Blog

What does it really mean?

The sound of thundering elephant feet first began to resonate right here in the Bluegrass State.

Republican Rand Paul easily beat Democrat Jack Conway by an 11 point margin in the Kentucky U.S. Senate race. The early 7 p.m. call for Paul was merely the beginning of a pachyderm stampede.

Republicans picked up 61 seats in the U.S. House, and they could end up with as many as a 66 seats by the time its all said and done. Democrats will still control the Senate, but the GOP made gains there too, snapping up at least six seats. It was the biggest single election power shift in 70 years.

Here in Kentucky, Republicans rode the wave, gaining seats in both the Kentucky State House and Senate. The GOP took control of seven new House seats and strengthened its Senate majority with a two, perhaps three seat pickup.

While Republicans trumpet their victory, they would do well to ground themselves in an important reality. This election was not a ringing endorsement of the GOP. It was instead a repudiation of  progressive ideology. It was a backlash against bailouts, deficits and federal health care mandates. It was a protest against rapidly expanding government power. The newest Kentucky Senator seems to understand the message sent by American voters on Tuesday.

“It’s a message that I will carry with me on day one. It’s a message of fiscal sanity. It’s a message of limited Constitutional government and balanced budgets,” Paul said.

The hue in our nation’s capitol shifted from dark blue to purple on Tuesday. This Republican tsunami, as some have called it, will certainly change the political landscape in Washington D.C. But if Republicans don’t bring about some fundamental changes, this new crop of representatives will likely enjoy short careers. Senator elect Marco Rubio from Florida articulated the reality for Republicans perfectly.

“And we make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance. A second chance for Republicans to be what they said they were going to be not so long ago.”

The question remains. Will the GOP squander this second chance?  Will GOP leaders do any better adhering to constitutional principles than their Democratic brethren? Are the American people suddenly safe from government overreach now that Republicans will have some say in Washington?

I fear not.

Many Republicans talk a good game when it comes to limiting government, and protecting defending the Constitution. But their track record doesn’t quite live up to their rhetoric. If history teaches us anything, it  reveals that federal power tends to expand unabated regardless of the party in charge in D.C.

We the people simply can’t rely on Washington to solve our problems. Asking the federal government to reign in its own power is akin to asking a lion to quit hunting, or the fish to quit swimming. It goes against its very nature.

The people must hold the  feds accountable. The Constitution is a compact between the people of the United States and their federal government. The mechanism we have to protect our freedom and liberty is through the States.  James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798:

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.

Liberty loving Americans can certainly celebrate the outcome of these midterm elections. But we will  not ultimately win the war to restore the proper balance of power between the State and federal governments in Washington D.C. That battle must be waged in Frankfort and Tallahassee. In Austin and Sacramento. In every state capitol across the fruited plain.

Nov 03, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave A Comment »

Bridging the political chasm

The issue of state sovereignty, and a balance of power between State and federal governments, as explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment,  should span political ideologies and party lines. But many, particularly Democrats and folks leaning toward the left side of the political aisle, misunderstand, believing that  “tenthers” belong exclusively to the “right” or to the Republican Party.

Undeniably, some have hijacked the Tenth Amendment for their own causes, narrowly applying the principles of state sovereignty and limited federal power to specific issues. But the Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center stands for an even application of the Tenth and constitutional principles, limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers, even in cases where we may find the outcomes advocated by the feds  favorable.

Our eyes remain singularly focused on the process, regardless of political outcome. We stand solidly committed to James Madison’s summary of the powers delegated to the federal government.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution 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, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

True advocates of the Tenth Amendment don’t necessarily oppose government health care solutions. We just insist health care falls under state authority and any government run system must evolve at the state level. We don’t necessarily favor the legalization of drugs, but understand that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to prosecute a drug war. Each state must make its own decisions about the legalization of marijuana and other substances. “Tenthers” don’t necessarily oppose public funding for art, but recognize the federal government does not have the authority to pass out money for the arts. States must create their own mechanisms for art funding, if they deem it a priority. Political liberals should welcome the intended constitutional restrictions on waging war.

Democrats as well as Republicans, those leaning toward the political left as well as those leaning to the right, should embrace the Tenth Amendment, because it protects every citizen from the dangers of concentrated power. The founders created dual sovereignty for this very reason. They feared the tyranny inherent in big, centralized governments.

Justice Antonin Scalia articulated this principle brilliantly in a 1996 Supreme Court Ruling striking down parts of the Brady bill in Mack/Printz v. USA.

“The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected by incursion from the other ‘ – -’a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.’ U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 838 (1995) (Kennedy J., concurring). The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.

“As Madison expressed it: ‘The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere’ The Federalist No. 39 at 245.

“This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty”

In an era of increasing political divisiveness, perhaps citizens embracing widely varied political ideologies can find a rallying spot and common ground around the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the political processes brilliantly devised by our founders. Perhaps a rediscovery of the constitutional principles envisioned by our founders can serve as a bridge spanning different ideologies.  While we may disagree on the role of government in various aspects of our lives, surely we can agree on working out those differences within a system designed to protect the freedom’s and liberties of every citizen.

Nov 02, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave A Comment »

A scholarly look at commerce and the Constitution

Robert Natelson did extensive research on the meaning of  the word “commerce” in relation to the expanded interpretation of the Constitution’s commerce clause favored by progressive legal thinkers. He scoured 17th and 18th century case law, legal works and legal dictionaries, as well as lay usage of the word. His research showed commerce was almost exclusively used in connection with trade – not a broader range of economic activities.

Natelson wrote:

I found that in the case law, judges and counsel used the words commercium and “commerce” in ways similar to those that Professor Barnett identified in lay discourse. The Latin term, which always carries a sense of traffic or exchange, always was used that way in the cases—particularly being applied to merchants and their financial instruments.The more frequently used English word had, with rare exceptions, a similar meaning. It encompassed the buying and selling of items created by others, together with certain closely allied activities. “Commerce” embraced the actions of merchants,factors(commodity brokers), carriers, traffickers with foreign nations, and consignees. The courts connected shippers and navigators with “commerce,” and regulation of navigation was closely associated with regulation of commerce—which shows that Chief Justice Marshall’s view of the matter in Gibbons v. Ogden was solidly supported by precedent. This also answers a question Professor Mark R. Killenbeck’s posed a few years ago: How could the First Congress think it could regulate in detail the conduct of sailors unless it had adopted a “substantial effects” view of the commerce power? That answer is that there was no need for a “substantial effects” test, for regulating navigation had long been part of regulating commerce.

Commerce benefited agriculture and manufacture by circulating their products, but it did not include agriculture or manufacture. Jurists compared commerce to an enormous circulatory system, carrying articles throughout the entire Body Politic, as the blood in the human body carries oxygen and nourishment. Thus, like the American Founders, English lawyers and judges understood the tight interrelationship between commerce and other parts of the economy, yet they were careful to distinguish them conceptually.

You can read Natelson’s complete paper here.

Oct 26, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave A Comment »

McConnell has it about half right

Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell jumped on the bandwagon and joined the chorus calling for the federal defunding of NPR in the wake of the summary firing of news analyst Juan Williams for making a controversial statement about Muslims.

“I’ve voted to cut their funding in the past, and will again,” McConnell said in a statement. “With trillion-dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, I think the federal government ought to be re-examining all of its expenditures to make sure we are focused on creating an environment where the economy can return to health and can begin creating sustainable private-sector jobs.”

The Williams flap created a nice bur-ha-ha and the perfect opportunity for elected officials and wannabes to toss some political hay. But while throwing around high-minded platitudes about free speech, liberal bias and budget deficits, most politicians, McConnell included,  completely miss the real principled reason why NPR should not receive federal funding.

Quite simply, the Constitution grants no authority for Congress to fund radio stations.

Progressives will quickly flock around the commerce clause and the concept of “general welfare” as constitutional justifications for funding NPR – a predictable appeal, which amounts to a “federal government can pretty well do whatever it pleases” view of the Constitution. But this clearly runs counter to the limited, federalist system our founders envisioned.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution 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, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” -James Madison, Federalist 45

It’s sad that so many politicians will do the right thing for pragmatic political reasons, but so few will actually stand on principle to protect and defend the Constitution.

McConnell is right. NPR should have its funding cut. All of it. Forever more.

But I remain skeptical. This discussion has come around before, and once the political winds shift, things always seem to quickly fall back into the status quo.

Until the American people begin electing people to office who truly respect and uphold the Constitution, we will continue to endure having our pockets cleaned out to fund any number of things the government has no business funding.

Oct 25, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave A Comment »

The Civil War Decided What?

I found a recent comment posted on my Herald-Leader op-ed addressing the constitutionality of the federal insurance mandate illustrative.

Bill Adkins writes, “The 10th Amendment question was decidedly resolved by the Civil War. And Supreme Court precedent supports the authority of the federal gov’t in this instance and so many others.”

I’ve already addressed the notion that the court stands as final arbiter of what is or isn’t constitutional here.

So let’s look at the first sentence in Bill’s statement – the Civil War resolved the 10th Amendment question.

Hmmm. What question was that, Bill? And what exactly was the answer?

Adkins’ statement is a lot like a log infested with termites. It looks solid on the outside, but lacks any inner support. In fact, I can’t find any logic whatsoever in Bill’s assertion.

If the Civil War decided anything in terms of state sovereignty, it was simply that the federal government can impose its will at the barrel of a gun. Even to say the Civil War settled the issue of whether states could or could not secede is a stretch. The war didn’t determine anything in a legal or philosophical sense. It merely ended with the federal government imposing its will on southern states by force.

The Civil War did not change the Constitution. The fact that the federal armies won the war did nothing to alter its meaning. Logic bears this out. If the mere act of winning the war functionally changed the meaning of the Constitution, then why was it necessary to pass the 13th Amendment in order to abolish slavery? Why wasn’t Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation sufficient? If the power of the federal victory nullified a principle in the Bill of Rights, would it not have also abolished slavery?

The 10th Amendment simply states:

“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.”

There isn’t, nor was there, any question as to what this means. The framers of the Constitution make its meaning clear. The Civil War didn’t resolve “the question” because one never did exist.

Oct 18, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

A response to a Lexington Herald-Leader editorial

On Sunday, Oct. 3, the Lexington Herald-Leader ran an editorial outlining why requiring health insurance makes sense.

Following is a response written by Kentucky Tenth Amendment Center coordinator, Mike Maharrey.

Update: the Herald-Leader ran the editorial in a slightly edited form on Oct. 18. You can read it and comment here.

In its Sunday, Oct. 3, editorial, the Lexington Herald Leader went to great lengths to explain why requiring every U.S. citizen to carry health insurance makes sense. But in answering one question, the Herald Leader failed to consider the first and most basic question: does the federal government have the constitutional authority to require every American to purchase health insurance?

It clearly does not.

The 10th Amendment states:

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.

Unless the Herald Leader editorial board can point to the specific powers granted to the general government in the Constitution, any health care solutions should rightly come through the states.

Proponents of nationalized health care mangle two Constitutional provisions to justify federal control of the health care system. Both arguments exhibit a misunderstanding of the framers’ intent.

Progressives argue that the power to regulate interstate commerce grants Congress sweeping authority to regulate virtually everything, including health care. This represents a gross misunderstanding of what the framers meant by interstate commerce and the reason that they included such power in the Constitution.

The framers granted Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce simply to prevent states from imposing tariffs on one another, thus inhibiting trade. It was never intended as a positive power allowing Congress to implement regulations on things like health care. James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, made this clear.

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

In fact, the word commerce, as used by the framers, only referred to trade, not manufacturing or agriculture, much less services such as health care.

Progressives also use the taxing authority granted Congress in Article 1 Sec. 8 to argue that the federal government has the power to regulate health care.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

The Constitution then proceeds to list 18 specific things to which federal taxing authority applies. Proponents of wide ranging federal power point to the words “general welfare”, arguing Congress has the power to levy taxes for any purpose that generally benefits the nation. But again, the writings of the framers do not support this view. Alexander Hamilton states in Federalist 83 that listing specific applications of  taxing power would be redundant if the authority implied unlimited powers.

“This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.”

Madison addressed the meaning of the words “general welfare”.

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

But progressives will argue that the courts have expanded these constitutional powers beyond their original meaning, and the federal government does indeed possess the power to mandate health insurance.

Thomas Jefferson made it clear in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 that the federal government itself was not the only party with the right to determine what is or isn’t constitutional. The states also possess that right.

“…the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

And Madison argued that state governments have a duty to “interpose” for the people when the federal government oversteps its constitutional authority.

The founders understood the dangers of expansive centralized power. George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

They created a system designed to keep that power in check. They granted limited, enumerated powers to the federal government and left everything else to the states. The dangers of expansive power held in the hands of a few remains no less nefarious with the passage of time.

The Herald Leader argues that because requiring all citizens to carry health insurance is a good idea and would benefit the nation, federal power should make this happen. But good intentions do not justify ignoring the plain meaning of the Constitution. Pragmatism should never trump principles. And the Herald editorial board would be wise to remember that in 1798, the federal government thought it was a good idea, and beneficial to the nation, to arrest dissenting newspaper editors under the Sedition Act.

Oct 13, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

Sticking to the rules

The visiting team trails 21-14 as the final seconds tick off the clock. It’s fourth-and-goal at the 1-yard line. The quarterback takes his place under center as a deafening roar rises up from the partisan home crowd. The quarterback takes the snap, turns and smacks the ball into the running back’s gut. The back plunges forward, legs churning for the end zone. He looks left, darts right and leaps toward the goal line. A mighty collision as a 240 pound linebacker meets him mid-air. The impact throws the ball carrier backward and he tumbles to the ground, a half yard short of the end zone. After a moment of silence, the home fans erupt in jubilation as the horn sounds ending the game.

But wait. A sudden movement draws the crowd’s attention toward the referee. He runs along the goal line, both arms raised high, signaling a touchdown. The fans groan in displeasure. Home players stand stunned. The coach goes apoplectic on the sideline. The running back clearly crashed to the turf well short of a touchdown.

Several minutes pass as officials huddle closely together in consultation. Then the referee keys his mic and offers an explanation.

“Even though the runner was down short of the end zone, we feel he was close enough to warrant granting him the touchdown. We believe it is in the best interest of the fans, and of the league in general, for this game to continue into overtime. The rules reserve a certain interpretive latitude to officials. The running back’s effort certainly deserves a reward. The touchdown stands.”

A ridiculous scenario, you say? The referee can’t arbitrarily ignore the rules of the game, even if it is for the better, you argue?

Indeed.

Yet progressives assert equally ridiculous notions when it come to applying the rules specified by the Constitution governing the United States.

In a Sept. 21 Washington Post column, Richard Cohen asserts:

This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans and wackos. It has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity. The Constitution is a wonderful document, quite miraculous actually, but only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers. They were revolutionaries who embraced change. That’s how we got here.

The Constitution provides a framework, the rulebook if you will, for government. Each clause, each principle, was carefully crafted for a specific reason. The entire document was meant to constrain and control federal power. When we begin to ignore and rewrite various checks and balances written into the Constitution by the framers, we tear at the very fabric of the Republic. And we run the risk of unleashing power that will soon wash away the freedoms and liberties the founders so cherished.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

A football game would degenerate into chaos without adherence to the rulebook. If referees could arbitrarily award touchdowns, the game would cease to have any real meaning. Can you imagine the ridicule that would befall an official calling the NFL rulebook a living breathing document?

Ignoring the precepts of the Constitution creates the same type of chaos in government. The safeguards that our founders so carefully formulated to protect individual liberty erode away. Arbitrary power becomes the defining instrument of government.

Progressives say the Constitution must be reinterpreted and molded to fit the times. The same holds true for the rules of football, and the game has certainly change and evolved over the years. But referees don’t simply ignore the rules. Changes in the game flow out of changes to the rulebook. Committees meet. Discussions occur. Then votes are cast. Only after following a carefully prescribed procedure do substantive changes in the game take place.

Likewise, procedures exist to change the Constitution – the amendment process.

But progressives like Cohen would rather not be bothered with such tedious procedures. They see things that need doing, so they just go ahead and do them, ignoring the rule book and make things up as they go along.

Progressives may desire the best for the country. But they are as arrogant as they are good intentioned. They believe that they hold the best solutions, therefore, they should not have to adhere to the rules. They view the Constitution not as a protection for the people, but as an obstacle to overcome on the way to bigger and better things. Progressives know best and shouldn’t be bothered with trivialities such as taking the Constitution “too seriously”.

The Constitution spells things out in plain language. With a little study, we can easily determine the intent of the framers. But progressives find new meanings, twisting words into unrecognizable precepts and simply ignoring others.

We would be wise to heed the words of Samuel Adams.

“How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”

Sep 30, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave A Comment »

The rightful remedy

On Saturday, Sept. 25, Kentucky 10th Amendment Center chapter coordinator  Mike Maharrey spoke at a freedom rally on the steps of the state capitol building in Frankfort. He discussed the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, emphasizing that states pushing back against overreaching federal power is not some radical or extremist idea, but the very remedy the founders intended for unconstitutional acts.

“Where powers are assumed 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, (casus non fœderis) 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.” – Thomas Jefferson

Sep 27, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

How should we interpret the Constitution?

The Constitution, when followed as intended by the framers, provides a bulwark against overreaching governmental power.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Lord Acton wrote those words in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Acton was an English historian and political philosopher. He held a deep distrust of governmental power.

“The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.”

Acton understood what few Americans seem to grasp today; concentrated power poses a grave danger to the liberties of the people. Even the well intentioned can easily slide down the slippery slope toward tyrannical behavior when placed in positions of authority.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”

The founders of the United States understood the dangers of concentrated power all too well. They lived with it and spilled blood to end it. As a result, they endeavored to create a government, framed by the Constitution, with limited power. Further, they divided those powers among three branches, creating a series of checks and balances.

The founder’s fears were quickly proved valid. The Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798,  just 11  years after adoption of the Constitution, made it clear that federal power would tend to expand.

The problem stems from a tendency of those in power to stretch and pull on limits in order to satisfy their own ends. Each of us believe our ideas best. And while we may recoil at the notion of others imposing their ideas on us, we seldom fail to rationalize that our own program possesses such overriding benefit that a little coercion would be OK in that particular case. It’s for their own good, after all, we reason.

The recently passed federal health care legislation provides a vivid case in point. Most recognize the problems in our health care system. Most agree that changes are necessary. But to legitimize the  huge federal power grab progressives deem necessary to fix the problem, proponents must bastardize the commerce and the general welfare clauses to an extent that virtually grants the federal government limitless power.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, James Madison warns of the dangers of expanding phrases beyond their original intent and meaning.

The General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

In other words, the Constitution  must mean what it means.

Constitutional interpretation is not as mysterious and complicated as many would like to make it. The founders, framers and ratifiers wrote volumes on the subject, revealing not only the meaning of each article, but the principles underlying the document itself.

Instead of interpreting the Constitution through the lens of a progressive “living breathing” framework, which quickly devolves into pragmatic justification for expanding powers, we must understand the Constitution through the eyes of its creators. Otherwise, the document loses all real meaning, ripping down the bulwark protecting our liberties.

Jefferson summed it up nicely.

“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Sep 16, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , , | Leave A Comment »

Rep. Stan Lee talks about state sovereignty resolution

Rep. Stan Lee spoke with 630WLAP afternoon host Leland Conway on Sept. 9 about the state sovereignty resolution he recently prefiled for the 2011 Kentucky legislative general session.

“There are a lot of people, as you just indicated, a lot of citizens who have joined a growing awareness that the federal government has simply been overreaching, not for a couple of years, but for decades. And it’s been incremental in its approach and it’s getting to the point now that people are simply fed up with the federal government trying to run every aspect of their lives.”

Listen to the entire interview here.

Sep 10, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | Tags: , | Leave A Comment »