How many laws should we have?

Long ago, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus observed that, "the more corrupt the State the more numerous the laws." The total of the fat books listing all federal laws, rules and regulations numbers in the hundreds.

Kentucky's General Assembly is in session considering all kinds of bills, many of which are obnoxious to both out State the federal constitutions. Congress is doing the very same thing in Washington.

A point to ponder is that both Congress and our General Assembly have been passing laws for about 200 years. One would think they would have it right by now. After all, how many laws do we need?

In Kentucky, the General Assembly wanted to extend their biannual session to include an extra session for a few weeks in the "off years." The people, of course, rejected that idea. Legislators already have too much time to submit and consider stupid bills. Unfortunately, the Members of the Kentucky General Assembly have also taken a hint from the national legislature. That is, many members of the General Assembly feel free to vote on a bills without first studying the bills and fully understanding their implication on the freedom of the people.

We should also have a part time Congress. The problem with that is that Congress is just one part of the problem. The federal regulatory agencies also make law. Sure, the regulatory agencies call what they promulgate "rules" and "regulations" so as to get around the provision in the Constitution that only Congress can make law. But, because these rules and regulations impact on the rights of the people and have penalties, they are, in fact, laws.

So, to stop the federal law factory from churning out all those unnecessary and obnoxious laws, we would also need to make all of the positions in the regulatory agencies part time.

It should be noted here that, like the people in the Kentucky General Assembly, the Members of Congress and the bureaucrats in the federal regulatory agencies have no interest in revoking laws, rules and regulations. They only make more.

So, back to our question: How many laws do we need?

When will we have enough laws? When will our State and federal lawmakers be done? How can we get them to stop and roll back a few hundred laws, rules and regulations?

It seems like 200 years should have been plenty of time to get it right. So why are they still at it?

We need to elect people who will study every bill before them and reject all that are unnecessary. We need to elect people who are willing to remove all State and federal laws, rules and regulations that do not conform exactly to our State and federal constitutions.

Fat chance, though. Today's legislator goes to work to pass bills -- make more laws. They don't seem to feel that it is a problem that we already have too many laws. Nor do they feel it is a problem that we already have many more laws than any person can know, or obey.

They are authorized to make law, and make law is what they intend to do. Case closed!

All these laws present a major problem we like to call "selective tyranny." That is, law enforcement types (regulators, especially) can usually find something wrong with almost anything any productive person is doing. From automobile to environmental laws, from dogs to tax regulations, from underage workers to zebra laws, there is always something to nail most anyone with. No single person knows all of the laws, rules and regulations, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. So, any productive person can probably be arrested for an innocent violation almost any day.

We should, therefore, be much more critical of those we elect as lawmakers. If they vote for any bill regulating speech, assembly, religion, or liberty in any way, we should reject them. A good test is our right to keep and bear arms. Any person in any position in government professing gun legislation obviously does not like or trust the people and should not be allowed a position in government.

For the above reasons and more, we believe that, after 200 years of lawmaking, we have hundreds more laws than we need. It's time, therefore, to put a moratorium on lawmaking and to start repealing obnoxious laws.

In this, an election year, we have the opportunity to imprint that thought in the mind of every candidate.

Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, it is the obligation of State Courts to defend each and every clause of the U.S. Constitution. So said the United States Supreme Court. Repeatedly.

Below is an excerpt from a very large book named:

"Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States." The Constitutional case law was prepared by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and is available in Federal Bookstores for about $100. The text quoted immediately below can be found on the Internet at: <http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art6.html>

We removed the Court citations to save space, but they are all available at the address above.

This is very important stuff, and we will explain exactly why shortly. First is the duty of State judges -- and, by extension, the duty all State elected and appointed officials taking the oath of office.

The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation

is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States -- "the supreme law of the land. "

 

State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.

While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature.

The existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of subjects has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal common law, it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court rulings on state courts.

So, in the second paragraph above, we learn that "State courts are bound then to give effect to . . . the [United States] Constitution . . . as well as the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court."

That could be a convenient quirk in the law if we care to use it properly. For instance, in a 1992 opinion, New York vs. U.S. (91-543, 1992), the United States Supreme Court ordered:

Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the "consent" of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution's division of power among the three Branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached- upon Branch approves the encroachment. . . . The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the "consent" of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States. . . .

States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Government's most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead 'leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,' (The Federalist No. 39), reserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment. . . .

Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

 

In the 1997 Printz opinion (95-1478, 1997), the United States Supreme Court expanded on that order:

The Constitution's structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: the system of "dual sovereignty." Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution's text. . . .

Finally, and most conclusively in these cases, the Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

 

In Printz, the Supreme Court went beyond the case at hand a little and even mentioned federal regulatory programs imposed on States that are tied to grants and federal funds. And, while the Court did not exactly forbid these schemes by program name, it did clearly state that they do not conform to Constitutional tradition:

Even assuming they represent assertion of the very same congressional power challenged here, they are of such recent vintage that they are no more probative [proof -- ed.] than the statute before us of a constitutional tradition that lends meaning to the text. Their persuasive force is far outweighed by almost two centuries of apparent congressional avoidance of the practice.

 

So, as the Court summarizes, States are sovereign jurisdictions and not under the control of the federal government:

Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear 'formalistic' in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era's perceived necessity. But the Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day. . . .

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State's officers or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

 

 

Putting this all together, we learn that we can go to a local State court for relief from any regulation the federal government forced, ordered or otherwise coerced the State government to enact or enforce.

For instance, if the U.S. EPA is forcing your State EPA to enact regulations that require tail pipe emissions testing of automobiles, that would be forbidden under the U.S. Supreme Court opinions in New York and Printz. The federal bureaucracy may not (and must not) order State officials to do anything. Period. Compliance by a State official would then be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Any State judge must then toss the regulation out.

Unfortunately, the federal government may then (sometimes) come back and do the regulating themselves. State officials, however, may not.

Internet activism works. Just ask Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw. They actually cut their Internet e-mail accounts off last week because they did not wish to hear from normal people.

Last week, Maria Hsia, one of Al Gore's favorite illegal campaign fund-raisers, was convicted of five felony counts for arranging more than $100,000 in illegal contributions. But, at least a significant number in the liberal national media intentionally neglected telling us about it. That negligence kind of ticked off Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson. So, Nicholson sent out a little message to Republicans around the country:

Against all odds -- and despite the best efforts of the Clinton-Gore Justice Department -- Al Gore's friend and campaign cash collector Maria Hsia was convicted on Thursday of all 5 felony counts stemming from her and Gore's 1996 campaign fund-raiser in the Hsi Lai Buddhist Temple in Los Angeles. But the three network evening news shows, with an entire afternoon to prepare, failed miserably to uphold their basic obligations to inform the American public of this scathing story about the Vice President.

On ABC's "World News Tonight," Peter Jennings spent just 19 SECONDS on the story. On CBS, anchor Dan Rather gave the story a total of 23 SECONDS. And worst of all, Tom Brokaw didn't even utter a SINGLE WORD about Gore and his crony.

On top of that, the Senate Government Affairs Committee has identified Hsia as "an agent of the [communist] Chinese government" ... Imagine if a close associate of a Republican presidential candidate was branded an agent of a foreign [communist] government and then convicted of funneling illegal campaign cash to that individual candidate! Is there any doubt that this story would have led the nightly news shows?

 

No Jim, there is no doubt that the story would be a big enough news story to run coast to coast for at least a week. Every Republican available would be getting a perpetual anal exam from the press about that one! Also, Bill Clinton would be holding a Rose Garden press conference, backed up by all the Democratic-socialist losers in Congress, whimpering about just how rotten those un-American, traitorous thieving Republicans are.

However, laundering illegal foreign communist Chinese campaign funds was strictly a crooked Democratic Party thing -- Clinton, Gore and Dodd directed the illegal operation. They sold out the whole of the American people to the communist Chinese for the proverbial few pieces of silver. We can't expect the far-left media to advertise that.

Anyway, Jim Nicholson sent out a call to arms to Republicans and radio talk show hosts across the country. And, many thousands of people responded.

Nicholson's message was simple: Send a message to the three networks and tell them to get the story on the news. And, that's how it came to pass that all three newsrooms simultaneously turned off their e-mail accounts. You see, liberals do not like hearing from conservatives.

Eventually, there were some rumblings about the story here and there. Still, this is a very important story with many, many interesting twists -- there are thousands of pages of Congressional testimony available about this communist China connection with Clinton, Gore and some of the socialist Members of Congress. No network has yet done the story justice. So, we suggest that everyone keep on these newsrooms until the full truth of the story comes out.

So, for your writing and calling pleasure, we also provide the contact information:

ABC News: Anchor, Peter Jennings (212) 456-4025, Peter.jennings@abc.com; News Chairman, Roone Arledge (212) 456-4000, roone.arledge@abc.com; News President, David Westin (212) 456-6200, david.westin@abc.com.

CBS News: Anchor, Dan Rather (212) 975-6677; News President, Andrew Heyward (212) 975-7825; News Exec. V.P., Jonathan Klein (212) 975-2730, jck@cbsnews.com.

NBC News: Anchor, Tom Brokaw (212)664-4214, tom.brokaw@nbc.com; News President, Andrew Lack (212) 664-4214, andrew.lack@nbc.com.

What would your reaction be if bureaucrats in the federal-government conspired to give away control of one of our states to the United Nations? And no, we're not necessarily talking about a big state, like California, Texas, Alaska, or New York, either. Just one of the smaller states -- like maybe Delaware or Rhode Island.

The basic take-over would not include anything as brash as a blue-helmeted UN Army invasion of the state. That's not necessary. Nor would the UN necessarily get into the actual day to day operation of the state. Rather, the socialists in power at the United Nations would only write regulations and directives -- you know, laws -- as to how the land and infrastructure of the affected state would be allowed to be used.

So, all in all, it would be a peaceful takeover. One which would not be immediately perceptible to many of the state's citizens.

Well . . . that is, the change would not be immediately apparent until citizens tried to change something in their neighborhoods. Then they would find they needed permission from some UN regulator. And, just think of the potential problems involved with that! For instance, some unelected bureaucrat -- maybe from Asia, Africa or South America -- would be calling the shots on what American citizens could or could not do in their own home town, or even with their own property. Heck, American citizens might even need a translator to speak to the regulator dude.

Not acceptable, you say? Right! The whole concept is ridiculous.

Well then, let's scale it down some. How about if our federal government only relinquishes domain over a few tracts -- of a few hundred-thousand acres each -- to UN control?

For instance; let's say that they start with forty-seven such tracts called "Biosphere Reserves" -- like the Great Smoky Mountains Biosphere Reserve, for instance. Then add another eighteen properties labeled "Heritage Sites." These would include places like Yellowstone National Park, Yosemite National Park, The Grand Canyon National Park, The Statue of Liberty Park, Independence Hall, and such.

Still unacceptable? Yeah, it sure seems like it. But, these are all federal properties. So, can't the federal government give them away if it wishes?

No? Well then, you had better get on the horn and tell them so. Cause it's already a done deal! These areas are already under the "protection" of the United Nations. Look for the UN and UNESCO signs. They are there to inform you that you tread on UN controlled property.

You see folks, the bipolar bureaucrats in Washington are not giving away whole states, like Rhode Island or Delaware, to UN and UNESCO control. No, they know they probably couldn't get away with that. But, in total area of United States land, they gave away a lot more of our country than those two States combined. And you didn't even notice. . . . Well, did you? Of course not. That was part of the plan.

If the United Nations sent an army in here, a few of us might notice. And a few million of us might become rather upset. Therefore, they used a whole mixed gobbledygook of agreements, treaties and laws to get it done. That way they can control us by bureaucratic regulation.

Anyway, don't go looking for a UN director's office in The Great Smoky Mountains or at Yellowstone, or even at Monticello or Mammoth Cave National Park. You won't find one. Such an office would be trashed in a heartbeat if Americans saw it. The UN knows that. So, everything happens stealthily. We were not supposed to notice -- that is, until later, when the flurry of UN regulations start.

If you question the reason behind the UN and UNESCO signs, you will be told that the area is simply a "registered" area to be "protected" by the UN. Sure it is! Complete with use regulations, and a few dozen other restrictions. And that's just for starters.

Why would America need some rinky-dink third world bureaucrats from wherever to protect our land anyway? The fact is, we do not. And that should be your primary hint, folks: There is much, much more to this than what they will tell you publicly.

You see, it's a control thing. They're the controllers. We're the controllees. That's the way of the "Third Way." And we had better start understanding that concept quickly. Because, whether you noticed or not, we are now living it.

The American bureaucrats running interference for the UN are nothing more than useful idiots for the UN regulators. They can arrest and convict Americans for not honoring the UN regulations our bureaucracy was required to promulgate, but have no authority to help Americans in any useful way. Thus they have, in deed, not only violated their oath of office to God and country, but also professed allegiance to a foreign political entity.

Outrageous, isn't it! So, tell Congress. After all, we elected them.

  ** uhuh **

The President said he is reducing taxes.

uhuh.

Congress says they are balancing the budget.

uhuh. Sez who?

Web Home Page: www.uhuh.com

---

This web page can NOT be altered or sold, but may be copied intact for reasonable distribution in keeping with the philosophy of uhuh and GR Force, who can assume no liabilities. Please make you own decisions.

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 1996 by Forest Glen Durland.

hu174.htm. Revised 1-23-02. uhuh and GR Force are non-profit.