Paper money has long been debated in the United States since the beginning. Paper money was used in the colonies and much of the American Revolution was financed by printing what was called “Continental currency“, which was controlled by the Continental Congress.

These notes were printed in large quantities to pay for the war, but in such excess that they became virtually worthless. The memory of this was fresh in the minds of those at the Constitutional Conventions and can be seen in notes on debate that took place on August 16, 1787.

A debate occurred over the language of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the US Constitution which originally read:

“To borrow  Money AND EMIT BILLS on the credit of the United States; ”[emphasis added]

A motion was made to strike out “and emit bills”, a second motion was made and a debate ensued. The concern was primarily over the issue of whether such ‘bills’ would be considered ‘legal tender’ in the form of paper money or simply contained to be an instrument of debt. The following quotes are highlights from the debate. [Notes on the Convention]

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out “and emit bills on the credit of the U. States”-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.

Mr. BUTLER. remarked that paper was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such a power.

Mr. READ, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations.

Mr. LANGDON had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words “(and emit bills”)

From the debate notes it is clear that their primary concern was that the language of “emit bills” could be used to permit the issuance of paper currency by the new legislature.  With direct statements like those from Oliver Ellsworth, their intent to ‘shut the door on paper money’ was unambiguous and leaves little to the imagination.

The motion to strike out the phrase “and emit bills” was approved with a vote of 9 to 2.

Other Quotes on Paper Money from the Period:

“Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”
– George Washington, Letter to Thomas Jefferson on Aug. 1, 1786

“Paper money is unjust…Unconstitutional [as it] affects Rights of property as much as taking away equal value in land.”
– James Madison, Notes for Speech Opposing Paper Money, 1 Nov. 1786

“Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788

“Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted.”
– Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791

“Specie [hard money] is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

“The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals… it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country in which it is permitted.”
– Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813

“Private fortunes, in the present state of our circulation, are at the mercy of those self-created money lenders, and are prostrated by the floods of nominal money with which their avarice deluges us.”
– Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813

“That paper money has some advantages is admitted. But that its abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Josephus B. Stuart, 1817

Issues such as marriage and abortion tend to be hot button topics at the Federal level. Such issues are likely to remain contentious as each side is thoroughly convinced that their arguments are right. However, without amendment to the US Constitution, neither of these issues (as well as many others) are within the legitimate scope of the Federal government according to original intent. That is to say, there is no provision of power in Article 1, section 8 that permits the Federal government control over them.

Both issues tend to illicit arguments from one side that appeal to morality based upon religious doctrine. The opposing side tends to appeal to individual rights. Where does one draw the line between religious doctrine and individual Liberty? According to the framers, that line was to be drawn by the people of the individual States. What is little known is that the framers did not intend for the US Bill of Rights to be enforced by the Federal government upon the States, to the contrary, it was to be enforced by the States upon the Federal Government, where each state was to be restrained by their respective people according to their respective charter (State Constitution) and included State Declaration of Rights or State Bill of Rights.

Because the US BOR was not originally enforced by the Federal government against the individual States, the various states could (and did) have established churches. Connecticut had an established church until 1818 and Massachusetts until 1833. According to original intent, those who want to enforce morality by law are perfectly within US Constitutional limits to do so at the state/local level. In fact, the early States did this. Each one had anti-sodomy laws at the State level. This of course was influenced by religious doctrine. The framers thought it was best to leave these decisions at the state level, where they can more easily be controlled and changed if the people found them in error. There were some Federal laws that addressed sodomy, but these were confined to Federal jurisdiction, such as military rules and regulations  (Article 1, section 8, clause 14).

The framers understood that the people of America had various ideals. Even if they agreed on some issues, they still left them to be determined by the people of the various states. Local governance was an important principle to the colonists. Where local/state governments are left free to appeal to the various ideals of the people, this allows the people an outlet to govern according to their own ideals without forcing them upon the rest of the United States.

State autonomy according to the 10th amendment should appeal to those on both sides of contentious issues. Allowing the people of various States the freedom to choose how to governing according to their respective ideals allows each side to live under a government that satisfies their principles.

Note: this is an examination of original intent. Also see the incorporation doctrine for more information on 20th century ‘interpretation’.

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

There is much confusion over the Constitution and its meaning. Many declare that something is ‘unconstitutional’ without actually understanding what this means. Despite what some believe, the conditions under which something is “Constitutional” or “Unconstitutional” have nothing to do with if you happen to agree with the bill or action in question. It has everything to do with the enumerated powers within the US Constitution.

Over time, the Federal government has expanded its powers under several clauses where their meanings are changed simply by interpretation. By interpreting the Constitution in a particular way, US Supreme Court has created powers that are not authorized by the enumerated powers. In order to combat this arbitrary expansion of power, it is necessary to be able to identify what the Federal government is specifically authorized to do, but first, one must understand what the US Constitution was intended to be.

What is the US Constitution?

The Constitution is a voluntary compact which was created by the original 13 colonies. This voluntary compact created an agent of the States (Federal Government), which was designed to protect their mutual interest from violence, both domestic and foreign, as well as create a free trade zone among the several states. It defines the limited powers of the Federal government and establishes a few restrictions to state power as well.

How does the US Constitution work?

The Constitution establishes the structure and powers of the Federal government. The structure includes the division of power within the Federal government, which includes separating power into 3 main branches, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches. The Legislature is further broken up into two separate chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House was to originally be the voice of the People and the Senate was designed to be the voice of the States. Each of the 3 main branches were enumerated with specific powers. The powers of each branch are outlined in their respective Articles (Article 1, Legislative; Article 2, Executive; Article 3, Judicial). The remaining articles primarily deal with procedural and structural issues.

What can the Federal government do?

The powers of the Federal government are broken up into two groups, enumerated and implied. Enumerated powers are those specifically listed, implied powers are those which are necessary to carry out the enumerated powers of the Federal government. For example, the Federal government does not have an enumerated power to buy concrete, but in order to carry out its enumerated power to build military installations including “forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other ‘needful buildings’”, proper building materials such as concrete are needed.

According to the tenth amendment, all powers not delegated to the Federal government and not prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States and the People respectively.

This simply means that if the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal government the power to do something, it cannot legally do it and these powers are then deferred to the States and People respectively.

What are the powers of the Federal Government?

There are specific powers granted to each individual branch of the Federal government, but the primary powers are those outlined in Article 1, Section 8, which are given to the legislature. The other branches are granted primarily with procedural powers, which determine how the laws of the land are to be carried out, however, the legislature is truly from where nearly all Federal action is intended to derive as it is the branch which is granted the authority to write laws.

Article 1, Section 8:

1. lay and collect taxes (sections 2 and 8 )
2. borrow money on the credit of the United States (Debate to strike “emit Bills of Credit”)
3. regulate commerce: interstate, foreign and among Indian tribes
4. establish uniform rules of naturalization (immigration) and bankruptcy
5. coin money, regulate the value thereof
6. punish for counterfeit of official US currency
7. est. post office and post roads
8. est. rules for rights to patents/copyrights
9. constitute tribunals
10. punish piracies and felonies of the high seas
11. declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal
12. raise and support armies, appropriations of money no longer than 2 years
13. provide and maintain navy
14. make rules to govern land and naval forces
15. call forth state militia to execute laws of union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
16. organize, arm, discipline the state militia (modern national guard…sort of)
17. establish DC not to exceed 10 sq. miles, likewise be authority over all places purchased with consent of state legislature for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other ‘needful buildings’
18. make all laws necessary for carrying out these powers

What powers are prohibited to the States?

Article 1, Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States

No State shall:
* enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
* grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
* coin Money;
* emit Bills of Credit;
* make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
* pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress:
* lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
* lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

So what is the confusion?

The confusion lies with several clauses which are written in the Constitution, these primarily include:  General Welfare Clause, Elastic Clause (Necessary and Proper) , Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause. The first three clauses are not very difficult to understand, but the commerce clause is perhaps the source of most of the confusion over Federal power. However, we will start with examining the General Welfare Clause.

General Welfare Clause:

Article 1, Section 8
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

This is sometimes loosely referenced in support for the regulation of trade and even Federal entitlements or safety nets (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, etc.), but the clause starts with the phrase “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…” This clause is a direct reference to taxation, not legislative action that follows. The legislative powers are defined in the rest of Article 1, Section 8 as shown above. This is not a broad, but limited authority when considering the enumerated powers in Article 1, section 8.

James Madison made the following statement when referencing the possible expansive interpretation of the General Welfare Clause:

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
– James Madison, Letter to James Robertson April 20, 1831

Elastic Clause (Necessary and Proper Clause):

Article 1, Section 8
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

This clause references the ‘implied’ powers of the Legislature, but where this has been used to expand the power of the Federal government far beyond what it was intended, a simple reading of the clause reveals this is not its purpose. It does say to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper”, which seems to be very general, but it follows with “for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States”. This means Congress can make laws necessary ONLY to carry out the specifically enumerated powers. However, it does not give it unlimited authority in the creation of laws.

Supremacy Clause:

Article 6, paragraph 2
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Many use this clause when arguing that all laws written by the US Congress are supreme over any other. This is true, only in so far as when Federal laws are Constitutional. If congress passes an unconstitutional law, in other words, a law that is passed which requires power not enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution, this is an unlawful law, it is null and void; and neither the States, nor the people are obligated to abide by it.

Thomas Jefferson made the following statement regarding powers assumed by the Federal government (not enumerated by the Constitution):

“Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” –Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

Commerce Clause:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;”

While the other clauses only require a simple understanding of the Constitution, the Commerce Clause requires a bit of outside knowledge when analyzing its meaning. Original intent of any law is supposed to be considered when deciding its meaning. This point was reiterated by the framers and is sound legal doctrine.

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

Some will make the claim that modern times create for a new host of problems that could not have been foreseen by the framers and therefore, the original meaning does not hold weight.

If in fact the reality of the present creates a necessity to change the Constitution and the powers of the Federal government, this can be done via the amendment process (Article V).

However, if the Constitution was and is to be a strict limitation against Federal power, changing it simply by interpretation can make it mean anything or nothing at all, thereby defeating its specific purpose. In other words, if it can simply mean whatever you want it to by interpretation, it does not limit power to any meaningful degree, thereby defeating one of its primary purposes.

Considering the original intent of the Commerce Clause, we can look to James Madison, who is considered the ‘father of the US Constitution’:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”
– James Madison, Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829

James Madison made it clear that the commerce clause was to protect against economic protectionism by the several states. It was to promote a ‘free trade’ zone within the United States where individual States could not protect their own industry over that of another State. It was not written to give unhindered authority to regulate industry. Furthermore, it should be noted that this was also ONLY the power to regulate ‘interstate’ commerce (state to state), not intrastate commerce (all commerce within state lines).  ‘Intrastate’ commerce would pertain to a good or service that is derived within a given state and the sale or transfer of this product or service remains within the borders of the originating state. Even under expansive interpretations of ‘regulate’ and even ‘commerce’. The Federal government has ZERO authority to interfere with trade that only occurs within the borders of a given state.

Is the Federal government acting within the limits of the US Constitution?

Now that you understand the basics of the US Constitution, you may recognize that the Federal government is acting well beyond its Constitutionally limited role. The question then remains, “What can we do about it?”

“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

Our State governments have the power and duty to stand up to the Federal government when it acts outside of its Constitutionally limited role. Our individual States were to be a barrier against Federal tyranny:

“The true barriers of our liberty are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed.”
– Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811

For more information on Nullification see our videos on nullification.

For further clarification of the General Welfare Clause and the case made against unlimited Federal authority, consider this quote by James Madison:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

California, Proposition 8, passed 2008: states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” [1]

California, Proposition 19, on 2010 ballot: “legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties.” [2]

These two amendments have brought into question the long forgotten concept of Federalism in America. This includes the right to self-governance. The awakening in America that has occurred in the past few years with regard to the Constitution and our founding principles has been interesting to say the least. Many groups have realized that the Federal government is out of control and that too much power has accumulated in DC. They realize it is this concentration of power that has resulted in many of the problems within our society, including the destruction of our economic and social freedoms.

However, California stands to separate the wheat from the tares in regards to those who simply want to use unauthorized power of the national government to accomplish their political ends, and those truly want to return to our founder’s original intent of the US Constitution and the American form of government under Dual Federalism.

Dual Federalism was the legal theory that prevailed at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787. It is the system of American government that was originally intended. It defines the relationship between the Federal and State government as intended by America’s framers. Dual Federalism includes 4 primary concepts:

1. National government rules by enumerated powers only.
2. National government has a limited set of constitutional purposes.
3. Each governmental unit—state and federal—is sovereign within its sphere of operations.
4. Relationship between nation and states is best summed up as tension rather than cooperation.

Dual Federalism assured the right of the people to self governance. Under this ideal, the Federal government was restricted to the specific and enumerated powers of the US Constitution. These powers primarily dealt with foreign trade and defense against foreign invasion. The States and local governments were intended to largely handle our domestic concerns. Each State, in this sense retained the sovereignty of nations, except for those powers specifically surrendered to the Federal government under Article 1, Section 10. This concept is addressed in the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Proposition 8, Gay Marriage

In 2008, the People of California voted to define marriage within their State as being between a man and woman. Yet, against the will of the People of California, a Federal judge struck down this proposition on August 4th, 2010 [3]. This is currently being appealed in higher courts.

Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that it is a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. However, the supporters of Prop 8 are claiming State sovereignty under the 10th amendment which supports the right of the People to self-govern.

Those who make the case with regard to the 14th amendment argue according to modern case law and precedent. This precedent has been set whereby the courts simply define what the “privilege and immunities” clause means and rule accordingly as they have done with regard to the “Incorporation Doctrine”. This is most certainly headed for the Supreme Court at some point, where it would only require the Supreme Courts Justices to define marriage as being one of the protected privileges and/or find protection under the immunities portion which protects against penalties being applied on specific groups or individuals. However, the most recent SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan, has expressed that she believes there is no “Constitutional right” to marry even under the 14th amendment, but that doesn’t guarantee how she would ultimately rule in this case.

Again, the proponents of proposition 8 must rely on original intent and the concept of Dual Federalism under the 10th Amendment.

Proposition 19, Marijuana De-criminalization

Federal drug prohibition in America has been justified under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. It is this broad interpretation that has been used to justify the power of the Federal government to regulate wheat production on private property for personal use and consumption as in the Wikard v Filburn Supreme Court case in 1942. It is also under this broad interpretation the Federal government regulates fire arms and it will be used to justify provisions of the latest Federal health care bill, infamously known as Obamacare, when it meets pending challenges by various States in Federal court.

What did some of our primary framers think of the power of the Federal Congress regarding commerce?

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”

–Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”

– James Madison, Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829

Clearly, the commerce clause was not a broad authority for US Congress to regulate without end. James Madison made it clear it was to protect against economic protectionism among States through tariffs and the like.

Alcohol prohibition was not authorized until the 18th amendment was passed which granted the US Congress the express authority to prohibit the sale of alcohol. Why is it that we have accepted the idea that the Federal government has the authority to place a prohibition on drugs without a similar amendment? Again, the only way to justify it without an amendment is to allow for a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause which allows for nearly unlimited authority to regulate our daily lives and economic activities.

According to original intent, this issue clearly is to rest with the individual States at the highest level. This November, the people of California are going to decide if they want to decriminalize marijuana within their state, yet President Obama and other authorities at the White House have already expressed their intent to enforce the Federal law against the will of the People of California.

Opponents of prop 19 must rely on a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and therefore, broad Federal authority with respect to the regulation of all economic activities.

Where supporters of prop 19, must rely on the 10th amendment.

Ironically, many who support Proposition 8, oppose Proposition 19 and condone Federal interference on the matter. On the other hand, many who support Proposition 19, oppose Proposition 8 and support Federal interference on the matter.

The Role of the Federal Government

“The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore… never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”

– James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

Many think that the founders intended for the Federal government to specifically guarantee our rights, but this is not the case. The purpose of the States and local governments were for the specific protection of individual rights. However, the States created the Federal government for their own mutual protection. This of course protected the right of the people to self governance.

The Bill of Rights is often understood to be the specific protection of our rights in the US Constitution; however, what is seldom understood is that the Bill of Rights originally only applied as strict limitations against Federal power. This was reiterated in the Barron v. Baltimore Supreme Court case in 1833. The individual State constitutions limited the power of the individual States, most of which include their own State Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights that mirror the US Bill of Rights, but are more extensive in most cases.

It was understood by our founders that you cannot trust the Federal government to protect our rights, which necessarily includes the power to define our rights. Even the right to life has always been defined by individual State governments, this of course under the directive of their respective people.

Those who seek a true return to our founding principles which includes the right to self governance under Dual Federalism must accept the right of the People of California to self governance. That is to say, we must accept their right to prohibit gay marriage and legalize marijuana within their State without Federal interference. We must also accept the right of another State to allow gay marriage and prohibit marijuana.

The cross roads with respect to original intent and Dual Federalism will be reached with these two propositions. Will the supporters of Proposition 8 also support Federal intervention with respect to Proposition 19? Likewise, will the supporters of Proposition 19 support Federal intervention with respect to Proposition 8?

There is nothing wrong or in violation of Federalism for having an opinion  as to why a particular State should or should not govern in a certain way. These are perfectly acceptable debates in a free society. However, if you seek to use the power of the Federal government to limit the right of self governance to the People of any one state, you have opened the door for that same power to be used against you. That is the height of tyranny. The use of Federal power in this way is not enumerated in the US Constitution, nor was it ever intended by its creators.

Dual Federalism and self governance were fundamental concepts at the time of our founding and cannot be separated from original intent. Otherwise, the entire concept of a limited Federal government under the Constitution is subverted. What results is the concept of a National, rather than Federal system of government. We were founded under the latter, but we have devolved into the former. It is time for America to decide once again what course it will take. Are we under a “National” or “Federal” government? This may be the last breath for Dual Federalism in America and it may decide the fate of true original intent, it is something we must carefully consider.

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

– Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” [Emphasis Added]

– James Madison, Federalist Papers #39

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defence of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421

“It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made that each might do for itself what …concerns itself directly and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor. It is by this partition of cares descending in gradation from general to particular that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all.”

– Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122

‎”We should thus marshal our government into, 1. the general federal republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2. that of the State, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3. the county republics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and 4. the ward republics, for the small and yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in government, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division and subdivision of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public affairs.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:38

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

– James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)

[1] http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf

[2] http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx

[3] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html

“Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
– Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

Listen to some of these words from our elected Federal leaders. I don’t know if they convey ignorance or arrogance, or which is worse, you decide:

Congressman Pete Stark: There are no limits to Federal Power

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi: Responding to a ‘serious’ question regarding the Constitutionality of the Health Care Bill

Congressman John Conyers: “Good and Welfare” clause

Let us help Mr. Conyers out, there is no such clause.

What he was more than likely referring to is the “General Welfare” clause and perhaps the “other” clauses he was referring to were the “Commerce Clause” or perhaps the “Elastic Clause”.

Regarding the General Welfare, Commerce and Elastic (necessary and proper) clause, perhaps we should consult a few of the primary authors of the US Constitution.

General Welfare:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 Madison 1865, I, page 546

Commerce Clause:

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government.”
– James Madison, Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829

The Elastic Clause:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”
– James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

The Constitution provides enumerated and “implied” powers to the Federal government, these make up the granted powers of the US Constitution. The primary enumerated powers are specifically defined in Article 1, Section 8. Coincidentally, they are also the powers of the congress, neither the President, nor Judicial branch can “exercise” these powers. The specific powers of the Executive and Judicial branches are listed at the bottom of this article. Learn more: How does the Constitution work?

Enumerated Powers of the Legislative Branch (Article 1, Section 8 )

1. lay and collect taxes (sections 2 and 8 )
2. borrow money on the credit of the United States (Debate to strike “and emit Bills”)
3. regulate commerce: interstate, foreign and among Indian tribes
4. establish uniform rules of naturalization (immigration) and bankruptcy
5. coin money, regulate the value thereof
6. punish for counterfeit of official US currency
7. est. post office and post roads
8. est. rules for rights to patents/copyrights
9. constitute tribunals
10. punish piracies and felonies of the high seas
11. declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal
12. raise and support armies, appropriations of money no longer than 2 years
13. provide and maintain navy
14. make rules to govern land and naval forces
15. call forth state militia to execute laws of union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
16. organize, arm, discipline the state militia (modern national guard…sort of)
17. establish DC not to exceed 10 sq. miles, likewise be authority over all places purchased with consent of state legislature for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other ‘needful buildings’
18. make all laws necessary for carrying out these powers

Implied powers are those powers which are allowed to the federal government to carry out the specifically enumerated powers. For instance, congress has the implied power to allow for funding of telephone and information networks for the use of government to carry out its enumerated powers. ie. they have the implied power to buy a telephone for GOVERNMENT USE.

This isn’t a GOP or DNC problem, they both have been violating the Constitution. Demand they stop!

Current unconstitutional initiatives (Short List):

• Federal Health Care Bill (Obama Care)
• Social Security
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• Federal Welfare
• Federal subsidies to farms, Amtrak and other industry
• The Federal Reserve (only congress has the power to coin and regulate the US dollar)
• Federal Drug War
• All Wars after WWII (none of which had formal declarations of war issued by congress)
• The SEC, FDA, DOE, DEA, ATF, FCC, etc.
• Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac
• Bailouts of GM, AIG, etc
• Federal regulation of “Arms”
• Cap and Trade (pending)

Referring to the 10th amendment, the States have the power over all of these, except coining money and declaring war.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
– 10th Amendment, US Constitution

What powers are prohibited to the States?

Article 1, Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States

No State shall:

• enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
• grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
• coin Money;
• emit Bills of Credit;
• make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
• pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress:

• lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
• lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

What Can We Do About it?

We have constantly moved away from our de-centralist roots toward a central/national government. How can we expect for there to be domestic tranquility when we are all casting our lots at the federal government? We have 300+ million people coming from 50 states with varying cultures, principles, values and ideals. The Constitution provides us with a structure whereby we can govern ourselves according to the differing ideals of the people among the various states.

However, we have to follow the Constitution! Forget about all of the frivolous hot button issues that keep us fighting over unauthorized federal power. If we expect a “solution” to our problems, it will come by decentralizing authority and bringing these issues home to the States and closer to the people. You want to live in a State that provides retirement insurance, health care, welfare, etc? Great, do it. Knock yourself out. But respect my right to live in a State that rejects these programs and leaves its People to otherwise live according to their own direction so long as they do not infringe upon the natural rights of others.

Our Constitutional Republic, although not perfect, offers solutions to our problems. We simply need to follow it. Ultimately, it is up to us to enforce it using the power of the State governments, but we have to know it first.

Learn about Nullification: A peaceful approach to fighting Federal Tyranny.

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” [Emphasis Added]
– James Madison, Federalist Papers #39

“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
– Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

“The true barriers of our liberty are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”
– James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution, June 6, 1788

Executive Powers (Article 2):

• Execute Federal Laws
• Serve as commander in Chief
• Commission U.S. military officers.
• Conduct foreign affairs
• Grant reprieves and pardons to Federal Offenders
• Veto Bills
• Convene and/or adjourn sessions of Congress under extraordinary circumstances.
• Make treaties (Subject to Senate confirmation)
• Temporarily fill vacancies that may occur during the recess of the Senate.
• Appoint Supreme Court justices and other Federal judges (Subject to Senate confirmation)
• Report to Congress on the State of the Nation.
• Recommend measures for the Congress to consider.

Judicial Powers (Article 3)
The power of the Federal Judiciary is limited to judging:

• All cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties
• All cases affecting ambassadors; other public ministries, and consuls
• All cases of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
• Controversies to which the U.S. is a party; and
• Controversies between two or more states, a state and the citizen of another states citizens of different states and citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states.