(Link to download & printable version)

Americans Should Not Be Stripped of Their Ability to Defend Themselves Against Lawlessness

Recently many in government and politics, in reaction to a violent and lawless few, have reignited the cry to “limit the legal ability” of Americans to buy and possess certain firearms.  The states must protect the people from such federal overreach.

President Biden and others have said that our Rights are “not absolute” therefore those in government possess the authority to limit, define, and regulate away our Rights. If this rhetoric is true, then no one in America possesses ANY rights, they only have privileges granted at the pleasure of government.  How is it that inherent rights endowed to man by the Creator are “not absolute,” but the crisis-driven dictates from the everchanging turnstile of elected officers ARE absolute?   

Here’s the truth: that which is absolute in our republican form of government is the Constitution (Article 6, Clause 2). It is the Constitution of the United States that limits and defines the authority delegated to the federal government.  Within that Constitution there is NO AUTHORITY resting in the federal government to regulate, define, or limit the Rights of the People.  This is particularly true with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  Not only is there no power delegated to the federal government to create any law or regulation regarding the purchase or possession of firearms (no, that’s not where the commerce clause kicks in), the Second Amendment has very absolute language prohibiting the federal government from limiting or regulating this right (Not to mention that to guard against a tyrannical federal government is the core reason WHY this inherent right is enshrined within the Constitution).  

It is not “the will of the majority,” as politicians and pundits suggest, that is the basis of government.  When the majority’s will advocates the suspension of due process and the revocation of a person’s natural rights (rights which all officials involved in this debate swore an oath to uphold), that is how slavery gets its legal foothold.

The solution to a federal government overreaching its delegated authority as presented by those who drafted our government’s blueprint is straightforward: the States must refuse to impose and enforce these laws and prevent the federal government from doing the same within their State.

The Supreme Court of the United States quoted James Madison’s explanation of this action in Mack, Prinz v. US:

“Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself…”  Federalist 51

“The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject within their respective authorities than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” Federalist 39

The States are a “double security” to the preservation of the people’s rights because the State will be a control on the unconstitutional exercise of power by the federal government against pretended power within the states’ jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court of the United States reiterated this principle in the majority opinion of NFIB v. Sebelius, when Justice John Roberts wrote:

“In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting the “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace federal policies as their own.  The states are separate and independent sovereigns.  Sometimes they have to act like it.”

The right to individually secure our life, liberty, and property is no different than our rights to freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, or freedom to worship and live out our faith.  A law that prohibits a person from possessing any degree of property, but especially property essential to the personal security of individual rights, without due process, ought to be rejected.  Capricious legislature moved by the tragedy du jour should not be the model for sound and stable government charged with protecting liberty. Rather than removing liberty under the guise of protecting children, we should protect liberty so that people can be free to protect themselves. *Remember, violent criminals don’t obey gun bans and the victim is always the first person on the scene, So why not empower the would-be victim to protect themselves, rather than removing their ability to do so? The cold reality is that a gun-free zone is a stripping of Americans’ natural right to defend themselves and has led to the death of many innocent children, as violent criminals ignore the signposts and slaughter the law-abiding.

State Governors, Legislators, and Sheriffs must declare publicly and openly that they will uphold their oath to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of their State by refusing to enforce and refusing the federal government the jurisdiction to enforce any limit upon the Rights of the People, to include the Right to keep and bear arms.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of (name of State), and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability. Oath of Office

For those who want a more detailed explanation:

Background:

The Declaration of Independence lays before us the premise and purpose of all governments, past, present, & future.  It states:

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

Sole Purpose of Government:

• Secure the Rights of All People Equally and Individually

It is evident that the entire purpose of any form of government is to secure the rights of the individual citizen.  The Rights our foundational documents refer to are those classified as “inherent rights:” and they consist of life, liberty, property, and the right to personally secure them in the best manner possible.  The most basic of natural rights is the right to self-preservation, to which the natural right to secure property is connected.  No person is secure in their life if they cannot also personally secure that life and the property upon which life is dependent.  If a person is in danger of loss of life, liberty, or property and has not the personal right, along with the individual ability, to secure these essential rights, then each person is dependent upon someone else’s desire to protect them, reducing every person to that of an indentured or tributary slave, indebted in life to those who are tasked with its security.

Origin of Legislative Power:

• Individual Rights Precede Legislative Power, Therefore Legislative Power Exists Solely To Ensure Individual Rights

The legislator with his delegated responsibility, cannot be exalted above the inherent rights of the individual which he is charged to protect.  Life, liberty, and property do not exist because people have legislators who have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused people to entrust legislators with the power to make laws in the first place. So the justification “it was passed by the legislature,” does not and should not override an inherent individual right, even more so when the legislature is admonished by the Supreme Law to not infringe upon said right.

The Definition of “Just Power”

• Just Power of Government Secures the Individual’s Rights Above All Other Objectives

Therefore, it is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his, individually and personally. It is because of this duty to protect the individual’s natural rights that every government in these United States incorporates the requirement of due process for the suspension of these Rights.  It is not a just government, nor is an individual’s right secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the comfort or peace of mind of the rest (even if the rest constitutes 60% of the population).

The Definition of “Unjust Power”

• Unjust Power is Power Exercised by Government to the Destruction of the Individual’s Rights

The mere existence of a majority desire does not override the natural rights of the minority.  To create and enforce laws merely because the majority (60% of the people) desire the law to be so, absent any regard to personal and individual rights, is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.  It is through this errant political motivation that history’s greatest injustices have taken place, even here in America.  It was once the majority opinion that a minority of people could, by law, be placed in a state of permanent and inherent servitude.  It was once the majority opinion that a minority of people could be legally classified as mere property or chattel.   It was once the majority opinion that legally enforced physical segregation of the majority from a minority was appropriate.  It was once the majority opinion that a minority of Japanese Americans and Hopi Indians could lawfully be imprisoned indefinitely in internment camps without due process.  Americans ought to be learning from these mistakes, not fighting to repeat them.  The majority of Americans would agree that a single dictator with the power to oppress all is a wicked and unjust government.  Please then explain, how the tyranny of the majority is any different than the despotism of one in the lives of those whose rights are violated?

Majority Rule is synonymous with Tyranny of the Majority Not with Liberty

The “Rule of Law” is a term that has been understood throughout history to mean a standard to limit the overreach of government and curb lawlessness.  It is does not mean the authority of the government to rule over the people. The independent states of America and their central government were created with written Constitutions to maintain a written limited standard for government to prevent the will of the majority and those who govern to usurp the rights of the individual.  The so-called “will of the majority” cannot be synonymous with the rule of law.  If that be the case, then those who are disposed to usurp the rights of the people, need only to control the will of the majority; either through manipulations, coercions, fear, or brute force.  It is because of this truth of the tyranny of the majority that every government in these United States is required to exist as a republic, not a pure democracy; that every law to be created through equal representation, and is to be governed by and limited to the ultimate purpose of all government – the security of the Rights of the individual through written Constitutions.  When any form of government operates contrary to these foundations, that government has exceeded its proper function, acting in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective.  It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain, to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. It has converted lawful defense of life, liberty, and property into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense of these essential and natural rights.

When the Laws of Government Operate Contrary to Individual Rights:

• Government Is Operating Contrary to Its Sole Purpose
• Government Is Not Operating with Just Power
• The People Are Not Free

It becomes the duty of all who love and respect the Rights of their children to protect the citizen from the unjust operation of government.

When those entrusted in government to secure the rights of the individuals turn that trust into a tool to deny those rights, it is incumbent upon those who understand the obvious limits of government and the necessity of those limits to stand in opposition to that unjust use of authority.  Just as those in America’s past, who refused to enforce the Federal Fugitive Slave Act because of its obvious abuse of power and destruction of rights wielded by those legislators who ratified it into law.  Those who have taken an oath to secure the rights of the people, who understand the magnitude of that solemn promise and the unavoidable and tragic consequences of failing to uphold that promise, feel morally compelled to take a stand.  How noble an example would American history have if there was just one Sheriff in Montgomery, Alabama who recognized that a law, ratified by legislators, signed by a governor, reflecting the will of the majority, was not a just law after all.  What if instead of arresting Mrs. Rosa Parks, that Sheriff refused to enforce a law that deprived an individual of her rights and instead protected those rights, escorting Mrs. Parks, in which ever seat she chose, all the way home?  Those, who are dedicated to their just and lawful duty to secure the rights of the people, understand that at these times the “will of the majority” and the distortion of the rule of law’s definition must be resisted.

If those in the federal government mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and every inherent right of the individual.  If they truly wish for a free and strong nation, they will endeavor to sacredly guard all forms of individual property and resist all desires to violate the individual’s right, regardless of the opinion of the majority or the fleeting emotion of the day.  They will not seek to “target the bad guys” by stripping law abiding citizens of their inherent rights and turning otherwise lawful behavior into crimes.  Our inherent rights are not killing innocents, so why are our rights targeted?  Oppression doesn’t bring safety. Our governments should seek to be a pattern of liberty and an example of just government so that our posterity may be truly free.

(Watch our videos on the History the Right to Keep & Bear Arms)……

The Latvian Constitution makes guarantees of certain human rights, to include the “right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.”  The Latvian Constitution even codifies, in section 99, that separation of church and state is a fundamental right.  All of that is true in Latvia, unless a certain prosecutor general happens to disagree with your Christian beliefs, then your rights as a Latvian become subject to arbitrary and discriminatory attacks and threats of fines and permanent shutdowns.  This is the current experience of New Generation Church, its pastor Alexei Ledyaev and several thousand members nationwide. 

On November 10, 2021 Latvian Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, filed a petition against New Generation Church, its pastor and members for refusing to comply with mandates that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and for criticizing government.  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s disregard for fundamental human rights is rivaled only by his disregard for facts.

The Latvian people have written their Constitution to consent to a limited government authority which is established to protect and defend the fundamental human rights of every Latvian.  Among those fundamental human rights are freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The Latvian Constitution, section 93 establishes that the government of Latvia must protect “everyone’s” right to life.  Section 96 puts the Latvian government on notice that “everyone” has an “inviolable” right to their private life, home, and correspondence.  This right would have to extend to verbal as well as written correspondences, otherwise the right itself would be nullified.  This understanding of the extensive nature of the inviolable right to all correspondence agrees with section 100 of Chapter VII of the Latvian Constitution: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to freely receive, keep, and distribute information and to express his or her views.”  All should recognize that people ought to speak well of their governments, when they deserve to be spoken well of: but to remain silent in the presence of an abuse of power is only the right and joy of tyrants.  A free people will know they are free by their freeness of speech.  Section 100 of the Latvian Constitution specifically says, “Censorship is prohibited.”  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns inclusion of accusations against the church for “criticizing government” serves as proof of the lawless violate nature of the Petition.

Contrary to the claims of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition, it is not New Generation Church that is violating the law; it is Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns who is violating the law of the Latvian Constitution, violating his duty to the people, and operating in direct and explicit violation of the rights of the People of New Generation Church.

The Latvian people have also declared that all Latvians “shall be equal before the law” and have the “right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court” being “presumed innocent” until proven guilty.  Sections 94 and 95 state:

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.  No one may be deprived of or have their liberty restricted, otherwise than in accordance with law.  The State shall protect human honour and dignity.

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns implies that the exercise of one’s religious beliefs are not an essential service to life.  However, all of history and humanity contrasts with this assertion.  Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead gave a truly relevant and powerful explanation of the fundamental nature of religious liberty and the essential right to practice that religion. 

Religious and other beliefs and convictions are part of the humanity of every individual. They are an integral part of his personality and individuality. In a civilised society individuals respect each other’s beliefs. This enables them to live in harmony. This is one of the hallmarks of a civilised society… This freedom is not confined to freedom to hold a religious belief. It includes the right to express and practise one’s beliefs. Without this, freedom of religion would be emasculated.^[1]

James Madison, author of the American Constitution and advocate for the defense of the Natural Rights of the people, stated this in his essay on the inherent rights of all humanity:

Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.^[2]

When we understand the principles both Lord Nicholls and James Madison describe, we must conclude that one’s religious beliefs and their practice are vital elements of “Human Dignity” and “Life,” making Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s declarations a violation of Latvian Constitution, written specifically to protect such fundamental rights.  Although Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns may argue that the Latvian Constitution establishes that certain rights “may be subject to restrictions,” a baseless and arbitrary order to cease and desist the entire operation of the churches of thousands of people is not a restriction, it is an obliteration.

If the Latvian Constitution declares in section 101 that “every citizen of Latvia has the right, as provided for by law, to participate in the work of the State and local government…” which the current government has deemed essential, how can Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns legitimately assert that the exercise of religion, as codified in section 100, is less of a right by declaring freedom of worship non-essential?

Additionally, the facts at hand completely contradict Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accusations.  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns accuses New Generation Church of violating the indoor occupancy rules for the COVID-19 orders.  The fact is, New Generation Church has gone above and beyond the demands of government for indoor occupancy and has taken extra measures to ensure the cleanliness and safe environment of the church. 

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns however offers no proof, whatsoever, that New Generation Church is a threat to the community. 

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns offers no proof that any one person within New Generation Church has become ill or been the cause of further infection in the community because his or her attendance in the church. 

As a matter of fact, because certain government facilities and shopping places remain open, it would be impossible to assert that the church was any more of a threat to the health and safety of the community than a government facility or a store. These accusations give the impression that the prosecutor has an axe to grind.

• • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is not providing New Generation Church with “equal protection before the law” as required in section 92 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is interfering with the New Generation members’ free exercise of the right to “liberty and security of their person” by denying them their right to due process and equal protection under the law contrary to sections 93 and 94 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is violating, not protecting, the “human honour and dignity” as required of him in section 95 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is attempting to censor the pastors and members of New Generation Church in direct conflict with section 96 of the Latvian Constitution.
  • Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is assaulting the fundamental inviolable rights of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion of the pastors and members of New Generation Church as given to them by God and codified in the Latvian Constitution.

Let it be understood; Constitutions do not grant rights to the people.   Constitutions are a covenant by the people that create government for the sole purpose of protecting, defending, and securing the people’s inherent rights. Governments are instituted among the people deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  Constitutions are the written declarations of that consent.  Listen to this relevant analysis from the Supreme Court of the United States:

The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of its legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.^[3] 

Therefore, the act of any single agent of the government contrary to the Constitution is also unjust, unlawful, and void of legitimate authority.

Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is contrary to multiple provisions of the Constitution of Latvia, therefore this Petition, by all legal, social, and moral justifications, is without legitimate authority.  Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns’s Petition is a violation of the rights of the people and the purpose of the power of the Latvian government.  To say otherwise is to declare Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns an autonomous agent who is not bound by the supreme law of the land.

If the government and its agents are not limited and defined by the Constitution and the rights of the people are not protected by the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, then one must ask, what is the limit to government power and what is the actual purpose of that declaration within the Latvian Constitution?

When one studies the years of political and social crisis that led to the drafting the Constitution of Latvia and to the adoption of the declaration of Fundamental Human Rights, Latvians should resist setting aside these vital protections for any reason.  The words of the Supreme Court of the United ought to carry the same power and impact in Latvia as they do in the United States:

The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency.  Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.^[4]

The Petition of Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns is an arbitrary attack of the rights of every Latvian.   The question every Latvian will have to ask is:  Will the government be confined to the limits of its power as defined in these foundational documents or will the government be allowed to attempt to “emasculate” the church through unjust and discriminatory laws?  Latvians must demand equal application of the laws.  If it is safe to meet in the store, if it is safe to meet in a government gathering, it must be equally safe, if not safer, to meet in the church. 

Now the People of Latvia must make a choice.  Do you stand for the inherent and inalienable Rights given to you by God, or do you submit to draconian and violative demands made upon you by government officials that look more like dictators than servants of the people?  Do you wish to remain free, or trade away the freedom given to you by those who sacrificed to give it to you?  If the Latvian government will not condemn and withdraw the Petition put forward by Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns, the people of Latvia must collectively make a public condemnation, to the saving and securing of their own rights.  If Prosecutor General, J. Stukāns can be allowed to violate the Latvian Constitution and the most sacred rights of humanity with impunity, then no Latvian is secure in their rights.

Finally, but not least, the people of the world must make a choice.  Do we allow our brothers and sisters in other countries have their natural and inviolable rights trampled upon by their government with our silent permission?  Make no mistake, silence is consent.  If the history of the world does not condemn us for our past silence in the face of government oppression it must embolden us to speak up today.

 Learn more about the History of the US Constitution and its proper application at LibertyFirstSociety.com

^[1] Regina v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) and others [2005] UKHL 15.

^[2] James Madison, Property. National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

^[3] Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

^[4] Home Bldg. L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934).

Recently the United States Federal Court for the 5^th Circuit held that the federal agency, Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), cannot lawfully mandate vaccines on American businesses while a trial concerning the matter is pending.  The majority opinion establishes that this mandate is “staggeringly overbroad” and the “loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time…unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’”

What The Court’s Opinion Means for The Rest of America?

During the Trump Administration, the Senate confirmed federal judges for the 5^th Circuit making that circuit one of the most “conservative” courts in the federal court system.  The 5^th Circuit was the perfect court, from a constitutional perspective, to hear this issue.  Other circuits, namely the 9^th Circuit, would likely find, under the same conditions, a completely different result.

The federal court system is divided into twelve circuits that divide the States into twelve legal districts.  Each federal district court holds a binding authority in federal issues over the lower federal courts of that district.  Under normal circumstances, the 5^th Circuit opinion would put a halt to OSHA enforcing the mandate in every district, so as to act in the abundance of caution; but, we are not operating under normal circumstances.  Since this presidential administration is already refusing to comply with court orders it doesn’t agree with, there should be no surprise when they treat this order with the same contempt.  Additionally, the main objective of this administration has not been to uphold the Constitution, but to force this vaccine on as many people as they can convince or bully into taking before the Supreme Court legal hammer falls. Because the 5^th Circuit opinion is only legally binding in the 5^th Circuit courts, OSHA could legally continue to enforce the mandate within the States located in the other districts.

The Supreme Court Will Have to Settle The Issue

Now that the 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals has been assigned the task of resolving the other suits against OSHA, the Supreme Court will ultimately be tasked with settling any disputes or hearing any appeals. The OSHA vaccine mandate question will have to be answered by the Supreme Court to have finality and possibly the respect of this administration.  The question then becomes, “How will this particular Supreme Court decide this case?” 

The issue of an OSHA vaccine mandate will definitely test the so called “conservative” justices; this will likely be a 5-4 split opinion — the only question being, in which direction?  In my opinion we can almost guarantee which way several of the justices will cast their vote.  If past opinions dictate future trends, we can be guaranteed that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer will cast their vote in favor of any government mandate issued by the Biden Administration.  If past opinions dictate future trends, I believe we can be equally guaranteed that Neil Gorsuch will vote against this mandate.  That leaves the justices that many believe to be “conservatives:” Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas, and Alito.

If I had to make a prediction based upon experience, I would say that Roberts is more likely to side with the liberals than with Gorsuch.  Not necessarily because he is a liberal in disguise (and he is), but because Roberts is a corporate courtier; he almost always sides with the big money.  I also believe, in spite of Thomas’s occasional tendency toward the police powers of government, that Thomas will side with Gorsuch.  I believe that Thomas will feel a greater pull to his Constitutional tendencies than his “security over liberty” leanings.  Justice Alito’s tendency is to follow either Thomas or Gorsuch.  Since I am predicting that Thomas and Gorsuch will be on the same side, I will put Alito in the group that will vote against the mandate.  That leaves just Kavanaugh and Barrett.  What made be unknown to many conservatives in America, unless they were watching my podcast during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh is NOT a consistent constitutionalist.  During the confirmation hearings I warned that Kavanaugh is most aptly described as “Kennedy 2.0” and he has lived up to that title so far.  He is a moderate at best who leans conservative on some issues and liberal on others.  In this case I will, with hesitancy, predict that Kavanaugh will lean conservative.  With these predictions we now have a 4-4 court that leaves only Barrett to break the tie.

Many conservatives would be overjoyed with that conclusion, believing that Barrett is not only a conservative, but someone who would choose the Constitutional and Religious Liberty option to deny the mandate.  Unfortunately, nothing in Barrett’s term of service in the Supreme Court or her previous legal experience supports that conclusion.  During Barrett’s confirmation hearing, the American people were told that Barrett was a constitutional, religious liberty nominee.  Other than being a devout educated Catholic, nothing in Barrett’s history establishes that she is either constitutional or religious liberty minded.  Barrett is a slave to precedent.  She will mindlessly adhere to whatever the court has established in the past, right or wrong.  Since she has become a Supreme Court Justice, Barrett has sided with the liberal justices on some of the most important cases.  I am not comfortable with Barrett being the tie breaker on what could be the most important Supreme Court issue of my lifetime.  Will she side with the errantly portrayed precedent of Jacobsen?  Or will she side with the Constitution and the rights of the people?

What Is the Most Certain Solution To This OSHA Overreach?

The uncertainty and the tendency of the courts to be personally biased in their opinions is the reason why the courts are not the ultimate or final check and balance of federal gourmandizing of power.  Those who ratified our Constitution and designed our Constitutional Republic were repulsed by the notion that the federal government itself would be its only check and balance.  The designed ultimate and final check on the federal government exercise of authority is and always has been the people through their States.  Thomas Jefferson (18120 explained it this way:

…when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another…If the States look with apathy on this silent descent of their government into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron…

The design of our Constitutional Republic created a most powerful check on the federal authority through the power of the State to refuse to comply with unlawful federal laws, regulations, and executive orders.  Proponents of the Constitution made multiple arguments regarding the authority of the States to be the ultimate limit upon the federal government when that government steps outside the specifically enumerated and delegated powers of the Constitution.  Hamilton’s explanation may have been one of the most influential since he was the one arguing for federal power, yet explaining that even the power he proposed was limited by the Constitution to be enforced by the States.  Alexander Hamilton expressed the basis for this check by the States in Federalist 78:

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.

Hamilton’s explanation is a direct reference to Article 6 clause 2 of the Constitution that declares that when the federal government makes laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution, “the judges of the State” are not bound to them.  When the judges of the States are not bound, no one in the State is bound; those laws, regulations, and executive orders are “null and void.”  There is no authority delegated to the federal government to exercise an Occupational Safety and Health Association within the boundaries of the States.  Without a specifically enumerated delegation of power to do so, the federal government’s assertion of power is invalid.

Florida is exercising this State authority to check and balance unconstitutional federal power as it begins to separate the State from federal OSHA authority altogether.  Florida is making moves to refuse OSHA authority and regulations and create their own State agency that will fill that gap.  There are some in the federal government who profess, like political activist lawyer Ron Coleman, that it is outside Florida’s authority to deny OSHA in their State.  For people like Coleman, that errant understanding of State authority and professed unlimited power of the federal government is the product of one hundred eighty-eight years of bad education sparked by federal supremacists and certain political activist Supreme Court Justices.  People like Coleman have decided to set aside the true design of the Constitution and the facts regarding its proper application as dictated by those who actually wrote the document, in favor of an ideology that the federal government itself is its only limit to power, and the courts can alter and expand federal power through judicial opinions contrary to Article V of the Constitution.  This progressive ideology flies in the face of every agreement made to ratify the Constitution, every limit to power designed by the Constitution, and the very principles of separation of powers instituted to ensure that the people are the governors over government and not subjects to rogue federal agencies.  Coleman’s assertion, and those who agree with him, that the “commerce clause” is some kind of boilerplate phrase that endows upon the federal government the authority to create for itself unlimited authority over every aspect of life as long as they can somehow bootstrap a “money” argument to it cannot find any justification in the Constitution or the writings of those who created that Compact.  No to mention Coleman’s argument was brilliantly defeated by James Madison in 1792 (see the Cod Fisher Debate, also see Federalist #45).

The only sure solution to ending federal vaccine mandates will be when the States decide to exercise the powers reserved to them as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.  That will mean that the people in the States must get educated and demand that our States start behaving more like the “independent sovereign governments” the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius recognized them to be and less like the subservient colonies that Coleman and his political and educational aristocrats want them to be.

If you would like to understand the principles of limited federal power and the State check and balance as the founders created them, please consider joining LibertyFirstSociety.com and learn from the founders themselves instead of activist professors.