by Sheldon Richman, The Freeman

Let’s begin at the beginning. Medical care is not a free good found in nature. Of course, no one really thinks it is. But that doesn’t keep most people from wanting to pretend otherwise, and the current institutional setting makes that possible. After a while, one forgets one is pretending. Yet medical care goes on being a collection of produced goods and services — subject to the laws of supply and demand, and requiring resources and labor that come with opportunity costs. Therein lies the problem. Continue Reading

by Rep. Ron Paul

Political philosopher Richard Weaver famously and correctly stated that ideas have consequences. Take for example ideas about rights versus goods. Natural law states that people have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A good is something you work for and earn. It might be a need, like food, but more “goods” seem to be becoming “rights” in our culture, and this has troubling consequences. It might seem harmless enough to decide that people have a right to things like education, employment, housing or healthcare. Continue Reading

Phil Russo and Jason Hoyt of TeaPartyPatriotsLive.com (660 WORL-AM: Orlando, FL), interview Michael Boldin on the 10th Amendment, the nature of rights vs privileges, enumerated and implied powers, the proper role of the federal government, real ID, nullification, and more.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

by Joshua L. Rogers, for the Hattiesburg American

According to the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution says we have a fundamental right to use contraceptives (it doesn’t), that women have a fundamental right to abort their child (it doesn’t say that either), and that we all have a fundamental right to parent our kids as we see fit (nope, not in there).

I admit to being someone who appreciates having the right to parent my child as I see fit, but I am uncomfortable with nine philosopher kings in Washington telling me that is my right.

The Constitution is full of sweeping rights for Americans, but on some issues, it is entirely silent. On those issues, the 50 states have the authority to make their own rules.

That doesn’t mean that the Constitution can’t change; it can be amended by the people, but it’s a tedious process that requires overwhelming popular consent.

When amendments fail, as they almost always do, the issue stays under the authority of the states.

There is, however, a cheap way to amend the Constitution and seize power from the states. Think of it as a Supreme Court Easy Pass, where the court just declares new constitutional rights in an opinion handed down like an edict.

For example, with the Easy Pass, the court can dream up new provisions of the Constitution that are more politically conservative (like marriage being only between a man and woman) or create rights that are more politically liberal (like the right to have a gay marriage).

Either way, in deciding an issue that’s not addressed in the Constitution (who can marry), nine aristocrats end up deciding an issue that should either be dealt with by an amendment or left in the hands of the 50 states.

Over the years, too many of our Supreme Court justices have taken it upon themselves to use the Easy Pass and decree certain rights to us that aren’t actually in the Constitution.

That is why, as our president nominates the replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, his criteria should require a person who will simply interpret the Constitution as it is written not as the judge wishes it had been written.

Where the Constitution is silent, the states can govern themselves.

Where the Constitution needs to be changed, it should be amended through the process provided in the Constitution, not through a judicial edict.

Joshua L. Rogers is an attorney in Washington, D.C.

The views in this article represent those of the author alone, and do not, in any way, reflect the views of the author’s employer.

by Rob Natelson

The Ninth Amendment states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to reinforce limits on the federal government.

The original Constitution contained three types of restrictions on federal power:

Type 1:     The Constitution listed things the government could not do (e.g., pass an ex post facto law).

Type 2:     The Constitution enumerated the powers the government was to have (e.g., regulate interstate commerce, but not agriculture).

Type 3:     The Constitution included specific restrictions on specific powers (e.g., Congress could appropriate money for an army, but only for a two-year period).

Some argued that Type 1 should be expanded with a Bill of Rights. But others (James Madison among them) pointed to a risk in that proposal.  Because of the legal maxim Designatio unius est exclusio alterius (the designation of one thing implies the exclusion of another), adding a Bill of Rights might encourage people to disregard the Type 2 and 3 restrictions on federal power.

When the demand for a Bill of Rights prevailed, Madison agreed to draft one – but he included what became the Ninth Amendment to make it clear that expanding Type 1 did not mean abandoning Types 2 or 3.

A key to reading the Ninth (and Tenth) Amendments properly is to know that the Founding Generation often used the words “right” and “power” interchangeably. (We more rarely do the same, as when we refer to the President’s “right” to veto a bill.)  That is how they were used here.  If you sometimes read the word “rights” in the Ninth Amendment as “powers” and “powers in the Tenth Amendment as “rights,” you can better understand their meaning.

Few parts of the Constitution have been so misunderstood as the Ninth Amendment.  For example, some have argued that it reserved a mass of “natural rights” that the Courts should enforce against the federal, and even the state, governments – such as abortion, property, and contract rights.  That misunderstanding arises from failure to understand that “rights” in the Ninth Amendment means “powers.”

The Ninth Amendment was not designed to enable the Courts to create new rights – or even to recognize old ones.  It was designed to work with the Tenth Amendment to preserve the Constitution’s other restrictions on federal power.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history.  He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.

by Judge Andrew Napolitano, LewRockwell.com

“Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat… But, if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? … NO.”

When Robert Bolt wrote that truism in his play A Man For All Seasons, his protagonist, Thomas More, was attempting to persuade the jury at his trial for high treason that all governments have limitations, and that the statute he was accused of violating was beyond Parliament’s lawful authority to enact. Sir Thomas was there appealing to the natural law as well as to the common sense of his jurors: The government can’t change the laws of nature. As we know, he fared no better than those who today argue that Congress is not omnipotent, has natural, moral, and constitutional limitations on its power, and every day fails to abide them. Continue Reading

by Ryan Cooper
Springfield News-Leader - March 17, 2009
“From the Right” appears every Tuesday.

“Every school child in America should be required to read the Bible.”

At that point, I stopped clapping for Patrick Buchanan, who was speaking in Kansas City during his failed 2000 presidential bid. The government shouldn’t force people to read books, even the Bible.

There is some truth to the liberal insult that conservatives want to create a Christian theocracy. Social conservatives tend to overemphasize religion when talking about social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

People who support limited government are turned off by the Republican Party because of the religious overtones. They don’t want a government run by preachers. Continue Reading

by Joe Schembrie, LewRockwell.com

The Establishment Media is hyping the dire prophecy of a Russian professor that the United States will have a bloody civil war and “disintegrate,” after which the secessionist regions will be absorbed by other nations. The Establishment Media Moral: we must patriotically embrace our federal government or face horrendous consequences.

Certainly a full-blown civil war would be hellish. With modern weapons the casualties could exceed all our other wars. The disruption of food production and distribution chains in our specialized economy could trigger famine. To be imperially dominated by other nations could well mean the loss of our civil liberties. Continue Reading

A week ago today, Independence Day (not “the 4th”) was celebrated - but it seems that many people are missing the point of this holiday.  We all enjoy taking time with family and friends - celebrating and appreciating the warm summer - but do we ever really take time to reflect on just what we’re supposed to be cheering for?

A quick perusal of the Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear: Continue Reading

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Those few words, from the Declaration of Independence, are as close as one might find to be the sum total of the principle of liberty.  Continue Reading