Yesterday, a husband, father of six young sons, and LDS Bishop was murdered inside the chapel in which he was serving. In response to this tragic event, I established a fundraiser to help raise money for the family.

My mother and I distributed the link to friends and family, with an initial goal of $2,000. That goal was met within four hours, and has steadily been increased since then as the response has now become overwhelming. I have spent the entire morning today talking to reporters and answering questions about this fundraising effort.

Some have wondered if I am a scammer hoping to fly off to Hawaii with the money. Those who know me personally, frequent this blog, or follow me through Facebook or Twitter have thankfully stepped in to vouch for my integrity and sincere intent. 100% of the funds received are being sent directly to the Sannar family, to be used at their discretion.

I have been absolutely amazed and humbled by this. I was not looking to be in the middle of this initiative, nor do I have the desire for any limelight. I simply wanted to raise a few dollars that could be sent as an expression of love and support from afar. At the time of publishing this post, we’re now over $17,000 in donations received.

Thank you. Thank you. I am so humbled by good, generous people. I’m sure that for some, this effort has restored some semblance of faith in humanity, and our collective ability as Latter-day Saints to succor those in need.

If you can, please donate, and help spread the word.

———

Here are some of the news stories and blog posts that have been produced:

• LDS bishop shot and killed at church in California (FOX 13 video)
• Utah County residents pledge online for murdered LDS bishop (Daily Herald article)
• Web fund hits $60,000 for slain bishop’s family (Daily Herald article)
• Donation site for Sannar family is the real thing (Visalia Times Delta article)
• Slain LDS bishop remembered (ABC4 article)
• KNRS radio interview
• Using Social Media for Good: Fundraising for Slain LDS Bishop (LDS Media Talk blog post)
• Death of Mormon Bishop Prompts Kindness, Donations (Mormon Soprano blog post)

…and several other interviews, the recordings/articles of which I’ve not been able to find. I don’t know 3/4 of the news agencies I spoke to today. :P

***************

The four questions I was asked, including my replies (far more lengthy, of course, than can be included in a column) follow below:

Why is the Arizona law in violation of conservative principles?

What are conservative principles? They’re often referred to but not too often defined, especially when their application to a controversial issue might cause the serious thinker to question his/her position. As I see it, conservative principles that relate to immigration include: limited, constitutional government; free enterprise, free association, and freedom to contract; a firm regard for the individual rights of all God’s children; and a proper respect for private property.

Supporters of Arizona’s law (and the imitation laws springing up in several other states, including Utah, courtesy of Representative Sandstrom) are quick to say that it merely enforces federal law. Thus, the question is not so much why Arizona’s law violates the above-mentioned principles, but why federal immigration laws run afoul of them.

Our current immigration laws are a violation of the Constitution. Nowhere did the states delegate to the federal government the authority to regulate and restrict the migration of individuals who pose no threat to others’ rights. The federal government has been given authority over naturalization (which is citizenship), and rightly so. But since the late 1800s, the federal government, supported in at every turn by a compliant Supreme Court, has arrogated to itself the authority; when challenged, its supporters have pointed to no less than five areas in the Constitution for support — each one problematic and rebuttable. If the states meant to delegate this authority, they would have explicitly done so. Barring a constitutional amendment doing just that, the states retain the authority to manage immigration, just as they once did for the first century of America’s existence. Federal immigration laws being thus unconstitutional, any state that relies upon them violates constitutional principles as well.

With immigration laws targeting employers as a means to somehow discourage “illegal immigration” (and ignoring the unintended consequence of an increase in identity fraud to circumvent the onerous laws), free enterprise, association, and contract go out the window. If I want to hire an individual for a lower wage, be he uneducated, a teenager, or a Mexican, why should the law intervene? I have harmed nobody, and only seek to use my money and property as I please to engage in moral, lawful, and mutually-voluntary commerce. Protectionists often argue that this “steals” jobs from Americans and depresses wages, but principled conservatives must reject such arguments since technology and teenagers do the very same thing. Nobody complains when groceries are made more affordable and computer costs go down. An increase in efficiency and reduction in price are laudable goals, especially when we secure free enterprise and the right to contract in the process.

As it relates to individual rights, our immigration laws pay little to no concern. Somehow limited-government conservatives have come to embrace a huge bureaucratic apparatus which has the power to separate families, deport peaceful, productive individuals, and drown would-be immigrants in a sea of red tape, long lines, and processing fees. If we conservatives truly believe that our Creator has endowed every person with unalienable rights, we would do well to ponder just how that applies to immigration. While it’s certainly reasonable that we exclude individuals who have communicable diseases or a criminal record, it makes no sense why peaceful people should not be welcomed with open arms to the supposed land of the free. We claim to enjoy the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but in the past century have appended a disclaimer to those individual rights, that they are now “subject to the dictates of burdensome processes and bureaucratic control.”

Finally, our immigration laws violate property rights. Some seem to see the United States of America as property owner over all land within its boundaries, and thus the government should be empowered, they say, to regulate the residence and travel of those within its borders. This argument is completely fallacious; with the exception of the eminent domain power, the government only has jurisdictional, rather than sovereign control over land owned by private individuals. If I choose to rent my basement out to a friend from Honduras, and if he obtains employment with a business owner who voluntarily consents to the arrangement, my friend’s residence in and travel through land under the jurisdiction of our government not only does not violate anybody’s rights, but rather is a corollary to the private property rights the business owner and I have. It is simply amazing to watch conservatives, who champion private property in regards to many other issues, consent to the government having sovereign control over every piece of property within its borders simply to manage the travel, residence, and existence of individuals deemed by the government to be non-compliant.

The intent of Arizona’s law, as it declares in its opening paragraph, is the “enforcement of federal immigration laws”—laws which are unconstitutional, illegitimate, and destructive to individual liberty. On many fronts, these laws violate the very principles conservatives cling to (just so long as their jobs and social welfare programs remain untouched).

Explain why the federal government cannot act on immigration unless it is given power to do so by the states?

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution has recently reached celebrity status, its name being referenced repeatedly by conservative political activists opposing the federal government’s continual encroachment on state powers. That amendment reads: “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.”

The authority to manage immigration was never delegated to the federal government, and was thus properly exercised by the states for the first century of America’s existence. Since that time, supporters of federal involvement in immigration have pointed to the naturalization clause, commerce clause, the power to repel invasions, and America’s supposed power as a sovereign country for support of that authority. One would think, though, that if the Founders intended to delegate this authority, they would have done so in plain and direct language. Instead, we find repeated examples in the Federalist Papers, State Nominating Conventions, and other colonial-era political literature rebutting each of these loose interpretations, and affirming that immigration was an authority not delegated to the federal government, and therefore left to each state.

Many might argue that immigration is inherently a federal issue, and in some cases this makes perfect sense. A conservative response to this argument, however, would require a constitutional amendment be passed in order that the authority might be properly delegated to the federal government.

Why, in your opinion, do you think other conservatives are misreading the Constitution on this issue?

Whether others are “misreading” or simply “not reading” the Constitution in regards to the federal government’s authority to control immigration, I can’t say. I myself just months ago was of the belief that it was a federal power, until I spent hours poring over research and arguments explaining what I now have come to realize. Having so recently been of a similar mindset, I think I can speak with a fair amount of certainty when I say that other conservatives who support these immigration laws do so because they produce a desired outcome. That desired outcome is the same one that encouraged the labor unions to lobby for the very first federal immigration laws in the late 1800s: protectionism. In that day, a large influx of Chinese workers to California was seen as a direct threat to the higher earnings of “natives” working on the Transcontinental Railroad project and mining for gold. The natives protested when they were fired, or their income was reduced, as a result of this competition. The first California state and federal laws passed in regards to immigration targeted specific ethnic groups who were an economic threat, such as the (federal) Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

In our day, you can’t go to a single illegal immigration protest without hearing complaints of depressed wages, lost jobs, and other economic hardship resulting from immigrants “stealing” American jobs. Conservatives who today support federal immigration law are largely protectionists who see the influx of immigrants as an economic threat. Other arguments exist, such as violence, social welfare usage, and a failure to assimilate, but while these are also insufficient reasons to support such draconian immigration restrictions, the core argument that American jobs are somehow “stolen” as a result of laborers who are willing to work for less money is fallacious and incompatible with the conservative principles previously mentioned.

In short, I believe that many conservatives have become constitutionalists of convenience, raising the document to the air with a fist when opposing a program or policy they detest, but failing to apply that same rigor to other policies that produce an outcome they find favorable. This is disingenuousness at best, and hypocrisy at worst.

You advocate amnesty as the proper position to take for those who follow the Constitution. What is the response you usually get from the average Republicans?

The amnesty I advocate is only for the non-compliance with unconstitutional immigration laws. Any individual who has committed an actual crime where another person’s rights have been infringed, such as vandalism, rape, identity fraud, etc., should be prosecuted just as any American should. Put in that context, my call for amnesty is simply advocacy for refusing to comply with unconstitutional laws—a message that is both familiar and popular in conservative circles, whether it relates to health care, cap and trade, REAL ID, or other blatantly unconstitutional federal laws.

Once I clarify what I mean by amnesty, the usual reaction I get calms from a knee-jerk protest to “amnesty” (a buzzword many conservatives despise) to a more reasonable discussion about the underlying issue: are federal immigration laws constitutional? Some agree, others do not, but the message of resistance to unconstitutional laws—whether through court challenges, changes at the ballot box, or nullification—gets a very good reception by Utah Republicans in our current political climate.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Immigration, Individual Rights, and the Constitution
• On Amendments and Constitutional Purity

On September 11, a group of individuals united by their faith brutally killed a large number of innocent people. Years later, other members of the religion to which these murderers belonged attempted to build a religious center nearby. Politicians did not protest, the media did not hype the construction of the building to manufacture controversy, and the nation remained largely ignorant of the religious edifice. If this sounds at odds with what America has witnessed in the past few days, that’s because it is.

The aforementioned scenario refers not to the wrongly-named “Ground Zero Mosque”, but to a couple of chapels outside of Cedar City, Utah, belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The September 11th mentioned above was in 1857, when 50 to 60 armed members of the local militia, who were also Mormons, attacked and killed around 120 emigrants heading to California by wagon. Today, there stands within just a few miles of that scene two LDS chapels housing five separate congregations.

Perhaps another example is in order. On August 6, 1945, the United States government extinguished the lives of over 70,000 Japanese, and injured at least the same number, through the use of the newly-engineered atomic bomb. Hiroshima was extraordinarily scarred, the lives of thousands of innocent individuals snuffed out in seconds. Today, however, the United States government operates three ammunition depots within the Hiroshima Prefecture, and a military base less than two dozen miles away.

The above examples are offered in an attempt to rebut, through indirect reference to the golden rule, the public outcry that has saturated America’s airwaves in the past few days. Mormons, especially—we who have been collectively targeted by mob rule and coercive government action—should keenly understand and sympathize with those of other faiths who are placed in a similar situation.

But we generally don’t. Why not?

Fundamentally, the issue of the proposed Islamic community center boils down to property rights. Either individuals are free to purchase and use their own property as they see fit (provided they do no harm to others), or they’re not. Opponents of the project superficially acknowledge this argument, but qualify it with a litany of conditions: they should be sensitive to the families of the 9/11 victims; they have their property rights and freedom of religion, but should exercise them elsewhere; their selected location is too close to “ground zero”; and the construction of this mosque will be seen as a victory for Islam right in the very location where some of its adherents forced America to its knees.

Yawn.

These qualifiers are simply subtle demonstrations that the person using them in no way respects property rights, nor the freedom of religion. Worse still, members of the LDS Church who espouse such intellectually hollow rhetoric place themselves (perhaps unknowingly) in an awkward situation divorced from their own history. We, too, have been castigated in the public square for the actions of others who claim our religion as their own. We believe that man will punished for his own sins, but want to tie the sins of others to an entire religion in an attempt to deny them their pursuit of happiness. We claim “the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may,” and yet, we don’t.

Some have expressed concerns about the impact of allowing an advocate for Sharia law to have such a strong foothold in New York City, and the potential political implications such a large community center would have. Again, though, this fear (or any of its derivations) reeks with hypocrisy when vocalized by Latter-day Saints. One of the primary rallying cries for the anti-Mormon mobs was in regards to the significant political power the Mormons wielded through their unified votes, and the mixture of religion and politics in the theo-democratic institutions with which Joseph Smith experimented. The Prophet was mayor of his city, commanded a powerful militia, spearheaded institutions that combined religious and political power into one, and even sought out the highest political office in the United States government! Any one of these actions alone would have fed sufficient controversy to the opposing mob, but their combination ultimately proved fatal for the man who restored the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Earth. We Mormons of all people, then, should immediately, sincerely, and vocally reject any sort of similar uproar targeted at others.

If we Mormons have learned anything from our history, it’s that a group of individuals whipped into a fanatic frenzy based on hearsay, emotional appeals, and populist rhetoric can quickly transform into a mob bent on alienation, persecution, and even destruction. Having been subjected to an extermination order, forceful ejections from property, pillage, plunder, and a deprivation of every comfort imaginable, our Latter-day Saint ancestors would surely be appalled at the degree to which many of their posterity are exhibiting some of the same characteristics in reference to those of another faith.

We who have historically suffered such persecution should be among the most ardent defenders of individual liberty, private property, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. We should be passing this latest litmus test with flying colors, boldly standing up for the oppressed minority now targeted by mob mentality, expressing sympathy and support—not necessarily for this specific project in its specific location, but for the right its organizers have to pursue it, and the freedom that should accompany such a right.

That we have collectively failed in this regard is a stain on our much-revered, Moroni-inspired Title of Liberty, and a lost opportunity to prove that we have learned from our past. Where once we were the victims of the mob, now we are part of it.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• A Saint’s Lament: Not All Mormons Follow the Prophet

I received a reply from Democrat Sam Granato’s campaign manager, Marla Kennedy, which stated:

We are declining your invitation to participate in your blog posting for the U. S. Senate race.

Read into that what you will. However, lest you be quick to write Mr. Granato off as a political twinkie for declining to respond, Republican Mike Lee, through campaign staff, sent the following:

We are going to decline to participate in this questionnaire.

That leaves us with Constitution Party candidate Scott Bradley. What, you might ask, is so problematic with the questions that they resulted in two candidates for high office refusing to publicly answer? Here are the questions; you be the judge:

1. What should be done in regards to our current military engagements in the Middle East, and why?
2. What should be done with the Federal Reserve, and why?
3. What is your position on the war on drugs, and the legalization of marijuana?
4. What is the constitutional authority for our current immigration law? What reforms, if any, do you support?
5. Do non-citizen terrorists have any constitutional rights?
6. Are you for or against term limits, and if for them, in what form?
7. Is a balanced budget inherently problematic, or only because it may possible trigger a constitutional convention?
8. How should tariffs be used? How do you define economic protectionism, and do you support it?

So, while this post was initially intended to explore important issues and discern between each of the candidates, it will instead, by default, become a one-sided advertisement for Mr. Bradley.

His responses follow:

1. What should be done in regards to our current military engagements in the middle east, and why?

We launched our military response in Afghanistan in early October 2001. We were told that the effort was to bring to justice the perpetrators of the dastardly deeds of 11 September 2001. We were told that Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (U.S. ally 1979-1989) were responsible and were holed up in the U.S. taxpayer dollar created Tora Bora complex, from which we needed to root them out. Nearly nine years later we are still engaged in Afghanistan, but the mission has changed numerous times (without resulting in any concrete solution). We are told that bin Laden and Al-Qeada have escaped Afghanistan, that we are now rooting out the Taliban and their brutish practices, that we are seeking to eradicate the drug crops which provide a large portion of the cash-flow to this impoverished war-torn nation, that we are “nation building” a new “democracy” in the Middle East, and that we now have a mineral-rich nation that we must help harvest and bring to market their “new-found” wealth (in spite of the fact that during their occupation of Afghanistan decades ago the Soviets carefully documented and mapped these “newly discovered” stores of wealth). Afghanistan now has the dubious distinction of being the longest war our military has been engaged in. Casualties are growing, and the extent of our involvement is masked by the reports of NATO losses. We have approximately 100,000 troops in the country, and now the President is waffling on our disengagement (watch the situation deteriorate and the plea for our continued involvement grow as we decide that we cannot leave the area and its undeveloped mineral wealth and create a vacuum to be filled by China). In addition, the U.S.-installed President of Afghanistan is a war lord with drug lord connections to the former communist regime, and who has suggested he may join with the Taliban if he is disrespected. And still no closure on bin Laden and Al-Qaeda! Remind me why we are there???!!!!

Without taking the time to review our efforts in Iraq, suffice it to say that it has a similar tawdry history of our engagement. We even helped them implement a Soviet-style constitution after toppling a tin-horn tyrant who had (like bin Laden and so many other of our enemies) formerly been our ally and the recipient of largess from Washington. Amazing!

It would seem that there is strong evidence that this nation’s foreign policy is (at best) fatally flawed and ineffective (that is, if foreign policy is supposed to facilitate the peaceful, prosperous, continued existence of this nation; but if it has other, more nefarious purposes which run counter to what one would assume would be the natural purpose of a free nation’s foreign policy, perhaps it is what it is by design).

Thomas Jefferson’s words come to mind, and bear thoughtful consideration. In his day, Thomas Jefferson spoke of actions taken by those in power that were inconsistent with liberty and proper government, saying,

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.” (Bergh, Thomas Jefferson, 1:193)

In the process of all of this activity in the Middle East we have lost many thousands of our fine warriors while maiming many thousands more (many suffer multiple loss of limbs, severe brain trauma, debilitating spinal cord injuries, loss of eyesight, horrible burns and disfigurements, life-changing emotional trauma, etc.). These warriors have bravely gone to battle in support of policies they were told would insure the safety and continued existence of our nation.

And all of this was done without a shred of constitutional authority. None of these actions were taken in compliance with the constitutional process outlined in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. The power to make war is perhaps the most onerous of powers held by a nation, therefore the Founding Fathers sought to make the process by which the nation enters war one of the most deliberative of all the processes of government.

War is the crowning evil on earth, the one that spreads the greatest suffering, the one that breeds, or at least fosters and feeds, all other evils. Murder is the most wicked of all sins, and war is mass murder organized and carried out by the most efficient and powerful killing machine ever devised by mortal man: government.
War mocks The Prince of Peace. It mocks His charge that we act as peacemakers. It mocks the hope expressed by the angelic host at His birth that there be “Peace on earth, and goodwill toward men.” And it mocks the commandment that prohibits the killing of our fellow man.

War is a frenzy of murder. Next to murder in the category of personal sins comes immorality — in all of its many and varied forms. And after the abomination of immorality, come all the ills and evils devised by wicked men through all the ages. All of these grow out of and are multiplied by war. Surely war is the greatest evil that has or can spread its soul-destroying power over all the earth.

Yes, there are times when war is forced upon us, and we are compelled to the battle. But we must be certain that we do not enter into war for light or improper reasons. And certainly we are not to start wars. It is the duty of Congress to assure that all of this happens only within the bounds which are Constitutionally set.

But the question begs the answer: “If one would violate the Constitution in so momentous a matter as war, are there any other principles within the Constitution which would be considered so ‘sacred’ that they would not be candidates for violation, also?” The answer is critical, for the Constitution hangs on that thread. If one part may be violated upon a whim, all other aspects may also be violated. Think about it. Are we bound by the words of the Constitution? If we are not, then we have no constitution, and we are in for a terrible consequence.

The war-making power of a nation is an awesome force which holds fearsome destructive power. War, particularly modern war, is institutionalized mass murder carried out by the most powerful mortal force on earth—government. While the founders of this great nation knew that the choice of war would sometimes face the nation, or be thrust upon the nation by the wicked actions of other nations, they wished to constrain and control the natural tendency of human nature to abuse power and exercise it excessively and improperly. The founders had observed the countless times that the destructive forces of war had been unleashed upon humankind by the whim of a monarch or despot, and wished to shield themselves and their posterity, indeed, all of mankind from such a terrible burden, so they devised a marvelous process which would prevent the nation from entering into conflict without a full deliberative process in which the justice, the necessity, the cost, and the facts could be fully reviewed before each member of the Congress solemnly stepped forward and cast their vote in the matter. The founders of this nation fully understood that in matters of war, the blood, the fortune, and the sacred honor of the entire nation is at stake.

For many years now the nation has strayed from these sound principles, and the price of such action is yet to be fully realized. If the liberties which were bequeathed to the nation are to be saved, we must immediately restore the foundation upon which the nation was established and built. Congress must again assume its duty in the matter of war, and wrest the war-making power from the hands, both foreign and domestic, which have usurped the congressional Constitutional responsibility.

Perhaps I may integrate into my response to your question a few lines from General Douglas MacArthur’s “Farewell Address,” which he delivered at West Point on 12 May 1962. Of course, in that address, MacArthur was speaking to those who would serve as the nation’s warriors. In the address, he separated the warrior from the war. We must be careful to always maintain that distinction. Warriors and their families are called upon to make the most direct and personal sacrifices as the nation participates in war. A great (even immeasurable) debt is owed by the nation to those who serve and sacrifice.

Those who are charged with the responsibility to establish national policy, and who hold the power to engage the nation in war hold an awesome power within their hands. They have the power to bring the full force of the nation’s considerable destructive force against other peoples. They hold in their hands the power of life and death over not only those against whom the war-making power will be exercised, but also the power of life and death over our warriors. This is a solemn responsibility! The Founding Fathers of this nation felt that this power must be checked and constrained in such a manner that it could only be exercised after a fully deliberative process occurred, and the full costs, with all options, had been carefully weighed. They put the decision as close to the people who would bear the burdens of the war as they could by assigning the responsibility to the United States Congress. The people of the nation would shed their blood, it would cost the people’s fortune, and it would be the people’s honor which was to be put at risk. The leadership of this nation has not followed the Constitutional requirements associated with the exercise this most onerous power since the declarations of war associated with World War II.

Following is MacArthur’s statement. Consider his distinction between those who determine whether or not we go to war, and the warriors who must fight the wars—particularly the soldier praying for peace and bearing the deepest wounds and scars:

“Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.

“Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.

“These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution….

“This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: ‘Only the dead have seen the end of war.’” (General Douglas MacArthur Valedictory Remarks at West Point 12 May 1962)

Those who hold the reins of power in the Nation—in the case of war, that is Constitutionally a power delegated only to the United States Congress—MUST exercise it as intended, and not allow it to be usurped from their hands.

Be assured, that if I were elected to the United States Senate, I would make every effort to make certain that the Nation followed the United States Constitution in every matter—including war. If the nation was willing to abide the principles upon which it was established, the debates regarding entering would be deliberative, the policy would be right, and the nation’s noble and dedicated warriors would not be placed in harm’s way so unthinkingly. A return to the “original intent” is my objective.

A strategic and well-conceived withdrawal of our forces from these conflicts should be our imperative objective. It must be done in a manner that prevents loss of U.S. military personnel. We do not dishonor the dead and wounded by preventing further unnecessary loss of our priceless people. And we must make certain that all future military engagements are entered into justly and via the constitutionally-authorized process!

2. What should be done with the Federal Reserve, and why?

In 1912, Edward Mandell House published his poorly written book titled “Philip Dru: Administrator.” It was his romanticized fantasy of how the United States Constitution would be subverted and destroyed, and the nation subjugated to socialism under an elite leadership. The principle initial tool by which this dastardly deed was to be accomplished was by subverting the economic means of the nation and seizing control of it. Not surprisingly, the fifth point of Marx’s Communist Manifesto advises that it will be necessary to centralize the credit of the nation in order to overthrow freedom.

Woodrow Wilson became President in 1912, and House became his “alter ego,” living in the White House and acting as virtual co-president. Not surprisingly, one of the first efforts of the Wilson/House cabal was to implement the House/Marx plan to subvert and control the nation’s economy. This was accomplished in 1913 by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. This granted broad power over the national economy to a privately-held banking consortium. This consortium was given the power to create “money” out of thin air and loan it to the nation at a profit for the banking consortium. This facilitates the predilection of Congress to profligately deficit spend to their heart’s content, because their requests to the Fed for more loans are always honored. The Fed manipulates the money supply and sets policy by which the economy of the nation lives or dies. For example, during the reign of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, seven and a half TRILLION dollars were created out of thin air, thus debasing the purchasing power of all dollars. Greenspan’s policies continue under Bernanke. With trillions of more dollars pursuing finite quantities of goods and services, prices are driven upward (inflation). We should not be surprised as the once-respected dollar plummets against oil and all other nation’s monetary systems.

The Federal Reserve has never been audited. It is autonomous and has virtual free rein, acting above any true regulation. Now, in further fulfillment of the House/Marx dream, the nation’s leadership fosters the notion that the Federal Reserve should be granted plenary regulatory power over the entire United States financial system; and the only published words uttered by our so-called leaders against this outrageous plan express fears that the Fed will not be granted ENOUGH power. How tragic! How pathetic! How utterly stupid!

Sheep are sheared and led to be slaughtered without protest. Unless America awakens to a sense of our awful situation and rejects the tyranny offered in this and virtually all other matters by our globalist-socialist “leadership,” the nation will demonstrate that we are no better than sheep to be sheared and slaughtered.

The Federal Reserve must immediately be audited by a competent independent organization that could perform a comprehensive review and make an honest, complete, and straightforward report of the findings to the American people. Then the Fed must be abolished and the nation returned to an honest money system as originally established at the time the nation was founded (see the Coinage Act of 1792).

3. What is your position on the war on drugs, and the legalization of marijuana?

This is a State and local issue. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in this matter (other than interdiction at the international border). If we adequately secured our borders, the foreign drug cartels would be locked out of the United States.

St. George Tucker was probably the preeminent constitutional scholar of the American founding era. He wrote a marvelous exposition about the United States Constitution titled: “View of the Constitution of the United States.” Therein he carefully reviews the powers granted to congress. Tucker constantly reminds the reader that the power granted by the Constitution is specific, and that the powers are very selectively granted. In this quotation, he notes that there are only very few offenses which congress may either define or punish. Felonies not enumerated within the United States Constitution are, in Tucker’s view, left within the jurisdiction of the state.

“. . .the very guarded manner in which congress are vested with authority to legislate upon the subject of crimes, and misdemeanors. They are not entrusted with a general power over these subjects, but a few offenses are selected from the great mass of crimes with which society may be infested, upon which, only, congress are authorized to prescribe the punishment, or define the offense. All felonies and offenses committed upon land, in all cases not expressly enumerated, being reserved to the states respectively.” (Tucker, View, pgs. 210-211)

And, of course, Amendments IX and X emphatically also make this point!

Certainly this position applies to the question of drugs, and a plethora of other matters!

4. What is the constitutional authority for our current immigration law? What reforms, if any, do you support?

As they wrote the United States Constitution, the founders of this nation delegated to the United States Congress the authority to deal with the issue of immigration and naturalization:

“The Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8)

In The Federalist Papers, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison commented on this power, and the necessity of national uniformity and the wisdom of having the issue regulated at the national level by the national congress. Hamilton makes a brief but important comment that the citizenship regulations must be uniform throughout the United States:

“…found in that clause which declares that Congress shall have power “to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States,” This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had the power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE, there could not be a UNIFORM RULE.” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32)

The “Father of the Constitution,” Madison, makes more extensive comments, pointing out the wisdom of national uniformity for naturalization, and why the various states should not have the power to independently grant the status of “citizen” to those who applied—first pointing out the flaws which arose under the Articles of Confederation, and then tying the issue to the requirement within the Constitution that:

“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” (The United States Constitution, Article IV Sections 1 and 2)

Madison wrote:

“The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization has long been remarked as a fault in our system [under The Articles of Confederation], and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions…. [under The Articles of Confederation] The very improper power would still be retained by each State of naturalizing aliens in every other State. In one State, residence for a short term confirms all the rights of citizenship: in another, qualifications of greater importance are required. An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in the former, elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one State be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of the other. We owe it to mere casualty that very serious embarrassments on this subject have been hitherto escaped. By the laws of several States, certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious, were laid under interdicts inconsistent not only with the rights of citizenship but with the privilege of residence. What would have been the consequence if such persons, by residence or otherwise, had acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship, within the State proscribing them? Whatever the legal consequences might have been, other consequences would probably have resulted of too serious a nature not to be provided against. The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” (James Madison, Federalist No. 42, emphasis added)

By having the rights of citizenship obtained in a uniform manner which is dictated by the national government, confusion is avoided, and one state’s “laxness” in granting citizenship frivolously will not result in all states being required to recognize the rights of citizenship which should not have been granted.

In addition, the responsibilities of the national government in protecting the States from invasion are clearly defined within the United States Constitution:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…” (United States Constitution, Article IV, section 4)

Thomas Jefferson expressed his concerns with an “open” immigration policy, suggesting that the proper form of government which the United States enjoyed would be polluted by having “foreign/alien” influence injected into the election/legislative process through an immigration policy which had foreign concepts of government made popular and fostered within the United States as large numbers of people entered the United States which were not steeped in the principles upon which this nation was founded, and that it could possibly ultimately destroy the constitutional republic which allowed liberty to prevail in the United States:

“Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe, It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass… Suppose twenty millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.” (Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Volume 2, p.120-121)

By any reasonable definition, the current illegal alien invasion must be considered an invasion, and Jefferson’s statement regarding the dangers of foreign polluting political philosophies being injected into the nation’s policies by immigration supports the possibility that the “Republican Form of Government” of both the States and the nation may be in danger.

The integrity and protection of the international borders of the nation must be maintained. No “right of migration” exists for foreign nationals to enter the nation under terms other than those defined by Congress, and Congress has a duty to establish terms which protect the sovereignty of the nation and its established form of limited Constitutional Government.

History bears solemn witness that any nation which cannot or will not maintain the integrity of its borders will not long remain a sovereign nation. History abounds with numerous examples, both in ancient times, as well as in modern times, of this unequivocal truth. If the United States is to remain a free and independent nation under the United States Constitution, it must immediately secure its international borders.

In addition, it should be a self-evident truth that a nation which has an open immigration policy (even if it is only by default because it refuses to secure its borders against all intruders) and a fully functioning social/welfare state has established a disastrous formula destined for national self-destruction. Such a policy is not sustainable!

My position may be summed up in the following brief statements: Secure the nation’s borders NOW!. No Amnesty (under ANY name, or in any way, shape, or form). No “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (simply a code-word for amnesty). Enforce the nation’s laws against illegal immigration. Tell all illegals to GO HOME NOW! Allow a brief period for them to liquidate all their assets held in this nation and self deport to their home countries. There they may get in line and go through to process to apply for legal entry into this nation. After the brief “liquidation/self-deportation period,” when those who ignored the order to go home are caught, they will be immediately deported, with no possibility of ever returning to the United States. We are not sending them to a gulag—we are sending them home. There it will be their privilege to seek to create the conditions they so desire here in the United States. Using Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment congress may correct the current false interpretation of Section 1.

5. Do non-citizen terrorists have any constitutional rights?

In the Declaration of Independence we read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” (Emphasis added)

Did the United States Constitution “create” rights, or did it simply define the scope and bounds of power which was being granted to the national government, and which was necessary to perform its assigned task? Did the Bill of Rights “create” rights, or did this marvelous document simply vouch safe pre-existing rights, including all rights not specifically mentioned (see Amendments IX and X)? Relative to the powers granted to the national government within the Constitution, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights states the purpose of the Bill of Rights: “…in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”

The Founding Fathers of this nation were not so presumptive as to presume the power to create or grant rights (creating rights for anyone requires creation of another person’s responsibility to fulfill those rights—see, for example, the unconstitutional creation of “entitlements” in recent U.S. history). Neither the United States Constitution nor the Bill of Rights “created” rights. Those rights we have pre-existed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they were granted to all mankind by God (see, again, the Declaration of Independence). The Declaration of Independence also defines the purpose of government thus: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

Throughout history, the argument could be made that justice has only prevailed to the degree that proper government existed. Summary executions (or torture, or plunder, or forcible despoliation, etc.) upon the whim of those in power have been the rule when the limits of proper government and justice are dethroned.

The Founding Fathers of this nation were painfully aware that the power of government could be perverted to the point that it abused individual God-given rights. The desire to obtain, and then, ultimately, to abuse power, has been almost universally recognized by thinking men throughout the ages. The great statesman Lord Acton observed that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” [Lord Acton, letter to Mandell Creighton, April 5, 1887.—Acton, Essays on Freedom and Power ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb, pp. 335-36 (1972).] Daniel Defoe noted: “All men would be tyrants if they could.” [Daniel Defoe, The Kentish Petition, addenda, 11 (1701)]

Indeed, modern megalomaniacs have unequivocally demonstrated both in word and deed the truth of these statements! Two examples from the 20th Century must suffice:

During the 1930′s and 40′s much of the world was engulfed in a conflagration which had its origins in a sweeping power-grab by wicked tyrants. The German National Socialist Party (Nazis) was a major sponsor of the effort to violently gain control of power over broad segments of humanity. The Nazis regime upheld a concept they called the “leader principle” (fuhrerprinzip). In contrast with the foundation principles of the United States Constitution, in which the power of government and individuals (regardless of their position within government) is limited to specific bounds, Nazis doctrine placed no limits upon the power which may be seized, held, and exercised by their “leader” (fuhrer). In a section defining the fuhrerprinzip, the Organization Book of the German National Socialist Party states that the power of the chief executive “is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited…. He is responsible only to his conscience and the people.” [The Organization Book, German National Socialist Party, 1940]

The revolutionary Communist Doctrine of Karl Marx was also at the center of the violent usurpation of power which engulfed much of the 20th Century, including the period of time in which the competing doctrine of the Nazis operated, and continuing even today. The revolutionary Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin summarized his version of the power-mongering leader as follows: “The scientific concept of dictatorship is nothing else than this — power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules.” [V.I. Lenin, A Contribution to the History of the Question of Dictatorship (20 October, 1920); Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965, Volume 31, pages 340-361]

History testifies of the horror associated with government unbridled by scope and bounds, and which does not recognize and hold sacred individual God-given rights. The “rule of law” and “due process of law” are suspended or non existent under such tyrannical philosophies. Would we follow their diabolical path?

The Nazi and Soviet philosophies (both completely socialist, but “blood-brother” tyrannies competing along with the other less overtly violent though equally poisonous socialist movements for the preeminent world-wide power position) are the antithesis of the form of government established under the United States Constitution in 1787. Individual God given rights, personal liberty, and limited governmental power were at the core of the philosophy which led the Founding Fathers of the United States to bring forth the national charter which they authored. Those who founded the nation were painfully aware of mankind’s natural tendency to garner, then abuse power. They sought to forestall that tendency by safeguards they built into the form of government they created.

The words of the American Founding Fathers, and my religious convictions (as noted in records I consider scriptural) convince me that God is the author of mankind’s rights; that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were brought forth to sustain those pre-existent individual God-given rights; that the constitutional law of our land, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before God; and that the laws and constitution which God suffered to be established here in the United States should be upheld and maintained for the rights and protection of all mankind.

Therefore, I believe that this nation must always stand on the high moral ground and uphold the highest standard if it is to be as a beacon of hope and the candle that gives light, as spoken of in the scriptures, to the rest of the world. Why lower ourselves to the debauched level of our enemies when they come under our power? Besides, to do so only gives them excuse to lower the bar even farther as they engage in “one-upmanship.”

Will we torture because they torture? Will we imprison or execute without a fair trial and due process of law because they do? Would we suspend one of the great bulwarks of liberty, the writ of habeas corpus, or implement bills of attainder, or issue writs of assistance, or create ex post facto laws, etc. in deference to the practices of tyrannical and barbaric peoples? We become as guilty as they are when we emulate them.

During the brutal exchanges which occur in the heat of the battle, the calm deliberations of the courts obviously do not prevail, but once the semblance of order is restored and the captives are subdued and in our power, the deliberative process necessary to determine guilt or innocence and subsequent punishment, if warranted, must be allowed to go forward dispassionately and under the rule of law. The power to create special courts in which to try accused non-citizen terrorists and address the issues associated with such actions and accusations is granted to the U.S. House and Senate (see Article I, Section 8, clauses 9, 10, and 11, as well as Article III, Section 1). The executive branch holds no such constitutional grant of authority, nor can congress re-delegate their assigned duty in this (or any other matter) to the executive. Congress should perform their responsibility immediately.

Other standards of accusation and trial which were put in place to protect individual God-given rights are outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (see Article III, Section 2, clause 3; Amendments IV, V, VI, VII, VIII). The Bill of Rights does not attempt to delineate or differentiate between citizens and non-citizens. The amendments speak of “people,” “persons,” and “the accused.” Citizenship is not a qualifier. And, remember, in the United States there is a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Many have been accused in the heat of first review, only to have the accusation be discovered as a false accusation as the facts unfold in the deliberative glare of a trial. Many a lynch mob has acted based upon a “knee jerk” assumption.

Perhaps you recall the scene from “A Man for All Seasons” in which Sir Thomas More rebukes his son-in-law for wanting to cut down the laws to get to the Devil (“Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide…? …I’d give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.”). I believe that taking a position other than the one I promote herein will, in a very real way, apply to Thomas More’s warning remark. It would seem that we need to consider the very real prospect of what will happen to our individual God-given rights once we cut down any constitutional protections, and we progress down the path that promotes the idea that constitutional protections and individual God-given rights are negotiable base upon some expediency or someone’s idea of a “good” idea. What will we do when the last vestiges of the delicate checks and balances have been abolished, and all power is accrued to Washington?

Let it never be said of the United States that we returned to the days of the Star Chamber when we had the higher law which God has blessed us to live under! We must be careful to never put qualifiers upon God-ordained individual rights which are bestowed upon ALL mankind. Let us be just and magnanimous as we forebear the practices of lesser nations and peoples! May those honorable and noble principles which were established under the United States Constitution by our forefathers be established forever! We can do this and still be assured that justice will be served upon all enemies, foreign and domestic.

6. Are you for or against term limits, and if for them, in what form?

We already have term limits. These limits come by way of the ballot box (ala the recent demise of both Chris Cannon and Bob Bennett). Every two years we, the people, could turn out of office every member of the House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate. Every four years we can turn out the President. A constitutionally sound House of Representatives could regularly bring articles of impeachment to the Senate to try members of the judiciary and other government officials as needed to keep them in line with the scope and bounds defined within the United States Constitution. What is really needed to create such a government is an informed and actively engaged “constitutionally sound” electorate that will not sell their vote to the one who purchases their vote with unconstitutional “pork barrel” largess from the public treasury. One of the problems is that there is always another socialist waiting in the wings to take the place of any socialist term limited out of office. Thomas Jefferson said: “A nation that expects to be ignorant and free…expects what never was and never will be.” We, the People, have been remiss, and have lost the vigilance necessary to preserve the freedoms and proper government which were originally established upon this great land.

Perhaps I should mention a couple of other things. The first American Constitution (the Articles of Confederation) had term limits (see Article V therein). The founders knew of term limits and rejected them in the new constitution they wrote in 1787. Consider the possible reasons: 1. They had had a bad experience with them because as representatives were being term limited out of office in their last term, the electorate had no leverage on them so they ran amuck during their “lame duck” period (see Luke 16:1-7; and Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut today). 2. Who would want to term limit out of office a representative who completely honored his sacred oath of office to uphold the Constitution and was keeping his actions within the proper bounds as defined in the Constitution? Would you term limit James Madison out of the House of Representatives?

In addition, the Term Limits Amendment process is fraught with risk in that a frustrated/failed effort to obtain term limits through the Article V amendment process (requiring 2/3′s of both houses and 3/4′s of all States) will likely lead to good and caring citizens demanding a constitution convention (which, barring Divine intervention, would certainly lead to the destruction of our current constitution). A term limits amendment is a simplistic solution that will not correct the true source of the problem: an ignorant and apathetic population. Jefferson’s solution was not to take from an ignorant people their proper power and role, but to educate them so they may properly exercise their God-given privilege of self government. Such an informed and engaged electorate would not allow their representatives to stray out of bounds, and would remove them if they did.

7. Is a balanced budget inherently problematic, or only because it may possible trigger a constitutional convention?

The Founding Fathers of the United States considered a national debt to be a great burden that was to be avoided and resolved with the greatest of diligence. They considered it to be a bane to the liberty of the nation, and counseled most emphatically that the nation guard against it.

In his annual State of the Union reports to Congress, George Washington spoke often of the burden of national debt. Thomas Jefferson devoted a great deal of time in each of his annual State of the Union reports to reviews of the nation’s efforts to retire the national debt. The efforts to accomplish that were largely based upon sale of federal lands to citizens of the United States (only). This accomplished at least two great goals: It placed within the power of the people the means to produce prosperity for themselves and the nation, and it removed the debt which burdened the nation. In this we may see an example of the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers.

It is interesting to note that the last time the nation was completely debt-free was during the Andrew Jackson Administration, and that was achieved through the sale of federally-held land.

George Washington on Debt

Washington felt that the national debt should be paid without delay, saying:

“I entertain a strong hope that the state of the national finances is now sufficiently matured to enable you to enter upon a systematic and effectual arrangement for the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt, according to the right which has been reserved to the government. No measure can be more desirable, whether viewed with an eye to its intrinsic importance or to the general sentiment and wish of the nation.” [Fourth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 32:211. (1792.)]

“No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable.” [Fifth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 33:168. (1793.)]

“The time which has elapsed since the commencement of our fiscal measures has developed our pecuniary resources so as to open a way for a definitive plan for the redemption of the public debt. It is believed that the result is such as to encourage Congress to consummate this work without delay. Nothing can more promote the permanent welfare of the nation, and nothing would be more grateful to our constituents. Indeed, whatsoever is unfinished of our system of public credit cannot be benefitted by procrastination; and as far as may be practicable, we ought to place that credit on grounds which cannot be disturbed, and to prevent that progressive accumulation of debt which must ultimately endanger all governments.” [Sixth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 34:36. (1794.)]

“It will afford me heartfelt satisfaction to concur in such further measures as will ascertain to our country the prospect of a speedy extinguishment of the debt. Posterity may have cause to regret if, from any motive, intervals of tranquility are left unimproved for accelerating this valuable end.” [Eighth Annual Address to Congress. Fitzpatrick 35:319. (1796.)]

Washington also advised that the Nation avoid national debt when possible, and quickly repay it when incurred:

“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.” [Farewell Address. Fitzpatrick 35:230. (1796.)]

Thomas Jefferson on Debt

Thomas Jefferson was no less emphatic in his resolve to extinguish public debt, saying:

“I…place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.” [Bergh 15:47. (1816.)]

“I am for…applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt.” [To Elbridge Gerry. Bergh 10:77. (1799.)]

“I consider the fortunes of our republic as depending, in an eminent degree, on the extinguishment of the public debt before we engage in any war; because, that done, we shall have revenue enough to improve our country in peace and defend it in war, without recurring either to new taxes or loans. But if the debt should once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire discharge will be despaired of, and we shall be committed to the English career of debt, corruption, and rottenness, closing with revolution. The discharge of the debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government.” [To Albert Gailatin. Bergh 12:324. (1809.)]

“The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” [Bergh 15:23. (1816.)]

In light of today’s profligate national government, one may be caused to ask: “Why did the Founding Fathers overlook the need of some clause in the Constitution which would prevent the nation from going into debt?” The answer is: They knew there would be unavoidable wars. Sometimes it takes all a nation has (and then some) to prevent its destruction and dissolution in a war. They knew that they would have to fight on to preserve the nation even if they were out of money. Wars always cause debt. The founders knew this, and tried very hard to prevent avoidable wars by making the process by which wars were entered into as deliberative as possible. They wrote extensively about their intent in this matter.
An effort to bring forth a Balanced Budget Amendment is fatally flawed on many fronts! In fact, in 1983 (when Missouri became the 32nd State to call for a ConCon in the purported effort to obtain a Balanced Budget Amendment), this effort brought the United States to within two States of calling a Constitution Convention. History will repeat itself if this effort to call for a Balanced Budget Amendment comes to full fruits! We must not promote anything that will be used to bring about a ConCon!

Every Balanced Budget Amendment I have ever read contains a number of additional fatal flaws.

First of all, each version of the amendment allows deficit spending based upon agreement of (in most instances) a 60% approval of both houses of congress (the theory this will receive support under is that this will allow a wartime deficit budget if needed). With this stipulation sixty senators and 261 congressmen may approve a deficit budget. Because most senators and congressmen support the unconstitutional idea of buying votes back home by delivering largess out of the public treasury to their constituents, it is not hard to see how even in non wartime circumstances (if the nation ever experiences a time when we are not at war) most budget votes easily attain the 60% threshold (the practice of adding additional expenditures to buy the votes of reluctant congressmen will continue at an even greater rate than it has in the past). So, we can see that unless representatives are willing to keep their actions within constitutional bounds most budgets will exceed the available funds, the require threshold of votes will be attained, and the result will be further deficits in spite of the Balanced Budget Amendment.

And, if the Balanced Budget Amendment is in place, and when the 60% deficit-allowing threshold is not attainable, but the majority still want to spend the money they feel they need to spend (usually for items and issues not constitutionally allowed, but for such items as entitlement programs, stimulus packages, etc. and which they think are “important” for them to get re-elected), they will wring their hands in impotent despair and bemoan the fact that the Constitution now requires the budget to be balanced, therefore (since these desired items are so critically important and the majority of congress agrees to the importance, but they cannot muster the 60%) they will be required to raise taxes to cover the expenses. Even those who prefer a tax increase to a budget deficit will at some point reach the breaking point where they will no longer be able to sustain themselves because the government has devoured their entire living (“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” —Declaration of Independence)

In addition, it would be a miracle if the national leadership did not regularly resort to spending “off budget” (which is currently a common practice for “important” expenditures that they do not want to have calculated in the national debt for various reasons).

Today’s politicians have buried the Nation in debt. They have done this by ignoring the constitutional limits of their power, acting as though they have power to tax and spend for any whim that strikes them. They tax trillions of hard-earned dollars each year from the citizens of this land, only to spend hundreds of billions (and even trillions) more each year than they collect. Sadly, most of the spending is not authorized by the United States Constitution.

The solution is a return to the constraints of power on the federal government which exist within the United States Constitution. The problem is not with the Constitution. The Constitution is not flawed. It does not need to be changed. The problem is that we have stopped applying the Constitution. We do not have to amend the Constitution to solve this problem, and we do not have to risk a ConCon to bring things back into proper order. The solution is to begin again to abide within the constraints so carefully defined within the plain English words of the United States Constitution. James Madison stated that the powers of the national government were “few and well defined.” Perhaps, when the people of the Nation again understand that fact, the Nation’s leadership will be compelled to abide by their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

8. How should tariffs be used? How do you define economic protectionism, and do you support it?

Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the authority to collect “…Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debt and provide for the common Defense…” In Federalist Paper Number 45, James Madison indicated that the primary source of these revenues for performing the responsibilities of the national government would be import taxes collected as foreign goods were brought into this country. That is what tariffs are to be use for:

“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; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.” (James Madison, Federalist No. 45)

Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution specifically states that “Congress shall…regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

Article VI, clause 3 of the United States Constitution specifically states: “The Senators and Representatives…shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

In light of the fact that the individual members of Congress have sworn by their oath of office to abide within the bounds established within the Constitution of the United States, the members of Congress are required by their oath of office to uphold the sovereignty and independence of the United States, and act within their duty as assigned within the Constitution.

The United States Constitution directs that the United States Congress is the body that is to regulate commerce with foreign nations. While constantly ignored today, constitutional protocol dictates that authority delegated to a legislative body cannot be “re-delegated” by that body.
Constitutional protocol was well understood by those who founded this nation, and they knew that the authority which was assigned in the Constitution could not legally be delegated to another entity (foreign or domestic). The founders had diligently studied the works of John Locke. John Locke was emphatic in the matter of delegating constitutionally-mandated authority:

“The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. The people alone can appoint the form of the commonwealth, which is by constituting the legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be. And when the people have said, ‘We will submit and be governed by laws made by such men, and in such forms,’ nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can they be bound by any laws but such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen and authorized to make laws for them.” (John Locke, Second Essay Concerning Civil Government)

St. George Tucker, one of the preeminent constitutional scholars of the American founding era agreed with that position, stating:

. . .a delegated authority cannot be transferred to another to exercise. (Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States Pg. 219 [1803])

In light of this, it is the sole responsibility of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Congress cannot constitutionally delegate that responsibility to any other organization, especially international bureaucracies that were not elected by the citizens of the United States!

In violation of this critically important principle, on numerous occasions Congress has unconstitutionally voted to delegate this power to international organizations. In recent years, by their actions in this area, Congress and the Executive branch have consistently and methodically subverted the sovereignty of the United States. By their efforts, power to regulate our commerce with foreign nations has been passed to such organizations as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Other so-called “free trade” agreements are pending and aggressively being fostered, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which would effectively erase the borders between the United States and Mexico and Canada. To add insult to injury, the United States generally provides the bulk of financial resources to these organizations, and has only one vote in these decidedly anti-American forums.

Approval of these agreements by our national leadership has allowed international non-elected bureaucracies to dictate numerous economic and domestic policies of the United States in a manner which should be solely the prerogative of the United States. Additionally, these agreements eliminate U.S. import fees which were Constitutionally authorized as a revenue source to fund the Nation’s legal activities; and as this revenue source is eliminated, additional burdens are placed upon the backs of American taxpayers, either through additional debt, or through higher internal taxes.

In spite of this reduction of U.S. tariffs, these agreements are not about free trade. They are about managed trade. Trade managed not by Congress as mandated by Article I Section 8 clause 3 of the United States Constitution, but trade managed by supranational unelected bodies of bureaucrats which will never have their actions questioned by an electorate that can unseat them from their pompous appointments.

Of even greater concern is the demonstrable fact that these types of agreements lead, ultimately, to merger into regional governments which subvert national sovereignty. These agreements have far less to do with free trade between nations, and far more to do with subverting the sovereignty of the United States to a globalist organization that does not uphold the principles vouched safe by the United States Constitution

Just as the European Common Market has metastasized into a supranational regional government which dictates economic and domestic policy to the European nations which have joined it, these agreements are precursors to a regional arrangement which will ultimately subvert and destroy our inspired Constitution. As testimony of this, we have the European outcome unfolding right before our eyes, as well as the experience our own nation has had with subversive rulings from both NAFTA and WTO. We are foolish to think that these historical facts will not replicate themselves if we follow the exact path which brought about the European Union (EU).

At the beginning of the American Revolution, the great patriot Patrick Henry stated: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.” [Patrick Henry, speech to the Virginia Convention, Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775.—William Wirt, Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, 9th ed., pp. 138-39 (1836, reprinted 1970). Language altered to first person.]

In The Tempest, William Shakespeare observed “…what’s past is prologue,” meaning the experience of the past is but an introduction to that which is to come. [Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 2, Scene 1]

And in volume one of The Life of Reason we read: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it…. This is the condition of children and barbarians, in whom instinct has learned nothing from experience.” [George Santayana, The Life of Reason, vol. 1, chapter 12, p. 284 (1905).]

In light of this wisdom, our concerns about these sovereignty-destroying agreements are well-founded. We may learn valuable lessons from the glaring example of the history of the European Union, and from that example we may learn how regional governments which subvert national governments are born. We also have the painful history of many examples of where the actions taken under authority of NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO have undermined the ability of the United States to act independently and to our national benefit. We must learn from these experiences. And wisdom would dictate that we modify our path to return to one that is both Constitutionally sound, and also protective of our national interests.

It is imperative that the members of the United States Congress (NOT the executive, or any other branch or department) stand forth and exercise the most vigorous efforts possible within the proper authority of their respective Offices to wrest from the clutches of foreign entities this critically important power, and restore their Constitutional responsibility to regulate commerce with foreign nations.

The United States must again begin to enter into bi-lateral agreements (not multi-national agreements as has become our national practice) negotiated with the best interests of this nation in mind. Tariffs should be uniformly applied and we must cease to grant so-called “most favored nation” status to other nations. Many paragraphs could be cited from George Washington’s monumental “Farewell Address” regarding his advise about foreign relations and trade, but perhaps the following must suffice for now:

“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.” (Washington’s Farewell Address, UNITED STATES, September 17, 1796. Messages and Papers of the Presidents, George Washington, Vol 1, Pg. 215)

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Asking the Right Questions

The 20th century will be remembered throughout history for many things, such as the creation of the automobile, the computer revolution, and the globalization of industry. But while many important advancements and circumstances may compete for a spot in the history books, one simple word leaves all other considerations in the dust: death.

Death, of course, is a part of life. However, while tens of millions of individuals were sent to an early grave as a result of the many wars throughout the twentieth century, far more were likewise extinguished as a result of democide—government-sanctioned murder.

You wouldn’t know it from modern-day culture, though. Mass murderers today are referred to by top-ranking government officials as a favorite political philosopher, or are turned into fashionable iconography. Sure, we feign some amount of disgust in our general condemnation of all things Nazi, but how genuine are our protests when we ignore, downplay, or dismiss the much larger atrocities committed by those who are for some strange reason less known?

After World War II, many Nazis were prosecuted, executed, and run out of Germany. To this day, it remains illegal to display the swastika in Germany for any non-academic purpose. One can only wonder why a similar reaction has not been found in regards to the failed fascist, socialist, and communist nations which, throughout the twentieth century, murdered roughly a quarter of a billion people.

Let that marinate for a minute. Governments in one single century were the direct and intentional cause of killing around 250,000,000 individuals—men, women, and children whose very existence was deemed either illegal or illegitimate. This staggering number is about six times larger than the number of people who died in combat warfare during the same period of time. People refer to the 20th century as a century of war, but it would be better labeled a century of death, or more specifically, democide.

How will this century fare? Things appear to be better so far, despite the existence and power of several socialist/communist nations, but the flirtatiousness of many with the basic political tenets of these self-cannibalizing systems does not bode well for an attempt to prevent a recurrence of government-sponsored murder. That the President of the United States now claims the authority to order the assassination of American citizens without any trial or due process whatsoever suggests that democide is not reserved for the history books, but will be an ever-present reality of governments grown too large and powerful.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Fall of the Wall

It’s hard to discuss the immorality, illegality, or illegitimacy of a program or policy with a person who is benefiting, or has in the past benefited, from that program or policy. He who has profited from your pocket reacts with defensive disgust when explained, even in the nicest of terms, that what he has done is theft.

What’s further difficult about this situation is the pervasiveness of the programs that create such a situation. 90% of mortgages are now owned by the federal government; 41 million Americans now use food stamps; over 20 million people receive unemployment benefits; 47 million are enrolled in Medicare, and 58 million in Medicaid; and for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans receive more government aid than they paid in taxes.

Try telling your average recipient of these federal funds (confiscated from other individuals through taxation, burdened upon all by debt, or stolen from all by inflation) that these programs should not exist, and you’re likely to elicit an emotional story about a dire need that this financial assistance satisfied. An unemployed and low-skilled father of four, a sick child of a low-income couple, or some other situation comes fraught with tears and desperation. If you then tell the person that you’d support removing this opportunity for support, you quickly and naturally become the enemy.

Being principled in such times can be difficult, for those who in some cases might be pejoratively referred to as “ideologues” are often incorrectly accused of lacking compassion. After all, if you really want to help such people, why would you not support these programs? Many can point to lives saved or extended as a direct result of access to food and medical services through these programs. “If you had it your way,” one supporter could easily argue, “my father would be dead.”

It’s hard to argue with that. Really: when you pit the forcible confiscation of a hundred dollars per month against the life of this person’s loved one, do you really think that your ideological argument is going to overpower their deeply emotional conviction? Good luck with that.

Those who cling to principle and oppose such immoral, illegal, and illegitimate programs walk a fine line, having to defend the virtue of liberty while not appearing selfish and indifferent; it’s hard to win people over when they think you will cause them more suffering.

One man to whom we should look as a role model is Frédéric Bastiat, who on one occasion addressed this topic thusly:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

It takes similar clarity of thought and political consistency to demonstrate to social welfare beneficiaries the destructiveness of the programs they see as personally beneficial. I myself have experienced on several occasions the sensitive defensiveness of those who have profited through plunder, and I remain unsure of the best way to approach such topics with them.

In the end, though, the defense of liberty is more important than making a person feel good about their participating in a socialist system of theft. Finding ways to do that, while remaining sensitive to others’ problems and effective in persuading them to the cause of liberty, is a monumental effort—one which I have yet to master.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Clay’s Law

Yesterday’s decision by Judge Walker, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in favor of homosexual marriage advocates is the conclusion of the latest battle in the war against “traditional” marriage. Walker’s decision comes after a 2.5 week trial in January where 16 witnesses were summoned by Proposition 8 opponents, and two were summoned by proponents.

As review, voters in California last November gave their support in favor of Proposition 8 by a 52.3% margin, thus overturning a California Supreme Court decision that effectively struck down Proposition 22, passed a decade earlier, declaring marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 placed the same language (“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”) into the state’s constitution itself, thus circumventing the Supreme Court’s declaration of unconstitutionality.

(Federal) Judge Walker, however, yesterday declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional—not compared to California’s Constitution, but that of the United States of America. The decision rests on two separate but similar arguments, namely, that the newly-enacted amendment to the California Constitution violates both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in the 14th amendment.

Specifically, Judge Walker (who is homosexual) declares that there is a “fundamental right to marry” (p. 111), and Proposition 8′s exclusion of homosexual marriage therefore violates the Due Process Clause. He also declares that one’s sexual orientation does not provide a “rational basis” (pp. 130-1) and thus violates the Equal Protection Clause. Summarizing, Walker states (p. 135):

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

This ruling, of course, plays fast and loose with the very point of Proposition 8: to define just what marriage is, according to state law. Having narrowly defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, California would have been able to provide said marriages on an equal basis to all eligible/applicable parties, with no thought of discrimination.

But marriage, many argue, is some supposed “fundamental right” to which all individuals should be entitled. Walker supplies a precedent-based judicial formula for determining when a right is fundamental (p. 111):

To determine whether a right is fundamental under the Due Process Clause, the court inquires into whether the right is rooted “in our Nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices.”

And here we have our starting point. To begin our analysis, and inevitable rebuttal, let’s first envision a situation in which government is completely abolished. In absence of government, individuals are left to their own devices to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Without government dictating what rights are and are not fundamental or legitimate, we must ask: what rights do these individuals have?

Clearly, an individual in this scenario cannot have a fundamental right to marriage, as marriage (as we now know it) does not exist; government does not exist, and therefore cannot regulate this matter. Churches may offer such a ceremony as a religious rite, but are free to decide what rules they will impose; homosexuals in this case would not have a fundamental right to a ceremony that nobody would administer to them.

In absence of government, then, the only and true fundamental right is that of association. Two homosexuals would be able to co-habit and devote their lives to one another to their heart’s content, just as they are free to do today. This freedom of association is the only fundamental right, as marriage—whether regulated by government, or exclusively administered by churches—is an external sanction of a pre-existing relationship. Despite what some black-robed lawyers have said, there is no fundamental right to marry. Neither should we be determining what somebody’s real rights are based on “history, legal traditions, and practices.” Are our standards and principles so neutered that we have sacrificed self-evident truths for precedent and policy?

But back to the core arguments in light of the 14th amendment—arguments which Walker asserts are “independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

This decision, or other decisions regarding this and other referenda, have often been outright dismissed by those who voted in favor of the law in question. “Judges should not overturn the will of the people!,” they argue. Case in point: Austin R. Nimocks, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who fought to uphold Proposition 8 in Walker’s court, vowed to appeal yesterday’s ruling, saying “We’re obviously disappointed that the judge did not uphold the will of over 7 million Californians who made a decision in a free and fair democratic process.”

But this is patently absurd, for those who in some cases support the rule of law and republican government, in this case support direct democracy—regardless of whether the law in question has violated the Constitution. Rather than decrying judges for deciding against them, these individuals should be addressing the constitutional merits of the law(s) they support. If the judges overturn the constitutional will of the people, then yes, we have a problem (and an “activist” judge).

So, first up: the Due Process Clause. This clause reads:

…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Due process, in English common law and American law (pre-FDR), was a limited procedural guarantee—a process whereby individuals were properly informed of the criminal charges against them and were given the opportunity to defend themselves. Alexander Hamilton, for example, despite his expansionist interpretation of most governmental powers, stated this in regards to the New York Bill of Rights’ inclusion of the term “due process”: “The words ‘due process’ have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature” (emphasis added).

Since FDR’s time, the courts have conjured up what’s called “substantive due process”, whereby the court will determine if any government action infringes upon certain “fundamental rights”. Thus, due process has now been warped into applying to all legal processes for all government agencies in both criminal and civil law.

It is only in this extremely loose interpretation and understanding of “due process” that the supposed “fundamental right” to marry can have any defense, for Walker’s assertion—that denying homosexuals their “fundamental right” to marry each other violates the individual’s right to due process under the law—can only be valid if “due process” means something altogether different than what it once did.

Next up: the Equal Protection Clause. This clause reads:

…nor [shall any State] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Access to a marital union does not provide any additional protections. One can argue that it does, however, provide for certain government-bestowed privileges, such as tax-breaks, visitation rights, inheritance, etc. In these cases, however, many state governments have conferred similar privileges upon “civil unions”, thus giving those benefits to couples generally, while still retaining the man/woman definition of marriage.

Whether or not a state has such a classification with the same legal benefits as marriage, one cannot reasonably argue that an individual is not being protected by law by being denied access to a certain governmental certification. Equal protection under the law refers to a defensive shield against punitive government action, ensuring that governments punish and enforce the laws equally, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference, or what type of junk food one likes. Just as the blind man who is denied a drivers license still enjoys equal protection under the law, though he is not able to receive said license, so too do homosexual individuals remain protected by laws even when denied the ability to have their companionship sanctioned by the government.

Interestingly, Judge Walker includes in his decision an explanation of when he, as a judge, would defer to the public’s decision rather than enforce his own. On page 118 of the opinion, Walker states:

The court defers to legislative (or in this case, popular) judgment if there is at least a debatable question whether the underlying basis for the classification is rational.

Walker, a homosexual, simply dismisses the classification (that marriage can be applied only to heterosexuals) because he deems its basis “irrational”. Thus, he refuses to defer judgement to the people (who decided that such a classification was rational and important) and pronounces his own. On this foundation of his personal decision, then, Walker looks to the clauses we have here analyzed for support of his belief that California’s constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

Again, rather than appealing to self-evident truths and inalienable rights, Walker and his like-minded judicial colleagues divine “fundamental rights” out of thin air when these have some historical precedent in our country. “Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships,” Walker states on page 113, “and plaintiffs’ [homosexual] relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States“ (emphasis added).

In response to Walker’s ruling, Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, stated: “This ruling marks a victory for loving, committed couples who want nothing more than the same rights and security as other families. From the start, this has been about basic fairness.” This, too, is argued poorly, for couples do not have rights, nor do any associations of individuals; we in America do not enjoy our rights because of a relationship with another person, but because we are individuals. While heterosexual marriages are associated with certain government-regulated privileges, these are not rights—as explained previously, the only right is one of free association, which individuals of any sexual preference enjoy.

Homosexual couples desiring society’s sanctioning of their union are not being criminally prosecuted or punished in any way, thus the true meaning of due process does not apply, and they are as equally protected under the law as are children, widowed seniors, and heterosexual couples. Walker’s arguments rely on an expansionist, neo-liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that, while supported by precedent, is not supported by a simple and sincere interpretation of the law.

That a homosexual judge in San Francisco would rule against Proposition 8 is not surprising to anybody. The funny thing about black-robed lawyers is that when we agree with their opinions, we extol them as stalwart defenders of liberty, but when we disagree, we label them judicial activists overriding the will of the people and individual rights.

This, of course, is the danger of allowing the government to define, regulate, and micro-manage marriage. In the end, Walker’s ruling is fairly inconsequential as the appeal is already underway, and the ninth circuit court will soon hear the case.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Breaking: New Anti-Proposition 8 Campaign to Target LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson
• The Improper Price of Proposition 8
• Religion and Politics: The LDS Church and Proposition 8

Americans fear their government.

It was not supposed to be that way.

Despite only 11% of Americans having confidence in Congress, the masses seem either unwilling or unable to hold their representatives accountable and remove from office those whose (relatively) absolute power has absolutely corrupted them.

It’s quite natural for people to be intimidated by those in power. Employees are often nervous around the company president, students never want to be sent to the principal’s office, and anytime a driver sees a police officer in his rear view mirror, his heart rate accelerates faster than his car ever could. There’s just something about having to deal with authority figures that naturally makes such influential people seem intimidating. Knowing that the other person can, through a single decision or action, significantly alter (and worsen) your life puts the potential victims in a default position of apprehension and submission.

This, of course, is why people fear their government. Through a single piece of (lobbyist-written, never-read, massively long) legislation, one’s business can be destroyed, rights can be suppressed, and quality of life can be decreased to such a degree that a pursuit of happiness becomes subject to the government’s permission and discretion. Compounded bill after bill, session after session, the American people have been legislated into a corner and made to bow as serfs before an oppressive, omnipotent master.

This needs to change.

It’s beyond time for politicians—those who supposedly represent us and are employed at our collective behest—to be intimidated by their constituents and all citizens, rather than promoting and relishing in culture of self-aggrandizing power lust. Simply put, the political class must be put on notice that their future is on the line unless they actually represent those who elected them and play by the rules.

For this to be possible, pressure must be added to the process. Rather than simply writing letters to the editor about or sending emails to a certain congresscritter, concerned citizens need to organize en masse to collectively flex their political muscle and make their voices heard and concerns understood—not merely during election season, but constantly.

Congress has historically enjoyed re-election rates in the mid to high 90 percentile, leading them to feel comfortable and entitled. Fortunately, this election cycle has shaken things up already, and if the trend is to continue to any degree, individuals must explore and implement effective ways of creating and perpetuating intimidation amongst the political class. No longer can they feel entitled; they must continually earn the opportunity to be entrusted with power. No longer should they wield that power for their own benefit; they must serve their constituents. No longer will they be afforded any comfort; they must be made to feel uncomfortable.

The tables are turning right now, lightly balancing on a fulcrum of citizen activism. The extent to which more individuals get angry, get informed, and get to work on “throwing the bums out” will determine whether or not the entitled, power-hungry political class can be checked and made to fear the collective, coordinated, concentrated power of concerned citizens around the country.

So prepare some pink slips and eviction notices—it’s time to put the politicians on notice that their employer and landlord is preparing to kick them out. Citizens must show the government who the real boss is.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• A False Plea for Political Unity
• The Desperate Struggle for Political Power
• Mediating Institutions: A Remedy to Political Indifference

Today, Mormons worldwide memorialize the unjust and oppressive expulsion of their forbears from their homes in Illinois, and their subsequent migration westward to what is now the Salt Lake Valley. Utah’s government has, since its existence, recognized July 24^th as a holiday, and Utahns of all faith and backgrounds join together in celebration, along with Latter-day Saints in other states and countries.

The pioneer trek was a direct result of mobocracy, and the forceful aggression of the Saints’ former neighbors and fellow citizens. Tempers flared, rhetoric exploded, and violence resulted far too often—and the government was a culprit, either looking the other way and ignoring the Saints’ pleas for protection, or sanctioning and sometimes instigating the violence, as was the case with Missouri Governor Boggs’ extermination order a few years prior.

The Saints were made to involuntarily leave their homes and leave behind many of their belongings, acquiescing of necessity in the face of forceful mobs demanding their departure. In a letter to U.S. President James K. Polk in 1846, Brigham Young formalized the Saints’ farewell by summarizing their intent.

We would esteem a territorial government of our own as one of the richest boons of earth, and while we appreciate the Constitution of the United States as the most precious among the nations, we feel that we had rather retreat to the deserts, islands or mountain caves than consent to be ruled by governors and judges whose hands are drenched in the blood of innocence and virtue, who delight in injustice and oppression. (quoted in B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, 3:89-90).

Five years later, Brigham Young would similarly state: “I love the government and the constitution of the United States, but I do not love the damned rascals who administer the government.” For all the tyranny making the exodus necessary, though, the Saints’ travel to and congregation in the West was a foretold and foreordained reality. Though the aggressive actions prompting the Saints’ pioneer journey are vile and deplorable, few will disagree that the isolation and concentration of the Mormons in the west allowed them to strengthen and prosper in ways that otherwise may never have been possible. Even the darkest of days, with God’s providence, can be turned into something good.

And yet, looking back on these events, not everybody applies history in the same way. Whereas I and others look to the pioneers’ actions and see submission to oppression, unjust government extending its evil influence, and a concentrated and magnified faith in God, some choose to see a generalized “rejection of authority” and “rising up” and interpret this resistance as justification for their own defiance—not necessarily of political authority, but of theological authority as well.

So it is with one Holly Welker, whose article in the Huffington Post today titled “Latter-Day Saints and Modern-Day Pioneers” recounts some of the pioneer story as pretext for what later becomes an ode to supposed modern-day pioneers who, in the author’s eye, “challenge and remake the ways Mormons live their day-to-day lives.”

The ensuing list is comprised of homosexual (and other gender-bending) activists, “edgy” and “leftist” authors and producers, feminists, and others who, the author explains, “challenged the status quo in one way or another”. We are left simply to wonder what connecting characteristics the two groups have; the author apparently conflates Mormon pioneer, somehow, with progressive activist.

If the very individuals who were forced to leave “footprints of blood across frozen rivers and an untamed prairie floor” observed our state of affairs, for whom would they feel more kinship, and in whom would they see echoes of themselves? Would they feel any solidarity with the individuals lobbying government and God’s prophet to change the nature of the marital relationship? Would they find common ground with those who seek to steady the ark and mock Church authorities, regardless of their imperfections?

From my vantage point, I cannot fathom any clear bridge between these two groups. It feels, rather, that the author’s self-described status of “secular saint rather than a devout one” leads her to somehow tie her past to her present, and the persecuted nature of these distinct minority groups is enough for her to grant “pioneer” status to her progressive heroes. Both groups, she feels, faced “sacrifice, … the unknown, and change.”

To me, the modern counterparts of our Mormon pioneer ancestors are those who fight for “the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” They do this by participating in and changing government, defying regulations or policies that restrict this privilege while submitting to whatever consequences external forces may be imposed, and by moving forward, whatever the obstacles, in building the kingdom of God on the Earth.

This is a sharp contrast, of course, to our author’s attempt at promoting a progressive political agenda on the cloudy memories of our common ancestry. Whereas she desires defiance of the “status quo” and the promotion of policies which run contrary to established doctrine and revelation, a more reasonable pioneer parallel finds itself in the lives of the average “status quo” member—or at lease those who consciously are living up to the label of “Latter-day Saint”.

On this pioneer day, I feel we best memorialize our pioneer ancestors by picking up where they left off, and by learning from the experiences they were forced to endure. As Elder M. Russell Ballard has said:

Our pioneer ancestors were driven from place to place by uninformed and intolerant neighbors. They experienced extraordinary hardship and persecution because they thought, acted, and believed differently from others. If our history teaches us nothing else, it should teach us to respect the rights of all people to peacefully coexist with one another.

We become pioneers, in the Latter-day Saint vernacular, by doing our part to help the “truth of God… go forth boldly, nobly, and independent” regardless of what others may think, how they may react, or what they may do to us. As one of our hymns states, “do what is right, let the consequence follow.”

The key part is doing what’s “right”—not pushing boundaries and promoting “change” for its own sake, but firmly grasping onto what’s right and true, and doing whatever it takes to promote that agenda. “Our duty,” as Joseph Smith once said, is “to concentrate all our influence to make popular that which is sound and good, and unpopular that which is unsound.”

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Dangers of a Modern Constitutional Convention
• Preventive War and the Book of Mormon
• The Purpose and Aim of a Modern Education

I, an advocate of liberty and staunch defender of the Constitution, support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

What I just said is tantamount to political blasphemy, if not treason, in the eyes of conservatives. Right now, some readers are quite perplexed, trying to reconcile their understanding of my general political ideals with this latest revelation. How can one who positions himself as an advocate of the Constitution, the rule of law, sovereignty, etc., support amnesty in any way, shape, or form?

The answer to that question will manifest itself as we walk through several important facets of the issue to better grasp why I could possibly be for amnesty—and why you should support it as well. To start, and before diving into specifics, I’d like to propose a high-level ideal which our immigration policy should work towards if we’re to maximize individual liberty and prosperity.

In the Book of Mormon, a sibling rivalry in a family of migrant settlers turns into centuries of divisive conflict between the two civilizations that form, each adhering to a different legal code and theology. Towards the latter end of the historical narrative, we find a description of what occurred between these two groups once the conflict (finally!) subsided:

And behold, there was peace in all the land, insomuch that the Nephites did go into whatsoever part of the land they would, whether among the Nephites or the Lamanites.

And it came to pass that the Lamanites did also go whithersoever they would, whether it were among the Lamanites or among the Nephites; and thus they did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain, according to their desire.

And it came to pass that they became exceedingly rich, both the Lamanites and the Nephites; and they did have an exceeding plenty of gold, and of silver, and of all manner of precious metals, both in the land south and in the land north. (Helaman 6:7-9, emphasis added)

Here we find one of the (extremely) few times peace existed between these two groups, and the narrator lists for us a few resulting and related benefits. The first product of peace mentioned is open migration between the inhabitants of each distinct civilization. Free intercourse and commerce have special mention, and are corollaries to the unrestricted ability to travel and reside where one pleases. Second, the record notes that this exchange between the individuals of each group yielded increased prosperity for all involved. They became “exceedingly rich” and had “an exceeding plenty”.

As with other scripture, this one can and should be likened unto us. This is not to say, of course, that American government and jurisprudence should conform to the models found in scriptural history; the Book of Mormon describes various forms of government and is mostly theocratic in nature. However, the principle contained in this ideal snapshot of liberty and prosperity should be sincerely scrutinized in order to find out how we can apply it to ourselves and produce similar results.

A (not very) brief history of immigration

Before proceeding with some of the detailed arguments, it’s important to first understand the history of immigration law in the Unites States of America. At the very outset of the country’s formation, we find the subject raised in the list of grievances presented in the Declaration of Independence. The relevant complaint against King George notes that “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.” For years prior to the revolution, colonies had been developing systems whereby local naturalization would be conferred (in other words, citizenship granted) to a resident, based on factors such as length of residency and good character. These local citizenship laws were not recognized by the Crown, as England had its own process and saw an alien naturalized by Massachusetts law as an alien still—one who was not a subject of the Crown until parliamentary naturalization was conferred.

The Articles of Confederation allowed each state to retain its authority over naturalization, resulting in a variety of state practices—an outcome which James Madison called a “fault” and “defect” of the Confederation. Pennsylvania, for example, listed the following naturalization process in their September 28, 1776 constitution in section 42:

Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.

Joseph Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, describes the fix that the Constitutional Convention later produced:

The propriety of confiding the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization to the national government seems not to have occasioned any doubt or controversy in the convention. For aught that appears on the journals, it was conceded without objection. Under the confederation, the states possessed the sole authority to exercise the power; and the dissimilarity of the system in different states was generally admitted, as a prominent defect, and laid the foundation of many delicate and intricate questions. As the free inhabitants of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in all the other states, it followed, that a single state possessed the power of forcing into every other state, with the enjoyment of every immunity and privilege, any alien, whom it might choose to incorporate into its own society, however repugnant such admission might be to their polity, conveniences, and even prejudices. In effect every state possessed the power of naturalizing aliens in every other state; a power as mischievous in its nature, as it was indiscreet in its actual exercise. In one state, residence for a short time might, and did confer the rights of citizenship. In others, qualifications of greater importance were required. An alien, therefore, incapacitated for the possession of certain rights by the laws of the latter, might, by a previous residence and naturalization in the former, elude at pleasure all their salutary regulations for self-protection. Thus the laws of a single state were preposterously rendered paramount to the laws of all the others, even within their own jurisdiction.

Extending an invitation to foreigners, Madison once noted that “America was indebted to emigration for [America's] settlement & prosperity” (notice here another connection between free migration and prosperity). The century that followed was a recognition of this debt and a continuation of the attitude that produced it; America was an “open borders” nation welcoming those who wished to enter. Federal laws dealt only with naturalization (such as the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1798), leaving to each of the several states the authority and ability to regulate immigration. Naturally, coastal states disproportionately dealt with the issue due to the shiploads of migrants disembarking at their ports. These states often took several steps in regards to the influx of immigrants, such as charging a modest fee to each shipmaster in order to raise funds for charities and hospitals that offered assistance to impoverished immigrants, deporting aliens deemed to “become wards of the state,” and establishing volunteer immigration boards.

State-based immigration was not always smooth sailing, though. In 1837, right in the middle of the century-long “open door era”, state laws that screened immigrants (primarily for health reasons) were challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court because, it was alleged, such laws interfered with interstate and foreign commerce—both of which constitutionally fall under the purview of the federal government. The case, Mayor of the City of New York v. Miln, arose when Miln, master of the ship “Emily” refused to comply with New York law requiring him to provide a list of his passengers and to post a bond for each in order to assure such individuals did not become wards of the state. Miln’s refusal prompted New York’s lawsuit in seeking a penalty for failure to comply.

The Court’s decision deserves to be quoted at length, in order to understand the context of their decision and the strength of the state’s position in regulating immigration:

It is contended by the counsel for the defendant that the act in question is a regulation of commerce; that the power to regulate commerce is, by the Constitution of the United States, granted to Congress; that this power is exclusive, and that consequently the act is a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

We shall not enter into any examination of the question whether the power to regulate commerce be or be not exclusive of the states, because the opinion which we have formed renders it unnecessary. In other words, we are of opinion that the act is not a regulation of commerce, but of police [in other words, a sovereign state's general “police power”], and that being thus considered, it was passed in the exercise of a power which rightfully belonged to the states.

That the State of New York possessed power to pass this law before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States might probably be taken as a truism, without the necessity of proof. But as it may tend to present it in a clearer point of view, we will quote a few passages from a standard writer upon public law showing the origin and character of this power[:]

“The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general or in particular cases or to certain persons or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. … Since the lord of the territory may, whenever he thinks proper, forbid its being entered, he has no doubt a power to annex what conditions he pleases, to the permission to enter.”

The power, then, of New York to pass this law having undeniably existed at the formation of the Constitution, the simple inquiry is whether by that instrument is was taken from the states and granted to Congress, for if it were not, it yet remains with them.

If, as we think, it be a regulation not of commerce, but police, then it is not taken from the states.

… We think it as competent for a State to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound or infectious articles imported.

… [G]oods are the subject of commerce, … persons are not; the Court did indeed extend the power to regulate commerce, so as to protect the goods imported from a state tax after they were landed and were yet in bulk, but why? Because they were the subjects of commerce and because, as the power to regulate commerce under which the importation was made implied a right to sell; that right was complete without paying the state for a second right to sell whilst the bales or packages were in their original form. But how can this apply to persons? They are not the subject of commerce, and not being imported goods, cannot fall within a train of reasoning founded upon the construction of a power given to Congress to regulate commerce and the prohibition to the states from imposing a duty on imported goods. (emphasis added)

We note here that the law in question dealt not with the restriction of what individual or group of persons was allowed to enter New York, but with modest procedures that sought to protect the public from disease and dependency. The Court upheld the state’s sovereign right to regulate immigration into its borders in this fashion; immigration remained free to all.

Along the way, the federal government slowly began to take interest in the matter. The first toe in the water was the Steerage Act passed by Congress on March 2, 1819 requiring the captain of a ship arriving at a United States port from a foreign country to surrender a list of passengers to the collector of customs, effective January 1, 1820. Four decades later, Congress established the Bureau of Immigration for the sole purpose of recording relevant statistics of emigrants. Four years later this was reversed, and the job handed over to the Bureau of Statistics. These efforts, though, were strictly observatory—no actions were taken to regulate, restrict, or prevent the immigration from occurring.

In 1864, the same year that the Bureau of Immigration was created, the decade-old Republican Party included in its platform the following statement on immigration:

Foreign immigration which in the past has added so much to the wealth, resources, and increase of power to this nation … the asylum of the oppressed of all nations … should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy.

The year prior, President Lincoln himself had encouraged Congress to “establish[] a system for the encouragement of immigration,” noting that the migrant influx was a “source of national wealth and strength.” Thus, although the federal government was increasingly (but slowly) becoming involved in the issue of immigration, it was doing so with the object and design of increasing the flow of immigrants and welcoming them to our nation.

Just a few short years later, the first of what would become an alarmingly increasing number of federal interventions into the immigration process manifested itself in a U.S Supreme Court case named Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York. Here the Court reversed their 1824 decision and declared that since shipmasters paid a fee per immigrant, this equated to a tax on foreign imports, and thus constituted foreign commerce—an action which constitutionally falls under the purview of the federal government. The relevant portion of their decision reads:

It is said that the purpose of the act is to protect the State against the consequences of the flood of pauperism immigrating from Europe, and first landing in that city. But it is a strange mode of doing this to tax every passenger alike who comes from abroad.

The man who brings with him important additions to the wealth of the country, and the man who is perfectly free from disease, and brings to aid the industry of the country a stout heart and a strong arm, are as much the subject of the tax as the diseased pauper who may become the object of the charity of the city the day after he lands from the vessel.

No just rule can make the citizen of France landing from an English vessel on our shore liable for the support of an English or Irish pauper who lands at the same time from the same vessel. …

As already indicated, the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, on which the principal reliance is placed to make void the statute of New York, is that which gives to Congress the power ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations.’ As was said in United States v. Holliday, ‘commerce with foreign nations means commerce between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments.’ It means trade, and it means intercourse. It means commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches. … To regulate this trade and intercourse is to prescribe the rules by which it shall be conducted. ‘The mind,’ says the great Chief Justice, ‘can scarcely conceive a system for regulating commerce between nations which shall exclude all laws concerning navigation, which shall be silent on the admission of the vessels of one nation into the ports of another;’ and he might have added, with equal force, which prescribed no terms for the admission of their cargo or their passengers.

Since the delivery of the opinion in that case, which has become the accepted canon of construction of this clause of the Constitution, as far as it extends, the transportation of passengers from European ports to those of the United States has attained a magnitude and importance far beyond its proportion at that time to other branches of commerce. It has become a part of our commerce with foreign nations, of vast interest to this country, as well as to the immigrants who come among us to find a welcome and a home within our borders. In addition to the wealth which some of them bring, they bring still more largely the labor which we need to till our soil, build our railroads, and develop the latent resources of the country in its minerals, its manufactures, and its agriculture. Is the regulation of this great system a regulation of commerce? Can it be doubted that a law which prescribes the terms on which vessels shall engage in it is a law regulating this branch of commerce?

The transportation of a passenger from Liverpool to the city of New York is one voyage. It is not completed until the passenger is disembarked at the pier in the latter city. A law or a rule emanating from any lawful authority, which prescribes terms or conditions on which alone the vessel can discharge its passengers, is a regulation of commerce; and, in case of vessels and passengers coming from foreign ports, in a regulation of commerce with foreign nations.

The accuracy of these definitions is scarcely denied by the advocates of the State statutes. But assuming, that, in the formation of our government, certain powers necessary to the administration of their internal affairs are reserved to the States, and that among these powers are those for the preservation of good order, of the health and comfort of the citizens, and their protection against pauperism and against contagious and infectious diseases, and other matters of legislation of like character, they insist that the power here exercised falls within this class, and belongs rightfully to the States.

This power, frequently referred to in the decisions of this court, has been, in general terms, somewhat loosely called the police power. It is not necessary for the course of this discussion to attempt to define it more accurately than it has been defined already. It is not necessary, because whatever may be the nature and extent of that power, where not otherwise restricted, no definition of it, and no urgency for its use, can authorize a State to exercise it in regard to a subject-matter which has been confided exclusively to the discretion of Congress by the Constitution. …

But, however difficult this may be, it is clear, from the nature of our complex form of government, that, whenever the statute of a State invades the domain of legislation which belongs exclusively to the Congress of the United States, it is void, no matter under what class of powers it may fall, or how closely allied to powers conceded to belong to the States.

It is equally clear that the matter of these statutes may be, and ought to be, the subject of a uniform system or plan. The laws which govern the right to land passengers in the United States from other countries ought to be the same in New York, Boston, New Orleans, and San Francisco. A striking evidence of the truth of this proposition is to be found in the similarity, we might almost say in the identity, of the statutes of New York, of Louisiana, and California, now before us for consideration in these three cases. It is apparent, therefore, that, if there be a class of laws which may be valid when passed by the States until the same ground is occupied by a treaty or an act of Congress, this statute is not of that class. (emphasis added)

Here’s the kicker, towards the end of the opinion:

We are of the opinion that this whole subject has been confided to Congress by the Constitution; that Congress can more appropriately and with more acceptance exercise it than any other body known to our law, state or national; that by providing a system of laws in these matters, applicable to all ports and to all vessels, a serious question, which has long been matter of contest and complaint, may be effectually and satisfactorily settled.

What’s interesting about the Court’s opinion in this case is its striking resemblance to Wickard v. Filburn, a case which decades later found the Court arguing that the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution had application to essentially any economic activity anywhere, because any single economic activity had the potential to, in the aggregate, affect economic activity in other states. The Court here makes a similar argument, namely, that wealthy individuals disembarking at a state port intended to participate in economic exchanges with others, and that the transportation of individuals on board a naval vessel was indirectly related to commerce due to ship fares and bonds. Though the federal government at this time still had no laws on the books regarding immigration, the Court opined that the immigration laws among the several states should be uniform—even though to a large extent they already were, without any federal regulation.

Important though this case was, it did not actually remove from the states the sovereign right to regulate immigration. Rather, it declared that any taxation of said immigrants constituted a form of foreign commerce, and was thus denied to the states under the U.S. Constitution.

While most issues dealing with immigration had until now focused on the eastern seaboard, our gaze now turns westward, where California passed several laws targeting Chinese immigrants specifically. A few decades prior, the gold rush seduced people of all nationalities, and Chinese immigrants came in droves to try their hand at striking rich. As things regained normalcy, many of the Chinese workforce became employed on the Transcontinental Railroad project, competing with the white workers for day laborer jobs. Naturally, this didn’t sit well with those who felt entitled to “American jobs”.

In rapid fashion, the Chinese as a bloc became perceived as being an economic threat. San Francisco, which by this time had become a multicultural melting pot of its own, was home to a protest in 1870 by Irish factory workers demanding a pay increase from three dollars per day to four. These workers were replaced by Chinese who worked for one dollar per day. Popular culture soon embraced a widespread denigration of these Chinese immigrants, painting them as strange rat-eaters and job-stealers.

Municipal and state laws passed in response to this influx of cheap labor specifically targeted the Chinese population. Some were focused on industries dominated almost entirely by the Chinese, such as laundries, with San Francisco passing an ordinance ordering people not to walk on any sidewalk with a pole and baskets over his shoulder.

Pressure mounted by the western states to see restrictions on immigration instituted by the federal government. Responding accordingly, President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 successfully amended the Burlingame Treaty, signed 22 years previously in a pact with China to recognize the right of migration. Previous to its amendment, and for over two decades, the treaty declared:

The United States of America and the emperor of China cordially recognize the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively from the one country to the other for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents.

Similar language was found in other treaties, such as in the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Japan signed in 1911:

The citizens or subjects of each of the high contrating parties shall have liberty to enter, travel and reside in the territories of the other to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generall to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established.

The amendment to the Burlingame Treaty suspended Chinese immigration while affirming protection for the “grandfathered” immigrants who had already arrived. Both parties in Congress, each vying to attract the vote of the western states, supported federal legislation taking the issue a step further. A bill passed the following year which would have stopped Chinese immigration entirely for nearly two decades. The bill was vetoed by President Chester Arthur, for fear of an economic retaliation by the Chinese government. The western states were furious, and some went so far as to burn the President in effigy as a result. One year later, on May 6, 1882, a softer version of the same bill passed and was signed into law by the President. This bill banned Chinese immigration for ten years, and allowed merchants, teachers, and students to immigrate freely. This new law—the first federal legislation restricting immigration— was named the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. For the first time with the treaty amendment and the subsequent legislation, not only was the federal government regulating/restricting immigration, but it was doing so on the basis of nationality or race.

Thus was “illegal immigration” born.

For the first time in America, there were two classes of immigrants: legal and illegal. The ban on Chinese immigration was permanently renewed, and was not to be repealed until 1943 when 105 Chinese immigrants per year were allowed. The Geary Act of 1892 was the first extension of the original immigration suspension, and was, unsurprisingly, written by a California congressman. In addition to renewing the previous Act, this new law required all Chinese residents to register for certificates documenting their lawful residence, and refused them the ability to bear witness in court cases or be given bail in habeas corpus cases. Three years later, the Supreme Court declared that federal district courts could not even review Chinese habeas corpus petitions.

What for decades was a trickle of increasing federal oversight of and interest in immigration soon became a deluge. Three years after the Chinese Exclusion Act, Congress passed the union-promoted Contract Labor Law, which prohibited the use of contract labor with exemptions for actors, artists, lecturers, singers, domestic servants, and skilled labor required for new industries. Three years later, an amendment to the Contract Labor Law was passed ordering the deportation of alien contract laborers within one year of entry.

The expansion of federal intervention into immigration was coordinated through the efforts of each branch of government. The Supreme Court, not to be outdone, further augmented the immigration authority in an 1889 case dealing with a Chinese immigrant who went on a vacation to his homeland for a short time. Having obtained a certificate assuring his re-entry upon returning, he left America. When he arrived at the conclusion of his voyage, he was informed that new legislation had rendered his certificate and the government’s previous promise to him null and void. The 1889 Court decision concluded that Congress could indeed refuse him entry into the United States despite any previous assurances made. Part of the decision reads:

The power of the legislative department of the government to exclude aliens from the United States is an incident of sovereignty which cannot be surrendered by the treaty making power. …

That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence.

If it could not exclude aliens, it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. As said by this Court in the case of 11 U. S. 136, speaking by Chief Justice Marshall:

“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from an external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.”

While under our constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations. …

The control of local matters being left to local authorities, and national matters being intrusted to the government of the Union, the problem of free institutions existing over a widely extended country, having different climates and varied interests, has been happily solved. For local interests the several states of the Union exist, but for national purposes, embracing our relations with foreign nations, we are but one people, one nation, one power. To preserve its independence, and give security against foreign aggression and encroachment, is the highest duty of every nation, and to attain these ends nearly all other considerations are to be subordinated. It matters not in what form such aggression and encroachment come, whether from the foreign nation acting in its national character, or from vast hordes of its people crowding in upon us. …

If, therefore, the government of the United States, through its legislative department, considers the presence of foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, to be dangerous to its peace and security, their exclusion is not to be stayed because at the time there are no actual hostilities with the nation of which the foreigners are subjects. The existence of war would render the necessity of the proceeding only more obvious and pressing. The same necessity, in a less pressing degree, may arise when war does not exist, and the same authority which adjudges the necessity in one case must also determine it in the other. In both cases its determination is conclusive upon the judiciary. …

The power of the government to exclude foreigners from the country whenever, in its judgment, the public interests require such exclusion, has been asserted in repeated instances, and never denied by the executive or legislative departments. In a communication made in December, 1852, to Mr. A. Dudley Mann, at one time a special agent of the department of state in Europe, Mr. Everett, then secretary of state under President Fillmore, writes: ‘This government could never give up the right of excluding foreigners whose presence it might deem a source of danger to the United States.’ …

In a dispatch to Mr. Fay, our minister to Switzerland, in March, 1856, Mr. Marcy, secretary of state under President Pierce, writes: ‘Every society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members, and it is exercised by all nations, both in peace and war.’ ‘It may always be questionable whether a resort to this power is warranted by the circumstances, or what department of the government is empowered to exert it; but there can be no doubt that it is possessed by all nations, and that each may decide for itself when the occasion arises demanding its exercise.’

In a communication in September, 1869, to Mr. Washburne, our minister to France, Mr. Fish, secretary of state under President Grant, uses this language: ‘The control of the people within its limits, and the right to expel from its territory persons who are dangerous to the peace of the state, are too clearly within the essential attributes of sovereignty to be seriously contested. Strangers visiting or sojourning in a foreign country voluntarily submit themselves to its laws and customs, and the municipal laws of France, authorizing the expulsion of strangers, are not of such recent date, nor has the exercise of the power by the government of France been so infrequent, that sojourners within her territory can claim surprise when the power is put in force.’ …

The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one. The powers of government are delegated in trust to the United States, and are incapable of transfer to any other parties. They cannot be abandoned or surrendered. Nor can their exercise be hampered, when needed for the public good, by any considerations of private interest. The exercise of these public trusts is not the subject of barter or contract.

Whatever license, therefore, Chinese laborers may have obtained, previous to the act of October 1, 1888, to return to the United States after their departure, is held at the will of the government, revocable at any time, at its pleasure. (emphasis added)

The Court here inferred some congressional authority to divine the “national interest” and use such as justification for forbidding any person entry into the United States when “the interests of the country require it”. On any whim, then, Congress could refuse to admit anybody into the country, based on nationality or any other qualifier. The textual basis for their defense in this case was not the commerce clause, but the power to repel invasions. As support for such a statement, the Court argued that invasions can come through an organized national military force or “vast hordes” of individuals peacefully migrating of their own accord.

In a case three years later, the Court again affirmed the sovereign right of the federal government to restrict and regulation of individuals:

It is an accepted maxim of international law that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe. In the United States, this power is vested in the National Government, to which the Constitution has committed the entire control of international relations, in peace as well as in war. It belongs to the political department of the Government, and may be exercised either through treaties made by the President and Senate or through statutes enacted by Congress. (emphasis added)

A year later, the Court again augmented the sovereignty ruling, declaring:

The right to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign nation.

In the United States, the power to exclude or to expel aliens is vested in the political departments of the National Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far as the Judicial Department is authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the Constitution, to intervene.

The power of Congress to expel, like the power to exclude, aliens, or any specified class of aliens, from the country, may be exercised entirely through executive officers; or Congress may call in the aid of the Judiciary to ascertain any contested facts on which an alien’s right to remain in the country has been made by Congress to depend.

Congress has the right to provide a system of registration and identification of any class of aliens within the country, and to take all proper means to carry out that system. (emphasis added)

In the matter of a couple decades, the Court’s opinions had transmogrified into something altogether different than the established precedent. Whereas 1875′s ruling found the Court issuing their decree in light of the commerce clause and power of states to tax freely migrating individuals, the Court, after the hyped anti-Chinese public sentiment had permeated America’s political institutions, instead affirmed a “sovereign right” in agreement with “international law” to “provide a system of registration” for immigrants, and restrict and expel whomever they wished, for whatever reason; only a casual and weak reference was made to the power to repel invasions.

The Court’s opinions, of course, were not unanimous decrees reflecting universal agreement in political ideology and governmental authority. In a dissent of the 1893 decision, Justice Brewer took issue with his colleagues’ inference of the “sovereign power” being used to justify regulation of immigration:

It has been repeated so often as to become axiomatic that this government is one of enumerated and delegated powers; and, as declared in article 10 or the amendments, ‘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.’

It is said that the power here asserted is inherent in sovereignty. This doctrine of powers inherent in sovereignty is one both indefinite and dangerous. Where are the limits to such powers to be found, and by whom are they to be pronounced? Is it within legislative capacity to declare the limits? If so, then the mere assertion of an inherent power creates it, and despotism exists. May the courts establish the boundaries? Whence do they obtain the authority for this? Shall they look to the practices of other nations to ascertain the limits? The governments of other nations have elastic powers. Ours are fixed and bounded by a written constitution. The expulsion of a race may be within the inherent powers of a despotism. History, before the adoption of this constitution, was not destitute of examples of the exercise of such a power; and its framers were familiar with history, and wisely, and it seems to me, they gave to this government no general power to banish. Banishment may be resorted to as punishment for crime; but among the powers reserved to the people, and not delegated to the government, is that of determining whether whole classes in our midst shall, for no crime but that of their race and birthplace, be driven from our territory. …

The government of the United States is one of limited and delegated powers. It takes nothing from the usages or the former action of European governments, nor does it take any power by any supposed inherent sovereignty. There is a great deal of confusion in the use of the word ‘sovereignty’ by law writers. Sovereignty or supreme power is in this country vested in the people, and only in the people. By them certain sovereign powers have been delegated to the government of the United States, and other sovereign powers reserved to the states or to themselves. This is not a matter of inference and argument, but is the express declaration of the tenth amendment to the constitution, passed to avoid any misinterpretation of the powers of the general government. That amendment declares that ‘that 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.’ When, therefore, power is exercised by congress, authority for it must be found in express terms in the constitution, or in the means necessary or proper for the execution of the power expressed. If it cannot be thus found, it does not exist. (emphasis added)

Brewer’s defense provides clarity of thought where previous and future Court opinions were found lacking—arguing that detaining and deporting individuals suspected of being in violation of immigration law, without affording due process, is a practice authorized nowhere in the Constitution. But the Court’s majority continually ruled in favor of an expansion of government authority, interestingly not relying in these instances upon the naturalization clause, but upon the commerce clause, the delegated power to repel invasions, and the “sovereign” right America supposedly has a nation.

The previous Court decision to ban taxes on immigrants took away from the states the ability to fund the care of the poor and needy. The festering problem these individuals continually introduced led people to look instead to the federal government, where popular support resulted in a comprehensive 1891 immigration law which established Ellis Island, put administration of immigration law under the Treasury Department in a new Bureau of Immigration, and listed a number of “inadmissible classes” of individuals who would not be permitted to enter the country. Included in that list of mostly acceptable exclusions (diseased people, felons, etc.) were polygamists, their inclusion in the list resulting from the political battle being fought with Utah over its desired entry into the Union, and the repeated and bigoted persecution heaped upon members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Thus within a matter of years, immigration law was being used to target both ethnic and religious communities specifically.

A decade later, the Chinese Exclusion act was renewed indefinitely. A few years after that, Congress wanted a comprehensive look into the “immigration question” and established a nine-member commission, known as the Dillingham Commission, that investigated from 1907 to 1911 the various issues at hand and reported their findings in 41 volumes. Their ultimate recommendation: curtail immigration from Japan and southern and eastern Europe. Their reasoning: such individuals were, based on “scientific” data, fundamentally incapable of assimilation into American culture—new immigrants were inferior to older ones, produced a saturation of unskilled labor which resulted in lower wages and standard of living, took jobs from native workers, and lived in unsanitary conditions. Their proposed remedy: administer literacy tests to ensure that immigrants could read and write.

Xenophobia continued to increase, leading to the Immigration Act of 1917 which ignored any limitations whatsoever on constitutional restraint, and assumed complete and unlimited control over the regulation and restriction of immigration. Woodrow Wilson vetoed the bill but Congress had the support to override the veto, and after four attempts were able to include the recommendations of the Dillingham Commission to require a literacy examination and block immigrants from the aforementioned geographic locations and ethnic backgrounds. All Asians, save for Japanese and Filipinos, were barred from migrating to the United States of America. The tight and extensive regulations imposed by this bill were further strengthened and augmented in a related bill passed seven years later which likewise extended the Chinese Exclusion Act, imposed immigration caps on various countries, and outright prohibited the immigration of certain races of people. No limitations were imposed on people from Latin American countries.

The sentiment permeating this legislation was vocalized by Rep. Albert Johnson, Chairman of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, who wrote the following in a foreword to the 1927 book Immigration Restriction: A Study of the Opposition to and Regulation of Immigration into the United States:

The result [of free migration] is too well known to require extensive comment. Millions came. Today, instead of a well-knit homogenous citizenry, we have a body politic made up of all and every diverse element. Today, instead of a nation descended from generations of freemen bred to a knowledge of the principles and practices of self-government, of liberty under law, we have a heterogeneous population no small proportion of which is sprung from races that, throughout the centuries, have known no liberty at all, and no law save the decrees of overlords and princes. In other words, our capacity to maintain our cherished institutions stands diluted by a stream of alien blood, with all its inherited misconceptions respecting the relationships of the governing power to the governed.

It is out of an appreciation of this fundamental fact, vague at first, but later grown firm and substantial, that the American people have come to sanction–indeed to demand–reform of our immigration laws. They have seen, patent and plain, the encroachments of the foreign-born flood upon their own lives. They have come to realize that such a flood, affecting as it does every individual of whatever race or origin, can not fail likewise to affect the institutions which have made and preserved American liberties. It is no wonder, therefore, that the myth of the melting pot has been discredited. It is no wonder that Americans everywhere are insisting that their land no longer shall offer free and unrestricted asylum to the rest of the world.

The United States is our land. If it was not the land of our fathers, at least it may be, and it should be, the land of our children. We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all peoples, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended.

In addition, crusaders of the 1917 and 1924 laws were deeply persuaded by Madison Grant and his 1916 book The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist who favored selective breeding as a method of purifying the American population’s bloodstream. He was a source for much of the data relied upon for constructing the 1924 law, his advocacy focused on an immigration limit for individuals from eastern/southern Europe and an outright ban on East Asians. The added laws in the 1924 now required that aliens obtain visas from an American consul in their country of origin, this serving as a method of screening applicants in order to select those who were deemed best suited for migration to, and perhaps eventual citizenship in, the United States.

The Alien Registration Act of 1940 required all aliens within the country’s borders to register and receive an Alien Registration Receipt Card, a piece of documentation that a decade later would morph into today’s green card. Included in this law was a provision forbidding aliens to “advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing government”—a restriction used largely to prosecute Communists.

The dozens of related bills passed in subsequent decades, leading up until today, vary little from the general trend here described. The race-based immigration quotas were finally removed after over 70 years of their use, leaving us with what we have today: a simple ratio-based ceiling, justified in various court cases by different cited authorities: the commerce clause, the power to repel invasions, the naturalization clause, or circumventing the Constitution altogether, the implied rights enjoyed by a sovereign nation.

A summary interpretation of U.S. immigration history

While the foregoing history contained bits and pieces of editorialization, it is important to expand upon several points already made.

Our current immigration situation can be likened to a rotting tree, either in need of being felled or nurtured to good health. If we were to dig up the roots, though, we would see that they are poisoned; the foundation upon which our modern immigration laws rest is evil and wrong. This poison consists of two parts: racism and protectionism.

As has been shown, federal immigration laws got their start as a method by which xenophobic Americans rallied together to summarily deny specific ethnic groups from coming to this land. Whereas in previous decades, the federal government explicitly recognized the “inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance” and the right of “free migration… for purposes of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents,” in later years Americans changed their mind and started using whatever constitutional justification they could think of in their support.

These racist policies were directly connected, however, to the second part of the poison: protectionism. Protectionism, for the uninitiated, deals with the use of forceful law to manage the economy in pursuit of a desired goal, in many cases the inflation of wages or imported goods. The reason these two poisons are tied together is that the Chinese immigrants, as a general group, were able and willing to work for less money than the “natives” who were accustomed to higher wages. When employers saw the economic benefit in cutting costs by employing individuals at a lower rate, the natives grew restless and the race wars fomented. The labor unions at the time termed “illegal immigrant” as a pejorative and fought to expel the cheaper competition; ironically, the entities so despised today by conservatives are they who lobbied for the original federal laws that created illegal immigration!

Both racism and protectionism are evil—nobody has the right to deny another individual, regardless of race, the right to rent or purchase private property (and therefore cannot delegate that authority to the government they have organized), and nobody has the right to mandate through law that their industry be favored through tariffs, salary caps, minimum wage, or anything related.

And yet, these two poisons have produced the rotting tree we now call immigration law; rather than felling it and starting fresh, many people want the tree to grow and extend its branches—all while ignoring the roots.

Finally, our review of the Court cases should be seen as an interesting experiment in justification of constitutional authority. The patient reader who made it all the way through the above material will note the varying citations offered over the years as reason why the power to restrict the emigration of individuals, and deport those deemed unworthy, is constitutional. No less than four references have been made—the commerce clause, the power to repel invasions, the naturalization class, the implied powers as a sovereign nation. One would think that if the federal government did indeed have the power to regulate immigration of individuals, not only would they have done so at some point during the first century of the country’s existence, but they would be able to generally agree on the source of that authority.

Having now taken the time to look over the history of the issue, it becomes necessary to mention and rebut several key arguments often made in favor of our current immigration laws. Once complete with the nitty gritty, we’ll conclude with a high-level analysis of the various issues presented. We start with the only argument that carries any weight in the entire matter (for, if the federal government lacks any authority to manage immigration, then all the other perceived benefits and problems associated with the issue are not valid justification for imposing such laws), and then explore the secondary arguments.

“Our immigration laws are constitutional”

False. The closest argument that can be made in defense of this statement is to point to the naturalization clause, which gives Congress the power “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. What is naturalization? Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines it as:

The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen.

Thus, naturalization is the power to transform an alien into a citizen. Naturalization is not the same as immigration, as immigration is the process of traveling and residing in a certain locale, and naturalization is the process of granting the rights of citizenship to that individual.

Those who rely on the naturalization clause for their support of our federal immigration laws ironically employ the same method used by federal expansionists of opposing political ideologies. While others may ignorantly (or deviously) rely on the commerce clause, general welfare “clause”, or the necessary and proper clause for their statist desires, those who use the naturalization clause in defense of federal immigration policies are doing the same thing. Both use a specific grant of authority and warp it into something completely different in an attempt to justify the unconstitutional status quo they prefer.

As the Court has previously done, some may refer to the commerce clause, power to repel invasions, of the inherent right of a sovereign nation. The commerce clause argument only applied to the state-enforced taxation, and cannot be used to regulate the peaceful migration of an individual. The sovereign power argument is a glaring and dastardly conflict with the limited and enumerated powers conferred by the states upon the federal government through the creation and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and as Justice Brewer wrote in his dissent, “Where are the limits to such powers to be found, and by whom are they to be pronounced?” This is an assumed power excused by an appeal to international law, and is easily proven fallacious and should be outright rejected by the very crowd who in other cases objects to using international law and implied powers as arguments for federal arrogation of authority.

Now, a word about the invasion argument. The same section of the Constitution that provides for authority to regulate naturalization also says that Congress may “provide for calling forth the Militia to … repel Invasions.” Article IV Section 4 also requires the federal government to protect the states against invasion. Many people argue that the aggregate actions of immigrants in crossing our borders constitues an invasion, and thus merits response as constitutionally authorized. Organizations such as the John Birch Society, Constitution Party, the Eagle Forum, and others all use this constitutional provision as justification for federal immigration laws. Ironically, these same people look with great alarm to the Wickard v. Filburn case previously mentioned for its use of aggregate activities to justify an expansive and liberal reading of narrowly-intended clause. This cognitive dissonance is striking.

Looking closely at the matter though, it is apparent that the peaceful migration of an individual cannot be lumped in with the actions of other independent people and classified as an actual invasion. We are talking about a group of unconnected individuals acting of their own accord and seeking disparate goals—not a coordinated effort by a nation, military, or other organization working towards a common goal and actively seeking to undermine the sovereignty, security, and strength of the country. Consider James Madison’s arguments regarding the power of repelling invasions in Federalist 43:

A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article. Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety. … Why may not illicit combinations, for purposes of violence, be formed as well by a majority of a State, especially a small State as by a majority of a county, or a district of the same State; and if the authority of the State ought, in the latter case, to protect the local magistracy, ought not the federal authority, in the former, to support the State authority? Besides, there are certain parts of the State constitutions which are so interwoven with the federal Constitution, that a violent blow cannot be given to the one without communicating the wound to the other. Insurrections in a State will rarely induce a federal interposition, unless the number concerned in them bear some proportion to the friends of government. It will be much better that the violence in such cases should be repressed by the superintending power, than that the majority should be left to maintain their cause by a bloody and obstinate contest. The existence of a right to interpose, will generally prevent the necessity of exerting it.

What Madison is describing has nothing to do with the collective actions of freely-migrating individuals, some of whom may be violent criminals, or others of whom may be a drain on society welfare programs. When speaking in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Madison made clear that the mention in Article IV cannot in any way be re-interpreted in order to support the restriction of migration:

The word invasion here [in Article IV Section 4], after power had been given in the former clause to repel invasions, may be thought tautologous, but it has a different meaning from the other. This clause speaks of a particular state. It means that it shall be protected from invasion by other states. A republican government is to be guarantied to each state, and they are to be protected from invasion from other states, as well as from foreign powers; and, on application by the legislature or executive, as the case may be, the militia of the other states are to be called to suppress domestic insurrection

We have an explicit example of the application of the invasion clause to immigrants due to the Alien and Sedition Acts. These were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalist-controlled federal government, two of which dealt with aliens and provided that they may be deported from the country if deemed (without due process) to be a threat or if their country of origin was at war with the United States of America. Virginia was one of the states which protested some of the draconian measured included in these laws, and created a commission to investigate and recommend a resolution for the general body. In his Report of 1800, Madison, leading the commission, included the following in his proposed resolution (which passed):

It is said, that Congress are by the Constitution to protect each state against invasion; and that the means of preventing invasion are included in the power of protection against it.

The power of war in general, having been before granted by the Constitution, this clause must either be a mere specification for greater caution and certainty, of which there are other examples in the instrument, or be the injunction of a duty, superadded to a grant of the power. Under either explanation, it cannot enlarge the powers of Congress on the subject. The power and the duty to protect each state against an invading enemy, would be the same Under the general power, if this regard to greater caution had been omitted.

Invasion is an operation of war. To protect against invasion is an exercise of the power of war. A power, therefore, not incident to war, cannot be incident to a particular modification of war. And as the removal of alien friends, has appeared to be no incident to a general state of war, it cannot be incident to a partial state, or a particular modification of war.

Nor can it ever be granted, that a power to act on a case when it actually occurs, includes a power over all the means that may tend to prevent the occurrence of the case. Such a latitude of construction would render unavailing every practicable definition of particular and limited powers. Under the idea of preventing war in general, as well as invasion in particular, not only an indiscriminate removal of all aliens might be enforced, but a thousand other things still more remote from the operations and precautions appurtenant to war, might take place. A bigoted or tyrannical nation might threaten us with war, unless certain religious or political regulations were adopted by us; yet it never could be inferred, if the regulations which would prevent war, were such as Congress had otherwise no power to make, that the power to make them would grow out of the purpose they were to answer. Congress have power to suppress insurrections, yet it would not be allowed to follow, that they might employ all the means tending to prevent them; of which a system of moral instruction for the ignorant, and of provident support for the poor, might be regarded as among the most efficacious. (emphasis added)

In short, the collectivization of independent individuals into an aggregate block determined to be invading our country is without merit. A simple appeal to individual rights destroys the broad brush attempt at attaching the actions of a few people to the whole. If Juan from Guatemala is a peaceful, hard-working individual with no violent tendencies whatsoever, no desire to attack or undermine the government, and no intention of being a dependent, how can his desire to live and work in the United States be construed as an invasion? Only an expansive and problematic interpretation can attempt to justify such an argument.

Liberty-minded people reject any collectivization of individuals and the denial of one’s rights and privileges based on the actions of another. Only pro-centralization statists ignore such conundrums in favor of viewing aggregated statistics and trends to determine public policy. As Jefferson argued, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.”

Before concluding with this issue, one other item should be mentioned. Until very recently, I had not once seen or heard this line from the Constitution used in defense of federal immigration laws, likely because it is generally understood that it has no application. In Article I Section 9, we read the following:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Section 9 of the first article of the Constitution is often given the subtitle “Limits on Congress”, for every directive listed therein is a negative description of what Congress cannot do. Taken in that context, it becomes clear that nothing in a limiting clause can be construed to delegate a new power to the Congress—the exceptions and restrictions listed must refer to other powers explicitly delegated. A casual reading of this clause leads to the reader to assume that it is referring to the practice of slavery, and this assumption would be correct. Some, however, focus on the word migration, and infer that after the year 1808 Congress was no longer prohibited from prohibiting migration, and therefore could after that time prohibit it—arguing, incorrectly, that a prohibition of a power was at the same time a conditional delegation thereof.

Several sources support the view that the clause has only to do with slavery, and not the general migration of free persons. In one of James Madison’s private letters, for example, he indicates that the convention’s use of the word migration referred to slaves, criminals, and perhaps free blacks as well.

As slaves were being bought and sold like common wares, the slave trade was an area of interstate and foreign commerce, and thus subject to Congress’ regulation power. This negative restriction on Congress, then, effectively said that they could not use their commerce regulation authority to ban the slave trade until after the year 1808. Since free individuals come and go voluntarily and not as bought and sold goods, their movements (migration) cannot and do not fall under the commerce power. This understanding was agreed upon by Justice Marshall when writing the Supreme Court’s opinion on Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824:

But it is obvious that the power of the States over this subject, previous to the year 1808, constitutes an exception to the power of Congress to regulate commerce, and the exception is expressed in such words, as to manifest clearly the intention to continue the preexisting right of the States to admit or exclude, for a limited period. The words are

the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States, now existing, shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808.

The whole object of the exception is to preserve the power to those States which might be disposed to exercise it, and its language seems to the Court to convey this idea unequivocally. (emphasis added)

Half a century later, in 1883 the Court opined in People of the State of New York v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique that:

We know of nothing which can be exported from one country or imported into another that is not in some sense property—property in regard to which some one is owner, and is either the importer or the exporter. This cannot apply to a free man. Of him it is never said he imports himself or his wife or his children. The language of section 9, art. 1, of the constitution, which is relied on by counsel, does not establish a different construction:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for each person.

There has never been any doubt that this clause had exclusive reference to persons of the African race. The two words ‘migration’ and ‘importation’ refer to the different conditions of this race as regards freedom and slavery. When the free black man came here he migrated; when the slave came he was imported. The latter was property, and was imported by his owner as other property, and a duty could be imposed on him as an import. We conclude that free human beings are not imports or exports within the meaning of the constitution. (emphasis added)

The fact that a very limited number of Court cases even reference this constitutional prohibition on Congress at all, coupled with the almost universal lack of its use by individuals as justification for federal immigration law, shows a general understanding and agreement that the word migration had to do only with blacks, whether free or enslaved, with no application to the general migration of free, peaceful individuals, and that its inclusion in a negative exclusion did not delegate any new power to Congress.

“Illegal immigrants are a drain on the economy and take American jobs”

False. This argument is, of course, the direct descendant of the arguments used by the influential railroad unions to excoriate the Chinese who were willing to work for less money, thus siphoning away jobs from those who felt entitled to them, and at a higher wage.

However, defining the vague “drain on the economy” reference depends on who you talk to, and what data is being used. If somebody loses their job as a result of the employer deciding to hire workers who will work for less, then clearly that person feels that the economy is suffering since they are suffering (as the saying goes, “when your neighbor loses his job, it’s a recession, and when you lose your job, it’s a depression”). But this story is, in the aggregate, an emotional one—and one that is capitalized upon by politicians. Consider the following advertisement produced by the Coalition for the Future American Worker, an organization comprised of groups such as NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocate the imposition of firm caps on all forms immigration, legal or otherwise:

There’s even a Reclaim American Jobs Caucus in the House of Representatives, currently comprised of 41 members, which asserts that “the link between unemployment and illegal immigration is clear.” This caucus supports “turning off the jobs magnet,” as if you can somehow successfully disincentivize people from wanting to work for more money in better conditions—whatever the laws and risks involved may be.

We’re told by such groups that the existence of millions of illegal immigrants—nobody really knows how many there are—is itself a theft of American jobs, and that if these people were somehow mass deported (or employers threatened with enough fines and imprisonment for hiring them), those employment opportunities would be available to the “natives”. Some groups, such as in the video shown above, focus on legal immigrants, while others, such as the Caucus just mentioned, hone in on the “illegals”. Regardless, their argument is the same: the introduction of immigrants into American society steals wealth and employment opportunities.

This argument, though, is absurd, and easily disproven. Consider the following excerpt of a report by the Migration Policy Institute:

[T]he impact of immigration [on a nation's economy] remains small, for several reasons. Immigrants are not competitive in many types of jobs, and hence are not direct substitutes for natives. Local employers increase demand for low-skilled labor in areas that receive low-skilled immigrant inflows. Immigrants contribute to demand for goods and services that they consume, in turn increasing the demand for labor. And immigrants contribute to labor market efficiency and long-term economic growth.

A study by the Fiscal Policy Institute had this finding:

The reality is that immigrants play a key role in our society. In all 25 metro areas we studied, the economic role of immigrants were all significant as immigrants contribute to the economy in direct relation to their share of the population.

A Public Policy Institute of California report argues that the legalization of the illegal immigrant population would be an economically neutral action:

Many observers believe that a legalization program could have a significant economic impact. Our research suggests otherwise. This report finds that legalizing most currently unau- thorized immigrants would not lead to dramatic changes in the labor market, either for unauthorized immigrants or for native workers. We also find little evidence to support the view that such a step would have significant effects on the broader economy, particularly on tax revenues or public assistance programs.

Additionally, the Cato Institute has described some of the higher-level impacts immigrant labor creates:

The addition of low-skilled immigrants expands the size of the overall economy, creating higher-wage openings for managers, craftsmen, accountants, and the like. The net result is a greater financial reward and relatively more opportunities for those Americans who finish high school.

Finally, a recent report by the Center for American Progress and the American Immigration Council contends that the legalization of the illegal immigrant population “would raise wages, increase consumption, create jobs and generate more tax revenue.” Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are not the bloodsucking leeches they are portrayed by many to be, selfishly stealing the blood rightfully belonging to the body they are attacking. The very presence of these individuals introduces additional demand and consumption, and the lower wages many of the immigrants receive allows those with whom they transact to save resources and invest them elsewhere.

We tend to focus on the contributions of the low-skill laborers themselves, but must not forget the productive increase immigrant entrepreneurs bring to our country. According to a recent study by Duke University, one quarter of technology companies started in the U.S. between 1995 and 2005 had at least one immigrant founder. These companies hired 450,000 workers and had a combined $52 billion in sales. Half of the start-ups in Silicon Valley were founded by immigrants. From MIT alone, foreign graduates have founded an estimated 2,340 active U.S. companies that employ over 100,000 people. And, interestingly, resident aliens contributed to an estimated 24.2 percent of international patent applications in 2006.

To be sure, Americans who work in low-paying jobs have competition when immigrants are able and willing to work for the same price or less. However, this impact is small when compared to the economy as a whole, and cannot be used as the basis for protectionist policies that aim to save these jobs. The government’s role is not to bail out big corporations or save jobs for those with little to no skills. Rather, the government exists to secure individual liberty. Nobody is guaranteed employment, and thus the government cannot morally intervene to manage the economy in favor of one industry, socioeconomic class, or other group.

We should also rebut the notion that jobs can be stolen by anybody, including immigrants. Jobs are not owned, nor are they an entitlement. They are not property to be defended through law, nor is any job forcibly stolen when the employer terminates his relationship with one employee and hires another. A job is a contract between two voluntary parties who mutually consent to the terms of employment. It is, therefore, a fallacious statement to say that illegal immigrants (or anybody) has “stolen” “American” jobs, for individuals engaging in commerce within a free enterprise system are the ones who determine to whom their money will be given, and under what terms.

Does a Utahn steal a Texan’s job when he moves to another state? If I, as an employer, decide to move my business from California to North Dakota, am I stealing anything from my former employees who cannot make the move to another state? If the answer to these questions is no (and it is), then how is the action any different when discussing national borders as opposed to state borders? American citizens from different states cannot steal jobs, nor can immigrants, legal or otherwise.

The issue of employment aside, we may look at another related issue, such as the supposed “cost” of illegal immigrants. This strain of the argument we’re addressing claims that the existence of illegal immigrants is a drain on the society as said individuals use up resources and participate in social welfare programs without paying into the system as Americans are required to. But does this concern have any merit?

A report by FAIR (one of the anti-immigration organizations mentioned above) claims that illegal immigrants cost the government (state and federal, combined) $113 billion per year, the largest expenditure being the education of the immigrants’ children. Conversely, a 2008 report by the Perry Group states that the elimination of the “undocumented worker” labor force would have a net negative impact on the economy, completely contradicting the claim we’re discussing. According to their report, this action would remove $1.8 trillion in annual spending, $652 billion in output, and 8.1 million jobs. They also state:

If all undocumented workers were removed from the workforce, a number of industries would face substantial shortages of workers, and Americans would have to be induced into the labor pool or provided incentives to take jobs far below their current education and skill levels. For this phenomenon to occur to a meaningful extent, substantial wage escalation would likely be ncessary, thus eroding competitiveness in global markets.
…
As the domestic workforce becomes older, more stable in number, and better educated, the U.S. production complex increasingly requires foreign, low-skilled workers.

Additionally, contrary to popular wisdom, immigrants on the whole pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. If a wiser method of taxation were implemented—repealing the punishing income tax as the primary objective—the ratio of taxation to benefits would significantly increase.

All of this data ignores, however, the underlying poor policy. The existence of social welfare programs—un-constitutional at the federal level, and unwise at the state level—does indeed introduce a cost, but these programs should not exist in the first place. Americans have figured out how to vote for themselves the wealth of other individuals, and now that the loot has been collected, they wish to build up walls around it so that only they can have access. A respect for liberty demands removing these programs (thus removing the available benefits and corresponding incentives enticing “illegal immigrants”), changing our form of taxation, and allowing free enterprise to take its course. The “cost” being complained about is merely the addition of new players in a broken system. Don’t blame the players—fix the system!

It makes no sense to punish the would-be worker or his employer (through programs such as E-Verify) for the desire to engage in commerce. Why should these individuals be punished for peaceful and productive work? The real problem is and always has been the creation, expansion, and perpetuation of welfare programs offering “free” incentives, encouraging dependency, and discouraging the desire to have to earn one’s own way. Imposing fines and threatening imprisonment or deportation of those who wish to simply engage in commerce is, at its core, a form of oppression against those who simply desire to freely associate and pay their own way.

Perhaps a more personal example would be instructive.

For the past few weeks, my wife and I have been building out our basement. During the process, we solicited various bids from contractors and workers recommended to us by others. When it came time to employ somebody to do our drywall, we ended up going with a company whose price was half of the other quote we received. The men who showed up were likely “undocumented workers” (I didn’t ask, as it’s not my business, and I frankly don’t care), spoke little English (it was a great opportunity for me to practice my Spanish), and yet their work was superb. They worked 12 hour days, rarely took breaks, and we were very impressed with the quality of their work.

The protectionist will scoff at the above story—indeed, I have been told that I’m “part of the problem” by employing these individuals—and argue that I’m hurting the employment opportunity for Americans by not employing them instead. But why should I be required to pay more for the same (and, likely inferior) level of service? Should the government forbid us from purchasing items from China because they are cheaper, and may put American manufacturers out of business? Should Wal-Mart be closed by executive fiat since more expensive “ma and pa”-type shops cannot compete?

As with all questions of public policy to secure liberty, we must look to the individual. I saved thousands of dollars by employing these men. I was able to engage in commerce with whoever I desired. I provided employment to individuals who will in turn use that money to pay rent, buy gasoline, purchase food, etc. Wealth was generated, as my home’s value has now increased as a result of their work. And the money I saved by hiring them allows me to employ yet other individuals; had I been required to “buy American”, who knows if and when I would have been able to proceed with the other projects in my basement.

One might still argue that some of the money I’ve given to these men will be sent to their country of origin to support the families there. It should be noted, however, that money is not wealth, but the mere representation of labor, and the opportunity to compensate others for their own labor. I received a drywalled basement, they worked for dozens of hours, and wealth on both sides was created as a result of this fair and honest exchange. Though some money may be transferred, I still keep my basement, and my home retains its increased value. The ability to obtain money here and send it elsewhere does not discourage domestic activity, as the existence of millions of people here results in both ever-present demand for goods and services, and a workforce to productively provide for these things. Money is but an object to be used in demand for others’ labor; those dollars will, eventually, make their way back to America. The same exchange takes place, for example, when my wife buys DVDs dubbed in Swedish—we receive the goods, and the money leaves America and goes to Sweden. Should this be forbidden by law?

To summarize, the presence of additional people creates additional demand through an increase in consumption and labor. (After all, the logical extension of the argument we’re addressing implies getting into population control through caps on reproduction—something few people, especially in Utah, would support.) As such, the net effect of an increase in economic exchanges results in greater wealth for all involved. Here we see clarified in modern day example the Book of Mormon connection between free migration and prosperity. Perhaps James Madison said it best in a speech before Congress in 1790, when describing that immigration served to “increase the wealth and strength of the community.”

“Illegal immigrants bring violence and gangs to our country”

It alleged by some that the power to repel invasions should be invoked because of the strong criminal element that exists among the hoards of immigrants crossing the border in violation of federal law. The federal government’s response is justified and encouraged by supporters of this argument due to the “national security” concern this creates. Emails, blog posts, and other sources love to cite scary statistics as evidence of a calamitous infestation of gangs, drug wars, and other associated violence, but what does the data show?

Anecdotal stories can foment popular support for a particular piece of legislation, or capture the hearts of millions in demonstrating why harsher enforcement of illegal immigrants is needed. But if we’re to support any law that restricts the freedom of innocent, peaceful people due to the actions of violent offenders, we should at least first be clear about what the data says. Nobody disputes that among the group of immigrants coming into this country, evil people are to be found. Even in the trickle of legal immigrants allowed into this country we may find people who commit egregious, aggressive acts (the 9/11 perpetrators come to mind). The question, however, should be: compared to the normal/native population, do illegal immigrants have a higher rate of violence and crime? Should this be the case, then perhaps an escalated response might be warranted.

The Dillingham Commission mentioned in the history section of this article expressed the same worry about violence that we still hear 100 years later. Their concern was that the undesirable immigrants posed a serious threat to American society and culture, and thus should be banned. However when focusing their attention on the criminal aspect of the argument, they found little support:

No satisfactory evidence has yet been produced to show that immigration has resulted in an increase in crime disproportionate to the increase in adult population. Such comparable statistics of crime and population as it has been possible to obtain indicate that immigrants are less prone to commit crime than are native Americans. (emphasis added)

The following from a Cato Institute report agrees with the commission’s conclusion on crime:

Data show immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born, a pattern confirmed by a 2008 study of data from California: “When we consider all institutionalization (not only prisons but also jails, halfway houses, and the like) and focus on the population that is most likely to be in institutions because of criminal activity (men 18-40), we find that, in California, U.S.-born men have an institutionalization rate that is 10 times higher than that of foreign-born men (4.2 percent vs. 0.42 percent). And when we compare foreign-born men to U.S.-born men with similar age and education levels, these differences become even greater,” according to research by econo- mists Kristin F. Butcher (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago) and Anne Morrison Piehl (Rutgers University and the National Bureau of Economic Research). Looking only at prisons, the researchers found, “U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men.”

National studies have reached the conclusion that foreign-born (both legal and illegal immigrants) are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born. “Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born,” according to the Immigration Policy Center.

Despite a dramatic surge in illegal immigration in the past two decades, crime rates are actually dropping in the country’s major cities. Take Los Angeles, for example, where an estimated 700,000+ illegal immigrants reside. In 2009, L.A. had the least amount of violent crime in more than half a century; the trend is the same in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Boston, and Dallas.

Illegal immigration continues unabated and at an increasing rate, and yet according to one criminologist, “Experts did not see [the drop in crime] coming at all.” Even in Phoenix, capital of the state enjoying nationwide attention for its recent immigration law, violent crime plunged 17% between 2008 and 2009, shattering a near-mythical perception of increased immigration leading to increased crime. For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city compared to 2009, homicides were down 38%, and robberies were down 27%.

It seems that especially in recent years, immigrants are more concerned with getting to work than getting into trouble.

“Illegal immigrants break the law on a daily basis by their very existence in this country”

Dealing with this issue requires first understanding the nature of the (un-constitutional) law being broken. Assuming for the sake of the argument that the law itself was valid, its violation would be essentially equated with trespassing—residing on and traveling through property not owned by the individual. To understand the relative impotence of this argument, it’s important to distinguish the type of law. One type, malum in se, refers to things which inherently are wrong, and a violation of someone else’s life, liberty, or property: theft, murder, vandalism, etc. The other type, malum prohibitum, refers to laws that make actions criminal offenses just because the government says they should be, but not because they necessarily harm another person.

The supposed crime of “illegal” immigration falls into the latter category; nobody dies or becomes injured when Juan decides to cross the border into California looking for work. If you exceed the speed limit while driving, cross the street outside the boundaries of the cross-walk, smoke some marijuana, or clip a friend’s nails without a beautician license, you are not violating anybody’s rights, but rather are performing an action which a group of politicians has deemed worthy of regulation or prohibition.

This distinction is important, for it adds context and weight to the supposed crime being committed. If you were to to gauge the offense simply by public concern and outcry, one might assume that Juan’s border crossing is itself an atrocious crime against humanity meriting the most severe of consequences for justice to be served. No rights are violated in that crossing, however, and thus the action is only a crime because of statute. If a police officer who pulls you over for speeding decides to let you off on a warning, your neighbors and friends do not publicly protest the decision and demand that the harshest punishment possible be served. Instead, you are usually grateful to have your non-violent action go unpunished, and would agree that the offense itself was relatively insignificant. Cannot the same leniency be offered to individuals whose only alleged crime is the violation of an un-constitutional federal law?

A variation of the “breaking the law” argument offered by some Latter-day Saints seeks to use the 12th article of faith as reason why the (un-constitutional) federal laws should be supported, and why those in this country in violation of such laws are breaking the law on a daily basis. That article reads:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

All this article says, though, is that we agree to place political leaders over us and obey the laws they pass, provided that such laws they implement and enforce are themselves lawful (and constitutional). As we’ve shown that federal immigration laws are not authorized in the Constitution, they therefore do not require our support.

Some also point to section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants for support of the argument, which says, in part, that we “sustain and uphold” the government. Any favorable appeal to this scripture, though, requires ignoring numerous qualifiers and exceptions. For example, the few words just quoted are made relevant only “while [individuals are] protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.” I have the inherent right to contract and associate with whomever I please (the “control of property” mentioned in this section of scripture), and federal immigration laws restrict and remove that ability. A subsequent verse also states that “the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense.”

As it relates to this discussion (and going on the invalid assumption that the law is constitutional), Juan’s presence in the United States, contrary to federal law, should be punished to the same degree that you should be punished if you were to trespass on another person’s property. His border crossing is a misdemeanor, as are things such as public intoxication, indecent exposure, disorderly conduct, reckless driving, drug possession, etc. Where is the conservative-led outcry over jaywalkers?

“Illegal immigrants have no desire to assimilate into our culture”

Several founding fathers expressed a concern about the influx of immigrants into America, specifically, that such individuals would need to quickly adapt to American culture and society if the new government was to succeed and not be unduly influenced by outside sources. Our first president, for example, wrote in a letter to John Adams that immigrants should integrate themselves so that

by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.

James Madison is quoted by many as having said that America should exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society,” but this is taken out of context. The relevant text states:

I should be exceedingly sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but such as would be a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States. (emphasis added)

It is here made evident that Madison was concerned not about aliens in general (those who emigrated to and resided in America), but individuals working to become citizens and thereby have opportunity to participate in (and influence) the government. A similar context-warping citation comes from Alexander Hamilton, who wrote the following:

The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.

Reading Hamilton’s whole letter, however, clarifies that a significant portion of his concern was also with naturalization—his goal being “the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias.” In Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours…is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural rights and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of government they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and tender it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

Born out of such concerns, the early naturalization laws passed by Congress required that aliens renounce under oath any and all previous allegiances to their countries of origin. The same requirement exists today for naturalization, with the following text included in the mandatory oath of allegiance during the naturalization process:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.

While these concerns are understandable when granting rights of citizenship (and influence in government) to aliens, the fears are largely unfounded when talking about your average immigrant. It’s important to note that the same arguments have been used throughout our country’s history; during the mass migration of the Irish to New York and Boston in the mid-19th century, for example, the natives likewise grew restless and vocalized doubts that the group would assimilate. The data, however, doesn’t support this concern, especially with regards to today’s level of immigration:

Scholars such as Samuel Huntington and Victor Davis Hanson argue that Mexican migration today is unique in U.S. history in its size and social impact.

They and others contend that, unlike previous immigrant groups, Mexican migrants retain close ties to their nearby homeland, dominate other immigrant groups in sheer numbers, and concentrate geographically into insular, Spanish-speaking communities that slow their assimilation. On closer examination, none of those concerns are serious enough to warrant increased restrictions on migration from Mexico. While the number of immigrants from Mexico is high in absolute numbers, the rate of immigration from Mexico in recent years is still lower than what it was for specific ethnic groups in the past. In the 1990s, an estimated 4.2 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States, both legally and illegally. That represents 1.5 Mexican immigrants per year per 1,000 U.S. residents. In comparison, during the two decades from 1841 to 1860, America absorbed an average of 3.6 Irish immigrants per year per 1,000 U.S. residents—more than double the current rate of Mexican immigration. For half a century, from 1841 to 1890, the rate of German immigration was heavier in every decade than the current inflow of Mexicans.

In the first decade of the 20th century, Russian, Italian, and Austro-Hungarian immigration each separately surpassed the current rate of Mexican migration. Yet the United States managed to absorb each of these distinct cultural and linguistic cohorts into American society despite the apprehensions of their contemporaries.

Despite the ever-present and somewhat xenophobic fears about the ability of immigrants (legal or otherwise) to assimilate, this country’s history shows long-term trends clearly indicating that the concerns are unfounded. (Yes, immigrants may bring with them bad ideas for government and society, but Americans generate plenty of idiocy and poor policy on their own.) America, to this day, has demonstrated itself to be a great engine of assimilation. The Borg would be proud.

“Amnesty is immoral and a violation of the rule of law”

At the outset of this article, I declared that I supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. Let’s define what that means. Amnesty implies forgiving the violation of a law—in other words, applying mercy rather than imposing justice.

To those who assume that the federal immigration laws are a wonderful thing (even if they are flawed to some degree), amnesty means the legalization of those who have invaded our country and break the laws of the land by their very existence within our country’s borders, as well as consent of their participation in our workforce and economy. This is to be treated as heresy, of course, and the extent to which most conservatives disagree with such a proposal is evident in the readily visible and spasm-inducing reaction most have when asked to consider the thought.

To those who instead understand the arguments made in this article, specifically, that our federal immigration laws are un-constitutional, amnesty means a defense of individual liberty, adherence to the Constitution, and an increase in our general prosperity. If the laws in question are the reason we are discussing justice versus mercy, and if such laws are nowhere authorized in the Constitution, then the imposition of penalties to enforce them is itself an immoral act. Amnesty, rather than being immoral, becomes the only moral thing to do. Jefferson noted that any such laws exceeding the clear delegation of powers granted to the federal government would be “altogether void and of no force.”

Clearly, my advocacy for amnesty does not include looking the other way for actual crimes committed in violation of legitimate law. Identity theft, fraud, rape, vandalism, and other crimes should all be prosecuted (when the victim wishes to pursue legal recourse) just as they should be for American citizens. Amnesty does not seek to give “illegal immigrants” a clean slate for every action, but rather supports their legalization in terms of residence and migration only.

Those who ignore the constitutional question and seek still to uphold the federal immigration laws, citing their need, usefulness, or importance, become hypocrites, for such people often challenge the constitutionality and morality of other laws with which they disagree. An honest adherence to principle requires applying the same standard in this issue as in all others.

Amnesty is not immoral—the imposition of penalties or deportation of an individual for failing to comply with an un-constitutional law is. Amnesty is not a violation of the rule of law—allowing federal immigration laws to exist and be enforced, despite no constitutional authority, is itself a violation of the rule of the supreme law of the land.

“State-controlled immigration laws would be a messy patchwork”

Individuals who support federal immigration law often point to the supposed undesirable effect state-based laws would have in creating any sort of sane, workable system. This objection contends that such a practice would be inefficient, difficult to enforce (due to limited state budgets and personnel), and, as the New York Times put it, would “cause havoc”.

Interestingly, this point was asserted by the federal government just days ago when announcing its challenge of the controversial Arizona immigration law. According to the Justice Department in their motion for a preliminary injunction:

The Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.

In light of the historical evidence here provided, this claim is as absurd as Congress saying they are authorized by the Constitution to require individuals have health care, for example. And yet it is quite unsurprising that they have imagined up the idea that the authorization does indeed exist. Even as far back as the 1875 Henderson case, you’ll recall, the Court was arguing that since “Congress can more appropriately and with more acceptance exercise” the power over immigration law, the matter was “effectually and satisfactorily settled”.

Sadly, the trend of centralized homogenization in public policy has, for over a century now, continually moved what were traditionally state issues to the federal government. In a country as large as ours, the major downside to this is, of course, that an individual who disagrees with the law is left little recourse in opting out. Were such matters left to the states—the “diverse laboratories of democracy,” as Justice Brandeis called them—those who opposed a Texas immigration law could vote with their feet by moving to another state whose laws were more to his liking, while yet remaining an American citizen and enjoying the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Some of the most important and legitimate laws in existence—those punishing criminal offenses such as murder, rape, and vandalism—are within the domain of the several states. These laws, in harmony with the primary purpose of government itself, are a perfect example of the much-maligned “patchwork” so feared in regards to immigration. History has shown that such laws tend to harmonize, meaning that while each state retains authority over what punishment will exist and on what conditions, these issues by and large are similar between each state.

A patchwork of laws is not to be feared, but to be welcomed, as each state asserts its own sovereignty in regards to domestic matters, pursuing through the political process those policies and outcomes that are most desired by its people.

A word on Arizona

A discussion on immigration in 2010 would not be complete without addressing the controversy brewing in Arizona. On April 23, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill to enable state law enforcement officials to detain, report, and deport illegal immigrants to federal authorities, among other things.

This new law is the latest in a string of attempts by Arizona to solve a very real problem it faces, being one of a few border states shouldering the burden of immigration—just as east coast states did two centuries ago. Back in 1994, for example, Arizona joined Florida, Texas, California, and New Jersey in suing the federal government for billions of dollars in restitution for having to imprison and offer mandated services to illegal immigrants. As one law professor noted, “There are so many reasons why those lawsuits are fatally flawed. Legally, they are without merit. The U.S. has sovereign immunity. It cannot be sued for monetary damages unless it agrees to be sued.” So much for justice.

At a high level, Arizona’s new law might be considered a good thing—any state asserting its own sovereignty in regards to a power not expressly delegated to the federal government should generally be applauded. However, while Arizona should indeed take things into its own hands (primarily for security reasons, secondarily for constitutional reasons), they have gone about it the wrong way. Rather than assert their authority and regulate and enforce immigration law on their own, as their legislature sees fit, Arizona has further bound itself to the un-constitutional federal immigration laws. Reading the bill, one finds this introductory paragraph explaining the “intent” of SB1070:

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. (emphasis added)

The word “federal” appears 37 times throughout the bill, cementing a reliance upon usurped federal authority as pretext and justification for the state merely helping enforce the federal laws. Ironically, the bill itself is not necessarily a bad thing—only its declaration of authority. Rather than pointing to themselves and stating what they will do, they are pointing to the federal government. Had Arizona simply copied and pasted the relevant statutes from federal law into their own, their actions would be far more justified and constitutionally authoritative.

The Latter-day Saint Connection

For better of for worse, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are in the thick of the immigration issue. The sponsor of Arizona’s new law is LDS, and so is the Utah state representative, Stephen Sandstrom, who is seeking to implement a similar law in the next legislative session. Missionary work is successful and ongoing amongst individuals likely here illegally, according to federal law, and the Church allows such individuals to hold callings, enter the temple, and serve missions.

Said Elder Jeffrey R. Holland: “We’re not agents of the immigration service, and we don’t pretend to be, and we also don’t break the law.” Elder Marlin K. Jensen framed the issue in similar context provided in this article: “The church’s view of someone in undocumented status is akin, in a way, to a civil trespass. There is nothing inherent or wrong about that status.” Jensen was asked by Church President Thomas S. Monson in January 2008 to urge Utah legislators to use “compassion” when constructing legislation. Some might equate compassion with mercy or amnesty—a proposition that produces many of the same arguments and statements made two centuries ago, all tainted with racism and protectionism.

Recent legislation is harming the Church’s efforts to attract new converts, and some Latter-day Saints, including Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, are appealing directly to President Monson for a statement on the matter. Governor Gary Herbert, also a Latter-day Saint, has expressed support for Utah taking charge (presumably in a manner like Arizona’s law provides), noting that “the federal government still has a responsibility to do what they need to do.”

All of the vitriol, the protectionism, and the baseless “rule of law” arguments, though, fall far short of the ideal introduced at the beginning of this article. You’ll recall the near-utopian benefits explained by the narrator as having resulted from a policy of free migration: uninhibited commerce, increased production, and skyrocketing prosperity for all involved. It is true that such results and policies came after “there was peace in all the land,” and that our geopolitical climate today bears no resemblance to that state of affairs. One cannot argue, however, that the hard-working migrant who bears no ill will towards any man or government desires anything other than peace, and the resulting policies and benefits. That gangs and druglords and murderers and rapists exist among the subset of people known as “illegal immigrants” is no moral justification for punishing and refusing commerce and intercourse with those who have done no wrong. Similarly criminal elements exist within our own society, yet few advocate the restriction of freedoms for all 18-30 year-old males, for example.

Church members are encouraged to treat “illegal immigrants” with compassion, both individually and through public policy. Few, however, can articulate what a tangible manifestation of such a feeling would look like, for compassion’s close cousin, as noted, is amnesty—a political proposal most conservatives detest. Yet these individuals are our brothers and sisters, and most desire the same things each of us do: a better life. America can offer that, and the prospect of that better life hangs over others’ heads as an alluring incentive. This may not be a strong enough reason for some people to permit all those who want to come, but it certainly is reason to do away with hateful language, protectionist policies, and a mob mentality.

What would Jesus do if he were on Earth and had to navigate the massive barriers—both legal and physical—erected to manage immigration? I can’t imagine he’d wait around for a green card in hopes of making a visit to the United States.

Conclusion

Some readers may disagree with various data and arguments presented in this article, but all secondary and supplemental arguments are of lesser importance. What matters most to the discussion at hand is the authority to regulate and restrict immigration. For the first century of this nation’s existence, immigration policy was left—reserved, actually—to the several states. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was this authority delegated to the federal government. Its gradual usurpation and arrogation, as has happened in so many other spheres of public policy, while not surprising, should not be supported (indeed, it should be actively opposed).

For those who classify themselves as followers, students, and defenders of the Constitution, the immigration situation presents only one clear and compelling path: treat any federal regulation as a fraudulent theft of state sovereignty. The only proper way to allow the federal government to intervene in these matters is through a constitutional amendment, so that the states may delegate their power to the centralized entity established to govern regarding similar matters of national importance. (Frankly, given today’s political climate, such an amendment would likely pass quite easily.) Unless and until an amendment passes, states should assert their own sovereignty in dealing with immigration law, and refuse to rely, as Arizona mistakenly has, on un-constitutional federal laws for their justification and support.

If our ideal future as individuals is peace and prosperity, and regardless of whether immigration law rests in the hands of the states or the federal government, we must consider the example offered by the Book of Mormon and work to produce the same outcome. Latter-day Saints especially—those who see the Constitution as inspired, who often give lip service to the freedoms they enjoy, and who have been counseled to follow such high ideals as loving their neighbor, treating others (regardless of federally-imposed legal status) with compassion, and doing unto others as they would have done unto them—should support laws that will enable more people, not less, to enjoy what America has to offer.

Free migration does not erase borders. Residence and citizenship are separate issues. All people, not just Americans, have natural and inalienable rights. Nobody is entitled to a job, nor a certain level of wages or salary. Peaceful, productive people are not our enemy, are not invading America, and should not be used as scapegoats in the xenophobic, protectionist attempt to “secure the border”.

Tyrannical countries and closed-down societies build fences at their borders—not a country regarded by many (perhaps foolishly) as a paragon of liberty. America was not intended to be a country where the Constitution does not apply within 100 miles of the borders, where individuals are encouraged or required to be ready at a moment’s notice to prove their government-sanctioned legality, or where the freedom of association is suppressed and outright obliterated where it matters most: with families.

America is better than this. We’re not just about making money and living in a relatively safe environment, but about asserting our individual rights and perpetuating the American dream down through the generations, and outward to our fellow man. We should spend our time and energy in building bridges, and not erecting barriers. We should be promoting peace while reaping the benefits it brings, advocating free migration as a method of securing the freedom of association and maximizing prosperity. And most of all, despite the popular political rhetoric, we should be maintaining state sovereignty and supporting and defending the Constitution—a document that nowhere within its 4,500 words delegates to the federal government the power to regulate or restrict the immigration of individuals.

My thanks to Jeff Thayne for his assistance in providing research for this article.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Conservative Immigration Schism
• The Constitution Applies to Terrorists
• Domestic Enemies of the Constitution

Last weekend I received my copy of Tom Woods’ new book Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. As I began reading it, I was impressed with its persuasive arguments for using state nullification as a method of keeping the federal government in check. Woods’ book reviews the history of nullification, and explains how it has played out in recent years.

As I was reading, though, I had a thought: this information is great, but if it’s to be effective, it needs to be in the hands of those who can actually use it.

Minutes later, my latest project was born: Utah Nullification. This project seeks to raise enough funds to buy a copy of the book for every state legislator in Utah (just over 100). The book will be accompanied with an explanatory letter, and once delivered, we’ll work on getting concerned citizens state-wide to encourage their representatives and senators to read the book and work to understand why nullification is important.

This isn’t some anachronistic political doctrine relegated to the history books. On the contrary, Utah has nullified federal laws several times in recent years! We’ve done it with the Real ID Act, the recent health care legislation, and in bucking federal firearms regulations for locally manufactured guns. Dozens of states have likewise nullified federal laws that are clearly unconstitutional, and will continue to do so as the federal government repeatedly oversteps its bounds.

Below I’ve included the press release I sent out this morning. Please visit the website and make a donation to support the project, follow us on Facebook and on Twitter, and spread the word through whatever circle of influence you have. Let’s work together to encourage our state legislators to stand up and assert our sovereignty.

Local Political Activist Launches “Utah Nullification” Project
Project’s goal is to raise funds to purchase a copy of a new book on the topic of state nullification for every Utah legislator

Lehi, UT, July 6, 2010 — On the heels of the release of bestselling author Thomas E. Woods’ new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, a local political activist has launched a project to put the book into the hands of every state legislator in Utah. In his latest work, Woods, a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, explains the history, purpose, and effective use of state nullification as a check on federal laws and programs that exceed constitutional authority.

On the announcement of the Utah Nullification project, Woods commented: “Thomas Jefferson warned that if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones. History clearly shows that it has just done that, and despite their protests, resolutions, and lawsuits, the states have repeatedly ceded their sovereignty to an ever-expanding accumulation of federal power. The subject of nullification is one that every concerned citizen should familiarize himself with, but most especially the legislators of the several states. I look forward to what will unfold in Utah once each of the state legislators is given the opportunity to study this information and consider its application.”

Project organizer Connor Boyack explained his idea, noting the role nullification has already played in Utah: “This project’s goal is to give every Utah state legislator an opportunity to understand how we as a state can assert our sovereignty and refuse to comply with clearly unconstitutional federal mandates which exceed the limited and specified delegated powers found in the U.S. Constitution.” Boyack continued: “Utah has already used this power on several recent occasions, when refusing to comply with the Real ID Act, when declaring that locally produced and sold firearms are not subject to federal regulation, and in opting out of the recent federal health care legislation.”

Boyack’s project seeks to raise $2,000 to cover the cost of the books, packaging, and shipping to each of Utah’s state legislators. Any money left over will be used to send a copy of the book to Utah’s federal delegation, as well as other state officials, including the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and Utah Supreme Court justices.

“I’m encouraged by Utah’s several bold and important assertions of state sovereignty,” Boyack said, “and hope to see it happen even more. Those legislators who accept and read this book will quickly come to understand how badly nullification is needed, and how many opportunities exist for its use.”

Those interested in donating to the project, tracking its progress, and learning more about state nullification can do so at www.utahnullification.com.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Nullification: A Necessary Power for State Sovereignty
• State Sovereignty and the Senate
• Utah’s Unethical Ethics Initiative

One day each year, Americans celebrate Independence Day—or better put, the “Fourth of July”. Flags are erected, fireworks are purchased en masse, parades are organized, and millions of pounds of meat are consumed. The celebrations and fanfare end, and America reverts back to its 364 days of normalcy, in which anything close to independence is rarely recognizable, often derided, and continually portrayed as unreasonable extremism.

The open secret, of course, is that the standard Fourth of July holiday activities have little to do with the remembrance and celebration of independence. Instead, the holiday has become a pseudo-nationalistic, self-congratulatory event during which participants express their love for America. Generally absent, however, are the activities that recall and reaffirm the conditions in which America was founded, and the application of those experiences and principles in our own day.

Consider just one example: how many individuals will, in celebration of Independence Day, read the brief yet powerful document that declared our independence? When was the last time the average American even so much as bothered to read a portion of it? When was the last time you read it?

As illustration of what I’m referring to when arguing that today’s holiday is generally void of any connection to the ideas and events it claims to memorialize, consider the following two potent portions of the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

These are bold, unapologetic affirmations that have direct and explicit application to our own day. They are not slogans to be repeated on a single day and laced in patriotic colors, but are guiding principles to which our actions should daily conform if we claim to appreciate independence. Those who embrace fireworks and fanfare without complementary political activity throughout the year have only the most superficial of reasons to celebrate; summer soldiers fleeing battle at the sign of conflict may cheer for their country’s victories, but such actions ring hollow.

Independence Day can only have any true meaning if we spend the rest of the year fighting for the ideals we all claim to love, just as Christmas is of little value if we don’t worship Christ throughout the year, and a celebration of our mothers and fathers falls on deaf ears if we do not express our appreciation and love on occasions when we are not so culturally coerced.

This day has rich meaning, but its importance is fraudulently usurped when celebrated by those who lack any commitment to perpetuating the principles and political outcome our Declaration of Independence produced. Flags, fireworks, parades, and barbecues are all innocuous things themselves, but if we truly want to celebrate our independence, why not take some time to understand what that really means?

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Action of Thanksgiving

There has been plenty of chatter in the past year about “state’s rights” (more correctly termed “state’s powers”, as political entities do not themselves have any rights) and the tenth amendment to the Constitution which provides that any power not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states, or to the people. Concerned citizens of all political persuasions have rallied around the banner of federalism to promote abolishing or restricting federal programs and replacing them with state-based alternatives, or nothing at all.

For all the noise being made by the cacophony of individuals frustrated with the federal government, however, few either understand or are willing to embrace the two key components that would make their goals a reality, rather than a slogan painted on a banner for a tea party protest. In order to demand—not ask—that the federal government limit itself to its constitutionally delegated authority and nothing more, states themselves must have representation in the federal government, and they must nullify any federal law that is clearly outside of the scope of federal jurisdiction.

The first topic has been briefly addressed previously here, but a summary is perhaps important. Prior to the ratification of the 17th amendment, states had representation in the federal government through one of the compromises produced during the Constitutional Convention: the bicameral legislature. Whereas the House of Representatives was comprised of congressmen elected directly by the people and representing their specific interests, the congressmen elected to the Senate, in pairs for each state regardless of that state’s population, were elected by the state legislatures, and it was to these political bodies that U.S. Senators were beholden. As such, the Senate was the congressional representation for states themselves, where their interests could be promoted and their concerns made known.

After 1913, however, the Senate was turned into another body accountable only to the people directly, thus removing the representation states once enjoyed. Since that time, the several state governments have had no voice in the federal government, and now find themselves in the middle of a stronger relationship forged between the federal government and all citizens directly.

Were U.S. Senators still elected by and accountable to the state legislatures, they would exist in a preventative capacity, working to vote down any bills that were deemed to be against a state’s interest, or more importantly, an extra-constitutional power grab on a matter not found under the federal government’s purview. That Senators do not now have any allegiance to the state governments themselves—in other words, this first option no longer even being an option—implies that the second opportunity for helping maintain the balance of federalism becomes all the more important.

To some, nullification is a scary word. The idea of standing up to the federal government in any way is similarly scary for many, but this does not mean that the ability to do so should be eliminated. Nullification implies simply saying “no” when the other party has the moral authority to do so. Imagine a parent telling a child “no” when he tries to take a toy that is not his, or an employer saying “no” when the employee tries to take the company car on vacation. As it relates to government, state governments created the federal government and delegated to it limited and specific authority. Anything beyond these powers is a usurpation, and thus the states, like a more powerful parent, retain the ability to simply say “no” when it becomes necessary to check a wrongful action.

As the efforts of state-elected Senators would serve as a preventative measure, the existence and use of nullification is a reactionary power to be used if and when un-constitutional laws have already been (or will soon be) implemented. It is important to remember that the states existed before, and created, the federal government. The Constitution is, at its core, a contract between the states and the legal codification of powers they have voluntarily assigned to their creation, the federal government. If and when there is a breach of contract by the created entity, the states, as sovereign and superior entities, must have (and use!) a mechanism whereby they can reject the proposed action.

Nullification is a form of civil disobedience—a powerful statement of political non-compliance in the face of aggressive, self-aggrandizing government. Its origins date back to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison with the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and has been used from time to time ever since. For example, in 1833 South Carolina nullified the (federal) Tariff of 1828 which it deemed un-constitutional because rather than being a (constitutional) tariff to raise revenue, it was specifically created as a protective tariff to manage and protect certain industries. A few years prior, New England states banded together and contemplated nullification as well, during the Hartford Convention of 1814, in response to the War of 1812 and the disproportionate damage inflicted upon local commerce due to British blockades. Nullification was used in the personal liberty laws responding to the federal fugitive slave laws, as a method of pushing back against the federal government’s undue expansion of authority.

Though it went out of vogue for some time, the doctrine of nullification has come back with a vengeance, and has found its way into public policy. Whether the discussion rests on REAL ID, “Cap and Trade”, health care, firearms regulation, or a number of other controversial topics, several states have already passed legislation giving the federal government the proverbial middle finger. It may not be referred to as nullification by the state legislatures or the sponsors of the legislation, but make no mistake: states are rediscovering the power of “no” and starting to resist the century-long tradition of federal omnipotence.

States have lost their voice in the federal government, and thus have no reassurance that laws will not be passed that encroach upon their constitutionally-reserved powers. History amply demonstrates the plain fact that the federal government recognizes no restrictions, and once an objective is established, it will do whatever is necessary to achieve it, states and subordinate concerns be damned. As such, the remaining tool of nullification must be increasingly protected, and judiciously implemented, in order to begin effectively fighting back against the federal government and restoring rights and powers that were once commonplace, but now have become an endangered species.

Un-constitutional federal legislation: just say no.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Utah Nullification: Encouraging our State Legislators to Assert Our Sovereignty
• State Sovereignty and the Senate
• Self-Sustaining Sovereignty

Last fall, I was invited by my state representative, the venerable John Dougall, to attend a lecture in Alpine about the Constitution. The speaker: Mike Lee. I had never heard of Mike, but I was free that evening and looked forward to both the lecture and an opportunity to network with some of my friends and allies, so I went.

I was quite impressed with the lecture, and later found out that there were rumors that Mike was considering a run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Bob Bennett—an individual who I have referred to as being no friend of the Constitution. After asking a few questions, surveying the political landscape, and pondering the matter, I sent Mike an email saying that if the rumors ever proved true, he would have my initial support and my volunteered services.

Six months later, here we are. Having served as Mike’s Director of Social Media, I’m happy to have played a small part in the large and complex effort that is involved in running a state-wide race for a federal office. Back in December, I entered this campaign with two key goals, both of which have now been fulfilled: defeat Bob Bennett, and ensure the best Republican secures the nomination.

To me, Mike Lee was the clear leader of the pack, and the person who best understands and will adhere to the Constitution. Other candidates had their positive attributes, but Mike was the obvious choice for me in determining who to support to achieve my second objective.

I’ve learned many interesting things while on this campaign, chief among them that I am a lightning rod (okay, I pretty much already knew that), and that my outspoken, transparent nature, coupled with some seemingly controversial opinions, is a recipe for attracting attention—not only to myself, but also to the candidate whose staff I was on. I’ve incurred the wrath and/or targeted opposition of a (now former) radio host, the incumbent Senator himself (on many occasions, and through TV ads, radio spots, blog posts, emails, and direct mail), powerful pro-Israeli lobbying organizations, and a high-ranking state official who shall be simply referred to as “John Doe”.

I take all that in stride, and with a slight sense of satisfaction—after all, as Ezra Taft Benson said, “Those who fight for principle can be proud of the friends they’ve gained and the enemies they’ve earned.” My perspective on these attacks and protests is that these individuals have weak character, and in some cases are intellectually deficient. Their cheap shots and manipulation or misinterpretation of my words for political gain is disappointing, but unsurprising.

But that’s all in the past, and while each of those experiences makes for a great story (Hey, did you hear about the time Bob Bennett’s son Jim, standing in for his father, attacked Mike in a debate by saying that one of his supporters wasn’t a fan of Abraham Lincoln?), the goal has been accomplished. Mike Lee has secured the Republican nomination.

What now? I’m no longer on Mike’s staff, and the responsibilities that were mine for half a year have been transitioned to others who are equally capable. Sam Granato stands no chance, though I do look forward to the debates, mostly because I hope to see Scott Bradley (Constitution Party) included. His presence will improve the dialogue and will prevent the debates from degrading into Republican/Democrat talking point banter.

I’ve told several people in recent weeks that I have been considering voting for Bradley in the general election, even if Mike won the GOP nomination. While Mike and I agree on many things, we do disagree on several issues. If Scott Bradley is more closely aligned to the positions I adhere to, then I quite likely will vote for him. I’ve been so involved in Mike’s campaign, though, that I have yet to do my due diligence with Scott on some of the issues I’m concerned about. I have emailed him a list of questions, and based on his responses, I’ll firm up my decision on whether to vote for Mike or Scott come November.

Should I lean towards Scott, though, it should not be construed as a vote against Mike. Between he and Scott, my vote will be what I perceive to be the greater of two goods, rather than the standard “lesser of two evils” to which most Americans have become accustomed. Living where I do, I realize that as the Republican candidate, Mike is sure to win the general election, and become Utah’s junior Senator. As such, I have the comfort of considering a third party candidate while remaining confident that the half of a year I’ve spent tirelessly working to get Mike the Republican nomination will not be for nothing. If and when Mike becomes Senator Lee, and though I disagree with him on some issues I find important, I will be happy knowing that an establishment incumbent with a substandard voting record has been replaced with an individual who understands and has committed to adhering to the Constitution—a document which every congressman takes and oath to support and defend, but far too few actually do.

In the past few weeks, I increasingly doubted Mike’s chances of winning, though I continued to support him and contribute whatever I could. The Energy Solutions and KNRS conspiracy theories concocted by Cherilyn Eagar and Bob Lonsberry in the past couple of weeks, and embraced by Tim Bridgewater’s campaign, surely damaged Tim’s chances. Endorsements and “get out the vote” assistance from like-minded organizations helped mobilize voters supportive of Mike’s platform. In the end, and despite various polls showing one candidate up over another (and vice versa), the abysmal few voters who showed up to participate in the primary election have spoken on behalf of themselves and their peers, and have determined that Mike Lee will, barring some calamitous controversy, become our next U.S. Senator.

Senator Mike Lee from Utah: change I can believe in.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• In Defense of Utah’s Caucus System

Few things are more damaging in politics than to elevate an imperfect individual to the status of a demigod whose proposed policies will solve the nation’s every problem. Yet for whatever reason, there exists near-idolization of presidents both past and present who are thought to have been the governmental equivalent of miracle workers. Messiah complexes abound in positions of such prominence and power.

These complexes, though, are only enabled by the willing devotion of the masses who place the individual into office with some supposed “mandate” to which they claim they will adhere, but which is often cast aside and whose abandonment is often justified with whatever reason is determined to best placate those who are paying enough attention to see the change and complain.

Barack Obama, for example, was seen by his followers as somebody who would change the myriad abuses propagated by the Bush administration, especially in regards to foreign policy, civil liberties, Guantanamo Bay, the military offensives in the Middle East, and the domestic surveillance of American citizens in the name of fighting a “war on terror”. In office, however, he has exchanged his “change” for a healthy dose of status quo, not only maintaining but also exceeding the abuses of his predecessor.

On the other side of the false left/right political dichotomy, we have Ronald Reagan—he whose name is too often repeated by conservative candidates hoping to embrace his mantle. Here we have a president who was a gifted orator (did they have teleprompters back then?) and claimed to adhere to lofty ideals and near-libertarian philosophies, but whose programs and proposed laws hardly reflected the bill of goods sold to the American people along the way. Reagan’s political dissonance (some might call it hypocrisy), though well known to those who objectively study history, was summarized in a recent Newsweek article:

The RNC based its purity test on Ronald Reagan’s “principles”—chief among them a belief in “smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits, and lower taxes.” But although the Gipper slashed taxes dramatically during his first year in office, the rest of his fiscal record directly violated the very rules the RNC created in his honor. During the Reagan years, federal employment grew by more than 60,000 (in contrast, government payrolls shrunk by 373,000 during Bill Clinton’s presidency). The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the U.S. transformed from the world’s largest international creditor to its largest debtor. After 1981, Reagan raised taxes nearly every year: 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 payroll tax hike even helped fund Medicare and Social Security—or, in terms today’s Tea Partiers might recognize, “government-run health care” and “socialism.”

Previous presidents—notably, FDR, JFK, “Honest” (Heh) Abe Lincoln, and others—have likewise been glorified, and their multitudinous political sins shoved down the proverbial memory hole. (God bless the internet, may she be kept safe from all those who would do her harm.) This is a significant disservice to those who will be voting for future presidents, where understanding the repeated failures and entrenched establishment corruption found in both parties and almost all presidents, to one degree or another, would help one realize why the system itself must be reformed.

American idolatry is manifested not only for singers and dancers on cable television, but for hollow rhetoric and false promises lavishly distributed by aspiring political candidates on the campaign trail. Patriotism at its core demands the defense and support of key political principles—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among them—and the refusal to justify any deviation therefrom. Certain presidents may have had endearing personalities, witty rhetorical mastery, or profound knowledge on public policy, but elevating them to celebrity status and glorifying them with praise, while refusing to admit their many follies, is disingenuous at best, and idolatrous at worst.

***************

The World Cup is on right now, and I don’t care. When the Olympics were on, I watched the occasional competition with a moderate level of disengaged curiosity. If I had to put a label on it, I guess you could say I am an athletic agnostic.

My lack of loyalty to any team—including those with whom I share a geographical connection—cannot be dismissed as simply a disinterest in sports. I enjoy watching a good football game, a few minutes of basketball here and there, or an intense match of volleyball. Rather, it has to do with an apathy towards rivalry, and the observation of common threads between team loyalty and nationalist political sentiment.

Allow me to explain.

Let’s set aside the World Cup and Olympics and go back to high school. Here is where we first learned of and became immersed in intense rivalry. Previous to this time we might have been involved in little league baseball or some other form of sports, but generally the games were more about performing well and improving skill than they were about defeating the other team to achieve victory.

In high school, however, we suddenly found that we had a new arch nemesis, that other team (in whatever sport) from the nearby school with whom a constant battle for trophies and glory had existed for longer than any of the students present had perhaps been alive. Pep rallies were held, cheerleaders cheered, athletes (some of whom were likely arrogant bullies with substandard academic achievement) were lavished with praise and adoration, and all present were whipped into a fanatic frenzy in our common goal to win.

We were never explained why we must win, or why the other team must be treated as the enemy. If the question ever was asked, the usual answer was probably a reference to the rivalry itself; they were our opponents because, well, they just were. Bathing in this constant drip of enmity, we found, over time, that we cheered the “home team” because they were “ours”, and we were “their” fans. The relationship of loyalty through mere (and superficial) association is not relegated only to young high school students, but also college students (think BYU v. UofU) and adults.

Take, for example, people who are right now cheering for “Team USA” in the World Cup—people who feel to cheer for “our” team because they happen to share the same nationality we do. The vast majority of people watching the game have no connection whatsoever to the team itself, or to most (any?) of the players. But suddenly when pitted against teams from nations around the world, we’re expected to “support our team”, and wo be unto the individual who tries to cheer for the other country!

This pseudo-nationalist athletic loyalty has commonality when looking at foreign policy and the attitude some people have towards individuals from other countries. I have observed individuals who, when discussing a given war between nations, support an escalation of military aggression, and an indifference towards so-called “collateral damage” (the murder of innocent non-Americans), in order to “save American lives”.

In other words, pitted in the same style of “us vs. them” mentality found in many sports, these individuals rank American lives above those who have a different nationality; seeing our side win is the paramount objective, and the result for which our loyalty must be vocally proclaimed. Such a divisive and destructive deprecation of the inherent worth of other individuals, simply due to their geographic and cultural ties, is anathema to everything America allegedly stands for.

This is not to say, of course, that fervent loyalty to a sports team and support for a nationalistic foreign policy are mutually inclusive. I am not suggesting that die-hard USA hockey fans support deploying bombs in Afghanistan, or that World Cup attendees dressed in an array of red, white, and blue consciously despise those of a different nationality. What I am suggesting is that a common thread exists between automatic and strong support for a sports team (primarily because of its geographic association) and a similar nation-based support of military action and foreign policy.

With sports, I do not understand why the game can’t be enjoyed for the competition itself, for the athletic abilities of the players, and for the exciting results, free of the fierce rivalry and drama that is often layered on top of a simple game. Sure, it’s okay to support one team over another, provided that there are legitimate reasons to do so—perhaps the athletes have worked extremely hard, or one or more came from humble circumstances to make a name for himself/themselves, or the players are genuine good people who practice sincere sportsmanship and are trying to improve the sport itself. But with these examples, one’s support of the team would be in relation to consequences of concrete actions, rather than simply wanting a team to win because of where they live, what rivalry they find themselves in, or some other factor that is, at its core, largely irrelevant.

With foreign policy, I do not understand why those who supposedly value their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness do not afford the same privilege to other individuals around the world, regardless of nationality. God is no respecter of persons, so why should we be? Any loss of or damage to life should be avoided and opposed, and not simply excused when it supposedly becomes necessary to “save American lives”. Legitimate defense is one thing; an aggressive offense masquerading as “protecting the homeland” with dubious reasons given for its justification is entirely another. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” is a horrible approach towards foreign policy and finds a philosophical predecessor in the geography-based rivalries that saturate sports.

Sports are not bad, and all war is not unjust. I fear, however, than the rabid fanaticism prevalent in so many athletic competitions, and the degree to which team loyalty is formed simply by loose geographical or other superficial connections, can and does lead to a similar (if subconscious) feeling when the “teams” become governments, countries, and military brigades. I do not support the actions of our federal government simply because it’s “my” government, and I do not support any sports team simply because they’re “mine”. Perhaps what I’m arguing for is a little more balance and critical analysis before offering our loyalty and support to anything.

***************

I do not pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

This pledge—a mechanically-repeated affirmation of loyalty inculcated in children by rote—is the legacy of the socialist progressive movement in the late 1800s. Its author, Francis Bellamy, was a self-avowed “Christian socialist” (who loved to preach that “Jesus was a Socialist”) whose primary intention in creating the pledge was to encourage children to worship the State and revere centralized authority. Francis’ cousin and co-conspirator, Edward Bellamy, was an author whose utopian novel Looking Backward trailed in popularity at the time only to Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben Hur. A decade later he published Equality as a sequel, which expanded upon the ideas he has promoted in the first novel.

Looking Backward told of a future America where socialism reigned supreme; eventually surpassing one million copies, the book was translated into 20 languages. The protagonist of the book goes to sleep one night in 1887 and wakes up in the year 2000, where American industries have been nationalized and everybody earns the same income. The theories and policies promoted in this book—which were essentially Marxist in ideology—were termed “Nationalism” by Edward and his cousin Francis, who were both key spokesmen for the movement.

The Bellamy cousins were not obscure figures spouting ideas into an echo chamber, but influential advocates of centralized government whose Nationalist movement saw the rise of 167 clubs across the country. John Dewey, father of the current government school system and a socialist himself, once referred to Edward Bellamy as a “Great American Prophet” and wrote:

What Uncle Tom’s Cabin was to the anti-slavery movement Bellamy’s book may well be to the shaping of popular opinion for a new social order. … It accords with American psychology in breathing the atmosphere of hope.

While Edward was the writer, Francis might be termed the “doer”. While Vice President in charge of education for the Society for Christian Socialists, Francis made a connection with one Daniel Ford, editor of a religious publication named The Youth’s Companion. Networking with other advocates of socialism and nationalization, including the then-president of the National Education Association (NEA), William Harris, who himself strongly advocated for the Prussian system of education and a centralized authority requiring the subservience and allegiance of the individual, Francis worked on a program to teach American youth the importance of loyalty to the government.

In 1892, under Harris’ leadership, the NEA supported a National Public School Celebration which promoted loyalty to both the government and its schools. The core agenda was offered up by The Youth’s Companion, and Francis Bellamy was asked to be the chairman of the celebration. Speaking during the event, Bellamy stated that “the training of citizens in the common knowledge and the common duties of citizenship belongs irrevocably to the State.” As part of the program he organized, Bellamy drafted a pledge to be recited by the youth in attendance as a way of encouraging loyalty to the government.

Though it has changed in minor ways since its creation, Bellamy’s pledge is largely what is today called the Pledge of Allegiance. After its introduction at this conference, Bellamy had it published in The Youth’s Companion. The following months and years found the pledge, with Bellamy’s persistent promotion, gaining increasingly widespread adoption through the school system, and later through adult organizations, eventually gaining the blessing of Congress. (Interestingly, during WWII Congress voted to change the hand gesture while saying the pledge from the “Bellamy Salute” to the gesture we now recognize, with hand placed over heart.)

Bellamy had to show some restraint in developing the pledge, as his desires to use language more closely associated with the nationalist and socialist movements would, he feared, meet with resistance. In describing some of his thoughts in creating the pledge, Bellamy stated:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution…with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people…

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the ‘republic for which it stands.’ …And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity.’ No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all…

What Edward Bellamy wrote about in his socialist utopian novels, his cousin Francis was determined to implement. As was understood by Marx, Dewey, and by all dictators and despots throughout human history, the best way to implement an agenda is to pursue a generational campaign through influencing and/or controlling the education of children to indoctrinate them with a slow, and at first fairly innocuous, stream of ideas.

To be sure, most school-age children do not even understand the implications of the pledge they are habitually repeating, let alone realize the history and meaning behind what they are doing when reciting it. However, the daily process of making such a pledge surely ingrains in the mind of the growing child an attitude and paradigm that solidifies over time and grooms an individual to offer their allegiance to the government as an adult.

So, history aside, why all the fuss? Let’s contrast the pledge of allegiance with the oath of office mandated by the Constitution as noted in Article VI, clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That oath reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

This oath has substance, and the Constitution to which the individuals’ loyalty is required is the codification of key principles worthy of our absolute support. The oath inherently has meaning, and the allegiance being affirmed by offering such an oath denotes clear responsibilities. (That so few do indeed fulfill their oath of office says more about them and their constituents than it does about the oath or the Constitution itself.)

In stark contrast we see the monotonous and largely superficial pledge of allegiance, with children throughout the country pointing their gaze to a piece of cloth—a symbol that few understand. Ask the average child (or adult, for that matter) what it means to pledge allegiance to the flag, and you’re likely to get responses that demonstrate a complete lack of understanding. Where no understanding exists, correct action cannot follow. Little wonder that the political landscape is what it is today.

If people wish to cast aside the pledge’s history and instead praise the wording and its meaning—pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Republic, affirming that we are one nation, indivisible, and that liberty and justice exist for all—then children should be taught to learn what a Republic is, what principles led us to become one nation, and why liberty and justice are inherent and God-given rights to be secured—and not provided—by government. But these types of teachings do not generally exist in public schools, and so reduced to its core and repeated on a daily basis, the pledge serves its (and Bellamy’s) purpose; children are indoctrinated with a steady dose of subservience to the State and are, over time, taught the importance of fealty to the federal government.

If a pledge is required or insisted upon by parents, then their children should be taught to pledge their allegiance to the Constitution, modeling their pledge after the oath of office the Constitution itself requires of federal officials. In so doing, children would be pointed towards the source of the Republic, and not a diversion. Symbols can be powerful tools for teaching, but they should not demand our attention and allegiance themselves. Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament with his apostles not to suggest that their minds should focus on the bread and water He gave them, but to make clear that these symbols were to be used to encourage the individual to remember His body and sacrifice; we worship Jesus Christ, and not the symbols that represent him. Similarly, we should not pledge our allegiance to the flag—a symbol of this Republic—but to the object it represents, namely, the written Constitution and the principle of liberty it exists to protect.

The idea for Bellamy’s pledge came from the “loyalty oaths” imposed on Southerners after Lincoln’s bloody war between the states. Southerners were forced upon penalty of death to affirm their allegiance to the federal government as a condition for receiving a presidential pardon. This action hardly seems like one we should be inculcating into our children, especially given the abusive, corrupt, and outright tyrannical actions being adopted by many within our federal government in recent decades.

When I am in a meeting where the pledge is being recited, so as not to ruffle too many feathers and immediately have others call into question my patriotism, I simply say a modified version of the Pledge of Allegiance which satisfies my problems with Bellamy’s version:

I pledge allegiance to the flag Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Where appropriate, I simply abstain from making any such pledge (or wearing any lapel pins or buttons or any other outward, superficial demonstration of one’s patriotism), preferring to let my words and actions speak for themselves in showing to whom and to what my allegiance is given.

The Bellamy cousins had in mind a project to teach American youth loyalty to the government, realizing that the then-predominant strain of individualism and passionate love of liberty inspired by the founding fathers of this country ran afoul of the socialist utopia envisioned in Looking Backward. The fact that hundreds of millions of Americans have embraced the pledge as a token of Americanism and patriotic duty, while ignoring its origins, context, and original intent, and in light of the worship of and trust in government that has permeated our society, indicates that the Bellamys were at least in some significant amount successful.

My children will be taught not to affirm their allegiance to the government, to a symbol such as the flag, or to anything but the underlying and enduring principles that created this nation to begin with. Those principles are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and our allegiance to these documents (and, more importantly, the principles and ideas themselves) is the correct action that should be taken by every concerned citizen, ardent patriot, and free-thinking individual.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Domestic Enemies of the Constitution

In April 2008, West Valley City Councilman Mike Winder was faced with a vote that almost a dozen Utah city councils were likewise deciding: should they saddle residents of their city with more of a financial burden to give money to the publicly-financed company UTOPIA? The vote in question was a proposal to commit taxpayers to 33-year bonds in order to raise funds for another phase of building out their fiber network.

Councilman Winder voted against the proposal, though it passed in his city on a narrow, 4-3 vote. Since that time, Winder became mayor of West Valley City, and in April of this year penned an op-ed expressing firm support of the company. Mayor Winder’s about face (and then some) is a microcosm of the situation scores of municipal officials find themselves trapped in.

UTOPIA stands for the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, a consortium of 16 Utah cities—11 of which are “pledging cities”, joined together in their common cause of burdening citizens with bonds to lay down an infrastructure of fiber-optic cables in order to provide speed-of-light solutions for internet, television, and phone services. Barred by law from providing retail services themselves, they partner with other companies who use the network to offer these services to residences and businesses. This introduction of competition, we’re told, is an opportunity for the free market to function within the socialist-at-first-glance tax-funded system.

UTOPIA has been successful in getting its member cities to twice pledge sales tax revenue for bonds in order to fund its operations. The second round of funding became necessary after company officials sought cash from the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service—a federal program which hands out billions of dollars in stimulus fashion and whose ancestor is FDR’s 1935 Rural Electrification Administration—but met with resistance and then outright rejection. Their failure to secure “free” federal money sent them back to their member cities with empty pockets and cupped hands extended, begging for more bonds.

Despite Winder’s “nay” vote, West Valley City and almost every other member city agreed to more cash—after all, UTOPIA was seen as “too big (or important or vital or whatever) to fail”. $181 million was secured and promised to be repaid over 33 years in a balloon payment plan. That money is now gone (with fingers pointed by UTOPIA leaders at the poor economy) and they’re asking for more.

The executives profiting from taxpayer money have a new plan, though. This one, they say, will work (unlike the promises previously made with past business models). “We believe in it fervently,” said Layton City Manager Alex Jensen—one of scores of other city administrators and officials whose political futures may very well rest on this issue alone, given the magnitude of the financial commitment they’ve increasingly made in the name of each resident. He also smugly suggested that he and other city officials “are not embarrassed or ashamed” about asking for more money—this after twice burdening residents with bonds to support a company who can’t even cover operating expenses at the moment, let alone the bond payments themselves.

Mayor Winder, once-opponent-turned-propagandist for UTOPIA, has declared that “there is light at the end of the Utopia tunnel.” He states that all that is needed is more subscribers to make the business viable. Winder’s cheerleading is reminiscent of similar platitudes spewed from executives of all sorts of failing companies who turn to the government for financial aid. Whether we’re talking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, General Motors, Amtrak, or UTOPIA, red flags and warning bells should appear in full force when modern-day Wimpys offer promises in pursuit of your money.

But unlike private businesses who later turn to government for taxpayer-guaranteed loans and “free” money, UTOPIA exists only because some municipalities embraced the democratic process to override the objections of those who disagreed and voted to commit everybody to millions of dollars of bonds to fund an experimental infrastructure project. Some opponents throw out the “socialism” label at UTOPIA, and rightly so, but fail to extend their scorn to other government-run infrastructure projects such as UTA, airports, convention centers, etc.—no surprise here, as conservatives are rarely consistent.

Those defending UTOPIA point to infrastructure projects traditionally implemented by municipal governments—power grids, sewage systems, water access, etc.—and attempt to tie internet access to these other “public works” required for a non-agrarian standard of living. In the eyes of such, Finland must be a pioneer, where broadband internet access is a guaranteed legal right. While libertarians may quibble about government-funded and -owned infrastructure projects, one can at least make the case for water, electricity, and sewage being provided by local governments or some form of cooperative overseeing the services. But to argue that internet access is a “human right”, a “basic need”, or in any way equivalent to traditional “public works”, and thus deserving of government bonds to fund its implementation, is an expensive exercise in increased intervention. What’s next? Should a home itself be a legal right, in a “war on homelessness”? Or automobile ownership, access to a gym, or government-provided gardens for growing your own produce?

In his op-ed, Mayor Winder stated that the question at hand is not “Was UTOPIA a good idea or bad idea?” but rather “Looking at our hand today, what is our best way forward?” This attitude of dismissing the historical context and stifling any discussion around the principles involved in the original decision is a popular one we also see in regards to the military conflict in the Middle East, TARP, and other instances in which the government has improperly intervened and yielded, unsurprisingly, negative results. Winder is wrong to cast this aside.

But what of his question? What is “our best way forward”? It’s a question that’s also been asked in regards to Amtrak, for example: should the significant investment of taxpayer money simply be sold off for pennies on the dollar, or should more money be committed in an attempt to make the business venture profitable? The Salt Lake Tribune’s editorial board recently called for a “cut and run” from UTOPIA, suggesting that member cities not dig deeper into the money pit in which they’ve cast the financial future of their citizens. There is common sense wisdom in such advice.

At its core, UTOPIA is founded on amazing technology: fiber-optic cables capable of transferring massive amounts of information. It’s a proven technology that in many ways is the future of our communications infrastructure. But taxpayers should never have been the financiers of this project, nor should they continue to be; if projects like UTOPIA are to be successful, they must rely on private funding and risk-taking.

Governor Herbert praises UTOPIA as having a “sustainable and reliable model”, but one wonders what evidence he is looking at. The model pursued until now, and any future models conjured up, all rely upon a burden of debt placed upon tax-paying residents of each pledged member city. When the subscription projections fall short, as they have, and as they very well could far into the future, the company must beg for more bonds; this is hardly a “sustainable and reliable model”, the Governor’s cheerleading notwithstanding.

It is time for member cities throughout Utah to have the tenacity to chalk up their losses and swallow the debt burden they were previously committed to. Sell off the existing network to an interested buyer, allow future entrepreneurs the ability to further develop the infrastructure themselves where the market demands it, eliminate regulatory burdens and other government interference that favors the existing duopoly of Comcast/Qwest, and let consumers demand the services they desire.

City officials were not elected to be fortune tellers; buying into the pie-in-the-sky promises of UTOPIA officials and other fiber-loving fanatics is no excuse for putting taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars.

Sometimes, the best way forward is to reverse course and return to safer ground. Municipal governments throughout Utah should resist the urge to make such commitments to experimental projects, and where such burdens already exist, those who would layer more debt onto city residents should be removed from office—just as those with an addiction to spending should have their line of credit terminated and their credit cards shredded.

UTOPIA is not too big, too important, or too integrated to fail. If it cannot operate with existing capital already provided to it by two rounds of bonds, then it should be sold off to the highest bidder. The “best way forward” is painstakingly clear: do what is right, let the consequences follow. Even if that means not having any fiber access for the foreseeable future.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• GOED: Redistributing Utah’s Wealth
• Do We Really Want an NSA Data Center in Utah?
• The Unwarranted Expansion of Administrative Subpoenas in Utah

The process of delivering a child in America has become horribly broken. The vast majority of women have, in recent decades, come to fear childbirth as a highly dangerous event requiring the guidance, supervision, and intervention of a doctor. These women give birth in a sterile environment (in more ways than one, though there are plenty of germs to go around), deferring all important decisions and diagnoses to their medical supervisor—after all, “doctor knows best”.

As a result of this trend, women have come to see medical interventions during the birth process as a given. They expect to be put on “pit”—short for pitocin, a drug to induce labor—and given an epidural—a routine (though still dangerous and complex) administration of anesthesia through the spine to relieve the mother-to-be of the pain associated with giving birth. The consequences of this trend are as alarming as they are unsurprising: 32.3% of women who give birth in America end up getting a cesarean section.

For various reasons, expectant mothers birthing in a hospital are either advised to go on pitocin, are given pitocin without their knowledge, or request it themselves. This drug both initiates and augments labor, often making contractions much harder than they normally would be if the body were left to its own devices and tempo. With the increased pain of more intense contractions, women are more likely to request an epidural (unless they were already expecting to get one, as most are) in order to alleviate the pain. The idea behind the placement of the epidural in the spine is to numb the entire lower half of the woman’s body, rendering her senseless in the areas involved in giving birth.

However, numbing this region of a birthing woman’s body is like putting a blindfold on a race car driver. As such, women who receive an epidural are less able to control their muscles and therefore further become dependent on the doctor’s intervention to help extract the baby. Numbing the womb in this way increases the likelihood of “failing to progress”, in which contractions can slow or become unproductive, dilation may stop, or the descent of the baby down the birth canal slows or altogether stops. This prompts the nurse to administer even more pitocin to further induce labor, and thus the intertwined intervention of both pitocin and epidural pain relief continue to compound upon one another.

Whatever the arguments for or against these medical interventions may be, it’s good business. Doctors are able to turn beds more quickly, thus increasing their profits and decreasing the amount of time they have to wait around for nature to take its course. But it’s bad for mothers, as evidenced by America now enjoying one of the highest cesarean rates in the developed world. Even though America spends more on maternity care than any other nation, there are 40 nations with lower maternal mortality rates than us. It’s safer to give birth in Kuwait than in California.

Keep in mind that a high chance of getting a cesarean section, or even death, is not the only downside and risk to these interventions. By administering this combination of drugs, the need for even further intervention is increased—forceps, vacuums, episiotomies, and the like. Essentially, using medicine and medical practices to alter the body’s natural processes (when not medically required) creates one problem after another, inviting more and more intervention as the doctor strives to remedy each new problem.

As I think over this sad state of affairs, I can’t help but make a comparison to our government. Consider how many interventions are made, by government, that are both unnecessary and improper. Whether it’s the subsidization of the sugar industry, the suppression of free speech through campaign finance laws, the denial of habeas corpus to suspicious men with brown skin, or any number of other issues (of which there are far too many), our government—like the doctor who claims to “know best”—is administering one intervention after another that compounds upon the previous to produce an outcome that is both alarming and often destructive.

Consider a common example: prayer in schools. Is it proper to have prayers at the opening of sports games, assemblies, classes, or other meetings inside of a government-run school? If so, how is the Buddhist boy going to feel when his classmates are all praying to their God, leaving him in the inferior minority? And if prayers are banned, one can only imagine the anger God-fearing Christian parents will unleash upon school administrators and local legislators, pointing their finger of scorn and warning of divine retribution for taking God out of the classroom!

But these questions all disappear if the interventions are avoided, just as our high cesarean and maternal mortality rates would drastically decline if women chose to avoid unnecessary interventions whenever possible—an effort that requires becoming educated and confident enough in one’s own abilities to resist the possible fear-mongering and pressuring from a doctor with a set agenda. Think of it: if people truly understood that government has no role in providing education to its citizens—if “public” schools were abolished, destroying the monopoly that prevents the proliferation of more private, co-op, and home schools—then we would have no need of answering this question of prayer in school. We wouldn’t need the further interventions that always follow—draconian school policies, litigation against the school district, new laws to try and regulate the issue at hand, and a frustrated and fractured group of parents who want the government to decide in their favor.

Anytime you see a setting in which one intervention is being caked on top of another, pause to analyze the underlying issue. Chances are, you’ll find an example of excessive government intervention trying to regulate, legislate, and tax in places it should not be.

Pitocin, epidurals, and extra-constitutional policies and programs are all dangerous to the health of each individual involved. Further, the introduction of one intervention begets opportunity for another, creating a cycle that is difficult to counteract. For the safety of all mothers, babies, and citizens of our country, it is imperative that we demand that both doctors and legislators alike be used only when absolutely necessary, and when confined to acting in a proper and safe way.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• Government: A Disease Masquerading As Its Own Cure

photo credit: alsay

Yes, you read that right. The Constitution applies to terrorists. It also applies to stay-at-home moms, illegal immigrants, truck drivers, anti-government radicals, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Put differently, the Constitution does not apply only to citizens of the United States. It seems that protectionist collectivists treat this document like a two-year-old treats his favorite toy—unwilling to share, and incorrectly believing that it is his and his alone. This fallacy has become so propagated throughout the country’s general political mindset that a barbaric jingoism has resulted, leading people to automatically support the denial of constitutional protections of freedom for anybody who is a “terrorist”.

But who is a terrorist?

The picture that first comes to mind is the “insurgent” fighting against our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other countries of the Middle East in which our military is increasingly becoming engaged. Some examples of such “terrorists” might be: the vengeful man whose innocent brother was killed by an unmanned drone over the border of Pakistan; the adrenaline-fueled teenager taking on the militarized Goliath occupying his hometown; the man in the wrong place at the wrong time, picked up by a bounty hunter and sold to the American government with a fictional story created about his involvement in terrorist activities; and the list could continue, portraying stories far different than the standard “radical jihadist” that dominates our media’s narrative.

Things hit closer to home when the suspected terrorists have white skin. Take, for example, the Missouri Information Analysis Center report which labeled as terrorists supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, and anybody sporting paraphernalia associated with the Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or the Libertarian Party.

The absurdity continues—the government has also considered defenders of the Constitution, home-schoolers, peaceful protestors, and a host of patriotic organizations and individuals as terrorists. Do these “domestic rightwing terrorists” not merit constitutional safeguards of their liberty?

In other words, with a “terrorist” being any individual—U.S. citizen or not—upon whom the government arbitrarily imposes that label, why would anybody not consider the Constitution as applying to that individual? Some may take issue with this generality and instead specify the argument as only being relevant to non-citizens. But do these folks even understand what the Constitution is?

The Constitution is a document that created the federal government, and in so doing, specified powers granted to and denied that entity. It does not apply to a person or group of people, but rather to the government itself. In saying above that the Constitution applies to terrorists, truck drivers, etc., the idea is conveyed that the Constitution applies to all people who have any dealings with the federal government.

The cotton picker in Uzbekistan couldn’t care less about the U.S. Constitution, and taken literally, it does not really apply to him. But say this person vacationed in Pittsburgh, or say he visited the local American embassy. Having any interaction with agents of the federal government makes the Constitution relevant to him, since that governing document applies to the federal government and those who comprise it. Whether the person be a cotton picker, an “insurgent”, or anybody else, the federal government is bound by the constraints of the Constitution, and in attempting to administer legal punishment to another person, must give due process and protect other basic human rights—rights which the Declaration of Independence makes clear are given by the Creator to every individual.

Were this not the case, the government could extinguish the life of any non-citizen it wanted, at any time, for any reason—or for no reason at all. For if the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens, what prevents the government from denying these rights to any non-citizen? The constitutional restraints are not specific to an individual who happens to be a citizen, thus (allegedly) preventing the federal government from denying them their rights, but rather are shackles of self-restraint placed around the appendages of the government itself, regardless of who the government deals with. Under the Constitution, all are recognized as enjoying basic rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the government must follow an established process if it wishes to deny these rights to any individual, whatever his or her nationality.

Americans must resist the tendency to be so selfish with our supposed freedoms. We either believe that our rights came from our Creator—and thus exist for all His children—or we don’t. We either believe that the federal government has power to deal as it pleases with any non-citizen, or we don’t. And we either view so-called “terrorists” as human beings entitled, insofar as is possible, to due process when dealing with our government, or we don’t. The alternative is an alarming one, for tomorrow you and I might ourselves be branded with this dubious distinction, finding ourselves the subject of scorn and derision, reduced to a discardable humanoid whose very existence is at the mercy of another person.

This is not the America I grew up in, nor the one I want to pass on to my children. How about you?

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

• The Census, the Constitution, and Civil Disobedience
• The Constitution: Just a Piece of Paper
• Constitution, Conscience, Constituency