The word republic is from the Latin res, which means thing, affair or interest, and publica which means of everybody. It literally means everybody's thing or interest.
The essence of a republic is the rule of law, by which is meant the common or scientific law, which is certain and unchangeable. This law is discovered, not made, in that the tendency is to find the freedoms and restraints imposed by natural law, and base decisions upon them. ("Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them," wrote Tom Paine.) Since human nature doesn't change, what was right yesterday should be so today and tomorrow. Courts seek out and enforce a higher law as opposed to political or man-made law. As a result, the law seeks truth, transcends politics, is reasonable, consistent, predictable, and reflects or approximates natural justice. Government acts like a shield punishing the abuses of freedoms - assaults against the life, liberty, and property of innocent people - not the freedoms themselves. For example, the misuse of a firearm which results in injury to an innocent party would be punished rather than the mere possession of such a weapon. Officers of the law are appropriately called peace officers, for they do not enforce political law, but protect everyone equally from force and fraud. The military is used as a last resort to protect the nation. Moral authority rests outside the political class who are held to a high moral standard through public pressure. Government's purpose is to protect rights and defend freedom. Taxes are voluntary assessments used to fund legitimate government functions serving the common good (in obedience to John Adams' dictum that "No man may be taxed against his will. . . ." ).
To rally with other like minded patriots about the Federal Reserve system. To educate those who come, or are just around, about the FED, what it has done to our country and HOW to end it.
There will also be petitions for Nancy Pelsoi and Harry Reid to bring 1207 and 604 to the floor for a no change up-and-down vote, and one for Mary Landrieu to co-sponsor 604.
There will be several guest speakers. To be updated later when final plans are made.
So, make plans now to attend. We'll have a great time telling the Federal Reserve their days are numbered!
Don't assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) extremist version of healthcare reform wouldn't have supported it if their votes had been needed. The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook.
Knowing that the bill will likely be political suicide for any red-state Democratic congressman, particularly if he or she is a freshman, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed the political cover the most. That there would be 38 Democrats who would oppose the bill was pre-ordained. Who they would be was the subject of negotiations right up to the wire.
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
document.context='YjoyOTAzfA==';
// -->
Any real chance that the bill could have been defeated ended with the approval of the anti-abortion amendment. But there remained the question of how to keep the marginal Democrats in Congress and the party in power.
The chicanery and deception that led up to the vote underscore the myth of the moderate Democrat. The entire Democratic Caucus - with pitifully few exceptions - was committed to passing the healthcare bill. Had it needed all 258 Democrats to vote yes, the bill would have come awfully close.
But the Democratic margin in the House meant that the leaders did not need 258 Democrats, they only needed 219. So they let the most marginal among them off the hook and allowed them to vote against the bill, preserving their chances at reelection.
The real question facing the voters is whether they will be deceived by this sleight of hand in which moderate Democrats pretend that the bill was passed over their objections. Will the voters buy their claims that it became law despite their best efforts?
Once, the voters might have fallen for this trickery. But not now. The electorate is far too well-informed to believe that any Democratic congressman really opposed this bill.
The days of the Democrats who live in red states and who let this bill pass, whether they nominally voted for it or not, are numbered. They could not and would not read the handwriting on the walls of New Jersey and Virginia and are about to suffer the fate of their ancestors in 1994 who disregarded similar warnings. Their political careers are about to come to an end.
In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed, there can be no such shell games. All Democrats must report for duty for this bill to pass. So Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) have a serious decision to make. They have no place to hide.
And should Harry Reid invoke the reconciliation option, he would face other defections from Democrats who realize that they, too, might one day be in the minority and need the filibuster to maintain their relevance in the future.
For now, all Democrats should compare the results in Virginia and New Jersey in 1993 and in 2009.
In Virginia, in both years, an incumbent Democrat sat in the statehouse but was not permitted to run again. In both years, the Republican won the governorship by identical 58-41 margins.
In New Jersey, in both years, the incumbent Democratic governor sought another term and lost: in 1993 by 49-48 and in 2009 by 49-45.
If any Democratic congressman is naïve enough to believe that a debacle in 2010 will not follow the forecasts of 2009 as surely as the deluge of 1994 followed the precursor of 1993, he doesn't deserve to be in Congress. And he won't be.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage and Fleeced. To get all of his and Eileen McGann's columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Catastrophe, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president's healthcare reforms.
Yesterday, I was involved in a lively debate on Afghanistan on Alan Colmes' Internet show. Among the questions Alan asked me whether I was "justifying" what the Ft. Hood killer did and what the terrorists did on 9/11.
What he was referring to was my contention that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been - and continues to be - the root cause of the anger and rage that motivates people to retaliate against the United States.
I responded to Colmes by stating that motivation is different from justification.
Let's assume that you learn that a man is trying to kill you. You think to yourself, "I haven't done anything to justify being killed by this man."
I say to you, "Maybe you ought to learn what the man's motive is. Motive is different from justification."
You telephone the guy and ask, "Why are you trying to kill me?"
The man says, "Because I happen to own the ranch adjacent to yours. Every week, you trespass onto my land and kill snakes on my property."
You respond, "But I'm doing it for your benefit. Why are you trying to kill me for that?"
He responds, "I'm a naturalist. I don't want any animals killed on my ranch. And you're killing snakes on my land without my permission or consent."
Now, clearly your actions don't justify that man's attempts to kill you. Human life trumps environmental concerns. He has alternative remedies, such as going to court and seeking injunctive relief.
Nonetheless, while the man isn't justified in trying to kill you, understanding his motive might cause you to change your behavior. You think to yourself, "I'm in the wrong here. Even though I meant well, I was breaking the law and violating his property rights by trespassing onto his land and killing the snakes. It's not worth my life. I'm going to stop doing it."
At that point, it's likely that the man will stop trying to kill you. Sure, it's possible that he might still try to kill you for previous trespasses and snake killings, but since you've stopped doing it, the man's anger and rage is likely to dissipate because the source of continued anger and rage has been removed.
Thus, once we understand the motive of people who are intent on doing harm to the United States, the solution becomes obvious: Stop the sanctions and embargoes. Stop the invasions and occupations. Stop the killings, maiming, torture, and abuse. Stop the bombings. Stop the drone attacks. Stop the destruction. Immediately withdraw all troops and bring them home. Terminate all foreign aid, not only to Israel, Egypt, Saud Arabia, and Jordan but also to every other regime in the world. Stop the U.S. government from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
Sure, it's theoretically possible that people might still want to retaliate for what the U.S. government has done in the past, but the likelihood is that once the U.S. government leaves people over there alone, people over there will return to their normal lives of making a living, raising a family, and so forth.
Why don't U.S. officials favor examination into motive and instead do their best to confuse it with justification? Because they're afraid that once Americans understand why foreigners are trying to kill them, Americans might demand an end to the U.S. government's imperial overseas empire and its omnipotent power to sanction, embargo, invade, occupy, kill, maim, torture, and imprison people all over the world.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation
This past Saturday the Republican State Central Committee unanimously passed resolutions in opposition of Cap & Trade (HR 2454) and support for the Natural Gas Act of 2009 (HR 1835). Text of each resolution can be found here http://larepublican.blogspot.com/.
How can Congress get around the Tenth Amendment and regulate almost every aspect of American life?
One way is by claiming that the Tenth Amendment doesn't apply because Congress is merely acting within the scope of its enumerated powers. But to make this claim, one must assume that some of the enumerated powers are much broader than they really are.
One of the enumerated powers cited by advocates of the modern monster-state is the Commerce Power. This derives primarily from two sources:
(1) the Constitution's grant to Congress of authority to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States" and
(2) the Constitution's grant to Congress of authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers. . ."
According to promoters of the monster-state, those constitutional phrases go further than allowing Congress to regulate trade among the states. They also allow Congress to control manufacturing, wages, agriculture, crime, mining, land use, firearm possession, and a range of other activities.
How can they justify this? Basically, they make two arguments. The first argument was spun during the New Deal by a University of Chicago law professor. (Too many law professors spend entirely too much time fabricating constitutional theories to promote big government.)
This professor argued that during the Founding Era the word "commerce" meant more than trade. Instead, he contended, "commerce" included all gainful economic activities. Hence Congress has a license to regulate the entire economy.
An even broader version of this theory was published more recently by a Yale law professor. He maintains that "commerce" means any human interaction - so the federal government can regulate almost anything, so long as it doesn't trample one of the specific guarantees in the Constitution, such as Free Speech.
On investigation, however, the claim that "commerce" meant "all gainful activities" or "all interactions" turns out to be completely untrue. It flies in the face of much of what we know about the Founding Era, including specific representations by leading Founders that most regulation would be reserved to the states.
But because it is sometimes necessary to prove the obvious, several other academics (such as Georgetown University's Randy Barnett and I) have examined literally thousands of appearances of the word "commerce" in the historical records from the Founding Era. And those records show clearly that "Commerce" in the Constitution means trade and associated activities, but no more (e.g., http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson/articles/Commerce%20Clause.pdf).
The second argument for an almost unlimited Commerce Power currently prevails on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Don't let anyone tell you the present court is "conservative" on such matters.) This argument acknowledges that when the Founders wrote "Commerce," they meant only trade and a few allied activities, such as navigation.
But it goes on to say that modern economic life, unlike life during the Founding Era, is highly interdependent, so it is now "necessary and proper" for Congress to regulate everything that substantially affects commerce.
But this argument also ignores history. Economic interdependence is nothing new: the promoters of the Constitution themselves emphasized it. But they also assured the public that, interdependent or not, most activities could be regulated only by the states.
They added that the Necessary and Proper Clause added nothing to federal authority, but merely clarified that the legal "doctrine of incidental powers" applied to the Constitution. And no power could be "incidental" if its scope swamped the principal power. In other words, Congress couldn't take over a big field like manufacturing or agriculture on the pretense of regulating commerce.
If the Supreme Court were doing its job in this area, it would restrict Congress to the authority granted by the people through the Constitution. Because the Court is not doing what it should, it is up to the people to recall the federal government to its constitutional limits.
Rob Natelson is Professor of Law at The University of Montana, and a leading constitutional scholar. (See www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm.) His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.
One of the fascinating aspects of the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan is how so many Americans, prodded by their rulers, have convinced themselves that U.S. troops are killing and dying to "protect our freedoms." All across America - in churches, sports events, airports, and the like - people steadfastly maintain their sweet, innocent mindsets as they "support the troops" in their effort to heroically spread freedom, democracy, and the American way of life and protect Americans from the terrorists.
The late psychiatrist M. Scott Peck pointed out that mental health involves a fierce commitment to reality at all costs. Those who live a life of self-deception will ultimately pay a severe price in terms of psychosis and mental instability.
It would be difficult to find a better example of self-deception than what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. People seem to operate under the assumption that if they just continue to believe a false reality about what's going on, the false reality will become reality.
Here's the reality on the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan: These are no-good, dirty, rotten, crooked, corrupt, murderous, and destructive operations that are making the American people less safe and less secure as each day passes.
Bribery of government officials, crooked elections, the killing and maiming of countless people who had nothing to do with 9/11, torture and sex abuse, forced exile of millions of people, widespread bombings, major destruction of towns and cities, intentional lies and deceptions, arbitrary arrests , indefinite incarcerations, denial of freedom of speech, due process of law, and other fundamental rights, assassinations, and major narcotics dealing, not to mention the production of new terrorists with each passing day as well as impending monetary catastrophe arising from out-of-control federal spending, debt, taxation, and inflation to pay for this madness.
That's the reality. That's what U.S. troops are dying for. Not for freedom. Not for democracy. Not for the American way of life. They're dying for a façade that covers up no-good, rotten, crooked, corrupt, murderous, and destructive enterprises that are taking our country down.
And it's also what they're killing, maiming, kidnapping, renditioning, and torturing people for. It's what they're destroying Iraq and Afghanistan for.
No wonder so many U.S. troops are returning home all screwed up in the head. Scott Peck was right - those who deny reality will suffer psychosis and other mental problems. One can only wonder how this psychological phenomenon will play out among the people here at home who continue to delude themselves about what the troops are engaged in over there.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
