certain people in certain states might favor programs that run counter to the philosophy of individual liberty, the entire system of divided sovereignty that was put in place by America’s founders should be scrapped.

But, if they refuse to trust home rule and it’s obvious the current system is a disaster, these libertarians would leave us with nothing more than the vague hope of some spontaneous and radical shift in public consciousness.

That, or the rise of some benevolent dictator willing to impose his or her vision of individual freedom nationally from D.C., whether the voters want it or not.

Which, as a political strategy, is nothing short of absurd. It often takes more than well-reasoned theory to change someone’s mind, and it always takes power to impose someone’s will, even if that will is liberty.

Unless the people demand their freedom from the bottom up, by gaining control over their local and state governments, the corruptible power that must be centralized in order to enact (and enforce) a liberty agenda from the top down would no doubt immediately be co-opted for something completely different.

In fact, it is a fundamental flaw of otherwise good constitutionalists like Ron Paul that they even seek the presidency; an increasingly imperial office that should be castrated through neglect, not further aggrandized.

It is precisely because ignorant or malicious voters so often support government-sponsored looting of their neighbors that decentralized power is critical. Human beings are flawed, and even with the best of intentions may engage in behavior that is irrational or dishonest. However, the smaller the geographic or economic area that can be affected by a single misguided administration or policy, the more likely it is that enough citizens can be educated and motivated to fix the problem.

Or that they can physically relocate their tax dollars to a more suitable environment.

The entire point of freedom is to protect the right of someone else to do something you think is stupid, or even wrong. Otherwise, when the winds of popular opinion shift, who will protect your right to do the same?

That holds true for individuals composing units of government as well. We must respect one another enough as Americans to allow the citizens of each sovereign state to decide for themselves the size and scope of government they desire.

Those states that choose wisely will prosper, while those that choose poorly will suffer the consequences, and have to learn from their mistakes or perish.

Based on what we know about the free market, it is simply not credible to claim that decentralizing the federal government’s current power monopoly through the Tenth Amendment would turn America into 50 isolated tyrannies or fiefdoms.

In reality, spurred on by the information revolution, a return to robust federalism would quickly unleash the cleansing forces of market competition on our stagnant political economy. And what libertarian could argue with that?

Josh is a proud “tenther”, freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area. He is a blogger for TAC’s Tenther Grapevine and the State Chapter Coordinator for the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.

Last week politicians in Washington made a few things clear about how they really feel about the state of the union. First, they are beginning to hear the growing discontent with the size and scope of government and the broken promises that keep piling up. Certain events in Massachusetts recently made that statement loud, clear and unavoidable.

In the face of those events, the powers that be made the determination that some populist rhetoric was in order, and the idea of a spending freeze in Washington was proposed, albeit with several caveats. These caveats to the proposed spending freeze ensure that we are not at any real risk of actually doing anything about spending.

First of all is timing. It wouldn’t go into effect until 2011, which allows plenty of time to increase spending levels quite a bit before they are frozen.

If the administration really understood and cared about our spending problems they would not freeze spending a year from now, but cut spending immediately and significantly. But, spending cuts almost never happen in Washington, and they are not likely now or a year from now – if the politicians have anything to say about it.

The second caveat is the huge areas of the budget that are shielded from this freeze. The entire State Department budget is exempt, as are all entitlements, all military industrial spending and almost all foreign aid.

Fully 7/8 of federal spending is excluded from this freeze, and some areas to be frozen were actually set to decrease, which means a freeze actually guarantees a higher level of spending.

Especially insulting is the idea that in spite of our own fiscal problems at home, taxpayer dollars will continue to be sent overseas in the form of foreign aid where it often does more harm than good. When need is demonstrated to Americans and they can afford it, they can be counted on for a tremendous outpouring of private, voluntary charity to worthy aid organizations, as we recently saw in Haiti.

By contrast, government-to-government aid is taken from the poor by force and too often enriches the corrupt. It is counterproductive and wasteful. But the idea of eliminating, freezing, or reducing foreign aid is not up for serious debate any time soon.

The third caveat is what is included in the freeze that would make it politically impossible to pass Congress, for example air traffic controllers salaries, education, farm subsidies and national parks.

I do not necessarily want a cut in spending in this country – I just want to change who does the spending. The spending should be done by the people who earn the money, if they choose, and on what they choose, without any government interference. That is what makes the economy work.

Politicians should stick to the very limited roles given them by the constitution instead of allocating such a sizeable portion of our capital and intervening through regulations and tax policy. But because politicians have disregarded the constitution, and the people have no idea what rule they will break next, there is already a very real spending freeze underway in this economy, by the people.

If government would stick only to what it was authorized to do, and leave the rest to the people, most of these problems would resolve themselves.

Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas

Often, supporters of the 10th Amendment movement that’s been growing around the country say – “I love all the discussion and the resolutions in support of the 10th amendment, but where’s the enforcement? These actions need some teeth!.”

If teeth is what you want, you need to go no further than Georgia. House Bill 880 (HB880), introduced by Representative Bobby Franklin, is called the “State Authority and Anti-racketeering Act.”

Unlike the many 10th Amendment Resolutions that have been introduced around the country since 2008, HB880 is legally-binding legislation.

LIMITED: THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Federal violations of the Constitution go far beyond anything the founders and ratifiers would have accepted.

James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, “The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”

Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

The founders made quite clear that a vast majority of powers would remain in the states. If passed, this principle would be codified in state law by HB880:

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees to the states and the people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and not prohibited by the Constitution

and

The State of Georgia hereby reclaims authority under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the states in the Constitution of the United States.

NULLIFICATION

The principles behind such legislation is nullification, which garnered first serious attention with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws – in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

But nullification is much more than a mere rhetorical statement issued by a state legislature. At its very core, it’s mass civil disobedience to the federal government by the people of a state with the backing of the state government.

INTERPOSITION

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

House Bill 880 includes strong language to assert this principle:

Any actions taken by the federal government through its agents or employees that are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States are unlawful; and being unlawful, they are criminal offenses against the affected parties

This bill would make it a crime – with imprisonment for up to 30 years for each offense – for “any judicial officer, law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the federal government, any multinational government, any international government, or any global government” to attempt to “enforce any federal, multinational, international, or global law” reserved to the State of Georgia under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

As of this writing, the bill has had two readings in the Georgia House.
Will such a strong piece of legislation go anywhere? Only time will tell. The reality, though, is this – it’s going to take some serious effort to push back against decades and decades of unconstitutional federal acts.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s 10th Amendment Bills Tracking Page

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

In Patrick Henry’s immortal “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech, he said, “[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth.” Never have Henry’s words been truer than they are today. For too long, good men have turned a blind eye to the obvious reality that America’s Ship of State has swerved significantly off course. In fact, it is no hyperbole to say that America’s Ship of State is completely rudderless and, absent a speedy course correction, seems destined to crash against the rocks of oppression and economic ruin in the very near future. For anyone willing to open their eyes, the manifestations of America’s almost-certain collision with history are everywhere.

America’s Liberty Ship is dependent upon the twin mainsails of Morality and Constitutional Government to stay on course. It is an irrefutable and irreversible law that these twin sails are indissolubly linked. We cannot have one without the other. America’s founders clearly understood this.

For example, our second President, John Adams, said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Samuel Adams (called the “Father of the American Revolution”) said, “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man . . . The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.”

Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President) said, “Self-love . . . is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others.”

Jefferson also said, “[If a] people [are] so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control, their reformation [must] be taken up ab incunabulis [from the beginning]. Their minds [must] be informed by education what is right and what wrong, [must] be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible; in all cases, to follow truth as the only safe guide, and to eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government.”

Our first President, George Washington (called the “Father of his Country”), said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.”

And to quote Patrick Henry again, “Bad men cannot make good citizens . . . A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”

Yet, what do we see taking place all over America–including in the halls of government, the boardrooms of business, and the sanctuaries of churches? An almost complete and total breakdown of morality. And by a breakdown of morality, I am referring to much more than sexual immorality.

Morality demands honesty and equity in judgment. Morality is selfless. Morality is humble. Morality is jealous over truth and justice. Morality would never jeopardize the future on the altar of the present. Morality does not place personal advancement above principle. Morality respects its heritage and honors its ancestors. And Morality gladly submits to lawful authority, especially divine authority.

But compare basic morality to the modus operandi of today’s governments, businesses, and churches. Instead of truth and moral principles, we find people who are almost totally absorbed by a culture of deceit, selfishness, ambition, and greed. Rightly does the Scripture say, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” (I Timothy 6:10) Of more than one church or nonprofit ministry leader could it be said, “He doesn’t let his Christianity get in the way of his business.” Ditto for many so-called Christian businessmen and politicians. In fact, a good many religious leaders and churchmen today would not take a backseat to the most greedy, corrupt politician, or shady businessman that could be found.

Sunday-by-Sunday, pastors prostitute themselves to wealthy contributors, community leaders, or politicians. Day-by-day, unscrupulous bankers and businessmen give the shaft to honest, hardworking Americans. And almost hour-by-hour, politicians sell their souls to the highest bidder–even if that bidder represents values and principles that would destroy freedom and liberty in our land.

How is it that pastors are unwilling to educate themselves (and their congregants) about the dangers and pitfalls to which America’s leaders are subjecting us? How is it that businessmen will smugly look the other way as their practices advance the causes of our enemies and weaken our own country? How is it that politicians will allow themselves to be corrupted, not only by evil forces from within America, but also by devilish forces from alien powers?

As a result of this total breakdown of basic morality in virtually every distinguished element within the American framework, constitutional governance is also virtually nonexistent. Adams was right: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral . . . people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

America’s political officeholders routinely ignore their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution. Routinely! Many have never read the Constitution, or if they have, they desire neither to understand nor to obey it. And even worse is the fact that most Americans (including America’s spiritual leaders) seem totally unbothered by it all. As long as their favorite politician, political party, or personal cause benefits, they could not care less whether the Constitution is followed or not. More than 50 years of moral relativism has now reached almost total and complete social saturation.

If I’m a Republican, it doesn’t matter if the Constitution is followed as long as Republicans win elections. And Democrats behave the same way. “As long as my party wins, who cares about the Constitution, honesty, or truth?” is the attitude of many politically involved Americans–including many Christian Americans.

Democrats don’t care if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama lies, and Republicans don’t care if George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush lies. The only time we care about someone lying is when it’s the person from the “other” party. If the “other” party promotes evil, we are enraged, but when “our” party promotes evil, we sit on our anatomical posteriors in complete silence and with full approbation.

And this is the bottom line: because We the People have lost our morality and fidelity to constitutional government, we have countless conscienceless criminals located at virtually every level in and out of the federal government (political party notwithstanding) that are up to their necks in total and absolute EVIL! I mean down-in-the-gutter, Genghis Khan-type evil. I’m talking about drug running, kidnappings, sexual exploitations, assassinations, family ruinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, and mass murder. If they desire it, they do it (or hire/order it done). Because there is no moral compass guiding our churches and businesses, there is no moral compass guiding those Machiavellians in Washington, D.C. After all, where do all these politicians, bureaucrats, blood-merchants, and mercenaries come from, if not from within our own social and religious establishments?

Until we wake up to the fact that our country, our Constitution, our liberties, and our future are up against evil–PURE, UNADULTERATED EVIL–we are never going to be able to muster the dedication and resolve required to turn this Ship of State around. Until we get our heads out of the sand and start seeing things as they are (and not as the national news media wants us to see them), until we are willing to stop indulging in the illusions of hope, and until we stop shutting our eyes against a painful truth, it will not matter to a tinker’s dam who we elect or which party is in power. Folks, wake up to it: WE ARE FIGHTING AN EVIL SYSTEM!! And there is nothing that the people who are caught up in this evil system will not do. Nothing! They will steal; they will lie; they will cheat; they will kill; they will rape; they will pillage; they will plunder; they will do ANYTHING they think is necessary to fulfill their evil machinations.

Setting our Ship of State aright starts with We the People returning to the basic, moral laws of right and wrong. Whether it is business, religion, or politics, right is right and wrong is wrong! (And one does not have to be a born-again Christian to know right from wrong: anyone who understands and respects the principles of Natural Law can and will be an ally in the fight for right. In fact, sometimes our enemies come from within our family–even the family of faith. See Matthew 10:36.) It means to stop covering for evildoers, whether that person belongs to our own political party or even our own family. It means to stop living for personal gain and advancement. It means being honest and demanding honesty in others. It means elevating truth to a position above expediency. It means acknowledging that there is a Supreme Authority to which all men must submit–and I’m not referring to the US Supreme Court.

America’s Ship of State is currently rudderless. And as long as we are expecting someone in Washington, D.C., to fix the problem, we will continue to be lost–adrift in a sea of evil and criminality. To get America’s Ship of State back on course, you and I must get back on course. And it starts by being willing to OPEN OUR EYES TO PAINFUL TRUTH.

Chuck Baldwin is a radio broadcaster, syndicated columnist, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the Constitution Party’s Nominee for president in 2008. Visit his website at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Copyright © 2010 Chuck Baldwin

by Gary D. Barnett

The time is near for the national headcounters “SWAT” teams to once again begin their decennial assault on privacy. Some of those neighbors you thought to be decent people will now be hounding you incessantly to extract personal and private information that is none of theirs or the state’s business. Don’t be fooled by their claim that they are just doing their constitutional duty, as nothing could be further from the truth.

I have gone over this several times before, but the reasons for and the constitutionality of the census count is worth review. I will preface my remarks by saying that I don’t think much of the constitution in the first place, because I consider it too weak and too broad in nature, but since that document outlines the rules and reasons for the census, it is necessary to refer to it here. Article 1, section 2 states:

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

There are several items of interest in the above passage that in my opinion render the constitutionality of modern census taking moot, as I discussed earlier here. There are many legal scholars who would argue this, but even if I concede this point, the fact remains that any census is to be a simple count of heads; nothing more. This is not arguable given what is stated above in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

So now that we understand that the only proper “constitutional duty” is to simply count the people in a given area (not their address, gender, work status, ethnic background, number of toilets, etc.), then why are all these very personal and private questions asked in the first place? Why does the U.S. Census Bureau not only ask unconstitutional and personal questions, but demand that they be answered? Why in fact do these same cretins threaten anyone who doesn’t comply with their Gestapo-style tactics?

To answer these questions honestly, one will have to come to the unpleasant conclusion that we no longer live in a free country, but in a tyrannical and totalitarian state that demands to know anything and everything about us; where we live, where we work, how much money we earn, how much property we have, what our habits are, our marital history, our education history, and even your fertility status, along with many other idiotic and invasive questions. Depending on whether you receive the American Community Survey or the new short form, both of which are intolerable and unconstitutional, you are expected to fill them out completely. This year, the government is touting its new short form with only ten questions, but they have pulled a rope-a-dope. I think this is because of the growing census dissent. Previously, the long form, which is now called the American Community Survey, was sent once every ten years to every one in six households. Now the long form is sent to fewer people, but is sent on a rotating basis, and every year instead of every ten years. This gives the impression, and this is the underlying objective of the census bureau, that the decennial count is the new kinder, less intrusive census process. In reality, it is merely a smoke and mirrors approach meant to fool the public. My belief is that the pressure to complete these nefarious surveys will intensify and the threats will increase. This will happen in my opinion for several reasons, not the least of which is the continued and warranted lack of compliance by some in this country. I can only hope that the dissent will grow and become more than the U.S. Census Bureau can overcome, and that this invasive absurdity then would cease. I will not however, hold my breath for this result given the now sheep-like behavior of the populace at large.

The bottom line is this: I haven’t seen a ramp-up of this magnitude by the U.S. Census Bureau before. Even locally, and every day, radio ads about the importance of the census, employment advertising for census takers (50 are being hired in my small town), and other government ad blitzes are rampant. It seems that this census invasion is already in full gear, even though the actual count will not begin until probably March or April.

As the census count becomes more evident, I’m sure I will be compelled to continue to monitor and expose the abuses. Hopefully, those who understand that there is no validity to the modern census count and that it is fully unconstitutional, will aggressively resist the government’s unwanted advances. I do not allow any census taker on my property nor will I in the future. It is easier for me than most because I live in the country and access is one way. This is imposing to those trespassing on my property. But if others who don’t have the options I have are willing to either fully resist, or just give the number of people at the residence and nothing more, that attitude will impede the “progress” of those busybody intruders. In addition, if enough of us cause them problems, it might be more reported across the country; this causing even more dissent. Call it the beginning of the grassroot anti-census movement if you will.

I must warn you that every level of government is very intent on counting as many as it can, and gaining as much information about you as is possible. Local and state governments are dependent on high count rates because federal tax revenue fed back to the states, counties, cities and towns is dependent on the census. Allocations to different welfare programs, spending projects, schools, etc., are directly related to how many and what “category” of people can be counted in a given area. This is also why many local census takers are so aggressive, and why federal government threats may be forthcoming should noncompliance occur. It is simply a racket, you understand, not different than any other corrupt scheme. And since many local politicians and certain interested parties stand to benefit from a high count and particular and isolated information, they will apply unending pressure.

Even the public school system (government indoctrination centers) is now enlisting and training your kids to pressure you to fully participate in the 2010 census. Your children will make good little soldiers and spies you understand, as they are ordered into government service to promote the census. They will even have “family take-home pages to share with parents and guardians.” I guess “readin, writin, and rithmetic” will have to take a proverbial back seat this year.

All I can offer is that in order for us to defend our privacy, it is imperative that as many of us as possible resist this assault. The government will use every means at its disposal to force this privacy invasion, and only a groundswell of resistance will deter this unconstitutional and liberty-destroying census process. All information collected will be forever stored in government data-bases, so don’t become just another cog in their wheel of deception. Instead, consider liberty!

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.