Blog - Constitution Party

Conservatives Have Lost; Look for Restorationists

THE JOURNAL
– 17 October 2014 –
Letters to the Editor –
Jeff Becker, Constitution Party of West Virginia

The word marriage, or any reference to this sacred institution, is not found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. As such, the Tenth Amendment applies and leaves decisions on marriage completely up “to the States respectively, or to the people.” Federal courts have absolutely no jurisdiction on the matter. There can be no argument here. Known as the principle of interposition, lead constitutional author James Madison confirmed this in his “Virginia Resolution of 1798” where he wrote, “…the States…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.”

So it is a real shame that Attorney General Patrick Morrisey has decided so soon to give up, cave in and not fight for what is clearly an established rule of law – West Virginia’s long-standing ban on same-sex unions. But, is this really any surprise considering that for the past 30 years, Mr. Morrisey’s party has embraced the Log Cabin Republicans – a group of gay and lesbian conservatives and their allies? And until June of this year, GOProud was another Republican homosexual group that included so-called “conservatives” including Anne Coulter and Grover Norquist within their leadership.

It couldn’t be any more obvious to me that the word “conservative” no longer has any connotation of traditional American family values. Conservatives are only conserving the destruction wrought by the radicals and are not doing anything to restore our country. Instead, we need restorationists. Look for and vote for them instead.

Is The Constitution Dead?

17 September 2014

by Robert W. Peck, State Chairman

Constitution Party of Washington

Today we celebrate the 227^th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution and ask the question, “is the Constitution dead?” Has it survived despite the many years of degradation it has suffered or did it succumb long ago?

The other day I was confronted with the idea that perhaps the Constitution is already null and void and has been for some time now based on the many unconstitutional acts of the federal government, some beginning as long as a hundred years ago. I’ll be the first to admit that much, perhaps even most of what the federal government does, is not allowed under the Constitution. But does that mean that the Constitution has failed, that it doesn’t work, that it is no longer valid, has become irrelevant and that we should quit contending for the founding principles of the American Constitutional republic? Or does it merely mean that we the people have ignorantly and foolishly elected persons who are now subjecting us to an unconstitutional, and therefore alien, form of government?

I believe some people confuse conservatism with Constitutionalism and the conservative movement with the current efforts of Constitutionists. The two tend to be treated as synonymous and lumped together under one title. I admit that some who are called conservatives are Constitutionists, though not all, and Constitutionalism is what conservatism once was, or sought to be. However, Constitutionalism and modern conservatism are quite different entities. I contend that it is conservatism that has expired and lapsed into irrelevance while the principles of Constitutionalism remain ever relevant and worthy of our most valiant efforts to contend for.

Conservatism began as an attempt to “conserve” or “preserve” our Constitutional form of government and its accompanying liberty. Conservatism also came to include endeavors to preserve the traditional Christian morals of our society. Conservatism has been failing for a half century now as everything that it sought to preserve has been continually slipping through the fingers of the Christian-conservative-right. With each defeat, the banner of conservatism moves a little to the left and finds itself planted on a new piece of ground from which it attempts to preserve the new state of affairs. Much of what is being called conservatism today would actually have been fought against by the founders of conservatism. If Barry Goldwater, the acknowledged founder of the conservative movement, were to come back from the dead, he would slap John Boehner and the Republican leaders silly and call them liberal, socialist traitors and enemies of the Constitution. It could easily be argued that conservatism is dead, or at least that the “new conservatism” is irrelevant, useless and not worth spending effort contending for. But what about Constitutionalism?

If I may use an analogy to help us see the matter – let’s suppose that there is a small town of good, generally moral people, most of whom attend the town’s one church. There is no tavern in town and no vices are publicly practiced. One day a bar opens for business and the town’s people start getting drunk, including some of the church goers. The pastor starts a movement to “conserve” the morals of the community and preserve its current state. Over time, more and more people start hanging out at the bar until hardly anyone is left attending church. Then a nightclub with strippers opens up and the town’s people start leaving the bar and heading for the nightclub. So the preacher now moves out of his church and takes up residence at the bar where he begins pleading with people to “conserve” the current morals of the community by staying at the bar and not go to the nightclub. Next an opium den opens and… well, you get the picture, the cycle just keeps repeating.

Has the preacher’s attempts to “conserve” the morals of the community failed? Quite obviously. However, has the Bible been defeated? Have it’s precepts been disproved as irrelevant and no longer worth contending for? Absolutely not! The Bible is still as relevant as the day the bar moved in to town. The Bible still holds the answers to all the troubles of the town’s people and is the cure for all the woes for which they seek to become intoxicated enough to be able to cope. The counsel of God’s word can still fix every problem they have. The Bible is totally relevant, totally applicable to their situation and its preaching and teaching in the community is needed now more than ever.

The U.S. Constitution, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, are to the nation much like the Bible is to the church or to the individual. The Constitution, and the Biblically aligned principles that the founders based it upon, are still relevant, still right and still hold the answers for what ails government and society today. The Constitutional principles have not been defeated nor disproved any more than the Word of God has been defeated or disproved, they simply haven’t been practiced in awhile, and that to the detriment of society.

Government may not currently be following the precepts of the Constitution, but the document and the principles upon which it was established are still true, are still sound, are still the law of the land and would still produce liberty, peace and prosperity if observed. Like with the Bible, it is when men are not following sound principles that those principles are in the greatest need of being taught, preached and proclaimed so that a wayward nation can find its way back by following the voice of the American founders crying out to us through our founding documents and through those who are still contending for the principles that they embody.

Constitutionalism has not been defeated nor disproved, it simply hasn’t been practiced, but that doesn’t mean we should stop contending for it.

Happy Constitution Day!

Robert W. Peck is a Christian, Constitutionist and political activist who serves as the chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington and is a member of the Constitution Party National Committee. Bob lives in Spokane Valley, Washington where he is a landlord-handyman. You can find more of his writings at: American Perspective

How to Lose a Constitution—Lessons from Roman History

– 29 August 2014 –

Lawrence W. Reed

President, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

I begin with this remark of the celebrated Roman historian Livy, written 2,000 years ago:

There is an exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past. There you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you can select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its consequences, you should avoid.

The history of ancient Rome spans a thousand years—roughly 500 as a republic and 500 as an imperial autocracy, with the birth of Christ occurring almost precisely in the middle. The closest parallels between Roman and American civilizations are to be found in Rome’s first half-millennium as a republic. We in our day can derive the most instructive lessons from that period. The tyranny of the empire came after the republic was destroyed and that’s the truly awful consequence of decay that America can yet avoid.

Read the complete article here.

Sheldon Adelson’s Spider Web – Where Special Interests Intersect with Immigration

7 August 2014 – by Peter B. Gemma, National Executive Committee Member

Sheldon Adelson is the 10th richest person in the world — some say the eighth, but why quibble about a few billion dollars. Undoubtedly, he’s among the one percent of the one percent of America’s political elites. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that during the 2012 elections, Adelson gave $20 million to Winning Our Future, the super PAC that promoted Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid, then poured $30 million into the Restore Our Future, one of the super PACs supporting former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He also underwrote GOP operative Karl Rove’s political operation to the tune of $23 million. All told, Adelson and his wife invested $100 million in the 2012 campaign sweepstakes, more money for one election than anyone else in American history.

Read the rest of the article here…

Illegal Immigration — Who’s Responsible?

1 August 2014 – by Robert W. Peck, Constitution Party of Washington State Chairman

Illegal immigration into the U.S. has been on the rise for the past year, but in the last month or so an unprecedented wave of immigrants has hit the border and started to make headlines. In California, citizens took to the streets to physically block buses from bringing more illegals into their community. Texas Governor, Rick Perry, is said to be preparing to deploy National Guard forces. Rumors are flying about various citizen militia groups heading south to secure the border. Meanwhile, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has begun a million-dollar ad campaign across Central America warning potential illegal immigrants of the dangers of the journey and that there will be “no permiso” – no permission to stay – once they get to the border. General John Kelly, Chief of the U.S. Southern Command, calls the region a “Crime-terror convergence” that is an existential threat to the nation.

Though the subject of illegal immigration has gained new attention through the recent and somewhat exceptional events, the issue itself and the general factors surrounding it are nothing new. The number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has been on the rise for a half century, including throughout the Bush administration, arriving at a record high in 2007 of nearly 11.8 million. The number had since declined slightly, but now appears to be on the rise again.

While nothing justifies entering someone else’s country uninvited, it is also true that nothing happens in a vacuum. So long as the law of cause and effect is in place, there will be reasons why things happen and factors that contribute to it. We can’t honestly expect to fix the illegal immigration problem until we understand and address those contributing factors.

Contributing Factors

Welfare

Welfare use by immigrants, legal and illegal, is about double that of native-born Americans. However, employment levels are about on par. It would appear that illegal aliens are as willing to work as the native citizens are, but are paid less and use more social service programs to make up the difference. The presence of such programs that supplement low income provides considerable incentive for illegals to come to America.

Welfare has also helped to create the job opportunities that illegals come here to fill. George W. Bush, a proponent of amnesty, indicated that we need the illegal aliens because they do the jobs “Americans won’t do.” But who did those jobs before the 1970’s when illegals really began to come here in earnest? The answer is that until the Great Society welfare state sprang up in the 1960’s and began to pay us not to work, those jobs were, for the most part, done by Americans. As a result of the welfare system that pays people not to work, we really do need illegal aliens who are willing to do the jobs that we are paying Americans not to do.

Economy

To get a feel for the difference in economic conditions, I looked up the annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in both the U.S. and the four countries immediately to our south. In the United States, there is $54,980 of GDP available per person. In Mexico, there is $16,111 of GDP available per person, in El Salvador $7,549, Guatemala $5,208 and Honduras has only $4,700 available per person. In other words, the inhabitants of the four neighboring countries to our south are living on from 9% to 29% of what U.S. residents are.

My friend, Constitution Party Vice Chairman, Randy Stufflebeam, recently participated in a television documentary on illegal immigration that took him to Mexico and El Salvador. Randy found that nearly everyone there both knew what the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was and blamed it for much of their economic woe. It appears that many family farmers have found themselves unable to make a living growing food crops since the implementation of NAFTA and have resorted to growing marijuana as the new cash crop. Watch this presentation that Randy recently gave to find out what else he learned while south of the border.

Violence

Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, the three countries now propelling the greatest number of illegal immigrants toward the U.S. southern border, have the first, fourth and fifth highest homicide rates in the world with Honduras now at 90 homicides per 100,000 as compared to the U.S. rate of less than 5. In San Pedro Sula, Honduras, where the homicide rate has reached 180 per 100,000, The Guardian reports that survival depends on knowing the rival gang boundaries, seeing and saying as little as possible and paying the “war taxes” the gangs extort from businesses and the “protection taxes” levied on family homes.

The violence emanates from the gangs and drug cartels that exist to service the U.S. demand for narcotics. General Kelly of U.S. Southern Command recently stated that, “All this corruption and violence is directly or indirectly due to the insatiable U.S. demand for drugs.”

This issue also ties back to the topic of welfare. A considerable portion of the tax dollars that are spent on welfare programs end up either directly or indirectly supporting the drug trade. Just ask your friendly neighborhood drug dealer how much his revenue stream jumps on the day the welfare checks come out.

Amnesty

Talk of an amnesty plan that will allow illegals who are already in the country to remain, is no doubt prompting many to try to get across the border in time to get in on the deal. Some are blaming the recent surge on President Obama for stirring up immigrants’ hope of getting a free pass through his talk about the DREAM act. This of course is to be expected as President Bush’s 2004 push for amnesty was also followed by a surge in illegal border crossings. Fuel is poured on the illegal immigration fire when House Republican leadership is also pushing for amnesty.

Deportation

When deportation goes down, hope of getting in and managing to stay goes up. The Obama administration’s deportation rate is behind that of the Bush administration at 800,863 per year as compared to Bush’s 1,291,106 per year. However, both are eclipsed by Clinton’s record of 1,536,363 illegals deported annually. It appears the deportation process has been slowed in part by an act passed during the Bush administration in 2008 which puts unaccompanied children under the care of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Obama administration has indicated that it wants that bill amended to empower Border Patrol agents to expedite the deportation process.

Visa Applications

Many complain that illegals should just go back home and apply to come here the legal way. However, while in Mexico doing the television documentary, my friend Randy Stufflebeam was shown visa applications from as long as 20 years ago that are still waiting to be processed. I haven’t done the research to determine just how systemic this is, but if the visa application system is as “screwed up” as Randy says, then this would also be a factor in why people are coming here illegally as going through the legal channels would not necessarily be an option.

Border Security

I purposely put this one last because it’s what everyone thinks of first. In fact, it’s generally the only factor that anyone talks about or considers. Yes, border security does matter. If security were tight enough that no one ever got through, then eventually everyone would stop trying. However, so long as the other factors listed here remain in play, motivating people to come here for the welfare, for jobs, to escape poverty, or to flee from drug cartel violence, then it’s unlikely that any amount of border security will be sufficient to completely stem the tide.

Who’s Responsible?

Certainly those who cross the border illegally are committing a crime and bear responsibility. The above list of contributing factors may help explain why illegal immigration is happening, but it doesn’t excuse it.

But is anyone else responsible?

Well, it’s the fundamental duty of the man in the Oval Office to uphold the laws of the land, secure the borders and protect the citizens – failure to do so makes a President worthy of being removed from office. However, that would apply to both this and the previous Presidents under whom the illegal alien population in America has steadily grown for a half-century.

Given the multiple effects that America’s social welfare system has on the problem, the Congress and state legislatures that fund that system are also responsible. However, that would apply to both the Democrat controlled Congresses that have instituted welfare programs, the Republican controlled Congresses that have continued to fund them and the legislatures that propagate the welfare system at the state level.

Considering that it is we, the American people, who have elected, reelected and reelected again the politicians of both dominant political parties who have presided over the never-ending wave of illegal immigration and have perpetuated the policies that are contributing to it, then at some point we have to say that we are responsible.

Remember, nothing happens in a vacuum. We’re not experiencing a half century long, random act of spontaneous illegal immigration taking place due to some temporary lapse in the law of cause and effect. We live in a highly ordered universe created by an Intelligent Designer Who told us that neither He, nor the laws that He designed into His creation, will be mocked – what men sow, they will reap. If we’re reaping something that we don’t like, then somewhere along the way we’ve sown the wrong seed. We have sown the seed of being a nation that consumes such a large quantity of drugs that it has enriched the cartels that service our habit to the point that they can destabilize and spread a reign of violence over four sovereign nations.

We have sown the seed of inordinate loyalty to two corrupt political parties, neither of which honors God nor follows the Constitution anymore. We have sown mindless, ditto-head following of talking heads and political isms that we let do our thinking for us so we don’t have to do the hard work of actually understanding the issues for ourselves. We have sown the forsaking of virtue and courage – voting for politicians who we know do not represent what is truly right, but we are afraid that the other big government, secular humanist, socialist, career politician might get in instead. We have even sown the seeds of hypocrisy as we angrily rage against one President or political party, then turn around and let ourselves be duped into supporting another that perpetuates most of the same policies.

The real problem didn’t originate solely south of the border, nor entirely inside the beltway. Until we take responsibility for our own country’s spiritual and moral condition and for the results of our own political choices, no amount of complaining, marching in the streets or writing cards and letters to our Congressman is going to fix it.

Let’s take responsibility, admit to God that we’ve screwed up, then ask Him to show us what seeds to start sowing so we can reap a better harvest.

Four Steps to a Constitutional Taxation System

by Douglas “Dayhorse” Campbell – State Chairman, American Constitution Party (Colorado)

But First, A Few Entertaining Legal Cites for Your Consideration…

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316 @ 431 (1819)

“The right to exist and to live at liberty with property does not come from the government, but from the Creator God. The purpose of American government is to secure all such rights including the right to work. The property which every man has is his own labor.” Butcher Union v Crescent, 111 US 746 @ 756-7 (1884)

“A tax upon income derived from personal property is unconstitutional absent [read: without] apportionment, because the income and the personal property generating it were deemed to be one and the same.” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan, 157 US 429 @ 557-8 (1895)

“Our laws and institutions embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind…America is emphatically Christian.” Church of the Holy Trinity v. US, 143 US 457 (1892)

“Unless a tax is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, the citizen is exempt.” Spreckles Sugar v. McClain, 192 US 397 @ 416 (1904)

“Liberty embraces the right to contract for the sale of one’s own labor.” Adair v. US, 208 US 161 @172-4 (1907)

“The right of private property includes the right to make contracts of personal employment by which labor and/or services are exchanged for money.” Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US 1 @ 14 (1914)

“There is a distinction between profit and wages (compensation for labor). Income is a profit from business and/or investment not mere compensation for labor.” Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992 (1955)

“Contracts of employment imply the moral requirement of just [equivalence] between the amount paid and the service rendered.” Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 251 US 515 (1923)

“The word ‘income” has the same settled meaning that it had in Doyle, in Eisner, in Flint, and in the CETA corporation/business profit tax.” Merchant Loan v. Smeitanka, 255 US 509 @ 518-19 (1920)

“The statute imposes income tax on the sale of personal property to the extent only that gains are derived therefrom by the vendor…no gain…no tax.” Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 US 527 @ 535 (1921)

“Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.” Lauderdale Cemetery v. Matthews, 354 Pa 239 @ 244 (1946)

Now, Let’s Demand to Have Our Constitution Followed… April 15 having recently passed us by, and the Tea Party demonstrations popularity and vehemence increasing with every occasion, it would be instructive to ask ourselves, “By what means would the Founders have funded the operations of the Federal Government, given their reluctance to hand over to that level of government the power to reach directly into the lives and businesses of the people?” Our first clue comes from the realization that the founders turned frequently to the Bible for wisdom and knowledge about government (such as the concept of separating the departments of government into three competing and mutually restraining functions.) To answer their inquiry, they might likely have turned to Matthew, the tax collector, in his chapter 17:

24 After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Does not your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25 “Yes, he does,” Peter replied. When Peter came into the house, Jesus spoke to him. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes–from the children [the subjects of their own kingdoms] or from strangers at the gate?”

26 “From the strangers,” Peter answered. “Then the children are exempt,” Jesus said to him.

From this, they might reasonably have concluded that the government should properly realize its support “at the gate” by imposing duties on imports, tariffs paid by “the strangers” who desired to participate in commerce with the citizens and the soon-to-be thriving economy of the new nation. These were not to be protective tariffs, which would soon have created retaliations against U.S. exports to other countries, but rather revenue tariffs, kept as low as possible, sufficient only to support the necessary, constitutional functions of the federal government. The lightly protective nature of a low tariff (say, capped at 10%) would have been negligible. Furthermore, if 10% is good enough for God, it ought to be good enough for the government. The next clue to their attitude comes from the Constitution itself, which states unequivocally,

“Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts [a tax imposed as a customs duty] and Excises [point-of-sale, consumption taxes]…uniform throughout the United States {Section 8}…[but] No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid.”{Section 9}

This, then, sets forth the fundamental principles of Constitutional, and unobtrusive, methods of funding the federal government, the implementation of which we will now describe, step-by-step.

STEP ONE It is said that even the longest journey begins with but a single step. Nevertheless, getting cleanly out of the starting gate is, without debate, the hardest part of any endeavor. And especially when the task at hand involves such entrenched interests as federal programs and such fiefdoms as federal departments. But this step is essential to the achievement of a stable and controllable government. The resistance to this step will be formidable, but it can be accomplished if the electorate becomes loud enough and persistent enough to demand it of those they elect to office. This step is, of course, the trimming back of our bloated bureaucracy to within its Constitutional boundaries. First, each department and function of the government must stand up to Constitutional examination to determine, honestly, whether or not it is even authorized to exist under some provision of Article I, Section 8, or any other specific reference therein. The next task would be to examine whether it is justified by the cost/benefit ratio it has historically achieved. Finally, it should be subjected to the smell test to make sure it’s not just some rancid slab of bacon, brought home to his state by a congressional long-timer. All expenditures of the government must be made to pass the same tests. Once whittling is done, and all the earmarks are de-marked, the federal budget should be a shadow of its former self–by half or better.

STEP TWO This is where we make the transition to having the government’s vacuum hose sucking out of someone else’s pocket for a change. This is where we substitute (that’s right, I said SUBSTITUTE) the tariff package we talked about earlier for the current panoply of direct personal taxes, including income tax, the anti-social insecurity tax, estate tax, death tax, hearta tax, corporate tax, and perhaps even fuel taxes. As contemplated earlier, this duty tariff should be capped at 10%, would apply to all imports regardless of country of origin (no messin’ around with most-favored-nation statuses; but maybe a self-supporting ally discount), and would be adjusted accordingly if the goods were sold in the US for more than their value as stated on entry. Oh, yeah…I almost forgot to mention the IRS. Gone. Yup. Gone. Well, almost. Bereft of its current task, at least, and transferred 100% to the Customs Division of the Commerce Department, where it can do no further damage to our citizens or to our country. Simultaneously, because this is a substitutionary action, the income tax, with all its attendant costs and burdens, would be eliminated. Contrary to the opinions of some who in the past have proposed the demise of the IRS, we need not repeal the 16th Amendment to accomplish this, although for other reasons, this is not an altogether bad idea–but it can wait. Allegations aside, that the progressivist 16th Amendment was never properly ratified and is not a legitimate amendment to the Constitution (Google “The Law that Never Was” by Benson & Beckman), it’s obvious that it allows, but does not require, any tax, nor does it repeal the prohibition against direct taxes in Article I, Section 9. Then, to top it all off, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) asserts:

“The 16th amendment prevented a direct tax upon sources from which income was derived and was not intended to authorize a tax on occupations and labor; nor a new breed of tax subject to neither apportionment nor uniformity.” (This quote is questioned by some, but it’s true nevertheless.) Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 US 1 @ 12, 17, 19 (1916)

“The 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation upon Congress. It did not authorize any exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, nor permit any resort to source whence income is derived. It represented a true excise upon the result of doing business.” Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 112, 114 (1916)

“It is essential to distinguish between what is and is not income. Congress has no authority to define income. Income may be defined as the profit or gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include the profit gained from the sale or conversion of capital assets. The government has failed to correctly appraise the force of the term “income ‘. The 16th amendment applies to income, not to sources whence it came, and did not repeal or modify the requirement for apportionment of all direct taxes on other property.” Eisner v. McComber, 252 US 189 @ 205-7, 13, 17, 19 (1920)

STEP THREE Should the tariff outlined in STEP TWO prove inadequate to the task of funding fully the legitimate, constitutional functions of the federal government, the constitution does authorize “excises” (a national sales tax, but not a VAT) which should be enacted only if necessary AND limited as well to a maximum of 10%, for the same reason as above. A consumption tax should always be preferred to an income tax, because it is avoidable (just don’t buy the goods) and does not permit the federal government to snoop into the private finances of individuals. Since there would be no economic “drag” from taxes levied on profits from savings or investments, the economy would be “stimulated” with a vengeance, and full employment would soon reign supreme.

STEP FOUR Should it become necessary, as a final backup, if there remained a shortfall of revenues to cover the legitimate costs of the federal government, such a shortfall could be invoiced to the state legislatures in proportion to each state’s congressional representation (it matters little which fraction is used: for Colorado 7/435=1.6019%; 9/535=1.6822%), leaving it to the states’ legislatures as to how to raise the funds, thereby also restoring the Doctrine of Interposition (which is this: the long arm of the federal government should not reach past the state government to deal directly with individual citizens) and creating pressure by the states’ legislatures on each state’s congressional delegation to bring federal spending under control. A representative or senator will likely pay far more attention to a resolution calling for spending cuts (Be it Resolved: Hey, you! Delegation! Vote to spend less!) from his home state’s legislature, than he would to a letter from you or me (even though he shouldn’t!).

Doug Campbell passed away in June 2014, while still serving as state chairman. This article was originally published in “America Needs A Third Party Now! in 2011.

America Entering Dangerous New Age: The Post-Constitutional Era

Our speech is being monitored. Our lawmakers work in secret. It’s a brave new world

PETER VAN BUREN, TOMDISPATCH.COM

READ HERE: The Post-Constitutional Era

Commentary below by Karen Murray, National Communications Director

This is an excellent article and worthy of kicking of the season of celebrating the Declaration of Independence with a review of America’s history and how far we have fallen from our ideals.

The author says, “Without a strong Bill of Rights to protect us — indeed, secure us — from the dangers of our own government, we will have gone full-circle to a Post-Constitutional America that shares much in common with the pre-constitutional British colonies.

Yet there is no widespread, mainstream movement of opposition to what the government has been doing. It seems, in fact, that many Americans are willing to accept, perhaps even welcome out of fear, the death of the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time.”

We believe the Constitution Party is the opening volley of the “widespread, mainstream movement of opposition” to the policies of both major political parties, which are happily destroying the principles of Liberty for their own ends and destroying America in the process.

Read this article and weep, then roll up your sleeves and get to work!

First, donate to the national Constitution Party to help us attain ballot access in every state, the same ballot access provided free to the two main parties in charge but denied to alternative party candidates. Donate here, or become a member of the Howard Phillips Legacy Society.

Second, get involved with your local and state parties. If one is not available to you, work with your state leaders or national area chairman to get one started. If not you, then who? Find out who to contact here: State Parties Or send an email to commsdirector [at] constitutionparty [dot] com, Or call 1-800-2-VETO-IRS.

The time is NOW!

Give the Devil his Due: Putin is Right about Crimea being Russian Turf

13 May 2014

by Peter B. Gemma, National Executive Committee Member

Russian President Putin’s claim that, “Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia,” is an uncomfortable assertion (for some), but as pundit Eric Margolis points out, “President Putin keeps bringing up history to justify his assertive policies towards Ukraine and Crimea. This annoys Americans, who know little about history and refuse to accept Russia as a great power — and certainly not as an equal.”

First, the fundamentals. Catherine the Great formally absorbed Crimea, slightly smaller than Belgium, into the Russian empire in the 18th century. That’s when Russia’s strategically important Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol was built (it’s been operational ever since). In 1921, during the Russian revolution, the White Army controlled Crimea for a short time but it was quickly morphed into the Soviet Union. Crimea only became part of Ukraine when Soviet strongman Nikita Khrushchev, by an impulsive stroke of the pen, gave the peninsula to his native land in 1954. When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, Crimea ended up inside an independent Ukraine, but as a formally autonomous region — specifically because its culture, history, and ethnic lines were far closer to Russia than Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin summed up the transition this way: “Millions of Russians went to bed in one country and woke up abroad. Overnight, they were minorities in the former Soviet republics, and the Russian people became one of the biggest — if not the biggest — divided nations in the world.”

While the central government of the Ukraine teetered financially in recent years and political unrest grew, Moscow took the bold initiative of backing the formidable Crimean underground in their attempt to set history right by re-aligning with Russia. That resulted in much finger pointing and shouted accusations of annexation by the West — but the precedent of nations declaring independence and unification with others is a long established option on the world stage.

While discussing Crimea, the State Department won’t incorporate the messy details of the Serbia/Montenegro/Kosovo entanglement, where the US and its allies forced borders to be created by ethnic divisions. The White House will not reference the occupation of Goa by India in 1961, nor will we even hear about the peaceful transitions of the People’s Republic of Zanzibar and Pemba merging to form Tanzania in 1964, or the
independent monarchy of Sikkim, where a majority of its subjects voted by plebiscite to become a state of India in 1975. Heck, America’s annexation of Hawaii in 1898 is a giant pineapple sitting in the foreign policy room. Apparently these are ancient historical facts that complicate the black and white arguments over Crimea.

However Putin won’t ignore the past. He notes that NATO and the West thought Kosovo, with its Albanian majority, had to be split to protect minorities and establish political and economic stability. Putin reminded Western politicos of the, “well-known Kosovo precedent — a precedent our Western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities.” Touché.

Distribution_of_ethnic_groups_in_Crimea_20011-273x300

As far as international law and diplomatic precedent, the Crimean vote to re-join Russia is in compliance with the UN International Court finding when making an advisory opinion on July 22, 2010 regarding Kosovo: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.”

Putin also brought to the table the US acknowledgment of April 17, 2009, given to the UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.”

The facade of the world of nations siding with Washington on the Crimea question is thin. Although the US resolution “defending Ukraine’s territorial integrity” was adopted by the UN General Assembly, the tally was 100 members voting yes, but a significant minority, 69 countries, cast nay/abstain ballots — and the dissenters were made up of a variety of voices.

Nations that voted against the UN resolution or abstained include Brazil, South Africa, India, Jamaica, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Putin had this to say after the vote: “We are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea. We are grateful to the people of China, whose leadership sees the situation in Crimea in all its historical and political integrity. We highly appreciate India’s restraint and objectivity.”

Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner stated that the West’s reaction is a double standard, noting that, “the UN Charter stipulates the right of people to self-determination, which means that this rule should be applied to all countries without any exception.”

Czech Republic leader Milos Zeman has said that the West should accept the fact that Crimea is now part of Russia, stressing that the former autonomous region won’t return to Ukraine in any foreseeable future. He described Nikita Khrushchev’s decision to give Crimea to the Ukraine as “stupid” and called the current situation “idiotic.”

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said, “We respect the decision the people of Crimea took through a recent referendum that considers Crimea as part of the Russian Federation.”

Closer to home, Americans are advising Washington not to get involved in Crimea. According to an April 21st Rasmussen Reports national survey, 58 percent of Americans want Washington to leave the situation alone.

Perhaps more telling, one poll revealed that about 84 percent of Americans couldn’t find Ukraine on a map — even 77 percent of college graduates failed to correctly point to Ukraine (which says a lot about public schools anddisinterest in Ukraine).

It’s time to give the devil his due and move on. Gregory Copley, editor of Defense and Foreign Affairs, puts it this way: “Crimea is now part of Russia, the West will come to terms with that, the question is how much longer they’ll perpetuate the crisis in the rest of Ukraine and whether they will escalate the problem, which I think will be unwise for the US and Western European interests.”

____

This article originally appeared at www.Unz.com, May 13, 2014

Land, Livestock, and Liberty: Who Owns Nevada?

The Constitution Party position on the deeper issues of federal control over public lands

by Darrell Castle

Cliven+Bundy+Nevada+Rancher+Federal+Government+OWY4w2Gomial

It is April 2014. What in the world is happening in Clark County, Nevada? A better question might be who owns Nevada? The struggle in Nevada involves a 600,000 acre area called Gold Butte, near the Utah border. Mr. Cliven Bundy claims an inherent right to graze his cattle there since his family, he says, has lived there for more than 140 years and built much of the infrastructure in the local area. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says Mr. Bundy owes $1,100,000 in grazing fees, having been in trespass for more than 20 years. Mr. Bundy refuses to acknowledge federal authority in Nevada.

Mr. Bundy believes, “We own this land and not the federal government”. Usually reported by the corporate media is the view that Mr. Bundy is illegally grazing his cattle on public lands in Clark County, Nevada. The BLM stands firmly on the premise that the land is public land, owned by the U.S. Government. The agency insists that it has exhausted its legal remedies and that Mr. Bundy has refused to comply with many court orders. They say they have no choice except to round up Mr. Bundy’s cattle and sell them for past due grazing fees. Mr. Bundy is willing to pay grazing fees but only to Clark County, Nevada, not to the Bureau of Land Management.

Mr. Bundy believes he has a prior right to graze his cattle on public lands due to his family’s existence on the land since the 1800’s, long before the existence of the BLM. But the federal government says wait a minute, we stole this land from the Indians many, many years ago, long before Nevada was a state and when by court precedent the land passes into statehood, that doesn’t mean we no longer own it.

Do either of these competing claims hold any validity? For the answer, we turn to the Constitution and the associated documents like the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration tells us that the purpose of government in, Mr. Jefferson’s immortal words “is to secure our God given rights”. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were created by the states on behalf of “We the people”.

The Constitution created three branches of government with three separate functions acting as agent for the states. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution known as the Enclave clause authorizes Congress to purchase, own and control land in a state under specific and limited circumstances.

“To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding 10 miles square) as made by session of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of military forts, magazines, arsenals, stockyards and other needful buildings.”

The Enclave Clause authorized Congress to purchase land for the District of Columbia, Washington D.C., as we know it now, and also to purchase territory for military forts, magazines, arsenals, stockyards, and other such things. As you can see clearly, the Enclave clause does authorize Congress to do these things and to control land in a state under certain very limited circumstances. Those circumstances, though, certainly do not include protection of an endangered tortoise as federal government authority now insists is part of the reason for the seizure of Mr. Bundy’s cattle. It does not include selling so-called public lands to Chinese corporations for the building of solar energy plants as has been alleged. By the way, when the government uses the term “Public” what it really means is “U.S. Government”. The U.S. Government often refers to itself as the public, but in reality is simply the government. The question then becomes — who owns Nevada? Currently, the U.S. Government claims it owns approximately 87% of the state of Nevada. Shockingly, that is correct, 87%. However, there are movements in Nevada’s legislature from time to time demanding the return of what Nevadans see as illegally seized land. To the federal government, however, these movements are apparently just empty threats.

James Madison, who wrote most of the Constitution, said in Federalist #45 “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined”. Nevada Governor, Brian Sandoval, recently stated that “No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists, nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans.” The Constitution Party wishes to thank Governor Sandoval for his support of Mr. Bundy in that regard. It would also be constitutionally-appropriate for a battalion of Nevada National Guardsmen, equipped for desert combat, to be called by the Governor to stand with the Bundy family and their supporters as they insist on preserving their Constitutional rights.

The protest was strong. The BLM has now released the Bundy cattle back to the Bundy family. The agency said it was concerned about the safety of its employees and of the public but there was no concern for the rights of the citizens. Is this the end of the dispute, or could the Clark County confrontation be just a preview of future conflict between the federal government and the citizens of various sovereign states? Time will tell.

Read the Constitution Party platform on Environment for a more information about the Constitution Party’s position on land use and ownership issues.