7. The CENSUS & the "Rule of Law".

Article I, Sec. 2, clause 3, U.S. Constitution, provides that the census shall be taken every 10 years for the purposes of apportionment of (1) direct Taxes and (2) Representatives to the House.

It also says the census shall be taken in such manner as Congress may direct. So, while the Constitution establishes the TWO purposes of the census; Congress decides the manner in which it shall be taken (e.g., by the U.S. marshals in the federal judicial districts, questionnaires mailed by the executive branch of the federal government).

In Federalist No. 54, last para, James Madison, Father of the Constitution, explains why it is a good idea to have a "common measure" [i.e., the number of people] for determining both the number of Representatives for each State and the amount of the direct Taxes each State is to pay: As the accuracy of the census depends on the cooperation of the States, the "common measure" discourages the States from overstating or understating the numbers of their population.

The Constitution is clear, and Madison confirms it: The purpose of the census is ONLY (1) to determine the number of Representatives each State is to get, and (2) to determine each State's share of the "direct Taxes".

So! The federal government has no constitutional authority to ask you anything but the number of persons living in your home. When they act outside their enumerated powers, they have abandoned the "rule of law" - i.e., The Constitution; and they have embraced the "rule of men". And they are the "men".

They have no constitutional authority to ask you how much you spend on heating, how much money you have, your disability status & how many toilets you have. See Jerry Day's (Matrix News) excellent video posted by our own C.W. Jovaras http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsDhkPym01k & Dr. Edward L. Hudgins' (Cato Institute) testimony at: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-eh072000.html

Alexander Hamilton understood that the People [that's us] are the "natural guardians of the Constitution", and he expected us to be "enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority" (The Federalist No. 16, 10th para). In Federalist No. 33, 6th para, he said:

...If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify...

Hamilton also said that acts of the federal government which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers are "merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such." (The Federalist No. 33, 7th para). This is what it means to stand up for "the Rule of Law"! Shall we defend our Constitution? Or will we cooperate with the lawless federal government in subverting it?

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by William Person on February 23, 2010 at 3:28pm

I love it!!!!
This kinf of advocacy for constitutional process is so valauble!!
Thanks PH

Permalink Reply by Land Shark aka Bob E on February 23, 2010 at 3:29pm

Bless your heart!!! I was just starting 54 when I received notice you have posted. I was tryihg to do anything to keep from asking you. Ha! Went through 22 and 38 previously and was just starting 54.

Permalink Reply by CW Jovaras on February 23, 2010 at 3:41pm

UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS -----"AMERICA IS ME"
SEE THE URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXAcHtdU3nY

Permalink Reply by CW Jovaras on February 23, 2010 at 3:56pm

UNER THE RULE OF LAW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUBVERTING IT
GO TO URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO1oJPps1I

Permalink Reply by Charlie on February 23, 2010 at 6:50pm

Indeed, when the federal government exceeds the bounds of its enumerated Constitutional powers, not only has it abandoned the "rule of law," it has usurped authority under the "color of law."

Just another agent of the federal leviathan run amok...

Permalink Reply by Resistance Patriot on February 24, 2010 at 7:40am

Thank you Publius for sharing your gifts of knowledge with everyone. I for one, greatly appreciate it. You are a true asset to the movement.
Question: Has anyone (maybe they already have and I haven't seen it) thought of eventually creating a Legal Network to start challenging this usurpation in courts of the land along with the U.S. citizenry taking actions to NOT cooperate with the Government in the usurpation?
RP

Permalink Reply by Charlie on February 24, 2010 at 7:50am

Yes, folks have tried to launch challenges (Landmark Legal Foundation, occasionally the ACLU will do something good for a change, etc.), but there are two problems with it:

1. trying to get a court to grant you standing (nigh impossible)
2. convincing a liberal activist judge to enforce the Constitution (also nigh impossible)

Some of the States are attempting to re-assert their 10th Amendment powers via nullifying legislation, but this is unlikely to be fruitful. The affected federal agency will simply ignore the State's resolutions, and unless the Governor is willing to order assets under his or her control (state police, Guard, etc.) to intercede, it will all amount to nothing. Governors and State legislatures are hesitant to take these actions for fear of being branded racist/confederate/secessionists by the federal leviathan and the state-controlled media.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on February 24, 2010 at 8:53am

Challenging the usurpations in federal court is not successful because the federal judges have for the most part embraced and advanced the usurpations. The U.S. Supreme Court has in effect adopted the position that the federal government has unlimited powers which are restricted ONLY by the "Bill of Rights", as defined, of course, by them. They claim the right to determine the "scope" and "reach" of the First Ten Amendments. I am working on a paper right now where I illustrate this. Alexander Hamilton (whom I adore) opposed the addition of a Bill of Rights for this reason: He saw that this would happen. See Federalist No. 84, 10th para. There is, of course, a remedy to this lawlessness on the courts, and it is in the hands of The People: If we elect to Congress representatives & senators who will honor their Oaths to "support" the Constitution (Art. VI), they could impeach, convict & remove all such usurping federal judges. (Federalist No. 81, 9th para, A. Hamilton).

Other remedies are jury nullification, nullification by States, interposition by the officials of the States, and the individual who just says, "No". I was raised in the South during segregation. Black people BY LAW were third class citizens. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was a real hero in leading the peaceful non-violent civil disobedience of the laws which had humiliated & degraded black people for decades. Regardless of Dr. King's positions on other issues, when he was marching down the streets opposing the laws which enforced segregation, his moral authority on this issue could not be denied. He won and there was little bloodshed.

It is up to The People to elect to their State offices men & women of guts & spine who understand the State & Federal Constitutions. Men & women who have the spine to say, "No, hell no!" to the lawless federal government. Madison wrote of this in The Federalist!

Ditto to what Charlie says, except that I trust that he underestimates the American People!

Permalink Reply by Charlie on February 24, 2010 at 10:09am

Perhaps I am underestimating my countrymen, or perhaps we have a difference in generational perspective. My contemporaries have been nurtured from birth to be dependent on the state, and unquestioning of its authority on ALL matters. The overwhelming majority of young adults in this nation are rabidly far-left statists.

I am familiar with the saying that goes,

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brain."

However, I do not think that applies to the present generation. In order to develop those conservative beliefs at a later stage requires a certain set of experiences (marriage, buying a home, raising a family, starting a business). But due to cultural and socioeconomic pressures & beliefs, these young people eschew such experiences. For some, this is an unthinking response to years of liberal conditioning by government schools and popular media. For others, it is a deliberate rejection of traditional lifestyles for ideological reasons. They choose Marx over Madison.

Those who have no love for Liberty cannot be expected to defend it.

Permalink Reply by William Person on February 24, 2010 at 10:13am

You make some good points. Having made them what do you think we all,can do at a local level to change that. Have you decided there is nothing that can be done to change this? Tell me what you are going to do to change this.
Thanks

Permalink Reply by Charlie on February 24, 2010 at 10:44am

Short answer: I don't know.

I'm rather pessimistic. I'm not sure it's possible to teach or convince someone about something that only the lesson of experience can impart. History provides countless examples of horrible catastrophes being the only way to convince fanatics about the err of their ways. Antiquity reminds us "Carthago delenda est." In the 20th century, it took unprecedented bloodshed and terrible weaponry to stop the Nazis and Japanese. The Soviet Union collapsed into itself like a dying star with considerable distress for those directly involved, and the world is awfully lucky she did not go supernova. Even now, do you think rhetorical prowess could bring Liberty to North Korea (or Massachusetts, for that matter)? Could you talk a committed jihadist into renouncing radical Islam?

I think circumstances are going to have to play out to their logical conclusions, and in the end, there's not much we can do about it. "Alea iacta est." We may be able to postpone or mitigate the difficult lessons coming 'round the bend, but I do not think they are avoidable entirely. I hope it does not come to this, and I do think it might be possible to escape significant violence, but I suspect we are in for a serious depression (to dwarf the current recession) and likely civil unrest. Ultimately, such events could inform future generations about the dangers of state dependence, and encourage them to be self-reliant and Liberty-minded.

But that doesn't mean I do nothing. I never shy away from a discussion or argument with a politically-misguided or ignorant person. They might not like what I have to say, and could vehemently disagree, but if I can plant a small seed of doubt in the manure of their flawed beliefs, perhaps, in time, it could blossom into some sort of re-awakening.

Again, though, I'm pessimistic. Rational arguments often prove ineffective against irrational minds.

Call me a fatalist if you will, but I expect things to get far worse before they get better (if ever). "Tempus fugit," "Gather ye rosebuds," etc. etc. -- prepare accordingly.

Permalink Reply by William Person on February 24, 2010 at 12:58pm

I accept your scepticsm and share concern for your points.
Let me share some of my perspective though. It seems to me each decade has it's culture and generational title. The pendulum swings because voters want something different. We live in an era where opinions turn on the last spin of media manipulators, usually those presenting and defending an agenda. Today it is the liberal thinking machine.
I have a tremendous amount of confidence in Americans to see the problems we face and then deal with them, even though they are bombarded with messages. Most people default to conservative positions, even many democrats today share similar positions regarding fiscal issues. But, people vote with their pocket book!!!
The internet has changed the relevance of media. There are so many outlets to choose from, and granted one needs to be careful about which ones provide the truth. And there are those that will always respond to the extreme viewpoint and make irrational noise. When did the blogs start making their entry into the internet? When have all these points of access come to us? It has been less than 10 years!!
Now I am not this old, but we have been facing this creeping socialism for over 80 years, since FDR, who was a turning point for liberalism/progressivism in this country. It is goling to take a few years to turn back the pendulum, don't you think? It is going to take many less years because of the speed of communications we now have to restore and defend public policy that comports more to the Consititution! The only reason Scott Brown was elected was because of the internet!!!
The biggest threat to liberalism, or progressivism, is truth. People can deal with truth. Medai is not providing truth and that is why so many are turning away from the "traditional outlets". My job is to bring truth to those willing to listen. Today there are millions of people who are looking for the truth. They have latched onto Tea Parties all across the country because they believe those messages. Those messages are founded in limited government, and free markets.
Now back to my optomisim--Have you ever asked an immigrant why has he come to this country? I do it every week purposely and politely because it reminds me of how important it is to fight for our system, and to appreciate that I live in this system. 98% of them respond with essenmtially the same word, OPPORTUNITY!! It is not because they can get free healthcare, it is not becaues they may get a free education, it is not about anything other than they have an opportunity to excerise their personal desire to create a stanndard of living for themselve they can not earn anywhere else on the world. It is because can exercise ther abilities to succeed, or fail that people live here. The world is learning very quickly about releasing the talent of individual opportunity. Entrepreneurialism, creativity, freedom to speak, freedon to think and learn the truth are what will eventually "save" this country because when peole face their owni pocket books they know the only one taking care of themselve is themself, not some monstrous bureaucracy in Washington.
A year ago would you ever have thought you could find this website with discussions of constitutional law? A year from now what we will be available?Tthe market will provide because free markets and free thinking people are the most dangerous enemy to those that want to control from the outside.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who do nothing." Albert Einstein.
Our job is to make sure everyone understands that democracy is not a spectator sport and that everyone gets an education in self governance, repsonsibility, and opportunity. Their pocket books will tell them what they are doing right or wrong.
I've said enough. I believe!!!

‹ Previous
1
2
3
…
6
Next ›