A Contrast of Pledges

March 11, 2016 Frank Kuchar

In the first paragraph of our Declaration of Independence it begins by unrolling a reference to human history as the canvass upon which the rest of the document will be painted. In the second paragraph it pivots to the principles that transcend human history as the bold brush with which what follows is to be painted and ends with a noble attestation.

Those who know anything of it usually can only recite some of the first sentence of that second paragraph and that closing phrase, but are totally unacquainted with the bulk of what comes in-between. Jefferson used a broad brush stroke to paint the background for the complaints of the colonies by painting the scene of government’s purpose and its relation to its citizens before returning to history to, with pinpoint strokes, sketch out the specifics of where the British government had failed in matching up to its obligatory “colors.”

Time and again he lays out the charge of the King’s (and Parliament’s) refusal to give heed to the concerns and welfare of the colonists. He enunciates this failure with one specific example after another and ties them back to their being a violation of the principles set forth in that second paragraph. If you take a few minutes to read them you can sense that many of these abuses could well be lodged against those who govern us in Washington, as well as in our state capitals and city halls.

However, a glaring contrast between now and then comes at the very end. After starting out with a reference to history, setting the foundation of unassailable principles, spelling out the particulars springing forth from them, Jefferson returns to the higher level of appealing to Him from whom the principles he enunciated spring from and closing with the noblest of pledges:

“we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Today, however, we hear quibbling over whether or not a candidate pledges to support his opponent who defeats him in a primary. Candidates are expected to pledge allegiance to their party’s “platform”, while their big money donors expect them to also pledge to do their bidding once the candidate is elected. Lost in all of this is the idea of pledging lives, fortunes and sacred honor. An elected official is to serve, i.e., to devote a limited portion of their lives in serving the lives of his/her fellow citizens; yet all too often they end up serving their own welfare. Instead of expending their fortunes, they enrich their fortunes by manipulating their positions of power to extract riches from others they hold at ransom under threat of legislating oppressive government legislation and/or regulation. And finally, we seldom see among them any semblance of honor.

In my first run for Congress, I came home after midnight one evening and couldn’t go to sleep. I’d re-read the Declaration the day before and suddenly a modern version of it started coming to me, so I got up and hurriedly wrote the following Declaration that you can access here below. I hope you find it encouraging.

Declaration of Reclamation

-March 11, 2016

Why the Electoral College – Part IV

March 4, 2016 Frank Kuchar

Having covered the historical background of what we commonly refer to as the “electoral college,” the question now is “What advantages does it have over the approach of electing the president and vice-president by direct popular vote?”

As I explained in Parts I and II, the elector approach serves to protect the foundation principles of our system of government, namely republicanism and federalism.

Second, pure democracy will ultimately result in the oppression of minority interests by the majority. The electoral college is designed to protect the interests of those in the minority and in fact, to enhance their interests.

Third, it helps contribute to the political stability of the nation by encouraging the existence of multiple political parties – or at least to preserve a two-party system at a minimum.

Fourth, it helps maintain the unity of the nation because it requires a distribution of the popular support across the country. This means that a candidate for the office of president must compete for the votes of all of the citizenry across the nation.

Without these last two mechanisms in place the election of the president and vice-president would come to be dominated by the larger population centers or regions, thus ignoring huge swaths of the country. A direct corollary to this would be the eventual disappearance of political parties and a real choice of candidates from which the citizens could choose. In the scenario where the president would be elected by direct popular vote, one party would gain the pre-eminence in those heavily populated areas and thus become the victor in every election.

An analysis conducted by the Washington Post following the 2008 election demonstrated that were we to change to electing the president by direct popular vote, the Democrat party would be that dominate party since the densely populated cities and their surrounding areas are in the Democrat camp. Furthermore, most of the country and citizens in-between the two coasts, with the exception of a few major cities, would be ignored because they would not be a factor in the outcome of the election.

In the final analysis, to abolish the current system and replace it with a direct popular election would forever change our entire system of government. We would very quickly coalesce into a true “national” government, further reducing the existence of the states to a level of irrelevance. In a word, we would cease to be a federal republic (I know, in many respects we’ve already ceased to be one). This was a major fear of many of our founders when the Constitution was proposed and why they gave us this ingenious system we call “the electoral college.” I hope then that these four essays will help you understand why we must keep it intact and give you the information to better educate those you meet who think our system needs to be cast aside.

-March 4, 2016

The Federal Government’s Obligations to the States

January 29, 2016January 30, 2016 Frank Kuchar

When we look at the intrusiveness of the federal government into our lives, we should step back and ask “Where is my state government?” It was the states, acting as independent nation-states which agreed to join together as a union under a federal constitution instead of its then current confederacy. In so doing, they did not give up their independence or authority completely, but only in certain limited, defined areas. It was the intent of our founders that the state legislatures should be our protectors against assaults against our liberties and the authority of the states by the federal government, as noted by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 85:

“We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.”

In examining the areas in which the federal government is to act in behalf of the states, they are limited (in broad manner) to the following:

From Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

To negotiate on behalf of the states with foreign nations in matters of commerce or other treaties;
To establish laws regulating naturalization as it relates to citizenship;
To coin money as a uniform standard of exchange among the states (an action prohibited to the states in Section 9);
To establish post offices and post roads between the states;
To provide for a military in defense of the states.

From Article III, Section 2:

To act as an arbitrator in disputes between two or more states.

From Article IV:

Section 2 – To guarantee the rights of citizens in each state are honored by the other states.
Section 4 –
- To guarantee that each state shall have a republican form of government;
- To protect the states from invasion and aiding in curbing domestic violence when requested by the legislature of the state in need of assistance.

In light of these I ask – “How’s the national government doing in regards to fulfilling its obligations?” I can’t see where it is earning a passing grade in any of these areas. Our biggest problem in the destruction of our liberties by the national government stems, I believe, from its utter rejection of its first obligation in Article IV, Section 4 above.

Consider the recent ruling of the SCOTUS on marriage in which it has forced states that have previously rejected recognition of gay marriage that they must do so. When citizens of a state through their representatives have said they do not wish to recognize such marriages are told by the national government they must, then the republican form of government in that state has been destroyed. Or again, if the citizens of a state through their legislators decide they wish to have restrictive gun laws, for the national government to step in and countermand the laws of that state, then once more, the republican form of government in that state has been destroyed.

There are many more such examples I could list similar to these two, but I hope you see the point. The federal government is restricted to a few and defined (in the words of James Madison) areas, and those left to the states are broad and undefined. I would submit that given the current condition of world affairs, the federal government should butt out of the business of the states and start concentrating on its obligations to the states, and that it is time for the states to start demanding that the federal government honor its obligations, starting with the one in Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1.

-January 29, 2016

This Land’s NOT Your Land, This Land’s NOT My Land…

January 29, 2016 Frank Kuchar

I remember singing “This land is your land, this land is my land” in elementary music classes, but my how the sentiment has changed from “is” to “not”! We have witnessed some startling developments as related to our Constitutional rights this past week in the confrontation between rancher Cliven Bundy and the Federal Department of the Bureau of Land Management. You can read the news stories and blog essays about what happened there but I want to take a few paragraphs to delve below the surface of these events.

(As an aside, in the standoff between armed citizens and those armed members of this government agency, we have witnessed the precise reason why we have the second amendment right to bear arms – to resist the tyrannical overreach of the central government as well as the further trampling upon our Constitutional right of free speech when these government agents limited such speech to only certain restricted areas.)

There are some basic Constitutionally-related issues that need to be addressed. First, who controls the land that is in dispute, and the corollary to it, who should control that land, Nevada or Washington DC? Second, should any government entity control the land to begin with? Third, if the land is “owned” by the state of Nevada, under what Constitutional authority does the federal government have in interfering with how the land is used?

Let us begin by turning to our Constitution and reading what properties it authorizes the general government to “own”. Article I Section 8 lists the “enumerated powers” of the general government, and within those powers are given the kinds of properties it may possess: (1) Post offices and post roads, (2) the District of the seat of the government, (3) Forts, (4) Magazines, (5) Arsenals, (6) Dockyards, and (7) other “needful” buildings. All of these properties were to be purchased by the general government upon the consent of legislature of the state from which the property was to be acquired. The Union of the States did acquire property by other means, namely purchasing land from foreign countries (e.g., the “Louisiana Purchase”, Alaska) or as a result of war (Arizona, New Mexico, California, etc). However, once these territories were divided into states, those states became as much a sovereign entity as the original thirteen. Further, Article IV, Section 3 states that Congress shall have the power to either dispose of its territory or property as well as “make all needful Rules and Regulations” regarding said territory.

The general government owns approximately 85% of the state of Nevada, which pretty much destroys any notion of state sovereignty as far as the citizens of Nevada are concerned. There is a dispute in this case as to whether or not the grazing range used by Mr. Bundy is federal or, as he alleges, land properly belonging to Nevada. It appears that the property is technically federal land. So the question is, does the property in Nevada at the heart of the dispute fall into any of those seven categories of property listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and if not, then even though Nevada may have at some point ceded the land to the general government, such would be an unconstitutional exchange. The federal government has no business being in possession of that land. It should belong to the citizens of Nevada to either sell to private individuals/companies or lease to ranchers such as Mr. Bundy.

Therefore, since the “federal” government has no constitutional right to own that land, the land should revert back to the state of Nevada, and as Nevada is a sovereign entity, the “federal” government has no right to interfere in how the land is used. This is why I advocate for the return of all lands and property currently owned by the general government that do not fall within those above listed categories of the Constitution back to the states wherein such property is located.

-April 23, 2014

2016 – The Obamacare Hammer Has Dropped

January 22, 2016 Frank Kuchar

This year, in addition to receiving your W-2 tax form from your employer, you are going to receive a Form 1095-C. This is a form that is now required under the so-called “Affordable Care Act.” Unless you work in your company’s payroll or benefits’ departments, you are probably not aware of the burden these departments are experiencing in producing these forms. As I am a payroll and benefits professional and have just finished completing these forms for my employer, allow me to share just how burdensome these reporting requirements are on businesses. (Oh, by the way, the Act also requires your insurance carrier to send you a Form 1095-B as well).

The form requires employers to indicate on one line whether or not you were offered insurance coverage that met the minimum standards as required by the Act. There are a number of different codes that must be used, depending upon certain parameters. Unless the code is the same for all twelve months of the year, the proper code for each month must be recorded in a box for that month. On a second line, businesses are required to record in a box for each month, unless it was the same for all twelve, whether you enrolled in the coverage offered, or if not, the appropriate code indicating why you didn’t (e.g., you were not an employee at the time, you were an employee but was in a probationary period, etc.). Obviously the codes in each month’s box on these two lines must match up (in other words, you could not have the code for having been offered insurance on one line if on the second line the code indicates you were not yet an employee).

If your company has the misfortune to be “self-insured”, it must also list the names of the dependents covered under the plan as well as their social security numbers (the employer is expected to make at least three “good faith” efforts to obtain these numbers in case they are not in a database kept by the company).

Unless you work for a large company that has a robust payroll/benefits accounting system that has been modified to track and produce this data, this information is not readily available in their databases. Consequently it must be compiled from perhaps multiple places into an Excel spreadsheet for example and then merged into a template (that you have to create) so that you can then print the information onto the required form in the proper boxes.

Once these are distributed to the employees, the employer must then report a summary of this information on a Form 1094 which requires a month-by-month accounting of how many employees were active on a particular day of the month and how many of them were eligible for insurance as of the first of that month. This form and a copy of all of the Form 1095-Cs must then be forwarded to the IRS so that the Obamacare “Gestapo” can be sure that you have the required coverage and if not, to impose a penalty – oh excuse me Chief Justice Roberts – a tax on you for your failure to acquire the mandated minimum coverage (or fine your employer for not offering the required insurance).

So now you have an insider’s perspective on the regulatory hammer that has fallen on both your employer and insurance carrier. With these compliance costs hammering businesses and insurers, is it any wonder that premiums are going up and businesses are reluctant to hire more full-time employees or have the profits necessary to expand and hire?

-January 22, 2016

Jefferson & Madison’s Answer to Federal Overreach

December 18, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Rumors are swirling that once again President Obama is going to not only exceed federal constitutional authority, but also his presidential authority by issuing additional gun control regulations via executive order. Since Congress lacks the will to carry out its constitutional obligation to impeach him and remove him from office, what alternatives are left to us? To answer that question I want to take us back to the early years of our republic when the Federalists controlled the presidency (John Adams) as well as both houses of congress.

In June 1798, Congress passed and President Adams signed The Alien and Seditions Act, which was an abusive violation of individual rights and the Constitution as far as some of the citizens of Kentucky and Virginia were concerned. In response Jefferson wrote on behalf of the state government of Kentucky what we today know as “The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798”, and he convinced Madison to do the same for the state of Virginia (“The Virginia Resolutions of 1798”). In both of these documents they laid out the case that this legislation was in violation of the Constitution. Jefferson more stridently declared no less than five times that the state of Kentucky held the legislation to be “altogether void and of no force.”

Madison’s draft was not as forceful as that of Jefferson’s and was much shorter, but in both cases these two giants of constitutional republicanism and federalism appealed to their sister-states to join them in resisting this law. Madison summed up the appeal at the end of his resolutions with these words:

“…the General Assembly [of Virginia] doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for cooperating with this State in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties, reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In his appeal, Jefferson went so far as to declare that “every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.” Yet he also expressed the same approach as Madison that all of the states should band together in opposition to this usurpation by the “General Government” – “…that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

When Obamacare was enacted over thirty states filed suit with the Supreme Court as to its unconstitutionality, and we all know how Chief Justice Roberts’ twisted logic blunted that effort. What should have been done regarding that legislation, and as Jefferson stated about “these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution“, was to band together with the legislatures of each of them issuing the same kind of declaration as Jefferson and Madison did on behalf of Kentucky and Virginia in 1798.

Unfortunately, Jefferson’s and Madison’s pleadings fell on deaf ears, and so the Act remained in effect until Jefferson was elected president and the Democrat-Republicans gained control of Congress in 1801 when they repealed the law. However, consider this scenario: over 30 states (or more) join hands and stand up as a united group against these onerous overreaches of the general government, be it Obamacare, the EPA, you name it; what would be the likelihood that Washington could roll over that many states like they might be able to do to one or a few?

If you read The Federalist Papers, the debates of the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions as well as the writings of the Anti-Federalists, you will hear one common argument among them all – namely, “in our political system…the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28). It’s time for the states today to stand upon the shoulders of Jefferson and Madison and follow their lead.

-December 18, 2015

For Whom Was the Constitution Written?

December 12, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has been under fire for his statement that we should ban all Muslim immigration and visa visitors for a temporary span of time until we can better vet the background of these individuals. I have heard several criticisms of this proposal that are both ludicrous and ignorant. Senator and presidential candidate Marco Rubio has stated that such a prohibition is unconstitutional. Others state that it violates the principle of freedom of religion as espoused in the first amendment. A third claim made Thursday evening by former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was that “we do not have the right” to prohibit a group or class of individuals from entry into our country.

The first objection that it is unconstitutional belies a lack of understanding of our Constitution (something I would think an attorney, Senator and President-wanna-be should know). To support this assertion we must ask “For whom was the Constitution written?” One needs look no further than the Preamble to the Constitution to ascertain the answer to this question.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It was the citizens of the several states through either direct election (Rhode Island) or through their representatives in either their legislatures or conventions who comprised “We the People.” This did not include everyone who resided in the territory of the states at that time. It wasn’t until the passage of the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments that the securities of the Constitution were expanded to those previously enslaved (both black and white). The Constitution was ordained and established for the citizens of “the United States”, not “we the people of the world.” The Constitution says nothing about our obligation or requirement to admit any and all who wish to enter our borders.

Having established that the sureties given in the Constitution are for citizens, not for any and everyone who comes or wants to come to our shores, the answer to the second objection is also rendered moot. However, I will make just a couple of brief points on it specifically. There are only three references to religion in the Constitution. Article VII references the date of the finalization of the Constitution as being “in the Year of our Lord,” a common phrase that has nothing to do with the practice of a religion. The first amendment has two clauses referencing religion, namely that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

By prohibiting the importation of those practicing Islam the federal government is not “establishing a religion” for the United States. Nor is the government prohibiting these individuals from “the free exercise” of their religion – they are at liberty to practice it in their home countries or some other Islamic country. It is no different than when a couple of years ago we prohibited individuals from countries experiencing an outbreak of Ebola from migrating en mass to our shores.

Finally, the statement that we have “no right” to prohibit any group of individuals from entering our land is patently absurd. Coming to the United States and living among us is a privilege, not a “right.” A true “right” is of the caliber identified by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence, i.e., one that comes from our Creator. Migrating to one country from another falls far short of this bar. I might add to this that citizenship is also in this category inasmuch as citizenship can be taken away or revoked by the government since it is the entity that bestows citizenship (see Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution). It is the inalienable “right” of the citizens of this country to be secure in their life and liberty and it is the responsibility granted to the government by those citizens to make those rights secure, which includes keeping out those who might do harm to those rights.

One final question to be addressed, is “Why not adopt the position of Senator Rand Paul and only limit Muslims from a list of countries known to pose a threat?” To answer this I merely point to the recent atrocities in Paris, France. Some of those perpetrators came across the French border from other European countries. There are millions of Muslims living in France, England, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc., and if these countries were not part of the “list” of forbidden countries, then there would be no way we could prevent Muslim radicals from entering the US from one of those nations.

It Is past time that our leaders quit being so “politically correct” and began looking out for the welfare and safety of Americans first. If you would not throw open the doors to your home and let anyone and everyone enter and live with you without first thoroughly ensuring they posed no threat to your family, then neither should we do so to our country, “America, my home sweet home.”

-December 11, 2015

The Refugee Crisis: Showdown between Federal and State Sovereignty

December 4, 2015 Frank Kuchar

A number of states are forbidding the federal government from settling within their jurisdictions some of the thousands of Syrian refugees President Obama wants to admit into the US. The President has declared that he will force the states to accept however many of these refugees as he sees fit, and so the stage is set for a major constitutional showdown, like two gunslingers in an old western movie squaring off against one another.

The outcome of this confrontation is far more critical to the future of what’s left of our republic than the welfare of these refugees. It goes to the very heart of the structure of our federally constituted republic and whether or not we shall finally fall into the pit feared by the Anti-Federalists at the time of the ratification of the Constitution by becoming a singular nationalized country instead of a union of independent, sovereign states.

To begin with, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority over the matter of granting refugees admittance. You can read it forwards and backwards, but that enumerated power is not stipulated. This being the case, then this authority must be a power retained by the citizens of the several states, who in their capacity as a body politic, according to the tenth amendment, have every right to make the determination as to the settlement of refugees within their borders.

How is it then that we have reached this juncture of a constitutional crisis over who has authority over immigration policy? Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution stipulates that “Congress shall have the power…to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,…” At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there was a distinct difference in meaning between the terms “naturalization” and “immigration”, and they were not synonymous. For the first one hundred years of our history the federal government was only concerned with legislation which laid down the requirements aliens would have to satisfy to become citizens of the United States, while the states enacted their own laws regarding who would be permitted to enter their borders. It was not until the late 1800s that Congress began to enact immigration legislation. Over the past 130 or so years the courts have gradually upheld the federal government’s assumption of this power, but with varying degrees of suspect constructions (which makes this assumption on the part of the federal government even more dubious). The conventional argument is that the naturalization clause of the Constitution includes the authority over immigration as well, but such was not the meaning understood by the original authors of the Constitution. Note the absurd contortion Justice Kennedy resorted to in upholding this argument in the 2012 case of Arizona v. United States:

“The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,’ U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….”

In order to substantiate that naturalization includes authority over immigration, he has to fall back on the authority of the federal government to deal with foreign nations. Really? Such so-called reasoning flies in the face of etymology and our early history (which would be the best indicator of which “sphere of influence” this matter resided).

In light of this and President Obama’s threat, we need to step back and consider the structure of the relationship between the federal government and the states as it was originally intended. In his throwing down of the gauntlet over this issue, the President is claiming that the federal government can set aside the wishes of the citizens of a state in regards to matters that are constitutionally retained by them.

The question becomes, ”Does this assertation comport to the form of the union created by the Constitution?” Our system vests sovereignty in but one place – the people of the several, yet united, states. The sovereign people of the states agreed to grant authority (or limited sovereignty if you will) to two spheres – the federal and state governments – via constitutions. It is in the US Constitution we see the spheres of authority between these two entities clearly delineated, and that neither “sphere” is permitted to invade that of the other.

In Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated, published in 1820, John Taylor of Caroline, after quoting both Madison’s and Hamilton’s comments to this point in The Federalist Papers, succinctly summed up this principle with these words:

“The co-ordinacy of institution, the independence of each other, and the mutuality of the right of construing the federal constitution, are thus recognised and asserted, as existing in the federal and state governments; and the principle, which pervades the whole, must also pervade the parts. If the entire federal government possesses no supremacy over, and can require no subordination from the entire state governments, whilst acting within their respective spheres, no part or department of that government can exert a supremacy over, or exact a subordination from, the corresponding parts or departments of the state governments.”

To apply this to our current showdown between the states and President Obama, if the matter of admitting refugees is a matter left to the discretion of the states, and “If the entire federal government possesses no supremacy over, and can require no subordination from the entire state governments,” then for Obama to claim he can force the states to do otherwise is to turn Taylor’s principle on its head, namely, that if one part of the federal government can eviscerate the authority of the states in one matter, then the entire federal government can do likewise in all areas, and the significance of even the semblance of states’ existence is reduced to the theatre of the absurd.

It may well be that having the federal government control those permitted to immigrate into the United States, especially in this day and time, is the best course of action; but as Chief Justice John Marshall stated in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, “The peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.”

-December 4, 2015

The Nail in the EPA’s Coffin

November 27, 2015 Frank Kuchar

Today, the EPA is invading the states and infringing upon the liberties of individual citizens by destroying their private property rights. Our founders would be aghast at such actions by an arm of what is supposed to be our “federal” government.

The Constitution and the federal government were established not by “We the People” of one unified body, but rather by “We the People” of the several states, and as such the “federal” government is to be subject to the sovereignty of the people of those several states (space does not permit an exegesis of the 9th and 10th amendments to show that the usage of the terms “states” and “people” refer to one and the same group, just in different capacities).

The people of the several states agreed between themselves to grant certain and limited powers to the federal government, as was affirmed by James Madison in Federalist #45:

“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.”

Clearly, the people of the several states acting in their sovereign capacity never conferred upon the “federal” government the authority to regulate their private property, especially as exemplified in the tyranny of the EPA. However, the nail in the EPA’s coffin can be found in statements contained within the state constitutions of these original thirteen states. They clearly demonstrate the intent of their citizens as to the exclusivity of their rights when it comes to matters within their respective states. Herewith are just a few examples:

New Hampshire: “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.”

Massachusetts: “The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.”

Maryland: “That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”

North Carolina: “The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof,”

One has to ask the “federal” government and its agencies such as the EPA, what parts of ” The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state,” or ” The people of this State have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof” do they not understand?

Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. It is clear from the examples of the state constitutions quoted above as well as Madison’s assertion in the Federalist Papers that the actions of the EPA violate this guarantee and these state constitutions. It destroys the representative form of the states’ governments and seeks to nullify these affirmations contained within their respective constitutions. It is therefore past time that governors and state legislators stand up and reassert their state and federally guaranteed constitutional powers and put the nail in the EPA’s (and its sibling agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and Department of Agriculture) coffin once and for all.

-November 27, 2015

Freedom, Liberty – What’s the Difference?

November 13, 2015 Frank Kuchar

You say “tAmato”, I say “tOOmato”, what’s the difference? Well a similar question could be raised in our usage of the terms “freedom” and “liberty”. Today we use these two terms virtually interchangeably, and perhaps that is correct as they are synonyms for the same concept.

Perhaps I’m splitting hairs on this, but permit me to suggest that perhaps there is a subtle difference between them. Yes, they both embody the same concept, but how these two terms point up that concept I think are quite the opposite of each other.

Freedom, to me, comes at this concept from a negative position. By this I mean that it is stating that we are “free from” something, i.e. we are no longer under the control or constraints of someone or something. We speak of someone who has beaten cancer or some other terrible disease for a period of time as being “free from” or “free of” that ailment. The term implies that previously you lacked this concept, but now you have it.

On the other hand, liberty approaches the same idea but from a more positive position and one that is dependent upon freedom. Sometimes we use the word in the phrase “to be at liberty”, meaning you are able to do something or go somewhere. Sailors who arrive in port are given “liberty”, indicating they have the right to come and go as they please and do what they please (within reason of course!).

But, you might say, what about that Southwest Airlines’ commercial where they say “You are now free to move about the country”? Isn’t that really a use I’m ascribing to the term “liberty”? Not really. In effect, the message of the commercial is “You are no longer constrained to one geographical location” (i.e. you have been freed) “and you are ‘at liberty'” (i.e., have the ability) “to move wherever you wish.”

Splitting hairs you say? Yes, maybe I am. But here’s my point about our present condition under this government – we are losing our freedom daily, meaning we are once again coming under the bondage of tyranny, and thereby losing our liberty to live life as we please. Liberty, Jefferson said, is an unalienable right, but as we lose our freedom to the tyranny of an unconstitutional government, that right will be withheld from us.

– November 13, 2015