Sometimes it's difficult to find just the right terms to use because the left has taken many of the correct terms and bastardized them for their own use. Nonetheless, I will try to form a complete message here as best as I can without using the corrupted words.

As some readers know, for the past two years I have been intentionally nibbling around the edge at a thought very dear to the Founding Fathers. It's a very important, yet simple thought, actually. Because, essentially this ideal is one of the important points that made our country great.

All of the Founding Fathers expressed this concept repeatedly. But herein, because the U.S. Supreme Court states that we may look to the Federalist Papers as an authoritative explanation of the Constitution, I will quote only from James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

In The Federalist Papers No. 45, James Madison instructs of the role of the federal government thusly:

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. ... 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 property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

 

Later, in The Federalist Papers No. 78, Alexander Hamilton continues on the responsibilities of the federal government:

There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.

So, there we have it. Madison writes that, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." Hamilton follows that with, "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that is the Court approved interpretation of the Constitution from two men who helped write it. This is, therefore, the law of the land which every person entering government service takes an oath to defend and support.

Of course, that is not the system we have today. Today's federal government wants control over every little thing in our lives from womb to tomb. There is no authority within the Constitution for the federal government to do much of anything it does. And that presents an interesting paradox, when one considers the oath of office. Hamilton clearly states that: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." Taken in conjunction with Madison's instruction that the powers delegated by the "Constitution to the federal government are few and defined," one can clearly see the intent of the Founders.

Which means, we've got a major problem here!

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, any intentional violation of the Constitution by government officials must be much more serious than a violation of statutory law by citizens.

For instance, passing laws in violation of any article of the Bill of Rights should be much more serious of a crime than a citizen's violation of any of the statutes. A citizen's violation of a statute, rule or regulation is but a momentary infraction, often harming no one. A legislative act in violation of the Constitution, however, deprives liberty to all of the people of the United States equally and therefore imposes a great burden on many.

The Preamble to the Constitution opens with the words: "We the People." This tends to make me believe -- as much as I may hate to write these words -- that violations of the Constitution by public officials probably should be classed as serious "crimes against the People."

And, as uncomfortable as it is to write that we may need yet another law, this appears to be the case. Because, in fact, when any member of the administrative, judicial or legislative branch of government violates any provision of our Constitution, they should be immediately removed from office and arrested. However, there is no such provision within the current law.

All public servants will admit that our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so let's call that a given.

The United States Supreme Court cites The Federalist Papers as a source of Constitutional law and as far back as 1821 (Cohens vs. Virginia), Chief Justice John Marshall said:

Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank [as a commentary on the Constitution], and the part two of the authors performed in framing the Constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/19/264.html

Still today, the Supreme Court refers to The Federalist Papers in many of its opinions.

So there we have it. We have the Constitution. And we also have the Court approved legal explanation of the Constitution. All we need now is the legislation to plug up a major loophole in the law. That is, we need penalties with which to use to crackdown on public officials who violate the supreme law of the land.

If we ever expect to again have the government we deserve, one solution is clear: we must plug up these legal loopholes and crack down on all Constitutional scofflaws. Because, either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it is not. If it is, then all must obey accordingly.

Everyone knows that the Branch Davidians of Waco were attacked by the BATF. We can also correctly say that it was a premeditated, vicious attack that was designed to be violent, because the BATF platoon was first trained by the Army for weeks specifically to kill people and break things. Furthermore, we know that the BATF actually wanted a shoot-out with the Branch Davidians because, when they were earlier invited to visit and look around like normal people, they declined -- opting instead for a bloody sneak-attack style confrontation.

We also note with interest that the BATF brought along armed military helicopters, fully automatic assault weapons and lots and lots of grenades. Who can forget the war-suited agents liberally tossing live grenades and shooting into a dwelling full of mothers and little children?

All this, incidentally, only because two or three of the Branch Davidians were "suspected" of not purchasing a $200 tax stamp for a couple rifles. Anything the government said after that was part of the cover-up, not the original excuse for the siege.

A few Branch Davidians got out of that mess alive. Some of the survivors were tried and convicted in federal court. At the sentencing of five Branch Davidians, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. made a unilateral finding that they had access to machine guns. That was never proven, but this was federal court, so never mind the incidentals.

In truth, the jury found them guilty of using firearms, but did not go beyond that determination. Judge Smith, and the federal prosecutors, made up the machine-gun determination on their own volition. Someone had to pay for the mistakes that were made. The Branch Davidians were standing in front of the judge who was part of the original problem. So, the judge threw the book at them.

Later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrongly affirmed those outrageous sentences. However, the United States Supreme Court, in an unanimous opinion, reversed the most outrageous part of the sentences.

Before the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that Congress gave judges wide discretion in applying federal sentencing guidelines. The government also argued that the type of weaponry used can be a sentencing factor. And, the government argued, that should be determined by the judge, rather than an element of the crime that a jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt. No matter, apparently, that the type of weapon used can triple the sentence, federal prosecutors want that factor to be a judge thing, kept away from the jury.

Well, all nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court rejected the government's outlandish sentencing factor argument. Because the punishment for the machine-gun offense was six times greater than what the judge could have given them based on what the jury convicted them for, the sentence

points to the conclusion that the difference between the act of using or carrying a "firearm" and the act of using or carrying a "machine gun" is both substantive and substantial -- a conclusion that supports a "separate crime" interpretation.

Justice Breyer wrote for the unanimous court:

We believe that Congress intended the firearm type-related words it used ... to refer to an element of a separate, aggravated crime.

Apparently, the original jury agreed.

"I really was just very upset by the sentences," Sarah Bain, the jury foreman in the 1994 criminal trial told the Associated Press last week. She said that the jurors had acquitted the Davidians of the more serious murder and conspiracy charges and expected the convicted defendants to receive relatively light sentences.

That had been nothing that the jury had been asked to decide. Apparently the judge was using a guilt by association. ... The defendants were never specifically tied to the use of illegal weapons.

No one was tied to the use of illegal weapons, actually. No agent of the government ever proved there were any automatic weapons used by the Branch Davidians. Instead, government agents brought new weapons to hearings and accused the Davidians of having weapons "like these."

So, in the ruling of the Supreme Court last week, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. of Waco was said to have erred significantly in applying a federal gun law that escalates punishment based on the type of weapon used. Therefore, prison terms of at least five Branch Davidians will be significantly reduced.

The case is Castillo et al. v. U.S. (99-658, 2000) and may be found at:

<http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-658.html>.

It's got to be something in Washington's water, folks. Else, why would generally conservative Republicans like House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill) and House Majority leader Dick Armey (R-TX) want to help reelect a liberal who goes against nearly everything most Republicans want?

The liberal, New Jersey Rep. Marge Roukema, calls herself a Republican but seldom votes like it. For instance, Gun Owners of America give her an F-, indicating that she is an outspoken anti-gun advocate who introduces and supports unconstitutional anti-gun legislation. She deserves to be defeated.

Now comes State Assemblyman Scott Garrett (R), who lost to Roukema by only 1,717 votes in the 1998 primary. This time around, Garrett had a lot more money and a better organized campaign. He also had the backing of the new Club for Growth -- a group of fiscal conservatives that bundled about $100,000 in contributions from its members for Garrett's campaign. The Club for growth also ran cable television ads describing the liberal Roukema.

Scott Garrett attracted a lot of attention, too. He called for all kinds of un-PC things like: sending all surplus revenue back to the taxpayers, across the board tax cuts, scrapping the IRS code, placing decisions for spending on local issues back under state and local control without federal strings, reducing the size and scope of the federal government, privatizing Social Security, limiting the role of the federal government and decreasing the federal bureaucracy, and turning all educational decisions back to parents and local school boards.

Garrett called for Ronald Reagan Republican things, in other words.

Needless to say, the powers that be on Capitol Hill got a little upset with all this blasphemy. Even the Republican leadership, evidently, wants to maintain the status quo in Washington. That's why the liberal Roukema suddenly received a pile of last minute donations from both the Republican House leaders and about a dozen other Representatives. She's second in seniority on the Banking and Finance Services Committee, so it's no surprise that many of the banks and industries the Committee regulates bought favors by anteing up with big bucks, too.

Anyway, among the surprise campaign contributors to Roukema's reelection campaign were Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX). Each gave a $5,000 from their political action committees. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX), kicked in $1,000 and Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley (R-VA.) also gave her $1,000. Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) sent her $2,500.

"They've been very generous," Roukema told Roll Call last week. "It's a sign of commitment. This is about the Republican Party staying together, fighting together and not having Republicans fighting Republicans and instead fighting Democrats."

Not exactly, Marge. It's about vote trading and lobbyists buying access and votes. It's also about normal citizen constituents only being able to support their candidate with a maximum of $1,000, while Washington insiders can give $5,000 or more. It's about Capitol Hill politicians in the form of the House Republican Leadership Council -- said to be a "moderate" group -- running a Roukema ad campaign of their own to the tune of $100,000, so as to counter the citizen's group, Club for Growth.

And, last but not least, it's about the fear entrenched politicians have that citizens, in this case the Club for Growth, intend to band together to remove as many liberals in Congress as possible.

Ah yes, we can smell the political fear in the air all the way out here in the foothills of Appalachia. The times they are a change'n. Lots of us out here in fly over country are making lists of those on Capitol Hill who do not obey the Constitution, as written. These are long lists, so it may take a few years to get to everyone. But, be advised you Constitutional scofflaws over there on the left, we'll be talking to and about you very, very soon. There will be no more free passes for public servants who do not obey the Constitution.

For those interested in helping out -- and having a lot of fun with some great people while causing change -- please visit Free Republic at <http://www.freerepublic.com>. Also visit the Republican Liberty Caucus at <http://rlc.org>. And don't forget the new Club for Growth at <http://www.ClubForGrowth.org>. These are action groups and all deserve the consideration of all of us wanting a return to a Constitutional form of government.

Because of Washington establishment insider bucks, Roukema won again. But just barely. Luckily, though, we still have a couple new liberty candidates to support in November.

The federal government is supposed to be our servant. We gave them a job description (the Constitution), but they are not following it. So, simply put, it's now our responsibility to fire most of those servants and replace them with people who will perform properly.

We owe it to our children, after all.

Most reporters do not read the complete Supreme Court opinion when reporting on a decision. However, we do. And, believe it or not, right in the middle of laughing about the nine to zip opinion that orders that a sitting president's private parts (or certified pictures thereof) can be shown in open court, we got distracted. The case is, of course, Clinton v. Jones (95-1853), which can be found at: <http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/95-1853.html>.

This may be hard to completely understand, but the Court said something in this unanimous decision that could become much, much more important to us than the potential fun of watching Slick Willie expose himself in court.

The fact is, if the Court carried this thought forward just a little bit more, we citizens might actually have a shot at winning back some freedom from those one- hundred-million words of womb to tomb federal regulations.

Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens rambled on a little about the separation of powers and how the federal government was intended to be compartmentalized. Here's the part where we started loosing our train of thought about Clinton showing his "evidence" in court:

The doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three co-equal branches of our Government. The Framers "built into the tripartite Federal Government . . . a self- executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other." (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S., at 122).

 

Yeah. That's what was intended all right. But then Roosevelt came along with out and out socialism and totally violated nearly everything the Founding Fathers wanted in government. Consequently, we ended up with over one-hundred federal regulatory agencies, each of which is its own executive, legislative and judicial branch wrapped into one Politburo-style body.

The benefit of a "triparite," or three branch government, effectively ended for most matters affecting the lives of citizens when the fourth, or regulatory branch, began. Nowadays, regulators from the federal regulatory agency branch of government control nearly everything affecting our lives with little input needed or desired from elected officials.

Justice Stevens continues:

Thus, for example, the Congress may not exercise the judicial power to revise final judgments, (Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U. S. 211 (1995)), or the executive power to manage an airport, see (Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U. S. 252, 276 (1991) holding that "if the power is executive, the Constitution does not permit an agent of Congress to exercise it").

Similarly, the President may not exercise the legislative power to authorize the seizure of private property for public use. (Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 588.)

This was the place we had to completely stop reading and consider what was being said here. "The President may not" what?? Huh?

The executive branch and the regulatory agencies do that almost every day! That's been going on for at least fifty years. How many hundreds of executive branch regulations are there that can totally halt any use of private property, "for the good of the general public"?

And, since when has Congress ever been consulted when the executive branch or a regulatory agency condemns property for public use?

The opinion rambled a little more, and then the other shoe dropped:

We have recognized that "even when a branch does not arrogate power to itself . . . the separation-of- powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties." (Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. ---, --- (1996) see also Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U. S. 425, 443 (1977)).

 

"Arrogate," by the way, means "to appropriate or claim without right," as when the Roosevelt administration coerced Congress into giving the administration power to regulate all business and agriculture in the United States. Therefore, when the subject is the executive branch, "arrogate" becomes a very, very interesting choice of words for the Supreme Court to use.

Of course, a corrupt Congress gave Roosevelt all those unconstitutional (and dictatorial) regulatory powers. Then Roosevelt unilaterally arrogated (usurped) even more. At first, the Supreme Court protested, and knocked them down. But, FDR managed to corrupt the Supreme Court, and ultimately the Court let the whole series of laws setting up unconstitutional regulatory agencies stand.

After the war, Truman tried to further expand executive powers by taking over most of the nations steel plants. But by then the Supreme Court had had enough and put a stop to his foolishness. The Court should have taken that opportunity to go back and undo the damage it allowed under the Roosevelt administration. But, it did not.

Congress and the regulatory agencies have been centralizing power in Washington ever since. Once a craven Supreme Court allowed Congress to violate that parchment boundary set down in our Constitution, the rest became easy.

Very few of the provisions set down within the Constitution are respected by those in today's federal government. Congress now feels that it has unlimited authority to legislate on any subject it wishes. And when Congress does not have time to "correct" the actions of us wayward citizens, the bureaucrats at the regulatory agencies fill the void with new laws technically called rules and/or regulations. Even the President now feels free to unilaterally legislate at will through executive order.

All of the lawmaking limits set forth in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers are now null and void, circumvented over the years through the use of legal trick and device. Politicians still pay lip-service to the Constitution, when it is convenient. But were they to actually follow the Document, as intended by the Founding Fathers, over one-third of the federal government would instantly disappear. So too would all of the "arrogated" authority over the people usurped by the federal government these past 60 years.

That's why these words buried in the text of the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court are so important. The Court may again be considering fundamental Constitutional issues. Look at the words again, this time somewhat condensed and more readable.

The Supreme Court unanimously, said:

The doctrine of separation of powers is concerned with the allocation of official power among the three co-equal branches of our Government. ... The Framers built into the tripartite Federal Government . . . a self-executing safeguard against the encroachment or aggrandizement of one branch at the expense of the other. ... Thus, for example, the Congress may not exercise the judicial power to revise final judgments. ... Similarly, [for example] the President may not exercise the legislative power to authorize the seizure of private property for public use. ... [In fact] We have recognized that "even when a branch does not arrogate power to itself . . . the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties."

 

Indeed! But, how do we stop them?

The Court even quoted The Federalist Papers #51 (in footnote #30):

The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means, and personal motives, to resist encroachments of the others.

We would like to add another short quote from The Federalist Papers here. In No. 47, James Madison tells us exactly what the "concentration of the several powers in the same department" is called:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether on one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

And that, in a nutshell, is exactly why we have so much trouble with the federal regulatory agencies.

Could it be that the Supreme Court is considering correcting the mess it allowed Roosevelt to make of our federal government sixty-some years ago? It almost seems that way. Justice Thomas has been pushing Tenth Amendment issues for a few years, but most of those decisions were bare majority opinions.

This decision was unanimous. Nine to zip.

And folks, unlike Members of Congress, the Justices of the Supreme Court actually read the texts before they vote. They know what they said, and they plan to repeat it.

So, we think (hope) there was a foreshadowing message there.

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

The term U-Mail, uhuh and this web page are Copyright 2003 by Forest Glen Durland, subject to Fiedor's rights.

hu185.htm. Revised 5-20-03. uhuh, GR Force and FRON are non-profit.