by Samuel Adams

Editor’s Note: Samuel Adams, American Patriot and Revolutionary Leader, was born on September 27, 1722. In celebration of his birth, we present the following letter, sent by him to Elbridge Gerry, on August 22, 1789.

I wrote to you hastily two days ago, and as hastily ventured an Opinion concerning the Right of Congress to control a Light-house erected on Land belonging to this sovereign and independent State for its own Use and at its own Expense.

I say sovereign and independent, because I think the State retains all the Rights of Sovereignty which it has not expressly parted with to the Congress of the United States–a federal Power instituted solely for the Support of the federal Union.

The Sovereignty of the State extends over every part of its Territory. The federal Constitution expresses the same Idea in Sec. 8, Art. 1.

A Power is therein given to Congress “to exercise like Authority,” that is to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, “over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, and other needful Buildings,” among which Light-houses may be included.

Is it not the plain Conclusion from this Clause in the Compact, that Congress have not the Right to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, nor even to purchase or control any part of the Territory within a State for the Erection of needful Buildings unless it has the Consent of its Legislature.

If there are any such Buildings already erected, which operate to the General Welfare of the U S, and Congress by Virtue of the Power vested in them have taken from a State for the general Use, the necessary Means of supporting such Buildings it appears to be reasonable & just that the U S should maintain them; but I think that it follows not from hence, that Congress have a right to exercise any Authority over those buildings even to make Appointments of officers for the immediate Care of them or furnishing them with necessary Supplies. I wish to have your Opinion if you can find Leisure.

I hope Congress, before they adjourn, will take into very serious Consideration the necessary Amendments of the Constitution. Those whom I call the best–the most judicious & disinterested Federalists, who wish for the perpetual Union, Liberty & Happiness of the States & their respective Citizens, many of them if not all are anxiously expecting them.

They wish to see a Line drawn as clearly as may be, between the federal Powers vested in Congress and the distinct Sovereignty of the several States upon which the private & personal Rights of the Citizens depend.

Without such Distinction there will be Danger of the Constitution issuing imperceptibly and gradually into a consolidated Government over all the States; which, although it may be wished for by some was reprobated in the Idea by the highest Advocates for the Constitution as it stood without Amendments.

I am fully persuaded that the population of the U S living in different Climates, of different Education and Manners, and possesed of different Habits & feelings under one consolidated Government can not long remain free, or indeed remain under any kind of Government but despotism.

You will not forget our old Friend Devens, and if you please mention him to Mr R H Lee.

Adieu my dear Friend and believe me to be sincerely yours,

P. S. The joint regards of Mrs A & myself to Mrs Gerry.

by Walter E. Williams

Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? Continue Reading

by John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute

“It astonishes me to find… [that so many] of our countrymen… should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty… which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1788

“Most citizens,” writes columnist Nat Hentoff, “are largely uneducated about their own constitutional rights and liberties.”

The following true incident is a case in point for Hentoff’s claim. A young attorney, preparing to address a small gathering about the need to protect freedom, especially in the schools, wrote the text of the First Amendment on a blackboard. After carefully reading the text, a woman in the audience approached the attorney, pointed to the First Amendment on the board and remarked, “My, the law is really changing. Is this new?” The woman was a retired schoolteacher.

For more than 200 years, Americans have enjoyed the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, among others, without ever really studying the source of those liberties, found in the Bill of Rights–the first ten amendments to our U. S. Constitution. Continue Reading

by Kevin R.C. Gutzman

With its decision in Nordyke v. King last week, in which the recent Supreme Court Heller decision was applied to state law, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals took another step down the long road of “incorporating” the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

In doing so, it continued down the path toward completely inverting the model of government to which The People agreed when they ratified the Constitution.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says, in part, “The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added… RESOLVED … that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States ….”

(Are you surprised that you have never read this before?  That it is not usually included in printed versions of the Constitution?  What accounts for that omission, do you think?)

Unsurprisingly, then, the First Amendment begins by saying, “Congress shall make no law.”  Why?  Because, as stated in its Preamble, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the Federal Government did not abuse its powers.

So widely was this understood to be the purpose of the Bill of Rights that in Barron v. Baltimore (1833), Chief Justice John Marshall for a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights limited only the powers of the Federal Government, not those of the states.  This was the only significant constitutional decision in which Marshall ever ruled against federal authority.

James Madison endeavored in the First Congress to include in Congress’s proposed bill of rights an amendment providing for federal judicial oversight of states’ behavior in respect to certain rights.  His effort was unavailing.

Thus, when “originalist” Antonin Scalia announced that the First Amendment establishes a right to burn a flag enforceable by federal courts against state authorities, he showed exactly how “originalist” he really is.

When Randy Barnett took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal last week to state that federal protection of all individual rights against state infringement was part of the original plan of the U.S. Constitution, he revealed how concerned with the consent of the governed he really is.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

by Anthony Gregory, LewRockwell.com

The following is based on a talk given at the Free State Project’s Liberty Forum in Nashua, New Hampshire, on Friday, March 6, 2009.

The Tenth Amendment says “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.” This effectively means that if the Constitution does not grant the power to the federal government over something, then it is for the states and people to decide. Some people here would say this is the most important amendment. If the federal government obeyed it, the entire drug war as we know it would be impossible. Continue Reading

by Ellemay, Reaching Sunward

• I believe that no one — including the President — is above the law.
• I oppose all forms of torture, and I support both closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending indefinite detention.
• I oppose warrantless spying.
• I believe that government officials, no matter how high-ranking, should be held accountable for breaking the law and violating the Constitution.
• I believe that the Constitution protects every person’s rights equally — no matter what they believe, how they live, where or if they worship, and whom they love.
• I reject the notion that we have to tolerate violations of our most fundamental rights in the name of fighting terrorism.
• I am deeply committed to the Constitution and expect our country’s leaders to share and act on that commitment — every day, without fail.

If you agree, click here.

Take a refreshing look at the Constitution here. Continue Reading

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, is petitioning Congress to STOP abusing the Bill of Rights.  Here’s the text:

Petition to the U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary, Congressman Conyers, Chairman

Whereas, the basis for the laws of this great Republic is the Constitution, adopted September 17th, 1789; and,

Whereas, that Constitution provided for a clear but difficult procedure for amending it; and,

Whereas, the founding fathers saw a need for Amendments to guarantee certain civil rights to citizens including the right to a free press, free religious expression, the right to keep and bear arms, freedom from government seizure of their property, freedom from unlawful detention, the right to a prompt and fair trial by a jury, and protection from unreasonable bail requirements; and,

Whereas, these and other rights were considered important enough to be added as the first 10 Amendments and these have become known as The Bill of Rights; and,

Whereas, The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791 remain untouched by Amendment for more than two centuries; and,

Whereas, the Executive branch of the Federal Government, through executive orders and other schemes has eroded many of these rights and still greater threats loom; Now therefore the undersigned citizens of the United States petition Congress to rise to its responsibilities and enforce and protect the Bill of Rights through any and all means at its disposal including but not limited to Committee Hearings and legal action through the courts.

Take action, sign the petition and show Congress that we the people demand that they follow the Bill of Rights.  Click here to stand up for the Bill of Rights.

Today is a day that’s not celebrated like many other “holidays” in American society. You see, September 17th is Constitution Day - a day that appears to be nearly forgotten in America.

Sadly, over the years, people have stopped paying attention to the Constitution. It’s rare to hear people talking about the rules for government when discussing current events. And, it’s even more rare to hear politicians refusing to pass legislation because it’s not authorized by the Constitution. Continue Reading

State resistance to REAL ID is growing. The Associated Press reports from New Hampshire:

The New Hampshire Legislature took a baby step Tuesday toward rejecting what they say amounts to the creation of a national ID card.

The House Transportation Committee voted unanimously to recommend barring the state from complying with the federal REAL ID Act, which sets standards for driver’s licenses. The full House next considers the bill.

REAL ID, Passed in 2005 and due to take effect in 2008-9, turns your driver’s license into a de-facto national ID card. This is yet another step towards a totalitarian police state in America.

The Act mandates that all driver’s licenses carry the same information, no matter what state issues them. The states must also “provide electronic access to all other States to information contained in the motor vehicle database of the State.” In other words, your information will be in a national database that puts everything at the Feds’ fingertips.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security is given the power to require “biometric” information on these licenses/ID’s in the future. This means that what appears to be a harmless-looking driver’s license could eventually contain a retina scan, fingerprints, DNA information, or radio frequency technology. We don’t know just what right now because REAL ID keeps this power open-ended. DHS will tell us…someday.

All this is supposed to help us fight terrorism, somehow, because the nineteen 9-11 hijackers had driver’s licenses. In order to be “safe” you’ll soon be required to have the proper “papers.”

Any refusal to comply by the States will mean that their residents will lose the ability to get on a plane, receive social security, and potentially, to get a bank account or a job. So, the feds are doing little more than blackmailing them into compliance and submission.

Wait a minute! That doesn’t sound legal, does it? First, a little constitutional background.

The US Constitution was written under what’s referred to as “positive grant.” This means that the Federal Government can only exercise powers that are specifically given to it by the Constitution – nothing more. This is where the Tenth Amendment comes into play – reaffirming positive grant:

“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.”

Pretty simple, right? Right. If a power isn’t delegated to the U.S. government by the Constitution, then that power belongs to the States or the People. It seems that the only people who could possibly confuse this one sentence are politicians, lawyers, and federal judges.

It’s worth repeating. If a power isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution, the feds can’t do it. Period.

As New Hampshire representative Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) said:

“We have to uphold the constitution,” he said. “We will not be blackmailed by the federal government.”

Sherman, you’ve hit the nail on the head! Obviously he’s read the Constitution. There’s not a single thing mentioned about ID’s, or licenses, or driving, or funding the states, or anything of the like. What does that mean? You’ve got it – it’s unconstitutional (against the law!) for the federal government to get involved in these things.

But, you might say, the Constitution is outdated! There were no driver’s licenses when the constitution was written – there were no cars! Right. There were no such things. But that doesn’t mean the law is “outdated” or bad.

In fact, the idea of strictly limiting the federal government is as good of an idea today as it was two centuries ago. Why? All you need to do is pay attention to what’s going on in our country right now. If you don’t keep the government in check, as many of the founders warned, governments will always grow and grow into a despotic beast.

Today, the government is larger than ever. Has that correlated with a better adherence to the law? Not at all.

Size of government notwithstanding, REAL ID is still unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter if the politicians think that it’s absolutely necessary. It doesn’t matter if they think the Constitution is outdated. None of it matters. The Law is the Law. The only legal way to approach this is through a Constitutional Amendment, and not by ignoring or violating the Constitution.

If the politicians were so confident that this program was necessary, and that We the People would approve of it, they would have presented it as a constitutional amendment. Instead, debate was light, and the bill was added to another, which passed 100-0 in the Senate.

It seems that abiding by the Constitution is pretty rare. Instead, addendums, riders, and backroom deals are the way of politics in Washington.

Think about that. Do you want to live in a society where the government has to follow the rules, or do you want to live in a society where politicians follow only the laws that they like?

Federal standards for identification are not authorized by the Constitution. It doesn’t matter whether they’re enforced through “laws” or economic “incentives” to the States. The politicians, by trying to force this on us without amending the Constitution to allow it, are showing utter contempt for states’ rights and the principles of the Tenth Amendment.

Bottom line: REAL ID violates the Constitution.

Legislators in New Hampshire (and elsewhere) should be applauded for their courageous opposition to this unconstitutional nightmare.

Long live the resistance!

by Michael Boldin

As usual, our liberty is under attack by the federal government. An appeals court has just upheld a ruling that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay are not entitled to habeas corpus, and thus, cannot challenge their detention in court.

So, once again, the federal government, through its court system, has overstepped the restrictions of the Tenth Amendment, by assailing the Constitution and its principles of limited government. What a surprise! An agent of the government upheld the actions of the government!

As reported by Reuters:

An appeals court on Tuesday upheld the part of a tough anti-terrorism law signed by President George W. Bush that took away the rights of Guantanamo prisoners to challenge their detention before U.S. federal judges.

The United States Constitution brought into being a government of limited powers, which is quite unusual in the pages of world history. This government is one in which the only powers it has are those that are listed in the Constitution itself. “Positive grant” is what this is called in Constitutional legalese.

Fearful that liberty would still be violated by politicians hungry for power, the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights. To ensure the principles of limited government through positive grant, the Tenth Amendment was enacted. It explains this concept quite clearly:

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.

Thus, under the Constitution, the federal government is a government of enumerated powers rather than one of general or unlimited powers. The issue here, then, is what constitutional right the federal government has to exert such power – the limitation or elimination of habeas corpus – over people in its jurisdiction.

The only place in which habeas corpus is even mentioned in the Constitution can be found in Article I, Section 9:

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.

But, don’t just believe what you see here. I suggest you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and then ask yourself this: what exactly is the power of the federal government in regards to habeas corpus?

Let’s examine this a little further:

1. As enshrined in the 10th Amendment, the federal government operates under the principle of positive grant – meaning that it can only exercise delegated powers listed in the constitution.
2. According to the Constitution, the only reference to limiting habeas corpus is “in cases of rebellion or invasion”

Since the qualifiers for suspension do not exist, the federal government cannot restrict, limit, or eliminate habeas corpus for anyone. Period.

Of course, there are war-lovers out there that feel the government can suspend habeas corpus because we’re at war. We must put up with invasions of civil liberties – and we must trust the politicians to make us safe.

In fact, one of the biggest reasons we even have the Constitution is to protect us from politicians, like the ones we currently have, during times of stress or danger. Yes, some constitutional provisions do mention exceptions, but there are no exceptions specified for simply being “at war.”

Anytime this issue comes up, invariably you’ll find people who claim that the Constitution doesn’t apply to foreigners – only Americans. The important point is that the Constitution doesn’t apply to Americans, it doesn’t apply to citizens, it doesn’t even apply to “people.” It applies to the federal government.

The body of the Constitution tells the federal government just what it is allowed to do. In some places it explains how the government is supposed to do things. The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do. Nothing more, and nothing less.

What you won’t find there, is the ability to restrict habeas corpus except in the specific instances mentioned above.

The essential point is that until a suspected “terrorist” receives due process – a fair and impartial trial – you can never know for sure whether or not this person even IS a terrorist! So, even if you think that foreigners shouldn’t have any rights, you still can’t be sure that they’re terrorists without due process – well, unless you trust everything your government does.

The Bush administration has now established procedures where it can lock up suspects for life without giving them access to an attorney, an appearance in court, and without the ability to tell anyone.

Now that we’ve allowed the government to have this power, the power to restrict inalienable rights when the president tells us it’s necessary, the question to ask is this: What group is next? What will be the next group that the politicians will determine to be unworthy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Consider this scenario:

You get arrested by some government agents because you’ve been misidentified as a foreigner who has worked with what the feds call a “terrorist organization.” They rush you out of the country on a CIA plane and take you to a prison in Eastern Europe. The jailers torture you endlessly to get information from you. You tell them nothing because you know nothing!

You tell them you’re an American and you’ve done nothing wrong, but this doesn’t stop the CIA torturers and the foreign thugs working for them. You’re told that you’ll never get released and you’ll never be allowed even a court hearing – because terrorists like you are just too dangerous to allow such liberties.

The big problem, though, is that you’re not able to prove that you aren’t a terrorist. You’re not even able to prove that you’re an American citizen. Why? Because you no longer have the right to challenge your detention as a foreign terrorist! You don’t get an impartial judicial hearing, you aren’t allowed an attorney, you can’t confront your accusers, and you definitely won’t get a trial by a jury of your peers.

But, as the President, the Congress, the Courts and much of the media have told us, you don’t deserve those rights because you’ve been accused of being a “terrorist” and a “foreigner.”

Fear-mongering? Sure. Call it what you’d like. But the abuse of power is not the real thing to be concerned about; it’s the power to abuse. And that power is real.

As the Founding Fathers knew so well, the greatest threat to your liberty comes from your own government. That’s the reason they wrote the Constitution. Going further, that’s the reason we have the Tenth Amendment – to limit the power of the government - to stop it from doing things that will infringe on your liberty.

Well, we shouldn’t worry about all this because your government would never do anything so awful…right? All those prisoners in Guantanamo and Eastern Europe must be horrible terrorists – and foreigners too! If they weren’t, your government would definitely let them go, right? Yeah. Sure.

If you really believe that, just go back to your TV. Go watch some sports or a fun little sitcom. You have absolutely nothing to worry about because your government is “protecting” you.