A Nation Divided

A Nation Divided The War for America‘s Soul

By Rex Rammell

1 A Nation Divided The War for America‘s Soul (Fly leaf summary)

With Social Security and Medicare bankruptcy imminent, over twelve trillion in federal debt, forty-seven million Americans without health insurance, a siege of illegal immigrants ranging from twelve to twenty million, Islamic extremists threatening annihilation of Americans, Congress with historic low approval rating — is it the beginning of the end of America? Dr. Rammell, a veterinarian and constitutionalist, puts his analytic skills to work and the diagnosis is ―critical‖. He dissects the facts, lays out the naked truth, and provides a plan to save America. ―America has a disease‖ he says, ―spread throughout the nation. That disease is socialism with unlimited federal power and it will take the entire strength and will of the people to overpower it.‖ How did America develop this disease and what is the cure? Dr. Rammell will lead you on a thorough analysis of where it all went wrong, the gigantic mess in which America finds herself, and what we must do to ultimately save her. While Congress is fighting over where to put the band aids, he proclaims, ―It is time for major surgery: Time for a transplant of the ‗original heart and soul of America‘ established by God.‖

A Nation Divided Copyright © by Rex Rammell, July 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without written permission from the publisher.

2 A Nation Divided The War for America‘s Soul

Preface.………………………………………………………………...4

I. The Battle for the Constitution ………………………..……....6 The American Revolution The Constitution The Powers of Congress The General Welfare Clause The New Deal for America The Great Society

II. The Battle for States‘ Rights …………………………….……..45 Thirteen Colonies Become the United States of America The Northwest Ordinance 1787 Equal Footing Doctrine Federalism vs. Nationalism The Forest Reserve Act 1891 A Rebellion against Environmental Extremism The Endangered Species Act Global Warming

III. The Battle for American Sovereignty ……………………….…70 The History of American Immigration A Nation Divided on Immigration American Gangs Anchor Babies

IV. The Battle for God and Family ……………………………….96 A Nation That Has forgotten God How to Destroy America Our Unwanted Unborn A Time for Intolerance

V. The Battle to Save America ……………………………….106 Ten Principles to Govern America America‘s 2nd Civil War Hope

3 The Final Battle

Preface

―I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible”… No; the Pledge of Allegiance should say one nation under God, divisible… with fading hopes of liberty and justice for all. I, like many Americans, was in awe as we watched the drama unfold during the 2000 presidential election. Al Gore had won the popular vote in the states by over 500,000. However, the electoral vote in the State of Florida would decide the outcome and it was in the hands of the Supreme Court. The vote was extremely close. The Secretary of State for Florida had given the race to George Bush, which in turn had given him the needed electoral votes to become the next President of the United States. However, Al Gore and democrats were crying foul. The controversy stormed around defective ballots in several of Florida‘s counties. The democrats called for a manual recount due to indiscernible ballot results. The republicans were claiming the election had been decided and a recount would be unjust. Therefore, it became the decision of the Supreme Court who would be our next president. The justices ruled with the republicans and the rest is history. The most amazing thing to me about the race was not necessarily the fact that it was one of the closest presidential races in the history of the United States and the first decided by the Supreme Court; it was the fact that so many people were polar opposites on the ideologies of the candidates. At that time I remember thinking to myself ―this country has lost its identity; we are a divided nation.‖ Fast forward to the 2007 Congressional session, which marked a historic low approval rating for Congress. The bipartisan fighting over the War on Terror, along with

4 zero progress on immigration reform, left America with one of the most unproductive sessions in history. Party politicians now seem to have replaced American statesmen with their seemingly single goal to gain absolute party power. Although there have always been strong differences in opinion on the best direction for America, it would seem that America has reached a new low. America is divided. You will recall the result the last time America was divided; civil war. The question that continued to cross my mind was ―How did this happen?‖ I have been taught since my youth that America is the greatest nation on earth. How could the greatest nation on earth reach such low levels with the possibility of social collapse? Wasn‘t the Constitution inspired by God? How could a document written by the hands of inspired men lead a nation into such turmoil? These and many other questions have led me to a comprehensive study of the history of America, from our humble beginnings to becoming a super power to becoming a divided nation. Is it possible that America will fall like all other great civilizations, or is there still time to save the ―soul‖ of America? In this book I make my best attempt to analyze America‘s current situation, where I believe she went wrong, and what I believe we must do to redirect our course to save her. You will find my arguments not based merely on pure supposition, but based on tireless hours of study and contemplation of American history, along with commentary of some of America‘s greatest minds. I believe in the end you will come to understand, as I do, that America is still the Promised Land, ordained by God for a righteous people to assemble out of the nations of the earth, that the hand of Providence overshadowed our forefathers against unbelievable odds to secure our independence from Great Britain, and that the Constitution was inspired by God. Although it is not a perfect document, it is, as Benjamin Franklin explained in his humble acceptance of the newly written Constitution, ―…because I expect no better and because I am not sure that it is not the best.‖

5 I. The Battle for the Constitution

In the beginning there were socialists and capitalists. The socialists said ―let us force our neighbors to be charitable that all mankind may be equal.‖ The capitalists said ―let us give our neighbors freedom that they may choose to be charitable for charity freely given is true charity.‖ But the socialists disagreed that man could ever rise to be charitable; he must be forced. The capitalists disagreed. And henceforth the war for freedom began. And men made themselves kings and rulers. And despotism and tyranny abounded. And man lost his freedom. And the capitalists fought back as blood covered the earth. And the great Father who sits on his throne in the heavens watched and wept as man fought for his freedom. But man was not worthy of freedom. And more blood covered the earth. Then a righteous people arose and the Father said it is time for man to be free. And the people fought against the King and the Father sent his angels. And the people won their freedom. And the people knew they must bind the ambitions of men. So they assembled their wisest and counseled together and asked the Father to help them create a Constitution. But men‘s thirst for power continued. And the Constitution was argued and its meaning distorted. And men began again to lose their freedom…

The Original Heart and Soul of America

Americans used to roar like young lions for freedom; Now we bleat like sheep for security.

—Norman Vincent Peale

Can you imagine the shock on the founders‘ faces if they were alive today and could see what has become of the America they gave their lives for? Their vision of a free America would take on a whole different meaning. After all, all they wanted was to be free of the tyranny of an oppressive government. Free to live their lives without a King and his armies telling them how. They most resented the King‘s incessant demands for more taxes. No matter how much they gave, he always wanted more.

6 Does this story sound familiar? Why is it that men and women, whether they be anointed Kings and Queens or not, never have enough power or money. I agree with Joseph Smith, a 19th century American leader, who said, ―It is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.‖ 1 Thank God that the men and women who lived in the era of the birth of the United States had the courage to say, ―No more.‖ The Boston Tea Party

December 16, 1773, America sent the King of England a message. Although not the only act of rebellion against the King and his policies, the Boston Tea Party is arguably the most famous. The simple history is that the colonists were sick and tired of being taxed, and especially when they had no say in the matter. The taxes placed on the colonists by the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Act of 1767 were preludes. John Hancock, an outspoken and defiant American, was one of the leading protesters. He, along with others, felt the import taxes were too high, so they were forced to smuggle tea into the country. The rebellious act soon resulted in Hancock‘s ship the Liberty being seized in 1768 and Hancock charged with smuggling. He was defended by John Adams and was ultimately acquitted, which only emboldened his protests more. Hancock subsequently organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company, which dropped their sale of tea in America from 320,000 pounds to 520 pounds. This led to large debts and huge overstocks of tea by the East India Company. Meanwhile, Hancock and the patriots were smuggling tea into the country without paying import taxes. Because the British couldn‘t sell their tea, they passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell her tea to America without paying any taxes back to Britain. This tax break helped the East India Company sell their tea for lower prices than the smugglers. You can imagine what Hancock and his followers thought of that!

1 Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, 121: 39

7 A series of protests culminated on December 16 at Boston‘s Old South Meeting House, where an estimated 8,000 protesters gathered. A group of men known as the ―Sons of Liberty‖ slipped away from the meeting and disguised themselves as Native American Indians. They headed to Griffin‘s Wharf where the British ships, The Dartmouth, The Beaver, and The Eleanour were docked full of tea. The Sons of Liberty then proceeded to ―savor the seas‖ with 90,000 pounds of British tea. Tea was said to have washed up on the shores of Boston for weeks. The Boston Tea Party, as history would tell, was one of the many acts by American patriots that led to the American Revolution. One of the lessons taught to the British by the Sons of Liberty, and a lesson that should be taught to modern politicians is this: excessive taxes and abusive laws lead to rebellion in one degree or another.

Valley Forge

Naked and starving as they are We cannot enough admire The incomparable Patience and Fidelity of the Soldiery

—George Washington

Few events in human history show more character than the resolve shown by some of our forefathers to win the American Revolution against Great Britain. Despite all odds they persevered in a cause greater than themselves. No other single event typifies this more than ―The Winter at Valley Forge‖, which has more lessons for us. The winter of 1777-1778 was a time of great suffering for America‘s Continental Army, led by George Washington. Valley Forge, just 22 miles from Philadelphia, was the site of the winter camp that year. December 19, 1877, Washington‘s fatigued and starving army marched into Valley Forge for what would be an ultimate test to win the war. However, this test would not be fought with weapons, but with will.

8 Wars are difficult enough with the support of the people. The trials become almost insurmountable when the soldiers are forsaken. And that was the case at Valley Forge. Congress had no power to force the states to fund the army. Consequently, many soldiers froze and starved to death. One historic account tells the gruesome story:

―Soldiers at Valley Forge went hungry because nearby farmers preferred to sell to the British in Philadelphia for hard cash, because New York‘s grain surplus was diverted to New England civilians and the British in New York City, and because Connecticut farmers refused to sell beef cattle at ceiling prices imposed by the state. Soldiers went half-naked because merchants in Boston would not move government clothing off their shelves for anything less than profits ranging from 1,000 to 1,800 percent. Everywhere in America there was a spirit of profiteering and a habit of graft that made Washington grind his teeth in helpless fury. In response to his appeals, Congress passed the buck by authorizing him to commandeer supplies. This he was reluctant to do among a people supposed to be trying to throw off the yoke of a tyrant. When he was forced to do it, the results confirmed his fears.‖ 2

The conditions were so severe that Washington despaired ―that unless some great and capital change suddenly takes place…this Army must inevitably…starve, dissolve, or disperse, in order to obtain subsistence in the best manner they can.‖ Starving and poorly clothed, the army suffered immensely. By some accounts, around 2,000 men froze to death or died of starvation and disease. The soldier‘s anguish is found in the following account:

―And so every night for too many weeks sticklike soldiers stuck their heads out of their smoky huts to cry, ‗No meat! No meat!‘ Firecake and water was their food, bloody footprints in the snow their sign. Their clothes were so ragged and blankets were so scarce that they often sat up

2 Leckie, The Wars of America, pp. 180-181 quoted from The Making of America, Skousen,

9 all night rather than fall asleep and freeze to death. Although they had little sustenance themselves, body lice managed to feed on them. Lafayette was horrified to see soldiers whose legs had frozen black and who had to be carted off to hospitals that were little better than death terminals to have their limbs amputated. One bitter Continential wrote: ‗Poor food – hard lodging – Cold Weather – fatigue – Nasty Cloaths – nasty Cookery – Vomit half my time – smoak‘d out of my senses – the Devil‘s in it – I can‘t Endure it – Why are we sent here to starve and freeze…?‖3

Despite the lack of support the army received from the people, they endured, and went on to win the war. It is interesting to note that only about one third of the people supported the Revolutionary War. Another third remained neutral and the last third were loyal to the British. I have always found this to be a most interesting fact. In many ways nothing has changed. About one third of modern Americans believe in capitalism, about one third believes in socialism, and one third are apathetic and indifferent.

The Preamble to the Constitution

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.‖

—Benjamin Franklin

―I have often, in course of the session, looked at the sun behind the president [engraving on the back of George Washington‘s wood chair] without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at

3 Leckie, The Wars of America, pp. 180-181 quoted from The Making of America, Skousen,

10 length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.‖ 4 It is recorded that when Franklin signed the Constitution, ―The old man wept.‖5

The Miracle at Philadelphia

Fifty-five of America‘s greatest men, representing the thirteen colonies, gathered in the scorching heat of Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. On September 17 of the same year, a document was signed by its founders that would shape the future of arguably the greatest nation to ever exist on the earth. America would become the inspiration for countless other nations to follow in her foot steps. Never before had such a document as the United States Constitution been written; a theory of mixed government consisting of the three great branches, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each branch was carefully designed to check the power of the others. The Constitution was a document that united the states while carefully preserving the individuality of their people as well as the autonomy of each state. The Sons of Liberty showed the world at the Boston Tea Party the American spirit for freedom, the soldiers at Valley Forge showed the world the American will to sacrifice for a greater cause, and the Signers of the Constitution showed the world the American wisdom to check the powers of men.

The Danger of Government

“But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” —James Madison

4 The Making of America, Skousen, Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 2:648

5 Bowen, The Miracle at Philadelphia, p. 263

11 The founders recognized that the only way a people could successfully self- govern was to constrain the ambitions of men with a Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said, ―let no more be said about confidence in men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.‖ This could only be done through checks and balances. No one person or body of people could have too much concentrated power. It was on this premise they agreed to create a limited central government.

Goudy warned,

―Its [government‘s] intent is concession of power on the part of the people to their rulers. We know that private interest governs mankind generally. Power belongs originally to the people, but if rulers be not well guarded, that power may be usurped from them. People ought to be cautious about giving away power…. If we give away more power than we ought, we put ourselves in the situation of a man who puts on an iron glove, which he can never take off till he breaks his arm. Let us beware of the iron glove of tyranny.‖6

The three branches of government, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, all have checks of power against one another. Although not a perfect system of checks and balances, the Constitution, as it was originally intended, would have checked the powers for the most part. However, like all laws, if a person or a group desires to get around them ―where there is a will, there is a way.‖ A maxim I am sure of is ―the paper is no better than the person or people behind it.‖ It doesn‘t matter whether it is a contract between two men or a contract between the people of an entire nation. This truth was profoundly expressed by John Adams in 1798, who said,

―We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was

6 Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1:329-30

12 made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.‖7

Federal Powers vs. State Powers

The signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, by those who drafted it was not enough to make it the supreme law of the land. It still had to be ratified by nine of the thirteen colonies, and three of the constructionists refused to sign it: Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, and Edmund Randolph and George Mason of Virginia. Their main objection was the lack of a Bill of Rights. They felt the Constitution was not sufficient to protect the states and individuals from encroachment by the federal government. At the New York ratifying convention the main complaint was that the Constitution gave Congress powers without limit to do its will throughout the land. They believed the states would eventually be consumed by the central government. Little did they know their prediction was prophecy! Among their greatest concerns was the ambiguity of the ―general welfare clause‖ in Section 8 of Article 1. First, we will start with an examination of the Constitution itself, in particular Section 8 of Article 1, which enumerates the powers delegated to congress. The words you will read have not changed since September 17, 1787, the day the Constitution was signed. However, its true interpretation is certainly one of the most important debates in American history past, present, and future. Following a reading of this critical section of the Constitution we will read what some of the original constructionists had to say. Then we will explore the decision of the Supreme Court in United States vs. Butler, 1936. Their interpretation of the powers delegated to Congress may or may not surprise you. Will you agree with Supreme Court justices or will you find grave error in their interpretation?

Constitutional Powers Delegated to Congress

7 John Adams, The Works of John Adams, ed. C.F. Adam, Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1851, 4:31

13 Section 8 enumerates the specific powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution to make federal law. The first paragraph contains the infamous ―general welfare clause.‖ The subsequent clauses are enumerated powers and the last is known as the ―Necessary and Proper clause‖ needed to implement the powers defined. As you read through the powers ask yourself this question: Was Section 8 written to provide that the federal government be limited or unlimited in its powers?

The United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8 Powers Delegated to Congress

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [italics added by author for emphasis]

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

14 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same

15 shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Enumerated Powers

You will recognize the following powers defined above in section 8.

1. Collect taxes 2. Pay debt 3. Borrow money 4. Regulate international, interstate and Indian commerce 5. Establish rules for naturalization (citizenship) 6. Establish bankruptcy laws 7. Coin money and regulate the value 8. Fix a standard for weights and measures 9. Punish counterfeiting 10. Establish post offices and post roads 11. Pass copyright and patent laws 12. Establish federal courts 13. Punish crimes on the high seas and against the law nations 14. Declare war 15. Raise and finance armies and a navy 16. Establish rules for land and navy forces 17. Call up state militias 18. Organize, arm, and discipline state militias 19. Administer federal lands and buildings 20. Make laws to execute the powers

16 These powers are an exclusive list of the powers the Constitution gives to the Federal Congress to make laws ―to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.‖ There are no other powers! The controversy over the ―general welfare clause‖, as you will discover, is whether it was an enumerated grant of power by itself or a preamble to the subsequent enumerated powers? In other words, does it stand alone as a grant of power or do the enumerated powers define it? This is the key question debated now for over 230 years.

What the Founders Had to Say

—James Madison, 1787

Madison wrote, concerning the ―general welfare clause‖ as a specific grant of power unto itself and in a desperate attempt to persuade the states to ratify the document,

―No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections than their stooping to such a misconstruction. But what color can the objection have when the specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semi-colon?‖

Madison stated that the national debt, the common defense, and the general welfare were ―general terms‖ with ―specification‖ in the following enumerated powers that were separated only by a ―semi-colon‖. Later, he argued before the Congress,

―If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the

17 latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.‖ 8

His prophetic vision of the unintentional consequences of the misinterpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ is simply astounding. Programs like ―No Child Left Behind‖ and ―Medicaid‖ are modern-day fulfillment of his words. He further clarified the founders‘ intentions in this regard with the following phrase taken from the Federalist papers, a series of explanatory letters used to persuade the states to accept the Constitution. ―The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.‖ In 1792, he explained the consequences if the Constitution was misinterpreted when he said, ―If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

—James Wilson, 1787

James Wilson, a lawyer and also a signer of the Constitution, explained, ―The National Government was intended to promote the ‗general Welfare‘. For this reason Congress has power to regulate commerce . . . and to promote the progress of science and of useful arts by securing for a time to authors and inventors an exclusive right to their compositions and discoveries.‖9 Wilson explained how the ―general welfare clause‖ was intended to be implemented by providing a proper application for two of its enumerated powers.

8 Quoted in Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT By Thomas James Norton, chpt 12,

9 Ibid.

18 —Thomas Jefferson, 1817

Writing in 1817 from Paris, Thomas Jefferson stated, regarding a recently defeated bill for the advancement of the ―general welfare clause‖,

―You will have learned that an act for internal improvement, after passing both Houses, was negatived by the President. The act was founded, avowedly, on the principle that the phrase in the Constitution which authorizes Congress ‗to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,‘ was an extension of the powers specifically enumerated to whatever would promote the general welfare; and this, you know, was the Federal doctrine. Whereas our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the Federalists and the Republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but was restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have meant that they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation on the purposes for which they may raise money. I think the passage and rejection of this bill a fortunate incident. Every State will certainly concede the power; and this will be a national confirmation of the grounds of appeal to them, and will settle forever the meaning of this phrase, which, by a mere grammatical quibble, has countenanced the General Government in a claim of universal power. For in the phrase ‗to lay taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the general welfare,‘ it is a mere question of syntax, whether the two last infinitives are governed by the first, or are distinct and co-ordinate powers; a question unequivocally decided by the exact definition of powers immediately following.‖10

10 Quoted in Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT By Thomas James Norton, chpt 12

19 It is obvious from his statement he was quite tired of the endless debate first proposed by Hamilton and espoused by the Federalist Party that the ―general welfare clause‖ was an ―extension‖ of the enumerated powers and should be used for anything that would benefit the nation generally. He hoped that the defeat of the bill would finally put the matter to rest. But it didn‘t. Six years later he was defending the original intent of the founders again.

―I have been blamed for saying that a prevalence of the doctrine of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution. I answer by asking if a single State of the Union would have agreed to the Constitution had it given all powers to the General Government? If the whole opposition to it did not proceed from the jealousy and fear of every State of being subjected to the other States in matters merely its own? And if there is any reason to believe the States more disposed now than then to acquiesce in this general surrender of all their rights and powers to a consolidated government, one and undivided?‖11 [italics added by author for emphasis]

Thomas Jefferson‘s ―prevalence of the doctrine of consolidation‖ – unlimited federal authority – which would one day call for ―reformation or revolution‖ would be realized in the events of the civil war and again, may become a reality in our time.

—Alexander Hamilton, 1787

Alexander Hamilton had a contrary view of the ―general welfare clause‖, ―plenary, and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive.‖ Alexander Hamilton‘s interpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ differed from that of Madison and Jefferson. Hamilton espoused the concept that the clause ―and to provide for the general welfare‖ meant just that. The Federal government was charged with the responsibility to write laws to provide for the general welfare of the

11 Quoted in Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT By Thomas James Norton, chpt 12

20 nation. He did not believe, however, that the government had unlimited authority to do so. As long as the welfare was for the nation and not the local it was a proper use of delegated authority. He argued in general terms,

―The plan of the Convention declares that the power of Congress, or, in other words, of the National Legislature, shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excluded all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.‖12

His logic is interesting, but confusing; a problem experienced by many politicians today. Why would the Constitution enumerate Congress‘ powers if its intention was to make them unlimited? Said another way, why enumerate a few powers if it had them all? It is also interesting to note that although Hamilton made a key argument against a ―general legislative authority‖ his definition of general and that of Madison and Jefferson were two different things. He supported the idea that ―general welfare‖ was a specific grant of power provided it was done for the ―general‖ welfare of all the people and not purely local or state issues, thus it was a limited power. This became known as the Hamiltonian doctrine. And as you will see, was the beginning of the end for a limited federal government.

The Bill of Rights

In spite of the explanations by Madison, Wilson, Jefferson, and others, many of the states would not compromise. They insisted that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution to clarify the rights of individuals and of the states. On December 15, 1791, ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights were ratified by the thirteen states and became part of the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment specifically was added to

12 Alexander Hamilton, Federalist papers #83

21 protect the rights of the states and to satisfy those uneasy about the ambiguity of the ―general welfare clause.‖

The Tenth Amendment

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

The Tenth Amendment explicitly declares that the federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution. The majority opinion in United States v. Darby, 1941,13 confirmed this fact.

―The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.‖

It was a noble effort to reinforce Section 8 and the rest of the Constitution with the 10th Amendment. However, the devil in it all, was that the phrase ―and general Welfare of the United States‖ was never clarified to mean that it was not an extension of the enumerated powers, even if it were used on items that affected the nation generally and not locally. It was, rather, left to the intrepretation of the reader to understand that it was an introduction to the powers that would be subsequently and explicitly defined. If only Madison and Jefferson could have seen this, the addition of the clarification of the ―general welfare clause‖ to the Tenth Amendment would have changed the future of America.

13 United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941)

22 Delegated Powers Expanded Through the Elastic Clause

The landmark Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819,14 officially expanded the ―delegated‖ powers. The federal government established a banking system with a branch of the Second Bank of the United States located in Maryland. The state of Maryland imposed a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in the state. The Federal government challenged. The Supreme Court ruled the ―Necessary and Proper Clause‖, also known as the ―elastic clause‖ found in Section 8, allowed the Federal government to pass laws, not expressly stated in the Constitution, in order for the powers which are expressly stated, to be operational. In other words, the ruling established that the Consititution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution‘s expressed powers, in order to create a functional government. This of course created a wide latitude of intrepretation for Congress to determine what those implied powers are. The ―elastic clause‖, so named for its ability to extend widely in its intrepretations of powers, has been abused repeatedly throughout the history of the United States. To what extent has the Marshall Court‘s decision been abused? We need look no further then the size and scope of government today! Justice Marshall knew the decision could open the door to abuse, so he attempted to clarify their decision when he wrote:

―Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.‖

—President James Monroe, 1822

President Monroe opened a flood gate in his support of Alexander Hamilton‘s interpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ when he vetoed a bill to preserve and repair the Cumberland Road in 1822. He stated that Congress‘ power to spend was restricted ―to purposes of common defence, and of general, national, not local, or state, benefits.‖

14 McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

23 He found the Cumberland Road project to be one of local, not general or national, therefore a violation of the spending clause. Although right in his veto, he was right for the wrong reason. It wasn‘t because it was a general verses local issue; it was because it was not an enumerated power for the federal government to make internal improvements in the states. Jurisdiction over improvements in the infrastructure of the states belongs to the states, not the federal government. Thus we see right from the beginning, following the ratification of the Constitution and despite the implementation of the Tenth Amendment, the battle over the extent of federal powers began. Following President Monroe‘s misinterpretation, President John Quincy Adams authorized spending on several projects for internal improvement, which the Constitution did not allow. This misinterpretation of the spending clause caused an up roar by the people and became the focus of the next presidential election in which President Adams was soundly defeated by Andrew Jackson.

—President Andrew Jackson, 1829

President Jackson, unlike Monroe and Adams who preceded him, made no mistake about the correct interpretation when he vetoed a $200 million appropriation for internal improvements, calling the broad interpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖, a ―dangerous doctrine.‖ With few exceptions from 1787 until the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt the interpretation of the spending clause held the line of reasoning by Madison and Jefferson. However, when FDR became the President the ―general welfare clause‖ was authoritatively defined as a broad spending power and remains so today.

—Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930

In what may have been the greatest flip-flop in history, FDR spoke about states‘ rights as Governor of New York as he set his eyes on the presidency of the United States.

―As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the

24 Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment [prohibition of liquor] Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere.‖ [Brackets added for clarification by author]

Then after he was elected, President Roosevelt did nothing but ―interfere‖ in states‘ rights issues. Never before in America‘s history had the federal government usurped more power over states‘ rights than during FDR‘s presidency. He obviously justified exceptions for his broader interpretation of the general welfare powers due to the extreme circumstances of the Great Depression.

FDR’s New Deal for America

FDR‘s run for the presidency occurred on the heels of the opening of the Great Depression. Unemployment was near 16% on its way to 25%, agricultural prices had fallen by 60%, industrial production had fallen by more the 50%, as two million Americans were found homeless. This would rise to16 million at the peak of the depression. The country was in desperate need of someone to give it hope. Roosevelt campaigned, ―I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people.‖ President Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. In his speech he made immortal the words, ―The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.‖ What followed would be the most fearful act of a United States President in United States history to expand the powers of the federal government. Within 100 days most of the following acts had been passed into law.

Notable New Deal Acts

 Reconstruction Finance Corporation – an agency that made large loans to businesses, ended in 1954.

25  Federal Emergency Relief Administration – a program to create unskilled jobs for relief; replaced by WPA in 1935.  United States Bank Holiday – closed all banks until they became certified by federal reviewers.  Abandonment of the Gold Standard, 1933: gold reserves no longer backed currency; still exists.  Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 1933: employed young men to perform unskilled work in rural areas; under United States Army supervision.  Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), 1933: effort to modernize very poor region, centered on dams that generated electricity on the Tennessee River; still exists.  Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), 1933: raised farm prices by cutting total farm output of major crops and livestock.  National Recovery Act (NRA), 1933: industries set up codes to reduce unfair competition, raise wages and prices.  Public Works Administration (PWA), 1933: built large public works projects.  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), insures deposits in banks in order to restore public confidence in banks; still exists.  Securities Act of 1933, created the SEC, 1933: codified standards for sale and purchase of stock, required risk of investments to be accurately disclosed; still exists.  Civil Works Administration (CWA), 1933-34: provided temporary jobs to millions of unemployed.  Indian Reorganization Act, 1934: moved away from assimilation.  Social Security Act (SSA), 1935: provided financial assistance to: elderly, handicapped, paid for by employee and employer payroll contributions; required years contributions, so first payouts were in 1942; still exists.  Work Progress Administration (WPA), 1935: a national labor program for more than 2 million unemployed; created useful construction work for unskilled men; also sewing projects for women and arts projects for unemployed artists, musicians and writers.

26  National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) / Wagner Act, 1935: set up National Labor Relations Board to supervise labor-management relations; In the 1930s, it strongly favored labor unions. Modified by the Taft-Hartley Act (1947); still exists.  Judicial Reorganization Bill, 1937: gave the President power to appoint a new Supreme Court judge for every judge 70 years or older; failed to pass Congress.  Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938: established a maximum normal work week of 40 hours and a minimum of 40 cents/hour; still exists.  Federal Surplus Relief Corporation later changed to the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation.15

The list of Acts initiated and signed into law by FDR were ambitious and historic. In light of the desperate circumstances, in which the country found itself, the people could only hope they would work. However, the Constitution‘s system of checks and balances proved valiant in limiting federal power to a certain degree, when an originalist Supreme Court in several 5-4 decisions ruled key New Deal Acts unconstitutional.

The Four Horsemen

The ―Four Horsemen‖ were four conservative Supreme Court justices who held off FDR during the beginning of the New Deal era. Justices McReynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Butler, joined by Justice Roberts, ruled in 1935 unconstitutional, The Railroad Retirement Act, The National Industrial Recovery Act, and The Bituminous Coal Conservation Act. In 1936 the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and a New York minumum wage law, were also ruled unconstitutional. The National Industrial Recovery Act majority ruling was joined by all the justices, infuriating FDR. The president‘s next move to advance his New Deal caused much controversy.

Court Packing Scandal

15 New Deal Wikipedia

27 Frustrated with the decisions of the Supreme Court, led by the four horsemen, FDR took measures into his own hands. He decided if he couldn‘t persuade them to support his New Deal, he would out power them by making them the minority on the court. In an unprecendented move, he called for a bill to reorganize the court, the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 (Court Packing Bill). The Constitution is silent on the number of justices needed to constitute the Supreme Court and since 1869 the justices have numbered nine by statute. FDR, in the attitude of a dictator, saw this as an opportunity to add more justices who were more aligned with his way of thinking. The bill would have allowed one additional justice to be appointed to the Court for every justice over the age of 70 ½ years. At the time there were six. Therefore, if the bill passed, the Court would be made of 15 justices with the majority, he expected, to be supporters of his New Deal. Little did he realize that some of the most intense opposition to the bill would come from members of his own party, namely Vice President Garner, who recognized the bill as a violation of the separation of powers. In the end the bill was defeated, but serious damage had been done to the Court. The swing votes of Justice Roberts began to side with the liberal justices finding the Labor Relations and Social Security Acts constitutional. However, the greatest damage was done in the historic case of United States v. Butler just a little over a year earlier.

The Day that Changed the Course of America

January 6, 1936, a 150 year old debate was decided by the United States Supreme Court and the course of America was changed. Following the constitutional convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton led the debate on his side, while James Madison and Thomas Jefferson argued the other. The ultimate question being asked was: Does the ―general welfare clause‖ of the United States Constitution give limited or unlimited power to the Federal Government to tax and spend to ―provide for the general Welfare of the United States?‖ The answer will in the end, ultimately, decide the fate of America.

28 United States vs. Butler

In 1933, the first year of Franklin Delano Roosevelt‘s presidency, the United States Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The new law gave power to the federal government to implement a tax on the processing of agricultural commodities. The taxes were then redistributed to farmers who agreed to decrease their production. The Act was intended to stabilize agricultural commodities prices during the Great Depression. The Act was similar to our current day Conservation Reserve Program, where land is held out of production to decrease the supply of commodities. The question before the Supreme Court in United States v. Butler, 1936,16 was whether the United States Congress had exceeded its power to tax and spend to provide for the ―general welfare‖ and whether the Act violated the state‘s Tenth Amendment exclusive right to tax within its state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment states that all powers not specifically delegated to the United States are reserved to the states. In other words, did the Constitution give the Congress power to tax on a purely state issue? The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled the Act unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment. Ironically, however, in the Court‘s written opinion, unlimited authority to tax and spend for the ―general welfare‖ of the nation was given unprecedented validation and America‘s course was changed, maybe forever.

The Supreme Court’s Majority Opinion

Justice Roberts, giving the opinion for the Court stated,

―The government concedes that the phrase ‗to provide for the general welfare‘ qualifies the power ‗to lay and collect taxes.‘ The view that the clause grants power to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never been authoritatively accepted.‖

16 United States v Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

29 He acknowledged right from the beginning that for 150 years the idea that the ―general welfare clause‖ as a specific grant of power, in addition to the enumerated powers that immediately followed, had been argued. He continued,

―Mr. Justice Story points out that, if it were adopted, ‗it is obvious that under color of the generality of the words, to ‗provide for the common defense and general welfare‘, the government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers.‖

Can you feel the significance of his words? He was about to give unlimited powers to the federal government through the ―general welfare clause‖ and he knew it. The question is how could the justices rationalize the phrase ―not withstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers‖? Remember, this was a time of serious national fiscal and social problems associated with the Great Depression. FDR had just become the president and was making promises to the people he had no authority to make. Don‘t think for a moment the justices did not have intense political pressure to institute FDR‘s New Deal promises. Justice Roberts continued as his words became clearer and clearer that the court was going to adopt the concept that ―general welfare‖ was an extension of the enumerated powers by saying,

―The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation's debts and making provision for the general welfare.‖

Shouldn‘t he have said, ―The true construction undoubtedly is that the only thing granted is the power to tax for the purpose of providing funds for payment of the nation‘s debts and provide for the common Defense and making provision for the general welfare‖ as stated in the opening clause in Section 8? He left out ―provide for the common defense.‖ This is a significant omission because the ―common defense‖ is as significant

30 to the clause as the ―nation‘s debt‖ and ―general Welfare‖ and all three are explicitly defined in the enumerated powers that follow. If the war powers had not been defined in the enumerated powers which followed, it would have been logical to assume that it was an ―extension of the enumerated powers‖, along with the ―general welfare clause‖ in the first clause. However, since the ―common Defense‖ was defined in the subsequent enumerated powers, so too is it logical that ―the general welfare‖ was also defined, proving that neither was intended as a grant of power undefined in the opening clause. Therefore, it is only logical that the phrase ―the general Welfare‖ was limited to the enumerated powers subsequently defined, as argued by both Madison and Jefferson. Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court then prepared the people for the atomic bomb they were about to drop on the Constitution, as he continued,

―The argument is that Congress may appropriate and authorize the spending of moneys for the ‗general welfare‘; that the phrase should be liberally construed to cover anything conducive to national welfare.‖

The rest of his opinion reads like a sad obituary. It was the end of any hope of maintaining a limited federal government. As you read it you will notice that Hamilton‘s idea and Madison‘s and Jefferson‘s idea of a limited federal government were vastly different as I have already pointed out.

Justice Roberts continues,

―The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected, unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax…‖

I would like to have asked the Justice where in the Constitution it says the powers to tax are broad?

He continues,

―Since the foundation of the nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause conferred a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of section 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public monies for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. But the adoption of the broader construction leaves the power to spend subject to limitations.‖

As you read his closing remarks, notice that they confined the ―general welfare clause‖ to national government issues verses local state issues as Hamilton had argued, staying within what they felt was the true interpretation of a limited government. The

32 obvious problem with their position is, and we can see it in the application of our time, the phrase ―general welfare‖ can be and is construed to mean nearly everything that is not specifically local. The term ―general welfare‖ is so ambiguous, it basically includes everything. Today ―general welfare‖ for the nation includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (welfare for the poor), public education, infrastructure projects, museums, all kinds of pork projects (appropriations for pet projects added in by individual legislators) and charitable projects, along with a host of other expenditures that are rightfully the jurisdiction of the states. All these areas were opened up to control by the federal government with this validation and interpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ by the Supreme Court in 1936. Thomas Jefferson in a Draft Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1825 gave clear warning that Hamilton's interpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ would render meaningless the Constitution, the primary purpose of which was to restrain the government from mischief.

He wrote: ―This assembly does further disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.‖

Justice Roberts rationalized,

―As [Justice] Story says: ‗The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.‘ A power to

33 lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them. That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his well known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be ‗general, and not local.‘ Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton's doctrine, wrote: ‗Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not.‘ Story says that if the tax be not proposed for the common defense or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare. How great is the extent of that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we need hardly remark.‖ 1

The bomb had been dropped, the limits on federal government for 150 years were finally gone, and the floodgates of socialism were opened. Was it the beginning of the end for America? A New Deal for Social Welfare

Prior to FDR‘s New Deal era, it was generally understood that individual charity by the federal government was unconstitutional. Nowhere in the enumerated powers could charity be found to be a legitimate function of the national government nor reasonably could it be implied through the ―necessary and proper‖ or ―elastic clause.‖ However, following the broad interpretation of the meaning of the ―general welfare clause‖ by the Court in United States v. Butler, the door to social welfare had been opened. In fact, the door to just about any type of spending had been opened as long as it could be justified to be a national issue, which few things cannot. The founders and the Courts, until FDR‘s presidency, had correctly interpreted the Constitution and found no authority for charity.

—James Madison, 1794

―I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.‖

—Congressman Davy Crockett

Congressman Davy Crockett, famous for his defense of Texas in the Alamo, served for nine years in Congress. While serving in Congress a fire broke out in Georgetown and many of the Congressmen helped fight the blaze. The next morning the Congress voted $20,000 to assist those whose homes were destroyed. Crockett voted for it. Horatio Bunce, a constituent of Crockett, learned of the bill and scolded Crockett for using other people‘s money as charity. He challenged Crockett to find in the Constitution where it allowed Congress to spend one penny of other people‘s money as charity. Crockett couldn‘t find any provision. Bunce told him he had the right to help with his own money, but not other people‘s money. Later Crockett found himself in a similar situation when Congress was considering a measure to grant a sum from the public money to a widow of a recently deceased veteran. The measure was expected to pass unanimously until Congressman Crockett rose to the floor and said,

―Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money.

35 Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week‘s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks.‖17

—President Franklin Pierce, 1854

―[I must question] the constitutionality and propriety of the Federal Government assuming to enter into a novel and vast field of legislation, namely, that of providing for the care and support of all those … who by any form of calamity become fit objects of public philanthropy ... I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive of the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.‖

—President Grover Cleveland, 1887

―I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General

17 The Life Of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis, published by Porter & Coates in 1884.

36 Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.‖

—President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933

President Roosevelt, however, used the dire situation of the nation to forward his plan for social welfare when he made his case to the American people to support his plan as ―the need to meet the unanswered challenge of one-third of a Nation ill-nourished, ill- clad, ill-housed.‖ Many of FDR‘s programs were discontinued during or after the war, but one program – Social Security – remained to become the liberal hallmark of the New Deal and part of FDR‘s legacy. When President Roosevelt signed ―A Bill to Alleviate the Hazards of Old Age, Unemployment, Illness, and Dependency, to Establish a Social Insurance Board in the Department of Labor, to Raise Revenue, and for Other Purposes,‖ he made this comment:

―If the Senate and House of Representatives in this long and arduous session had done nothing more than pass this bill, the session would be regarded as historic for all time.‖

Social Security Act, 1936

January 6, 1936, the Supreme Court opened the door for permanent social welfare reform with the historic misinterpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ in United States v. Butler. In 1937, following the Court Packing Scandal by FDR, the Social Security Act of 1935 received its first challenge in Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 1937.18 The case involved the constitutionality of forcing the states to adopt laws for unemployment insurance, a part of the Social Security Act. The ―Four Horsemen‖ opposed the bill on the grounds that it went beyond the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution and that it forced the states to adopt or accept laws in violation of their sovereign rights provided by the Tenth

18 Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

37 Amendment. Justice Cardozo, writing the majority opinion stated,

―The fact developed quickly that the states were unable to give the requisite relief. The problem had become national in area and dimensions. There was need of help from the nation if the people were not to starve. It is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the Nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the General Welfare.‖

Justice McReynolds, writing his own dissenting opinion stated,

―That portion of the Social Security legislation here under consideration, I think, exceeds the power granted to Congress. It unduly interferes with the orderly government of the state by her own people and otherwise offends the Federal Constitution. .... [Article 1, Section 8] is not a substantive general power to provide for the welfare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully enumerated and cautiously guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive.‖

Steward Machine Company v. Davis and Helvering v. Davis, 1937,19decided the same day, both greatly expanded federal authority to regulate state activity. Shortly after the Steward loss, Justice Van Devanter retired in June 1937. He was replaced by Hugo Black, which ended the valiant attempt by the Four Horsemen to hold back FDR, the federal government, and the advance of social welfare in the name of the general welfare clause. The Court had established the precedent for what we experience today: that the

19 Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

38 federal government, under the ospices of the ―general welfare clause‖, can regulate state laws. This practice is widely used today.

—Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, 1987

South Dakota v. Dole, 1987,20 Justice O‘Conner dissented, saying,

―When Congress appropriates money to build a highway, it is entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one. But it is not entitled to insist as a condition of the use of highway funds that the State impose or change regulations in other areas of the State‘s social and economic life .... Indeed, if the rule were otherwise, the Congress could effectively regulate almost any area of a State‘s social, political, or economic life.‖

She continued,

―If the spending power is to be limited only by Congress‘ notion of the general welfare, the reality, given the vast financial resources of the Federal Government, is that the Spending Clause gives ―power to the Congress to tear down the barriers, to invade the states‘ jurisdiction, and to become a parliament of the whole people, subject to no restrictions save such as are self-imposed.‖ … This, of course, as Butler held, was not the Framers‘ plan and it is not the meaning of the Spending Clause.‖

New Deal Legacy

FDR boasted to Congress in January of 1934 that he had effected ―a permanent re-adjustment of many of our social and economic arrangements.‖ In 1935 before Congress one year later he boasted of ―a new order of things.‖ After Franklin Delano Roosevelt‘s 12 years in office there was a ―new order of things.‖ The federal government‘s powers were greatly expanded and America would

20 South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987)

39 never be the same. It now became expected by the people that when times were hard, the government would step in and save them. The ―New Deal‖ liberalism born during the era of suffering and great despair of the Great Depression would change the American ideology for decades to come and led the way to the next great advance of liberalism, the Great Society of the 1960‘s.

The Great Society

The New Deal era, riding the wave of emotion from the Great Depression, led to an unprecedented expansion of the federal government‘s power. The Great Society of President Lyndon B. Johnson, having the road paved by the successful tax cuts of President John F. Kennedy, continued the landslide of liberalism. LBJ as President Johnson was called, a teacher from Texas who had witnessed extreme conditions of the poor declared an ―unconditional war on poverty‖ and, may I add, an unconditional war on the original intent of the Constitution. In 1964, following the enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act, $1 billion dollars was appropriated for the beginning of dozens of programs, which followed over the next two years with another $2 billion dollars. The Food Stamps program, the Community Action Program, and Head Start were just a few of his programs directed towards helping the poor. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 appropriated $1 billion in federal aid to public education for schools with low-income children. The Higher Education Act of 1965 made available low-interest loans to poor students. The Bilingual Education Act of 1968 appropriated federal funding for children with limited English speaking ability. The Social Security Act of 1965 authorized Medicare for the health of senior citizens. Medicaid was introduced in 1966 to welfare recipients of all ages. The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965 removed the national origin quotas on immigration that had stood since 1921, opening the door for a greatly expanded multicultural America and creating many of the budget problems for social welfare we face today.

40 President Johnson‘s environmental policies were mind-boggling. He stated in regards to the environment, ―the air we breathe, our water, our soil and wildlife, are being blighted by poisons and chemicals which are the by-products of technology and industry. The society that receives the rewards of technology, must, as a cooperating whole, take responsibility for [their] control. To deal with these new problems will require a new conservation. We must not only protect the countryside and save it from destruction, we must restore what has been destroyed and salvage the beauty and charm of our cities. Our conservation must be not just the classic conservation of protection and development, but a creative conservation of restoration and innovation.‖

The following acts are from his environmental policies: Wilderness Act of 1964, Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, National Trails System Act of 1968, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965, National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968, and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 21

An Unlimited Federal Government

A universal retirement and disability plan in Social Security, universal health care for seniors and the poor through Medicare and Medicaid, universal education from preschool thru high school, food stamps for all welfare recipients, the Endangered Species Act, and on and on and on… None of these areas can be found among the enumerated powers or even implied through the ―Necessary and Proper clause‖ in the Constitution. How did the federal government usurp these powers from the states? It

21 The Great Society, Wikipedia

41 was from a broad intrepretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ by the Supreme Court in 1936.

The Commerce Clause

What the federal government can‘t justify through the ―general welfare clause‖ they justify through the ―commerce clause‖ of the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 3.

―To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; …‖

The clause was written as an enumerated power to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations, and Indian tribes, which are sovereign nations within the states. This power explicitly written into the Constitution was an appropriate power to keep the states from fighting over unfair trade that moved from one state to another or from a foreign or Indian nation that moved commerce through the United States. However, the original intent of the ―commerce clause‖ has been abused nearly as much as the ―general welfare clause‖. In fact, prior to the broad interpretation of the ―general welfare clause‖ most laws that went beyond the enumerated powers were

42 justified by the ―commerce clause‖. In 1942, during the New Deal era, the precedent was set once and for all in Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.22 The infamous Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. As found in United States v. Butler, the intention of the act was to stabilize national prices by controlling the amount of commodity produced. If you will recall, the Supreme Court found the Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1936 unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment‘s states‘ rights. So, in 1938 they used the ―commerce clause‖ to justify the act. Another prime example of how the federal government gets what it wants. Roscoe Filburn was a wheat farmer. In 1940 his wheat allotment was 11.1 acres with an expected yield of 20.1 bushel per acre. However, he planted 23 acres with the intent to use the excess above and beyond his allotment for personal use. The government found him in violation of the act. Filburn argued that because the excess wheat never entered commerce at all, let alone interstate commerce, the federal government had no jurisdiction through the ―commerce clause‖. The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Federal Government appealed. The Supreme Court ruled against Filburn. They reasoned that if Mr. Filburn had not used his excess wheat for private use, he would have had to buy the wheat from the market. And if all farmers used the same reasoning, the effect on the market would be substantial. The ruling gave Congress the power to regulate not only interstate commerce as was appropriately accepted, but intrastate, non-commercial activity if they felt it would effect interstate commerce. The ruling was seen as the end to any limits on Congress‘ ―commerce clause‖ powers to regulate all private economic activity.

America Falters

As of this writing the United States is now over $12 trillion in debt, or over 85% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the highest amount of debt as a

22 Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

43 percentage of the GDP since WW II. We are paying a staggering amount (approximately $500 billion per year) in interest alone on that debt. We are spending over 3% of the GDP on anti-poverty programs, the highest percentage in our history. The Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare will begin to take in less money than they spend within 10 years. From that point on, the funds will be in the red until bankrupcy. Costs of living have also sky rocketed, while 47 million Americans are without health insurance. Mortgage foreclosures are at record highs as America begins to buckle from years of poor fiscal policies. Meanwhile, our Federal Government continues to spend money like a bunch of drunken sailors on everything imaginable, all in the name of the ―general welfare‖ of the nation.

Can We Return to the Original Intent of the Constitution?

Thus we see the battle for the Constitution started shortly after it was written. And for 150 years the Constitution held strong. However, the pressure put on the union during the Great Depression was all that was needed to finally get the Supreme Court to misinterpret the meaning of the ―general welfare clause‖. The only question that remains is: Can we stop the advance of this gigantic power-eating machine called the Federal Government? And if so, how?

44 II. The Battle for States’ Rights

The Tenth Amendment

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

What are the ―powers not delegated to the United States [the federal government] by the Constitution?‖ If you read the Constitution, you won‘t find them listed. What you will find listed are the only powers the federal government was given. All others were reserved for the states or the people. In other words, if you can‘t find a power written in the United States Constitution, the Federal Government does not have it. This is further proof that the founders intended to limit the centralization of power.

Thirteen Colonies Become the United States of America; Who gets the unsettled land?

After six long years of fighting and two more years negotiating with the British, the Revolutionary War officially came to an end with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The thirteen colonies now laid claim to North America from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River. About half of the land was an unsettled wilderness known as the Northwest Territory. What to do with the land and who owned it was a matter of much controversy. Seven colonies in particular laid claim to the territory, but that was disputed by the remaining six. This problem was largely at issue in preventing any confederacy of the colonies. However, in 1784, the matter was resolved when a solution to pay the debt incurred by the Revolutionary War was found. The thirteen colonies agreed to confederate and allow the Northwest Territory to be held ―in trust‖ by the United States, until it could be sold to pay the war debt. Then, after the population within a proposed area reached 60,000 persons, a new state could be formed and admitted to the Union on equal footing with the original 13 states.

45 It is the conditions upon which the new state(s) entered the Union that is vitally important in understanding the controversy over states‘ rights on public lands. These conditions are discussed below, and I think you will find my arguments extremely compelling. Cessation of the Northwest Territory

The colonies all agreed to cede their claims to the land in the Northwest Territory, but not without conditions. Part of the ―Virginia Act of Cession,‖ wherein Virginia ceded its claim to the Northwest Territory, follows. Pay particular attention to the conditions upon which the land was ceded.

The Virginia ―Cession of Western Lands to the United States, December 20, 1783‖

―[The land is to be conveyed to the United States] Upon condition that the territory so ceded shall be laid out and formed into states,…and the States so formed shall be distinct republican States, and admitted members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other States…‖

―That all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United States, and not reserved for or appropriated to any of the before-mentioned purposes [payment of expenses in subduing British posts, land as payment to certain officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary War] shall be considered as a common fund for use and benefit of such of the United States…and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for the purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatsoever…‖23 [bold added for emphasis].

This compromise by the colonies to cede the Northwest Territory to the confederation set the pattern on how land was to be appropriated and how future states

23 How The West Was Lost. William C. Hayward, 2000. Page 3

46 would be admitted into the Union. Students of the Revolutionary War will recall soldiers and officers were enlisted on the promise that they would receive land in exchange for their services, since there was no money to pay them. America also had borrowed a large sum of money from other nations in order to win the revolutionary war and that debt needed to be paid. In 1789, the first official year of the United States of America, the debt stood at $75 million dollars, roughly 40% of our Gross Domestic Product or value of our assets.

William C. Hayward, in his thoroughly researched and landmark book, ―How the West Was Lost‖, stated, ―In 1783, before the Confederacy was confirmed, one thing was clear: The federal government did not own the land; it belonged to the seven claiming states.‖24 This fact is important to note. It was the intent of the colonies to cede land to the United States Confederation, only with the provision that all the land be used for a specific purpose – to pay the debt of the new nation. All the land was to be disposed of to create states with the ―same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence‖ as the original states. The only exception to its disposal was a 10-mile square of land to become the seat of the federal government, later to be known as Washington, D.C., and property reserved for military bases and other needful buildings. However, this reserved property still needed to be purchased and required the consent of the states‟ legislatures to cede the land. This is an extremely important point to remember and is written in plain English in the United States Constitution.

Article 1, Section 8, clause 17

The Constitution makes this very clear by stating the Congress shall have authority:

24 How The West Was Lost. William C. Hayward, 2000. Page 3

47 Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards, and other needful Buildings;‖

As you just read, the federal government was and is limited by the United States Constitution on the kind of land it can own (ten miles square in Washington D.C., and land to build military bases and other needful buildings) and was never to own (control) the vast amounts of land it lays claim on today. Today, the federal government controls roughly 676+ million acres, or approximately one third of America. Most of that land is undeveloped public lands in the west. Approximately 60% of 11 western states are under the control of the federal government. Listed below is a breakdown of Federal Lands according to a 1996 census by the National Geographic Society.

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 270 million acres U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 90 million acres National Park Service 83 million acres Department of Agriculture Forest Service 204 million acres Department of Defense 27 million acres Department of Energy 2.4 million acres Total Federal Lands 676.4 million acres

Designated Wilderness Land (included) 107 million acres

Note: The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 added another 2 million acres to Wilderness land. Idaho is the state with the largest number of wilderness acres in the lower 48 with 4,522,950 acres.

You may have noticed I put ―controls‖ instead of ―owns.‖ The fact that the federal government controls 676+ million acres is indisputable. Whether it owns 676+ million acres or not is a matter of much debate. How does the federal government reconcile this vast amount of land in its control with the United States Constitution cited above, especially in light of the fact that the land was never purchased or ceded by the

48 ―consent‖ of the states‘ legislatures? That is a good question, but believe me, they do. I answer this question shortly, but before I do, I must discuss one of the most important, yet least known documents in United States history, the Northwest Ordinance.

The Northwest Ordinance, 1787

"We are accustomed to praise lawgivers of antiquity ... but I doubt whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has produced the effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character than the Ordinance of 1787" —Daniel Webster

The Northwest Ordinance is a short document, much like the United States Constitution. Written by Thomas Jefferson in 1784 and accepted by the Continental Congress of 1787, the Ordinance sets the path for what we know today as the United States of America, arguably, the greatest nation ever to exist on earth. Article 5 is the most notable for our discussion because it set the standard for westward expansion of America and the process by which future states would come into the Union. The document specifically addressed the land North and West of the Ohio river acquired from the British in the Treaty of Paris, but also set the pattern for future states to come into the Union through the Louisiana Purchase from the French in 1803, the Florida purchase from Spain in 1819, the annexation of Texas from the Republic of Texas in1845, the Oregon purchase from the British in1846, and the Treaty of Guadalupe with Mexico in1848. Specifically, it allowed settlers North and West of the Ohio River to lay claim to the land, create a temporary territorial government, and set the standards necessary to become a state equal to the original thirteen. The final states of Alaska and Hawaii, our 49th and 50th states, were the last states to be admitted to the Union based on the principles of the Northwest Ordinance. Article 6 prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude in the Northwest Territory and was instrumental in leading the way to slavery‘s final abolition. Many of the rights found in the Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution are also found in the

49 Northwest Ordinance emphasizing our basic liberties. Other significant parts of the Ordinance provided for free college and educational land grants to states. So, as you can see, the Northwest Ordinance is truly one of America‘s most important, but most overlooked documents in our history. Below you will find key parts of the document emphasized that will lead you further into my discussion of states‘ rights in regards to public lands. Pay particular attention to the words ―equal footing.‖ The document is not included in its entirety. However, the key portions that deal with my discussion of states‘ rights are included with other significant portions to give you a feel for the significance of the entire document.

The Northwest Ordinance Accepted, July 1787

―An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio. Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district… And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, ... It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

Article I.

50 No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

Article II.

The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature; and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offenses, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and, should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And, in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previously formed.

Article III.

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

Article IV.

The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto. The inhabitants and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay a part of the federal debts contracted or to be contracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of government, to be apportioned on them by Congress according to the same common rule and measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on the other States; and the taxes for paying their proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the district or districts, or new States, as in the original States, within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled. The legislatures of those districts or new States, shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil by the United States in Congress assembled, nor with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers…

Article V. …And, whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government: Provided, the constitution and government so to be formed, shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission shall be

52 allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand.

Article VI. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.

It is from this document that the words ―equal footing‖ become prominent in American history and establish a key doctrine by which states were to be admitted into the Union. The Equal Footing Doctrine is vital to our understanding of States‘ rights.

Equal Footing Doctrine

What does it mean to be ―on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever?‖ Some have argued ―equal footing‖ means political only. And, by recognizing representatives and senators in Congress from the states, the requirement has been filled. However, political equality only could hardly satisfy the condition of Virginia‘s cessation agreement of ―…having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other States…‖ when ―the other states‖ [the original thirteen] had full sovereignty over their land. Besides that, ―in all respects whatever‖ leaves little room for exclusion of something as important as the land within a state‘s boundary. It is

53 also clear from Virginia‘s cessation agreement and the Northwest Ordinance, Article IV highlighted above, that the land was to be disposed of to ―bona fide purchasers.‖

Land Acquired After the Federal Government Was Established

It would be difficult to argue that the Northwest Territory belonged to the United States prior to the states uniting and that the government had the right to decide whether or not to dispose of it in light of Virginia‘s cessation agreement and the Northwest Ordinance. But what about land acquired by treaty after the United States was formed, either through treaty of purchase or treaty of war? Didn‘t the federal government own this land along with the right to keep it or use it as it saw fit? First, let us look at the chronological history of America‘s major land acquisitions.

United States of America Treaties for Land Treaty of Paris, 1783

Thirteen colonies, which included the Northwest Territory. The land was acquired through war. Remember seven of the colonies claimed the Northwest Territory. There was no unclaimed land and there was no United States of America to claim it anyway. The land belonged to the colonies. The colonies agreed to cede the land to the United States temporarily, ―in trust‖, in order to sell the land to pay the war debt and form it into new states.

Louisiana Purchase, 1803

Land from the state of Louisiana north and west of the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains. Purchased from France for $15 million.

Florida Purchase, 1819

The state of Florida, along with the bottom part of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Purchased from Spain for $6.5 million.

Annexation of the Republic of Texas, 1845

The state of Texas, along with parts of New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. Annexed from the Republic of Texas with the condition that Texas retain all of its land.

The Oregon Compromise, 1846

The states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and parts of Montana and Wyoming. Acquired from Great Britain by treaty.

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 1848

The states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Acquired from Mexico by treaty of war.

Gadsden Purchase, 1853

Part of the state of New Mexico. Purchased from Mexico for $10 million.

Alaska Purchase 1867

The state of Alaska. Purchased from Russia for $7.2 million.

Back to the question: Did the United States own the lands acquired after the Treaty of Paris and if so, did the federal government (the United States) have the right to keep it or use it as it saw fit? The answer is yes and no. The acquisition of the land after the Treaty of Paris was held in a state of quasi-ownership by the federal government. In other words, the federal government held the purchased or spoils of war land ―in trust‖ on

55 behalf of the future states to be. This is made clear in the United States Constitution, which places conditions on land ownership by the federal government. To reemphasize the conditions of federal ownership of land,

Article 1, Section 8, clause 17

―To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards, and other needful Buildings;‖

It is clear from the United States Constitution, written and ratified by the thirteen states, that the only land the federal government could own in perpetuity was Washington D.C., military bases, and other needful buildings. All other land acquired by treaty of purchase, treaty of war, or treaty of annexation, was to be appropriated into individual states with the “same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other States” and “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.” Maybe you are asking if the words just quoted are binding since they are not included in the United States Constitution. The answer is they are included, indirectly.

Article VI, Clause 1, United States Constitution

―All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.‖

The Northwest Ordinance was accepted by Continental Congress in July 1787, the same time the Constitutional Convention was convened.

56 Federalism vs. Nationalism

The United States of America does not have a national government! The United States of America has a federal government. The distinction is important. Prior to the colonies uniting, they were and saw themselves as distinct individual colonies of Great Britain with all the rights and privileges of any other of Great Britain‘s colonies. The only difference is they were next door to each other, instead of being scattered around the world. They were like 13 different sub-nations of Great Britain. Following the war they became individual, independent, sovereign nations of their own, each with its own national government. It was readily apparent to them, after fighting the Revolutionary War that it was in their best interest to unite or confederate in an effort to defend their lives and for their mutual benefit in trading with the other nations of the world. However, they fiercely rejected the idea of dissolving their individual borders and becoming one nation, like Great Britain, with a King or any other majesty that controlled the whole. They knew from their prior experience with the King of England what happens when power is concentrated in one person or one body; individual liberty is gone. In order to unite for the common good, but still retain their individual sovereignty and freedom, they agreed to confederate as ―united states.‖ This was done on one main condition: the new federal government must be strictly limited in its powers. To bind this new federal government to a limit of powers the United States Constitution was born. Part of the reason the United States Constitution is so short is because it defines only those limited powers; all other powers were reserved by the states and or the people. In the minds of the states‘ delegates who drafted the Constitution, the federal government needed power only to do those things which the individual states could not do for themselves or could not do well, such as war. This was discussed in the enumerated powers section of this book. Question: If the intent of the delegates was to limit the federal government to only those things which the states could not do well for themselves, why would the states agree to make the federal government the largest land owner in America? As I have argued, they did not. In fact, they went out of their way to make sure the land holdings

57 were those only needed to be the seat of government, to establish military bases to defend the country, and other needful building such as federal court buildings and the like. This however, could only be done with the purchase and consent of the states. The simple fact about the vast amount of land withheld from mostly the western states is: it was an unconstitutional act by the federal government! Many of America‘s problems stem from this unconstitutional usurpation of state land. After all, if the federal government can withhold the land that rightly belongs to the individual states, what can stop it from taking other rights. Nothing! And this is precisely what has happened. The only instrument lying between the federal government‘s usurpation of states‘ rights is the United States Constitution. Question: If the Constitution is so clear, how can the federal government withhold 1/3 of America‘s land from the states? I am glad you asked.

The Forest Reserve Act, 1891

Section 24 ―…that the president of the United States may from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any state or territory having public land bearing forest, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations; and the president shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservation and limits thereof.‖

You‘re probably wondering how Congress justified this section. If not you should be. The answer is in the Constitution. What? I know it is getting confusing, but hang in there with me. The following clause, they and some today believe, gives the federal government the power to withhold approximately 1/3 of America as federal land.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

―The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United

58 States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.‖

It is only logical to conclude that, in the minds of those who voted for the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, or for those who have supported the Act since, they must believe the ―Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory‖ is synonymous with the power to ―set apart and reserve, in any state or territory having public land bearing forest,...public reservations...‖ However, there are several problems with this argument.

#1. Setting apart land bearing forest as a public reserve is in direct contradiction to Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which specifically limits the federal government to land within the ten miles square of Washington D.C., military facilities scattered throughout America, and other needful buildings. Additionally, the condition that it is done with the ―purchase and consent‖ of the state legislatures is required.

#2. It violates the ―Equal Footings Doctrine‖ for a state not to have control of its land and have the “same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other States” and be “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”

#3. It ignores the fact that the Northwest Territory was the only territory in existence at the time the Constitution was written and does not mention future territories. It could be argued that, even though future territories are not specifically defined in the Constitution, the clause was meant to apply to all territories, present or future. If that is the true meaning, then they must understand that once a territory became a state, the power to ―make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory‖ ended and state power to make all needful rules and regulations began. Furthermore, my home state of Idaho became a state in 1890, one year before the Forest Reserve Act of 1891.

Public Land Percentages in the Western States

59 Including Indian Reservation Land

STATE ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE Nevada 86% Utah 75% Oregon 75% Alaska 71% Idaho 70% Wyoming 65% New Mexico 60% California 50% Arizona 45% Montana 45% Washington 40%

Source: ―How the West Was Lost‖, William C. Hayward

Idaho is a good example of the rest of the western states when it comes to being denied ownership of her public lands. Just under two thirds (63.1%) of Idaho is controlled by the federal government in National Forest or Bureau of Land Management land, leaving only 30% of Idaho owned privately. Alaska is even worse. Only 1% of Alaska is owned privately. Compare that to Texas and most of the rest of the United States outside of the west, where approximately 99% of the land is owned privately. Do you think that fulfills the ―Equal Footings Doctrine‖ requirement when Idaho or Alaska or the rest of the West entered the Union? I sure don‘t. The point, I think often overlooked, is the fact that the western states, in particular Nevada, Utah, Oregon, and Idaho, are actually very small states when the acreage under federal agency control is subtracted. This has put the West at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to equality with the other states. One distinct disadvantage is the loss of property tax. An attempt to reconcile this disadvantage is the PILT monies, Payment In Lieu of Taxes, the federal government gives to counties with federal lands. This, however, is an insufficient payment for the states and puts the counties at the mercy of the federal government instead of exercising their states‟ right to benefit from state or private ownership of the land. However, the consequences of federal control of state land are not limited to a loss of property tax revenues. That is only the beginning.

60 Consequences Resulting from Federal Control of State Land

The main problem with the federal government controlling state ground is decisions about the land are made by people who live outside of the state. There are 100 U.S. Senators and 435 U.S. Representatives in Congress. Most live outside of the Western states. They see the Rocky Mountains, which comprise most of the land held in federal control, as a national treasure. The problem is western land is not a national treasure; it is a ―western treasure‖ that belongs to people who choose to live in the West. Case in point, people who choose to live in the East should not, through their elected officials, make decisions for people who live in the West. Can you imagine what Virginia would have thought if New Yorkers would have told them what they could and could not do with their land? Or in the reverse, if people from the West told people from the East how they could use the Atlantic shoreline. Obviously, if things were reversed there would be an uprising. Well, the West has tolerated the rest of the country telling them what they can do with their land long enough. I believe the West is primed to start a serious rebellion.

A Rebellion against Environmental Extremism

People outside of the West may be surprised to know that most westerners value the pristine beauty of the mountains and the deserts very much. Loggers, miners, farmers, and ranchers know how important it is to be good stewards of the land. They also know that the utilization of the natural resources of the mountains and deserts of the West are necessary for families to make a living. Sometimes I wonder how people outside of the West think westerners make their livings. The sad truth is many westerners are finding they can‘t make a living any more because environmental extremists have turned the West‘s public lands into a de facto wilderness. Most of the mines have been shut down. Very little logging is allowed. Cattle and sheep men who rely on mountain and desert grass for their animals are finding more and more restrictions on their grazing permits. Natural resources like oil and natural gas leases are nearly impossible to obtain. The truth is the western public land natural resources are on the verge of being lost forever. Instead of a multiple use land policy, the policy on public lands in the west has

61 turned in to a hands-off policy. The wording of the Wilderness Act explains it all. Under the 1964 Federal Wilderness Act, ―wilderness‖ land is defined as ―an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.‖ It is readily apparent that those who see the West as their national treasure intend to make Wilderness policy not just an isolated policy to the most remote land, but the general land policy on all public lands. In fact, a wilderness corridor from Alaska to Mexico is their unhidden agenda. There are continual efforts by environmental extremists to remove all activity from the mountains and deserts, except for tourism on horse or foot. The Wilderness Act would be ideal to complete their goal, but the restrictions – no motorized machines or equipment – are so extreme, they have had to turn to more insidious measures.

The Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, or ESA, is second only to the Wilderness Act in shutting down more land use by man than any other single environmental law. The act was designed to protect endangered species from extinction as a ―consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation.‖25 In theory, the act had good intentions. After all, who wants to be the cause of an animal or plant species becoming extinct? However, the problem with the act is the extent to which regulations are allowed to go to protect endangered species. There is a point where restrictions become ridiculous, such as shutting down entire ecosystems to save endangered snails. Each time a species is listed as either threatened or endangered, ―critical habitat‖ zones are required to be designated. Critical habitats are required to contain ―all areas essential to the conservation‖ of the target species. Because Federal agencies are required to protect these critical habitats, they are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out actions that ―destroy or adversely modify‖ them. The consequence,

25 7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C. § 1531

62 projects like logging and mining, oil and natural gas production leases that require federal permits are shut down. Entire ecosystems have been shut down to protect a single species and its critical habitat. One famous species responsible for shutting down vast tracts of forest in the Northwest is the spotted owl.

The Spotted Owl

The spotted owl first came on to the national environmental scene in the late 1980‘s. Environmentalists argued the loss of old-growth forests by logging, which contain large dead trees for nesting and prey habitat as well as cool, dark roosts was the reason the spotted owl numbers were in decline. Subsequently, on June 23, 1990 the spotted owl was placed on the endangered species list. Its critical habitat, 6.8 million acres of forest ground in the Northwest. Most logging in the critical habitat zones of the spotted owl was stopped by court order in 1991.26 In 2008, a recent legal challenge to the critical habitat of 8.6 million acres for the Mexican Spotted Owl in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico was denied. According to the Center for Biological diversity, ―Having critical habitat will ensure that U.S. Forest Service logging does not limit the bird‘s recovery or drive it into extinction.‖27 Timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest were reduced by 80% and approximately 30,000 jobs were estimated lost due to the court order of 1991. Loggers fought back in an attempt to save their livelihoods. Bumper stickers read ―Kill a Spotted Owl – Save a Logger‖ and ―I Like Spotted Owls – Fried.‖ Lawsuit after lawsuit has been filed over the years with little redress for the logging industry. However, despite the protection to the Northern Spotted Owl‘s critical habitat, the owl‘s population continues to decline by 3.7 percent per year.28 In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the cause of the decline was less contributable to loss of old growth forest habitat and more contributable to the invasion by the Barred Owl. The Barred Owl is a larger, more aggressive eastern species that has moved into

26 Brokaw, Jeanne. Mother Jones; Nov/Dec96, Vol. 21 Issue 6, p15, 1p, 1c. 27 Ibid 28 Brad Knickerbocker ,June 2007, "Northern spotted owl's decline revives old concerns" Christian Science Monitor.

63 the Pacific Northwest, competing for both nest sites and food. The Barred Owl‘s invasion has displaced the Spotted Owls from their traditional range within old forests and is the real reason for their continued decline. However, regardless of the new facts, the environmentalists‘ agenda to stop all use of the forests by man has continued and exposed their real agenda. Countless other species whose numbers are in a natural decline continue to be used as an excuse to keep industry from using the natural resources of our public lands. A species introduced into Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana in 1995 under the protection of the Endangered Species Act has nearly tipped the scale of a major rebellion. Could the Canadian gray wolf be the proverbial ―straw that broke the camel‘s back‖ and end the extreme environmentalist movement? I think you‘ll like my argument if you‘re not an extreme environmentalist.

The Canadian Gray Wolf

The outrage over the introduction of the Canadian gray wolf into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in the mid 90‘s has the drums of war sounding loudly in the West. The citizens of the three states and those from out-of-state who enjoy viewing and hunting of the native wildlife, camping, and other recreational use of the mountains, along with those whose lives have been destroyed by the shutdown of the industries that depend on the use of public land natural resources are close to open rebellion. The public sentiment against the wolves is strong enough that, in addition to all the other federal mandates closing off the west‘s public lands, I believe, the introduction of the wolves to the Rockies will be the ―shot heard in Washington D.C.‖ that leads to the end of the federal usurpation of states‘ rights. U.S. Congressmen, outside the west do not understand that westerners value their big game herds of elk, moose, and deer more than any other western treasure. They will not stand by, whether required by federal law or not, and watch the systematic destruction of their big game herds by the wolves. Yellowstone National Park, arguably America‘s greatest wildlife park and western treasure, is being severely impacted by the wolves, along with many of the great elk herds in Idaho and Montana. The magnificent North Yellowstone elk herd has gone

64 from ~ 17,000 head down to 5,500 head since the introduction of the wolves. This region of Yellowstone is of particular interest to scientists because it has the largest wolf population, about 106 of the park‘s 171 wolves in 2004, making the elk there the most vulnerable herd. 29 Wolf advocates are blaming the decline of the elk herd on everything except the wolves. They argue bears, hunters, harsh winters, and poor habitat are the primary cause, while failing to acknowledge that all those conditions existed prior to the release of the wolves when the elk herd was doing fine. Regarding the initial controversy over whether or not to release wolves into the three states, the environmental extremists claim they were only reintroducing the wolf to its native range. This is despite the lack of any historical data that the Canadian gray wolf ever even existed in America‘s Northwest. Introduced by federal mandate in 1995 and 1996 and protected under the Endangered Species Act, 66 Canadian gray wolves were released into the three states and have since multiplied into scores of packs and hundreds of wolves. Conservative estimates have the wolf numbers near 2000 animals in the three states and climbing as the fast approaching 100 packs reproduce at the rate of 5 pups per pack per year. The inability to count the wolves makes the likely number of wolves much higher. Scientific data has shown that each wolf kills on average between 18 and 36 ungulates (elk, deer, and moose) per wolf per year. Conservatively, two thousand x 18 = 36,000 deer, elk, and moose killed every year. In addition to what they kill for food they kill for sport. I personally have seen pictures of multiple kill scenes where the flesh of the animals has barely been touched. These beasts with razor sharp teeth are killing machines and are decimating the big game herds from Alaska to the bottom of Idaho. Alaska has recently resumed aerial killing of wolves in an attempt to curtail the damage done to Alaska‘s great caribou herds. Canada has a shoot-on-site policy on wolves in many areas. And Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have a ―shoot, shovel, and shut-up‖ policy that is becoming more accepted each day. No wild animal, including bears and mountain lions, are safe when they live in the range of a wolf pack. Domestic cattle, horses, sheep, llamas, dogs, and cats have been killed mercilessly by arguably the greatest predator of them all. Alone a wolf is a

29 What's killing the elk in Yellowstone? By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

65 formidable predator, as a pack they are unstoppable. Moose, the largest of the wild ungulates, can be taken down by a pack in minutes. Bull elk with their razor sharp antlers are still no match for the pack. Many people who used to frequent the mountains in the Northwest no longer dare. The wolves are having such an impact of the Northwest‘s big game herds and the way westerners use the mountains that vigilantes have taken to the mountains to curtail their impact. Entire elk herds have been reduced to the point where herd reproduction is no longer sustainable. Legal battles to control the wolves have been fought from the beginning. However, just when the states get authority to control wolf numbers, another lawsuit is filed by extreme environmentalists to protect them. Even though the Endangered Species Act has been an effective means to prevent land use by man and stop the utilization of our natural resources, an even more deadly arrow in the quiver of extreme environmentalism has recently come to the front. Global warming makes wolves look like playful puppies when it comes to forwarding the agenda of extreme environmentalism.

Global Warming

Fact: 1) carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are slowly increasing, very probably due to humans, 2) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and 3) globally averaged temperatures have risen by about 10 Fahrenheit since about 1900 until 1998.

―So, carbon dioxide concentrations have risen, and globally averaged temperatures have risen. But to what extent has the first caused the second? Coincidences do, after all exist – that‘s why we have a word for them. It is very difficult to confidently attribute the current warming to a specific cause or causes. And that is what makes the claim that global warming is due to humans more of a belief system than a scientific observation.‖ Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Climate Confusion.

I am a scientist, but not a world renowned meteorologist like Dr. Spencer. One thing all scientists are taught is to ―Be careful in your conclusions.‖ The facts are

66 indisputable as noted above. But what do they mean? I think it is reckless to make the conclusion that mankind is responsible for global warming and that if something isn‘t done about it the earth will burn up and we will all die. There are so many things not understood about the earth and its climate as explained in Dr. Spencer‘s book, it is inconceivable to me that any man or group of scientists could come up with the unequivocal assertion that man is responsible for the earth warming. Number one, this isn‘t the first time the earth has come from a cool period to warm period and in the last ten years back to cooling.

The Medieval Warm Period

I know this is going to come as a big shocker, but did you know Greenland was once ―Green?‖ No; how could it be? The Medieval Warm Period occurred between 800 –1300 AD followed by The Little Ice Age from 1400 to 1850 AD. Following The Little Ice Age until 1998 the earth‘s temperature has been in another warming period and recently (the last ten years) returning colder. The sea surface temperature, determined by radiocarbon-dated box core, was approximately 1 °C [1.8 °F] cooler than today, approximately 400 years ago [the Little Ice Age] and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1 °C warmer than today, 1000 years ago [the Medieval Warm Period].30 Greenland had a thriving Viking culture during the Medieval Warm Period producing crops and raising livestock. By the 15th century the climate was too cold to sustain crops or livestock and the Vikings were forced to leave. Periods of warmth and periods of cold have been the earth‘s history. Why has man suddenly become hysterical over what history has taught us is all part of the natural cycle of the earth? I hope for all of our sakes the earth will remain warm. Another period like The Little Ice Age would only bring more suffering.

30 Keigwin, Lloyd D. (29 November 1996). "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea". Science 274 (5292): 1503–1508.

Cap and Trade, You’re kidding Right?

So let me get this straight. A few people are trying to convince the majority in Congress that man is producing too much green house gas like carbon dioxide from our cars, factories, and methane from our cows. This excess gas then floats up into the atmosphere and traps sun rays that prevent the heat from escaping. This excess heat is warming the earth, making the polar ice caps melt. The melted ice is putting more cold water into the ocean and fouling up the ocean currents, causing unpredictable weather events like hurricanes and flooding in one part of the world and droughts and wildfires in another. And if we don‘t limit the amount of greenhouse gas we produce, the earth will eventually burn up and we will all die. And the way to stop people from producing too much gas, carbon dioxide in particular, is to tax the people (the government solution for everything) if they produce too much. Are you kidding me?!! Number one, we don‘t even know if the rise in carbon dioxide is the cause or the effect of the latest 100 year warming cycle. Number two, if it is involved as a cause, how significant is it and how much did man contribute? And number three; is it worth destroying the world‘s economy to find out? The proposed cap and trade law would require everyone who produces too much carbon dioxide to buy credits from those who produce under their limits. This brilliant idea will raise the cost of doing business for all those who contribute greatly to our economy and give money to those who don‘t; another redistribution of the wealth scheme. The estimates to implement this hair-brained idea are in the billions. The amazing thing, besides the fact that it is even being considered, is the fact that during the last ten years the earth has been getting cooler as it goes into another cycle. Also amazing is the fact that carbon dioxide is the gas that makes plants grow, and, in conjunction with warmer weather, the earth will produce more food so less people will go hungry. I live in Idaho and quite frankly, if I thought my car emissions would warm things up, I would drive around a lot more. With so many problems in the world, why do we need to fabricate one as outrageous as this one?

Polar Bears, An Environmentalist’s Dream Animal

Polar bear: a white furry bear that lives in the Artic and is near extinction because man drives too much and his cows are belching too much gas into the air, which is melting the sea ice where they hunt. Polar bears are an environmentalist‘s dream animal because they are on the endangered species list due to global warming! Nature has and always will go through cycles. I would bet a lot of money, before man had cars and factories, that the sea ice has expanded and contracted many times as the earth moved through her cycles. I don‘t mind reducing the number of polar bear hunting tags if the animal numbers are actually diminished for who knows what reason, but to think that we could change their climatic habitat by buying and selling carbon credits is ridiculous. My solution to removing polar bears from the endangered species list and eliminating the hysteria over global warming is simple: feed them the crazy environmentalists that are ruining America!

The Battle for States’ Rights Has Begun

As of the writing of this book several states have already declared their official sovereignty from the federal government. Those whose agenda has been to give the federal government unlimited control over the independent sovereign states of ―The United States of America‖ have in my opinion finally crossed the line of no return. I predict that in the next few years many successful 10th Amendment Constitutional challenges to the usurpation of states‘ rights will be made and upheld. I also believe global warming and the Endangered Species Act, along with the many other egregious acts committed by the federal government, will have enraged the people to the point in the near future, where they will fight to restore states‘ rights with a resolution not seen since the Civil War. In fact, I believe we are in the beginnings of ―America‘s 2nd Civil War.‖ Let us pray no blood will be shed this time!

III. The Battle for American Sovereignty

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! —Emma Lazarus, 1883

The night the unsinkable ship, The Titanic, went down, as portrayed in the movie, ―Titanic,‖ is a haunting scene. Hundreds of people in the freezing waters of the North Atlantic desperately crying for help, while boats full of people beyond their reach silently watched. Can you imagine how the people in the boats must have felt knowing they would live while the others would die? I‘m sure there were many in the boats who wished they could help. They also knew if they tried, their boats would be swamped. All they could do was sit quietly and watch as the cruel irony of life chose who would live and who would die. Life in America is a lot like sitting in those boats that cold night in the Atlantic as we watch the terrible suffering of millions of human beings outside the United States. But with the same reality that faced the survivors of the Titanic, we, too, must realize that America can not save everyone.

The History of American Immigration

America‘s first European settlements were Jamestown in 1607 and Plymouth in 1620. All the colonies, after they were started, grew almost entirely by natural growth, with foreign-born populations rarely exceeding 10%. According to the 1790 census of the 3.9 million people living in the thirteen colonies, 80% were of British ancestry.31

31 A Guidebook of American Genealogy by Kory L. Meyerink and Loretto Dennis Szucs,

70 Following the Revolutionary War until the 1830‘s, very little immigration occurred in America. Some estimates have the percentage of foreign-born immigrants at just over one percent. In the 1830‘s immigration began to increase significantly, with 599,000 immigrants of whom 207,000 were Irish. In the 1840‘s, due to famines in Ireland, Germany, and Holland, along with revolutions across Europe, a record number 1,713,000 immigrants, with the largest group of 781,000 Irish, came to America.32 By 1850 nearly 10% of the population was foreign-born immigrants. This sudden and massive increase of foreign-born immigrants into America did not come without repercussions. Cultural and religious differences clashed. Violence in the form of gangs had come to America. The Gangs of New York

Catholics were not looked on favorably by early American Protestants. After all, America was seen as an escape from Old World religious suppression in which the Catholic church had played a signficant role. ―In the eyes of America‘s predominantly Protestant community, it hardly seemed prudent to have established a society for religious dissenters from the Old World Establishment only to allow a hostile takeover by potential persecutors. Hence, Virginia in 1643 provided for the deportation of Catholic 33 priests within five days of arrival.‖

Tension between American Protestants and immigrant Catholics rose dramatically as large numbers of Irish and German Catholics immigrated to the U.S. during the period of 1830-1860. The Protestants feared the Catholics, controlled by the Pope in Rome, would undermine American democracy. A secret society known as the ―The Order of the Star Spangled Banner‖, a nativist group who protested the immigration and naturalization of mostly Irish Catholic immigrants, formed in 1849. When they were asked about their secret organization they were told to reply, ―I know nothing,‖ which led to the society‘s nick-name The Know Nothings.

32 Center for Immigrantion Studies (Sept. 2005) 33James R. Edwards, Jr., „Keeping Extremists Out: The History of Ideological Exclusion, and the Need for Its Revival”, p. 2 quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan, State of Emergency 2006

71 The Know Nothings, along with other America-born nativists, organized a criminal underworld to fight the mass immigration into cities like Boston and New York. The most notorious gang of nativists, The Bowery Boys, was led by a man nick-named Bill the Butcher. The Irish immigrants formed a gang known as the Dead Rabbits in response to the anti-Irish sentiment of the day. The Dead Rabbits were originally members of a gang known as the Roach Guards. As the story goes, the Roach Guards were having a meeting when a disagreement ensued resulting in someone throwing a dead rabbit into the center of the room. Some of the gang members saw it as a sign, left the Roach Guard, and formed a new gang called the Dead Rabbits. Rabbit is a slang word in Irish dialect meaning ―a man to be feared‖ and dead is a slang word meaning ―very.‖ Their emblem was a dead rabbit impaled on a spike. July 4, 1857, the Bowery Boys and the Dead Rabbits collided in a historic riot between the two gangs. The formation of the Bowery Boys, The Dead Rabbits, The Shirt Tails, and other gangs was the consequence of unprecedented foreign immigration to America.

The Chinese Exclusion Act

The California Gold Rush of 1849 brought foreigners into the United States from all over the world. Over 200,000 Chinese migrated to America from 1850 to 1882 to work in the gold mines and participate in the building of the Transcontinental Railroad. Willing to work for what the locals called ―coolie wages‖ (cheap labor on the docks) many Americans built up an animosity toward the Chinese for holding wages down. In 1882 under pressure from nativist groups, The Chinese Exclusion Act was passed. The Act was the first significant restriction on free immigration in American history. Chinese immigrants were not allowed in the country with few exceptions, until 1943.

The Great Wave

Beginning in the 1890‘s people from eastern and southern Europe as well as Asia, Russia, and Japan began to migrate to America in significant numbers. Prior to this time

72 the ―old‖ immigrants were mainly from Great Britian, Ireland, Scotland, and Germany. The ―new‖ immigrants created concern and tension among traditional Americans; the way they spoke, the way they looked, the cultures they brought to America were all strangely different. Many Americas became openingly hostile and opposed to any immigration from anywhere other than Western Europe. At the turn of the 20th century immigrants were flocking to the shores of America. In 1907 a record number of immigrants, 1,285,000, moved to America. From 1901 – 1910, 2 million Italians, 2.1 million from Austria and Hungary, and 1.6 million Russian Jews would move to America.34 This surge of immigrants became known as the ―Great Wave.‖ The Dillingham Commission was organized in 1907 as a result of the millions of immigrants that were coming to America. The commission‘s report concluded that a major shift from Northern and Western to Southern and Eastern Europeans was occuring. Immigration continued to surge until 1915 when it took a precipitious drop during World War I. Following the war, levels surged again as immigrants fled the devastation left behind by the war in Europe. ―By February 1921, Ellis Island was so jammed that boats were redirected to Boston.‖35

Emergency Quota Act

May 19, 1921, the United States Congress overwhelming voted to curtail immigration with the enactment of the Emergency Quota Act. The act limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of the number of persons living in the United States according to the 1910 Census. This limited immigration to 357,802 persons.36 The Act reduced the number of Eastern and Southern Europeans immigrants by 75%. Patrick Buchanan explains in his book, State of Emergency, ―…the restrictive immigration laws of the Harding-Coolidge era would declare that America, whose population had more than tripled in sixty years – from 33 million at Fort Sumter to 110

34 2003 Yearbook of Immigrant Studies, Office of Immigration Statistics 35 Otis J. Graham, Jr., Unguarded Gates: A History of America‟s Immigration Crisis, 2004 quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan‘s State of Emergency 36 2003 Yearbook of Immigrant Studies, Office of Immigration Statistics

73 million in 1920 – needed time to assimilate millions who had come in the Great Wave. The need for a time-out was apparent. Organized crime and violence along with the social problems caused by crowding millions of destitute and poor immigrants into tenements in America‘s greatest cities propelled progressives to join with conservatives in calling for tighter restrictions on who came, and how many.‖37 Historian John Higham declared in, Stranger in the Land, that the emergency quota act ―proved in the long run the most important turning-point in American 38 immigration policy.‖ Limits on immigration were further enhanced in the Immigration Act of 1924. The Act dropped the levels of Northern and Western Europe to 140,999 and levels of Southern and Eastern Europe to 21,847. In 1927 The National Origins Formula capped total annual immigration at 150,000.39 The Quota Act of 1921 and its renewal in the 1924 Immigration Act came under intense critisim as being racist. Opponents called the quota system ―Nordic supremacy.‖ Congressman William Vaile of Colorado rebutted,

―Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ―Nordic‖ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness, that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer, with a very low percentage of crime and insanity, that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has a spiritual grasp and an artistic sense which have greatly enriched the world…[and] which the Nordic rarely attains. It well behooves them to be humble.

―What we do claim is that the Northern European, and particularly, the Anglo-Saxon made this country…yes, the others helped…They came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.‖

37 Patrick J. Buchanan‘s State of Emergency, 2006 p. 232 38 John Higham, Stranger in the Land, 1963, p. 311 39 2003 Yearbook of Immigrant Studies, Office of Immigration Statistics

74 ―We are determined that they shall not. It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.‖40

The Immigration and Nationality Act 1952

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, also known as the McCarran- Walter Act, limited the total annual immigration to one-sixth of one percent of the population in the United States according to the 1920 census or 175,455. The national- origins quota was retained by a Congressional override of President Truman‘s veto. President Truman protested the idea of continuing the national quota system when he furiously stated, ―The idea behind the discriminatory policy was, to put it boldly, that Americans with English or Irish names were better people and better citizens than Americans with Italian or Greek or Polish names…Such a concept is utterly unworthy of our traditions and our ideal.‖41

Senator Pat McCarran, defending the Act passionately, proclaimed,

―I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the

40 Vaile quoted in Otis J. Graham, Jr., Unguarded Gates: A History of America‟s Immigration Crisis, 2004 quoted in Patrick J. Buchanan‘s State of Emergency 41 Quoted from John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants in Patrick J. Buchanan‘s State of Emergency p 236

75 contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States.... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation‘s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.‖ 42

The Mexicans

Mexican immigration was relatively low in the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. The Mexican-America war of 1846-1848 left few Mexicans wanting to be Americans. The relative few that lived in America prior to and during the era of the Great Depression, either by persuasion from America or voluntary migration, repatriated to Mexico. However, following the Great Depression, a movement of Mexicans back into America began to occur. By the time President Eisenhower, ―Ike,‖ had become the president, the illegal Mexican population was well over 1 million. With little protest, Ike ordered ―Operation Wetback.‖

Operation Wetback

Following the Great Depression, Mexican immigration began to significantly rise in the border states. Poor economic conditions in Mexico and a rebounding American economy brought the Mexicans in by the thousands. The sudden mass movement of the Mexicans into America caused a great stir. Illegal Mexican labor could be obtained for half the average wage, angering displaced American workers. Disease, illiteracy, and crime were other reasons Americans wanted the illegals sent home. In response to the complaints of Americans, President Eisenhower ordered a mass deportation. Quoting a report in The New York Times he said:

42 Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1952, p. 1518

―The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‗wetbacks‘ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.‖43

In 1954 President Eisenhower appointed his longtime friend, General Joseph Swing, to carry out Operation Wetback, an effort by the United States Government through the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove over 1 million illegal Mexican immigrants. Over 1,000 border patrol agents were charged with the duty to identify and deport all illegal aliens. The crackdown began in California and Arizona. Agents targeted agricultural areas and Mexican-American neighborhoods. By the end of July, over 50,000 Mexicans were caught and deported. By September 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas. INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 fled the country voluntarily for fear of capture. Two ships, the Emancipation and the Mercurio, were hired to transport thousands of Mexicans deep into Mexico territory. Although deeply critized by the Hispanic community, Operation Wetback was deemed successful.

The Immigration Act of 1965

―This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.‖ — President Lyndon B. Johnson, October 3, 1965, at the signing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Bill, also known as ―The Immigration Act of 1965.‖

Rep. Philip Burton August 25, 1965: ―Just as we sought to eliminate discrimination in our land through the Civil Rights Act, today we seek by phasing out the

43 How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico. The Christian Science Monitor, July 6th, 2005

77 national origins quota system to eliminate discrimination in immigration to this nation composed of the descendants of immigrants.‖44

Rep. Robert Sweeney (D-OH) ―Mr. Chairman, I would consider the amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act to be as important as the landmark legislation of this Congress relating to the Civil Rights Act. The central purpose of the administration's immigration bill is to once again undo discrimination and to revise the standards by which we choose potential Americans in order to be fairer to them and which will certainly be more beneficial to us.‖45

Theodore White called it, ―…noble, revolutionary – and probably the most thoughtless of the many acts of the Great Society.‖

President Lyndon B. Johnson‘s Great Society, in the era of civil rights reform, not only reformed the civil rights of Americans, but the civil rights of the world. Sold as an anti-discrimation act of compassion, the Immigration Act of 1965 removed all quotas on immigration and opened the door to what Patrick Buchanan claims is ―…a Third World invasion that is converting America into another country.‖ Proponents of the act argued very little would change with the adoption of the bill except America‘s policy of discrimation against all countries except The United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany. The quota system naturally favored these three countries because immigration quotas were set according to the population of countries represented in America at the time of the 1890 and then the 1920 census. After the Immigration Act of 1965, all quotas were removed, with a ceiling of 290,000 immigrants per year; 170,000 from the Eastern Hemisphere and 120,000 from the Western Hemisphere. The Eastern Hemisphere countries could send no more than 20,000 per country, while the Western Hemisphere was on a first come first-serve basis with no limits per country. If the Act would have stopped there, the United States would be a much different place today, but it didn‘t.

44 Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21783 45 Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1965, p. 21765

78 The act made family reunification the immigration policy of the United States for the next 40 years. Part of the push, if not most of it, was people living in the United States who were not from Northern or Western Europe. These people had become citizens at the time of the Great Wave at the turn of the 20th century and wanted their families with them. The low quota of immigrants that followed the Great Wave from Southern and Eastern Europe had created a long waiting list. Italy had nearly 250,000 on the waiting list while their annual quota allowed only 5,666 to come to America.46

It is easy to understand the emotion behind the supporters of the new policy of family reunification. After all, reforming immigration to allow more families to be together was surely justified. The mistake was made by giving family members unlimited entry above and beyond the ceiling of 290,000. This became known as ―chain migration‖ and has essentially opened our borders to millions of people, mostly from Third World countries. Under chain migration, immediate relatives, (spouses, minor children, and parents) of U.S. citizens over the age of 21 were not to be counted as part of either the hemispheric or country ceiling. Once these chain immigrants became citizens then they could bring their parents, spouses, and children. This change in the law has increased the number of immigrants from 290,000 to over 1,000,000 per year entering the United States. In addition to this flood of legal immigrants, an additional 400,000 to 700,000 + illegal immigrants have entered the United States per year beginning in the late 1990‘s. The consequence is a staggering 42 million immigrants, legal and illegal, since 1965, equal to all the immigrants in the previous 350 years of American history!

Senator Ted Kennedy, arguing in support of the 1965 act said:

―Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same… Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S. 500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any other country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia… In the

46 2003 Yearbook of Immigrant Studies, Office of Immigration Statistics

79 final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.‖ 47

When asked about the number of people from India who would want to immigrate, Secretary of State Dean Rusk stated:

―The present estimate, based upon the best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from India in the next five years ... I don't think we have a particular picture of a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States ... There is not a 48 general move toward the United States.‖

Note: There were actually 27,859 Indian immigrants over the five years following passage of the bill, three times Secretary Rusk's predicted level. From 1965 through 49 2003, immigration from India totaled 998,713.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy testified:

―I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle it would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there would be any great influx after that.‖50

Senator Hiram Fong answered questions concerning the possible change in our cultural pattern by an influx of Asians.

47 U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, p. 407 48 Ibid 49 Center for Immigration Studies Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act, September 1995 50 U.S. Congress, House, 1964 hearings, p. 418

80 ―Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States ... with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 ... the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ...Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.‖ 51

Note: From 1966 to 1970, 19,399 immigrants came from Japan, more than three times Sen. Fong's estimate. Immigration from Asia as a whole has totaled 9,715,328 from 1966 to 2003. Three percent of the American population is currently of Asian birth or heritage. 52

Rep. Sidney Yates (D-IL) supported the bill as a reaffirmation of ―our devotion to the principle of equal justice for peoples previously subject to discrimination.‖ He did not see it as ushering in a new era of mass immigration:

―I am aware that this bill is more concerned with the equality of immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event that the great days of immigration have long since run their course. World population trends have changed, and changing economic and social conditions at home and abroad dictate a changing migratory pattern.‖ 53

Sen. Claiborne Pell asserted:

―Contrary to the opinions of some of the misinformed, this legislation does not open the floodgates.‖ 54

Republican, Vice Presidential candidate, Rep. William Miller of New York saw things differently and wrote:

51 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965 52 Center for Immigration Studies. Three Decades of Mass Immigration: The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act, September 1995 53 U.S. Congress, House, 1964 hearings, p. 418 54 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965, pp.71, 119

81 ―We estimate that if the President gets his way, and the current immigration laws are repealed, the number of immigrants next year will increase threefold and in subsequent years will increase even more ... shall we, instead, look at this situation realistically and begin solving our own unemployment problems before we start tackling the world‘s?‖ 55

Myra C. Hacker, Vice President of the New Jersey Coalition, testified at a Senate immigration subcommittee hearing:

―In light of our 5 percent unemployment rate, our worries over the so called population explosion, and our menacingly mounting welfare costs, are we prepared to embrace so great a horde of the world's unfortunates? At the very least, the hidden mathematics of the bill should be made clear to the public so that they may tell their Congressmen how they feel about providing jobs, schools, homes, security against want, citizen education, and a brotherly welcome ... for an indeterminately enormous number of aliens from underprivileged lands.‖

―We should remember that people accustomed to such marginal existence in their own land will tend to live fully here, to hoard our bounteous minimum wages and our humanitarian welfare handouts ... lower our wage and living standards, disrupt our cultural patterns ...‖

―Whatever may be our benevolent intent toward many people, [the bill] fails to give due consideration to the economic needs, the cultural 56 traditions, and the public sentiment of the citizens of the United States.‖

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 1986

The decade of the 60‘s closed with 3.3 million new Americans, the 70‘s with 4.5 million. By the end of the 80‘s America would see more than 7.3 million new

55 The New York Times, Sept. 8, 1964, p. 14 56 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 681-687

82 immigrants with 2.7 million illegal. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 looked to control the surge of illegal immigrants, most of whom were Mexicans. The act made it illegal for American employers to knowingly hire illegal immigrants and granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1982. However, by all accounts the act failed miserably. For every illegal granted amnesty, four more replaced him. And, for every illegal given amnesty a ―daisy chain‖ was created whereby the amnestied illegal immigrants were able to send for their families. In 1990, in an effort to further curb the problem of illegal immigration, the ceiling for immigration to America was raised to 700,000 per year. Yet the problem continues with no solution in sight. The Pew Hispanic Center in March 2006 estimated the population of illegal immigrants ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals. Pew estimated that 57% of this population came from Mexico, 24% from Central America and South America, 9% from Asia, 6% from Europe, and the remaining 4% from elsewhere.57

Equally alarming is the fact that before 1965, 95 percent of the new immigrants came from Europe. After 1965, 95 percent have come from the Third World, mostly Mexico. Patrick Buchanan was right when he proclaimed we are under ―…a Third World invasion that is converting America into another country.‖

The Great Shift

57 Pew Hispanic Center, Fact Sheet April 26, 2006

83 Is America a melting pot for the races of the world? Without question, many races of man have immigrated to America and have added to our European ancestry. However, unless we change directions from our current immigration polices, America will change forever. The question is: Is that what we want? If the current trend of immigration, mostly from Mexico and Central America, continues, by 2050, the Hispanic population will have tripled to 102 million, or 24 percent of the United States. One in every four Americans will be Hispanic.58

A Nation Divided on Immigration

There are really two issues regarding immigration that divide America. First, the scope and the breadth of the effect of the current immigration laws, which have created a shift from Europe to Third World countries. And second, the impact of illegal immigration.

Economic Impact of the Shift in Immigration From Europe to Latin America

58 Population Bulletin Vol. 54 No. 3, September 1999 America's Racial and Ethnic Minorities by Kelvin M. Pollard and William P. O'Hare

84 The Immigration Act of 1965 changed the direction of America‘s immigration policy. Instead of using job skills and education as the main criteria for allowing an immigrant to come to America, the emphasis was changed to family reunification. This policy change opened the door to many unskilled and uneducated immigrants through chain migration. The consequences have created a serious economic burden on America. Immigrants with low skill levels have a high probability of both poverty and receipt of welfare benefits and services.59

Immigrants with low job skills tend to be poor and to have children who, in turn, add to America‘s poverty problem, driving up governmental welfare, social service, and education costs.‖60 Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants.61 In 1960, immigrants were slightly more likely to lack a high school education than were non-immigrant Americans. However, by 1998, immigrants were three to four times more likely to lack a high school education than were non-immigrants.62 Approximately ten and a half million immigrants have migrated to America in recent years that lack a high school education. This massive migration of poor and uneducated immigrants has had roughly the same effect on poverty and expanding government welfare as ten and a half million native-born high school drop outs. Currently one-third of all immigrants live in families in which the head of the household lacks a high school education. 63 Of the 25 million first-generation Hispanics, one in four does not have a high school diploma. Low-skill immigrants pay little in taxes and receive high levels of government benefits and services. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that each immigrant without a high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.64

59 Edwin Meese III and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., ―The Principles of Immigration,‖Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1807, October 19, 2004 quoted in Robert E. Rector‘s article Importing Poverty: 60 Ibid 61 Steven A. Camarota, ―Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform,‖ Center for Immigration Studies, March 2003 62 George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 20–29. 63 Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts Special Report #9 Robert Recter 64 National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997), p. 334

85 In addition to over 6 million Hispanic head-of-household immigrants without a high school education, 42 percent of Hispanic children are born out of wedlock. This staggering number is evidence of major social and economical problems in America. The Center for Immigration Studies reports that 25.8% of Mexican immigrants live in poverty. From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased to 9.2 million.

―This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.‖ —President Lyndon B. Johnson, October 3, 1965, at the signing of The Immigration Act of 1965.

Since the days of LBJ, the United States has spent over $11 trillion trying to eliminate poverty. I wonder if he could have foreseen the effect of the 1965 immigration bill on poverty if he would make the same statement today. First, we created a national welfare system during FDR‘s New Deal era. Then, we opened the doors to import poverty to use that welfare system with LBJ‘s Immigration Act of 1965. America is a generous nation, but she cannot be everything to everyone. There are literally millions of people outside the United States who want to take advantage of American hospitality. Our seemingly endless list of welfare programs for the poor is too great of an inticement to keep the unfortunate out. Consequently, many are willing to risk their lives to cross America‘s borders illegally.

Dangers of Illegal Immigration

The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement eliminated a number of tariffs on trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Advocates of free trade suggest the United States would be more prosperous if movement of labor were also free. However, since 9/11 the benefit of free labor movement does not offset the risk associated with an open borders policy. America simply cannot take the risk of not knowing who is in our country, where they reside, and what their intentions are.

86 Low-skilled labor shortages simply must be dealt with in an organized and lawful manner. Currently there are several programs which are either being reformed or suggested to identify and track foreign workers in a way that will benefit industries with labor shortages, while at the same time protecting United States citizens from the unwanted effects of allowing criminals and terrorists free movement into our country. The current best estimates have between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States today. America is a nation of laws, without which our system will collapse into total anarchy. Illegal immigration must be stopped with severe penalties for those who violate the law. The criminal element of illegal immigration alone is enough to justify a policy of intolerance. Crime

Border enforcement has been stepped up as many Americans have protested the inablility of the government to stop the problem. Former President, George W. Bush, stated that from 2000 to 2005, 4.5 million illegal aliens were caught at the border; more than 350,000 with criminal records.65 Twenty-five percent of our prison population, or approximately 250,000 inmates, 66 are illegal aliens at a cost to the taxpayers of approximately $3 billion per year.

There were an estimated 25,000 street gangs and more than 750,000 gang members active across the USA in 2007.67 Hispanics accounted for 46% of all gang members, Blacks 31%, Whites 13%, and Asian 7% in 1999. 68

American Gangs

America‘s gang history can be traced back to the immigration surge of the Irish between 1830 and 1860. The Irish Mafia is one of the oldest organized crime gangs in the United States today, but it is certainly not alone. The notorious Italian Mafia made its debut in the United States in the late 19th century and became infamous during the years

65 ―President Discusses Border Security and Immigration Reform in America,‖ Tucson, Arizona, Nov. 28, 2005: quote from Pat Buchnan‘s State of Emergency. 66 Senator Duncan Hunter, Fox News Interview, Sept. 11, 2007 67 Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems- National Youth Gang Survey Analysis, 2004 68 Into The Abyss: A Personal Journey into the World of Street Gangs by Mike Carlie, Ph.D. 2002

87 of prohibition. Although gang warfare is now as much a part of American history as the immigrants who brought it, the number of gangs continues to increase while the gangs become increasingly violent.

Mara Salvatrucha

Mara, MS, or MS-13, are the names given to Mara Salvatrucha, ―The world‘s most dangerous gang‖, according to Lisa Ling in a documentary from February 2006. Members are mostly composed of Salvadorans, Hondurans, and other Central Americans. It is believed there are over 100,000 worldwide, with 8,000 to 10,000 members living in the United States. Most are concentrated in Southern California, Miami, and Washington D.C. 69 Mara Salvatrucha orginated in Los Angeles, California. The gang was organized by immigrant Salvadorans during the 1980‘s who were forced to defend themselves from Mexican gangs. During the 1980‘s, several hundred thousand Salvadorans were granted asylum in the United States to escape the wars in Cental America. It is estimated that there are now more than 1.1 million in the United States with 500,000 living in the Washington D.C. area.70 MS-13 made national headlines on July 23, 2003, when Brenda Paz, a pregnant 17 year-old girl, was found murdered on the banks of the Shenandoah River in Virginia. Stabbed repeatedly and nearly decapitated, Brenda was thought to have been executed for her willingness to testify against MS-13 in federal court. On December 23, 2004, MS-13 made international news in Honduras after spraying a bus with automatic gun fire, killing 28 passengers. MS-13 gang leaders were convicted of the crime. In 2005 and 2006, according to Danna Harman in USA TODAY, ―…there have been 18 MS-13 related killings in North Carolina, 11 in Northern Virginia, and at least eight in Los Angeles.‖ 71 The gang is so ruthless, killings by machete of their own gang members have been reported.

69 Fox News Report, October 15th, 2007 70 D‘Vera Cohn, ―Area Soon to Be Mostly Minority,‖ Washington Post, March 25, 2006, p. A9 71 U.S. steps up battle against Salvadoran gang MS-13 By Danna Harman, USA TODAY Feb. 2005

88 The 18th Street Gang

The 18th Street Gang in Los Angeles is another gang thought to have as many as 20,000 members. Sixty percent of the gang is made up of illegal aliens. According to a Fox News Report, the Mexican Mafia with its 160 key individuals directly controls all the gang activity in Southern California.72 Gang violence has become such a problem the LAPD has assigned a special unit just to deal with gangs. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as many as 73 10,000 Americans are killed each year by illegal aliens.

Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, a criminal profiler, estimates that approximately one million sex crimes were committed by a quarter million illegal immigrants in the period between 1999 and 2006. 74 Few Americans will disagree that the illegal alien criminal activity and terrorist threats are a serious safety issue for America. However, the significance of the economic impact on America by illegals who take advantage of our social welfare programs is often overlooked. Health Care Crisis

The California State Association of Hospitals claims health care institutes in Southern California are on the ―brink of collapse.‖ In 2005 alone, 16 clinics and 17 trauma centers have closed their doors due to financial insolvency. The ―totality of uninsured‖, many of whom are illegal, cost the four LA county hospitals $340 million per year to treat undocumented aliens. Private hospitals consume an additional $100 million per year. In San Diego County $250 million per year is spent on health care services to illegal aliens. 75

72 Fox News Report: The Price We Pay October 16th, 2007 73 Ibid 74 Jeffrey S. Passel. "Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population", Pew Hispanic Center, March 21, 2005. 75 Fox News Report: The Price We Pay October 17th, 2007

89 Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas delivers 16,000 babies per year or 42 babies per day. Seventy percent of the babies are born to undocumented mothers for a whopping $70.7 million dollars in 2004. 76 Antelope Valley Hospital in California treats an average of 105 thousand patients per year. Forty to forty-five percent of those they treat can‘t pay for their services for a total cost of $47 million lost in uncompensated health care. The director claims within five years the hospital will be out of business.77

―Illegal immigration is the number one reason our healthcare system is on life support. Hospitals and emergency rooms across the United States are closing, but they are shutting in the areas with the highest rate of illegal immigration. If we removed illegal immigrants from the equation, the number of ―uninsured Americans‖ the media keeps touting would plummet, because 76 percent of naturalized citizens and 81 percent of native-born Americans have employment-based health insurance,‖ says Congressman Elton Gallegly. 78

Every county that borders Mexico in California, Arizona, and New Mexico has declared a state of emergency. In spite of the efforts of the Border Patrol to contain the flow of illegal aliens, they continue to come by the thousands. And why wouldn‘t they? Not only are they given jobs when they arrive, but America pays to educate their children and provide them with free health care services through the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and Medicaid. In addition to a free education and free health care, we invite the poor to enlist in our numerous welfare programs, while many of our major cities have a ―Don‘t Ask- Don‘t Tell‖ policy not to report them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

76 Ibid 77 Fox News Report: The Price We Pay October 17th, 2007 78ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION Is Breaking the Healthcare System by Congressman Elton Gallegly 2005

90 Sanctuary Cities

Sanctuary cities have adopted ordinances banning police from asking people about their immigration status. Sanctuary policies, official or otherwise, result in safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists. Sanctuary policies allow criminal aliens to avoid deportation because they prevent local police from reporting alien criminals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Many cities, including Washington, D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, and Aurora, Colorado, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine have become sanctuary cities. Many Americans still view illegal immigration as a harmless problem which fills a gap for cheap labor. They rationalize that exploitation of the poor from foreign countries is a justifiable means to an end to make an extra buck. These people put personal economy above safety and believe the illegals give more to the economy than they take in public services. However, as emotions rise over the numerous problems the millions of illegals are placing on society, a recent push to penalize sancturary cities is on the move. A bill before Congress would deny federal police funding to all cities which engage in the policy of Don‘t Ask-Don‘t Tell.

Anchor Babies

―Illegal alien women come to the hospital in labor and drop their little anchors, each of whom pulls its illegal alien mother, father, and siblings into permanent residency simply by being born within our borders. Anchor babies are citizens, and instantly qualify for public welfare aid: Between 300,000 and 350,000 anchor babies annually become citizens…‖79 Dr. Madeleine Cosman The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, clause 1, also known as the ―citizenship clause reads:

79 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Spring 2005

91 ―All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.‖

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868, as a post-Civil War amendment intended to secure rights for former slaves. Although considered one of the most significant Amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights, it has been instrumental in bringing thousands of illegal immigrants to the United States. However, the phrase ―subject to the jurisdiction thereof‖ was inserted in the clause to provide exceptions for Native Americans. Indians living on reservations in America until the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and children born to foreign diplomats while in America were excluded. Clearly, the intent of the Amendment was to provide citizenship to former slaves, not children of foreigners. The real meaning of the phrase and what to do about it has been the subject of much debate.

Plyler v. Doe

Although Plyler v. Doe did not answer the question directly as to whether the Fourteenth Amendent‘s ―citizenship clause‖ extends to children of illegal aliens, it did set an important precedent concerning illegal aliens, which unquestionably would be used if the case comes before the Supreme Court. In 1975, Texas revised its educational laws to prohibit the use of state funds for educating children who were not citizens or permanent residents of Texas and the United States. School districts were authorized to deny enrollment to children residing illegally in Texas. A court action ensued. A five to four majority of the Supreme Court struck down the state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants in Plyler v. Doe, 1982.80 The Court found that the Texas law violated the Fourteenth Amendment‘s ―equal protection clause‖ which provides protection from discrimination. The majority concluded that denying the illegal children a proper education would likely contribute to

80 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

92 ―the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime.‖ The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law. The dissenting minority argued that the issue should be dealt with by the legislature; that ―…the Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem.‖ The decision in Plyler vs. Doe was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are ―within the jurisdiction‖ of that state. This implies that the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants are ―subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States],‖ and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states:

―No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‗jurisdiction‘ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.‖81

“Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof”

In 1924, The Indian Citizenship Act declared all Native Americans ―subject to the jurisdiction thereof [of the United States],‖ granting citizenship to all Indians. The Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 attempted to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 so that children born to illegal immigrants would not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus not be granted citizenship simply by being born in the U.S. Unfortunately, the bill never made it out of committee. Another recent attempt was made to legislatively define the phrase ―subject to the jurisdiction thereof‖ in the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007. It again failed to make it to the floor. Because of the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler vs. Doe, some legislators believe defining the phrase to exclude children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants would not

81 Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

93 survive a constitutional challenge. They believe that only a constitutional amendment will constrain the court to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.

The Constitution Not a Perfect Document

The Constitution ratified by the thirteen colonies, along with twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution to date, makes up the supreme law of the land. Congress was charged by the Constitution in Article 1 to enact laws to fulfill the mandates it proclaims. Those laws must be in line with the intent of the Constitution as determined by the judicial branch. The apparent mistake made when the constructionists drafted the Constitution was the failure to specifically clarify the intent of the law, thus leaving the interpretation up to the judicial branch. A maxim legislators should live by is ―Leave nothing open to misinterpretation! Make the law so plain that even a child could not misintrepret it.‖ Previously, the apparent ambiguity of the ―general welfare clause‖ as found in Article 1, Section 8 opened the door for misintrepretation of its intent by the Supreme Court in 1936 in United States v Butler. In Plyler v Doe in 1982 we see the same ambiguity of the ―citizenship clause‖, allowing the courts to make a misinterpretation based on the unclear phrase ―subject to the jurisdiction thereof.‖ Hind sight is 20-20 as the addage goes, but still leaves us with the problem; how do we constrain the courts to interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of the constructionists, and what was that intent?

What Now?

Once the mistake has been made it literally takes an ―Act of Congress‖ to correct it. Congress can attempt to fix the problem through legislation, which takes a majority vote and a presidential signature. However, it is still subject to a constitutional challenge, which could go all the way to the Supreme Court and may or may not be validated. The only definitive measure is a constitutional amendment accomplished just twenty seven times in the history of the United States. If Congress can‘t correct the mistake through majority legislation or fails to gain a two thirds majority required for a constitutional

94 amendment, the last solution is a Constitutional Convention called for by two thirds and ratified by three fourths of the states‘ legislatures. This ―Act of the People‖ has never been done in the history of the United States and runs the risk of adversely changing the Constitution. In other words, the results of a Constitutional Convention may be worse, not better.

There is, however, another way, but you‘ll have to keep reading to discover it.

95 IV. The Battle for God and Family

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, after visiting America in 1831, said,

―I sought for the greatness of the United States in her commodious harbors, her ample rivers, her fertile fields, and boundless forests--and it was not there. I sought for it in her rich mines, her vast world commerce, her public school system, and in her institutions of higher learning--and it was not there. I looked for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution--and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!‖ 82

America, a Country of Tolerance

I wonder what the members of the first session of Congress would have said if it were suggested that Hindu and other non-Christian prayers be rotated with Christian prayers as a matter of respect for different beliefs. I think there would have been a riot. What do you think they would have said about banning the very mention of God in public schools? I think there would not be public schools. How do you think they would have reacted to legalization or even the debate about gay marriages? I think there would have been hangings. Do you think the original Supreme Court would have ruled that women have a right to kill their unborn babies? I don‘t think so. What has happened to America? America became a land of tolerance! How did this happen? We simply followed the same path that has caused the downfall of countless other empires: first we abhor it, then we tolerate it, then we embrace it.

82 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

96 An America That Has Forgotten God

Benjamin Franklin, the American patriarch at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, hallowed the convention with his eloquent call for prayer.

―In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for divine protections. Our prayers, sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend: Or do we imagine that we no longer need [His] assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured sir, in the Sacred Writings that 'except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it (Ps. 127:1).' I firmly believe this, and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builder of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial, local interests, our projects will be confounded and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from the unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest. I, therefore, beg leave to move: That hereafter prayers, imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning

97 before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in the service.‖83

America, Land of Many Gods

―And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend: Or do we imagine that we no longer need [His] assistance?‖ This question is as apropos today as it was in 1787. Will America fail? If we forget our ―powerful Friend‖ and turn away from the principles which made America great, I believe we will. America was established for a righteous people by the hand of Providence. If America turns her back on the God who gave her freedom and a Constitution to preserve it, she will fail! Our ―Great Society‖, as Lyndon B. Johnson called it, has been crumbling for years. The day we set the Constitution to the side, which was inspired by God, and began to interpret it in a manner contrary to the spirit in which it was written, America set her course for failure. How did we set it aside? We took God out of the government and began to use it for our selfish purposes. Without the hand of Providence who created it, we are as a ship in the night with no stars to guide us. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right declared in the First Amendment to the Constitution; government shall not interfere with the conscience of America to worship God in the way they desire. But to remove all inferences of God out of the operations of our government, established by the Creator Himself, is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. And to show respect to a God other than Jesus Christ is in direct defiance of everything our country was founded on. This is not a Muslim America. Nor is it Hindu or Voodoo. This is a Judeo- Christian America. The sooner we remember that, the sooner we will be back on the right track. We do not force our religion on any soul in America. Each citizen has the right to worship, or not, as they please. But those who do not believe in Jesus Christ certainly have no right to advance the worship of their Gods onto America.

83The Making of America, Skousen, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Smyth 9:600-60

98 Former representative, Bill Sali, from Idaho is to be commended for speaking out against a Hindu prayer, which was offered in the U.S. House of Representatives. America cannot offend her God by allowing other nations‘ God(s) to be worshiped in public. What is appalling is that so many people were offended when he complained.

God Forbidden in the Public Schools

I live in one of America‘s most religious cities. On Sunday, most businesses are closed and the streets are relatively quiet in observance of the Sabbath. On Monday it is back to the hustle and bustle of business as usual. However, for a long time I have been disquieted when I have gone to the government schools and notice the obvious lack of anything reverencing the Savior, Jesus Christ. I have often thought what a sad commentary it is on education in American public schools, that Americans have given up the fight to preserve our sacred heritage. Of course, it is against the law to have any remembrance of the Savior or His works in any public place, as demonstrated recently at South Iron Elementary School in Annapolis, Missouri. Recently, a long-held practice of distributing copies of the Bible to fifth graders was held illegal. The school board, who supposedly holds authority to make decisions like that, voted 4 to 3 to continue the practice. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit. A United States district judge issued a temporary injunction, and a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision. The irony of the story is the four sets of parents that initiated the suit are Christians. ―Their objection is they don‘t want the school telling their children what their religious beliefs should be,‖ their attorney Staver said, ―They believe that should be done at home with the family.‖ If they are Christians, I‘m not sure why they would object to Bibles being passed out in their school district, but if it wasn‘t them, I‘m sure it would have been only a matter of time before a non-Christian would have made the same argument. The attorney representing the school district complained that the practice of distributing the Bibles had already been discontinued in the classroom. The Bibles handed out were either after school or during lunch break. ―That policy we will

99 vigorously defend because we believe it‘s a constitutionally sound policy,‖ Staver said. ―It will provide for others, including the Gideons, the right to distribute literature.‖84 The pattern of removing Christianity from the government schools in our time has been well-established, and this district‘s eventual failure is only a matter of time. This brings me to my main point. I do not see the day when reverence to the Savior will ever be allowed back into the government school system. In fact, I am anticipating the day when the federal and state legislatures will also stop all practices of prayer during session. Afterall, doesn‘t it seem hypocritical for Congress to pray when the children are forbidden? And as we have already seen, Congress is now praying to foreign Gods.

How to Destroy America

First, I would offend her God and remove the powerful hand of Providence. I would do this by persuading the people that there is no one true God. I would convince the people that it doesn‘t matter how or who they worship or if they worship a God at all. I would encourage a society of tolerance over truth. Then I would use the government to enforce that tolerance. America would eventually give up and forget! I would ban the name of Jesus Christ and all reverences to Him in all public places. After all, it wouldn‘t be fair for those who believe that Jesus Christ is the one and only true God of America to force their belief upon Americans who believe differently. I would begin this ban in the government schools. I would forbid prayer. I would not allow any mention of His name or any doctrine to be taught that would even suggest He exists. I would promote the teaching of the evolution of man and make it illegal to teach intelligent design. I would teach the youth that He is not real! Please don‘t misunderstand, I believe that all American citizens have the right to worship Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha, or whoever they choose or no one at all, but I do not believe America should forsake our Judeo-Christian heritage in the name of tolerance for those who believe differently. Our prayers in Congress and throughout the country in public places must be in the name of Jesus Christ. Christianity is our foundational religion and should be honored among religions for the part it played in the making of

84 Appeals court upholds ban on Bible distribution to fifth-graders JIM SALTER Associated Press, Aug 22, 2007

100 America. Just because we honor the bald eagle above all other birds in America does not mean we forsake or hate the others. The same should be true of Christianity. For those who believe differently, they must show tolerance, not the other way around. It was on this foundational principle that God established America and that is how it must stand. If we worship another God or no God at all, then it is no longer the America it was ordained to be. Secondly, I would put the people in bondage to their own government. I would teach the false doctrine that all men must be equal; that the fruits of ambition, talent, and courage must be shared. That those who have gotten ahead through their hard work and sacrifice have done so on the backs of the less fortunate and therefore, they must give. I would redistribute their wealth by excessive taxation. I would make the recipients of unearned rewards dependent on the government. If there was any ambition in their blood, I would remove it with years of continual handouts. I would replace the word ―welfare‖ with the word ―entitlement.‖ Eventually, Americans would demand their fair share from the government and only vote for lawmakers who would provide it. The government would then become corrupted with politicians who ignore the Constitution and are more interested in retaining office than standing on principle. The federal government could then gain unlimited power over the states. Eventually state sovereignty would become a right forgotten and the people would become slaves to their government. America‘s great mind would become complacent, innovations would stop, and man‘s ambition would end. Hope would be replaced by despair and discouragement. With such an environment mothers would be forced to leave the home to help the fathers provide for the families. This, of course, would leave the kids to be influenced by the world. Selfishness and greed would consume the people. Hate and envy would become the norm of the society. I would teach the people to kill their unwanted unborn. America would then be ripe for destruction!

Abortion

Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, it is estimated that approximately 45 to 50 million unborn babies have been killed in the United States. That averages over one million abortions per year. The most heinous of which is partial-birth abortion, where the baby is

101 partially born before it is killed. The procedure was described by a nurse, who witnessed 1 a 26 /2 week old fetus killed, in testimony before a Judiciary subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives:

―Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby‘s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby‘s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus....The baby‘s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby‘s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby‘s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp....‖85

November 5, 2003, The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The law has been upheld by the Supreme Court with the following declaration:

The Congress finds and declares the following:

―(1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion — an abortion in which a physician delivers an unborn child's body until only the head remains inside the womb, punctures the back of the child's skull with a sharp instrument, and sucks the child's brains out before completing delivery of the dead infant — is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.‖

Partial birth abortion is no longer legal, except when the mother‘s life is at risk. The law ended a particularly cruel method of abortion. However, women in the United

85 Testimony of Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N. Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On The Constitution, U.S. House Of Representatives, March 21, 1996. Retrieved May 2, 2007

102 States still have the right to abortion using different procedures. We can only pray for the day when abortion will not be legal.

Homosexual Marriage

―Thus know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves…without natural affection…lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.‖ 2 Timothy 1-4

America is a wicked nation, nearly ripe for destruction! If not for the righteous, America would already be destroyed. I do not condone or believe that God created some men and women with a natural desire for the same sex. It is undoubtedly the greatest rationalization ever forwarded by human beings. With that being said, America is still a free country. And if a person chooses to destroy himself or herself, either through physical or social suicide, he or she has the right to do so. What they do not have the right to do is desecrate America‘s sacred institute of marriage between a man and a woman with their preposterous suggestion that homosexual couples deserve to be treated equally and with the same respect. Practice of homosexuality, hidden away from the eyes of society, although sad, is the right of a person living in a free country. However, to attempt to force our tolerance of a public display of unnatural acts is unacceptable. America must say, no! No to same sex marriages, no to civil unions, no to any public show of tolerance for unnatural acts whatsoever! Is this hate speech? Absolutely not! It is ―preserve the sanctity of the American family‖ speech. Isn‘t it interesting that anytime Americans say ―no‖ to tolerance of repugnant behavior, those who are opposed cry ―hate‖. In fact, as I write this book, there is currently hate speech legislation being proposed, which is really law to enforce tolerance of unacceptable behavior.

A Time for Intolerance!

103 Praying to foreign Gods in Congress, no mention of God even allowed in public schools, killing over a million babies per year, homosexuals demanding equality through marriage, and what does America do about it? The majority, nothing! Why? Because we have become tolerant. If we don‘t start showing some intolerance, there won‘t be an America! The following purported press release by Australia‘s prime minister shows his country‘s intolerance on behalf of a growing problem with Muslims. Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

―IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take it or leave it. I am tired of the nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.

This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the language!

Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principle, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture. We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

104 This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ―THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.‖

If you aren‘t happy here then LEAVE. We didn‘t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.‖ 86

Too bad America doesn‘t have a policy of intolerance like Australia!

86 Phrases attributed to a speech by Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, July 2005

105

V. The Battle to Save America

I‘ve always been amazed by the few trees that grow above the tree line high in the Rocky Mountains where nothing exists but a little dirt and a lot of rocks and wind. I‘ve often wondered how they could possibly survive. The obvious answer is they are without question the most stubborn of all the trees and must have a good root system. They usually stand alone, but it is not uncommon to see another stubborn tree within shouting distance. Wind blown and always gnarled to a great degree, they stand as witnesses to the difficulties they have survived. Why do they hang on when others have come and gone? Without question, life would be better lower on the mountain where the soil is more plentiful and the wind blows less. Maybe it‘s not their choice. Maybe they would rather be down with the rest of the trees. Or maybe they are simply unwilling to give up the view.

Ten Principles to Govern America

Principle #1. America was established by God for a righteous people. If America turns away from God she will fail.

Following are some quotes from the founders of America who I think would agree with principle #1.

―It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.‖87 —James Madison

―I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe, that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested

87 James Madison Federalists Papers, No. 37, pp. 230-231

106 during our revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God, who is alone able to protect them.‖88 —George Washington

―Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.‖ From George Washington‘s Farewell Address, 1796 89

―To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea.‖90 —James Madison

―Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.‖ 91 —Benjamin Franklin Smyth

―The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy the gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people; then shall we both deserve and enjoy it. While, on the other hand, if we are universally vicious and debauched in our manners, though the form of our

88 George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, by John C. Fitzpatrick, GPO, 1931-44. Vol. 32.2 89 From George Washington‘s Farewell Address, 1796 90 James Madison Elliots Debates 3:537 91 Benjamin Franklin Smyth, Writings of Benjamin Franklin, 9:569

107 Constitution carries the face of the most exalted freedom, we shall in reality be most abject slaves.‖ 92 —Samuel Adams

Lord Alexander Tytler said,

―A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure, from that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world‘s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith 2. from spiritual faith to great courage 3. from courage to liberty 4. from liberty to abundance 5. from abundance to selfishness 6. from selfishness to complacency 7. from complacency to apathy 8. from apathy to dependency 9. from dependency back into bondage.‖93

I believe America will collapse as predicted by Lord Tytler if we do not change course. Socialism, with its principles of government control, is akin to communism and is false doctrine. Capitalism and its inherent principles of personal responsibility, freedom, and accountability, along with our humility and gratitude to God, made America great, and we must return to those conservative principles or we will fall!

92 Samuel Adams, Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:22-23 93 Prentis, Jr., Henning Webb (1943). Industrial Management in a Republic

108 Principle #2. The Constitution was inspired by God. The original principles set forth within its body are true and when strictly adhered to will keep us free.

―The structure has been erected by architects of consummate skill and fidelity; its foundations are solid, its compartments are beautiful, as well as useful; its arrangements are full of wisdom and order and its defenses are impregnable from without. It has been reared for immortality, if the work of man may greatly aspire to such a title. It may, nevertheless, perish in an hour by the folly, and corruption or negligence of its only keepers, the people. Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest and profligate are rewarded because they flatter the people in order to betray them.‖ —George Washington

Frances Grund warned on this eventuality when he wrote:

―The American Constitution is remarkable for its simplicity; but it can only suffice a people habitually correct in their actions, and would be utterly inadequate to the wants of a different nation. Change the domestic habits of the Americans, their religious devotion, and their high respect for morality, and it will not be necessary to change a single letter in the Constitution in order to vary the whole form of their government.‖ 94

A Warning

―Other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it, if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still, under a new cultivation they will

94 Aristocracy in American, Frances Grund, Harpers, 1959, pp.212-213

109 grow green again, and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle if the walls of yonder capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the well proportioned columns of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skillful architecture which unites national sovereignty? No. Gentlemen, if these columns fall they will be raised not again. Like the Coliseum and the Parthenon they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them than were ever shed over the monuments of Roman or Grecian art; for they will be the remnants of a more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw the edifice of constitutional American liberty.‖95 —Daniel Webster

Principle #3. The proper role of government is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property.

Can you imagine an America without a federal, state, or local government, leaving each man to his own? I know that is a pleasant thought on many occasions. However, the truth is without law and order personal freedom would not extend past the barrel of our guns. We would live in a day of anarchy where the rights to life, liberty, and property would have no meaning. Our security would not be greater than our individual ability to assure it. John Locke, in his Two Treatise for Civil Government stated the following:

―The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law; and is not, as we are told, ‗a liberty for every man to do what he lists.‘ For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him:

95 Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster, 1851, Vol1, page231

110 But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.‖96

America‘s history had such a day. Although exaggerated to a considerable degree, the stories in the days of the Wild West are full of lawless pillage and plunder by murderers and thieves that existed before a government was established. The settlers, tired of personally defending their lives, liberty, and property grouped together, established basic laws, and hired a sheriff to enforce them. In its simplest form this is government. Throughout the history of mankind few peoples have had the privilege of deciding what those laws would be and who would enforce them. The American experiment offered this opportunity and asked the question, ―Can man govern himself?‖ The answer to this question is still being sought over 230 years later.

Thomas Jefferson made this interesting observation:

―Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.‖ 97

One of the first things Americans decided was that all men had a right to life, a right to live that life in liberty, and a right to possess and control his own property. Without any of the three, men would not be free to act on their own to pursue happiness, which is the greatest desire of any man. . The first act made by the new government was to declare these rights inalienable (from God) and protect them as their highest law. These ―highest laws‖ were drafted and declared in what we know today as our state and federal constitutions, the latter being declared the ―supreme law‖ of the land. The United States Constitution declares within its body the definitive authority it has over all federal issues. Many state constitutions go

96 John Locke, Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 57; P.P.N.S., p. 101 97 Thomas Jefferson Works, 8:3; P.P.N.S., p. 128

111 beyond the declared rights found within the United States Constitution, further establishing the rights of the people of their respective states. The proper role of government then is to protect these rights explicitly and implicitly.

Principle #4. Rights can only be taken away or limited when they interfere with another’s rights. Rights are not subject to the will of the majority. Privileges on the other hand are subject to the will of the majority.

The United States is a representative democracy or a republic, a country in which our elected leaders make political decisions by majority rule. We may like to think that democracy and liberty go hand in hand, but that is not necessarily so. Even in a republic, the rule of the majority must be limited so that individual liberty can be preserved. The majority cannot be allowed to rule everything. The original American citizens recognized that people had rights that no majority should be able to take away. A bill of rights, wrote James Winthrop of Massachusetts, 98 ―serves to secure the minority against the usurpations and tyranny of the majority.‖ ―My fundamental maxim of government is never to trust the lamb to the wolf,‖ stated John Adams when speaking about the majority in France. ―Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.‖ ―One‘s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.‖99 The right to bear arms, the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, and the right to be left alone against unreasonable searches and seizures are other fundamental rights. The ―right to differ‖ is a fundamental tenet of freedom. Justice Robert H. Jackson stated, ―Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of freedom‘s substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.‖

98 In Defense of Liberty: The Story of America‘s Bill of Rights by Russel Freedman 2003, p. 173 99 Supreme Court, 1943.

112 Justice Louis D. Brandeis stated, ―The right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.‖ He said both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments were meant to protect an individual‘s privacy. ―To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.‖100 The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads, ―The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.‖ The colonists recognized the need for police to search for evidence of criminal behavior. But they resented the practice of government agents barging in to nose around whenever they pleased, especially when they had no evidence of a violation. This unlimited authority to search was seen as a threat to the colonists‘ liberties; an attack on the traditional right to privacy claimed by every British subject who believed that his house was his castle. British statesman, William Pitt, in a speech to Parliament in 1763, when he opposed a bill authorizing general searches said, ―The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England 101 may not enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.‖

The Difference between Rights and Privileges

There is a great difference between a right and a privilege. Rights are unconditional and are guaranteed by both our federal and state constitutions. The Declaration of Independence proclaims our right to ―life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness‖ are inalienable or from God. The United States Constitution includes the Bill

100 In Defense of Liberty: The Story of America‘s Bill of Rights by Russel Freedman 2003, p. 87 101 Ibid

113 of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution) and guarantees our right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly (Amendment #1), the right to bear arms or own guns (Amendment #2), the right to privacy or the right to be protected from illegal searches and seizures (Amendment #4), the right to remain silent and the right to due process of law if charged with a crime (Amendment 5), and the right to a speedy trial if accused of a crime (Amendment 6), along with other rights. Rights can be regulated only to the extent they interfere with another‘s rights. A privilege, on the other hand, is not a guaranteed right and can be taken away or modified. Privileges are conditional. Driving a car on public roads is a privilege granted to those of a certain age who show competence in driving. This privilege can be modified by the legislature. The legislature could decide that licenses should be granted at age 18, instead of 16. Privileges can be taken away by the will of the majority. For example, the state legislatures throughout America have written laws against driving on public roads under the influence of alcohol. People who violate this law can have their licenses (the verification of a privilege) suspended or revoked. However, it is a right to own and drive your vehicle on your own property, even under the influence of alcohol. Another example of the difference between rights and privileges is the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to own and bear guns. This right is unconditional, with the exception of losing this right by violating the right of another, as in the case of a murderer sent to prison. The right to own a gun does not give a person the right to hunt on public land. This is a privilege and can be denied according to the law made by majority rule. However, a person can hunt his own animals on his own land any time he likes. Rights are, therefore, personal and extend to the boundaries of another person‘s rights. Government then can be thought of as an arbiter of American rights. They are charged with the protection of each individual‘s rights and come between them when there is conflict. Unfortunately, in our society today, government in many instances fails to respect our individual rights and in some cases bows to the pressure of special interest groups to make a right a privilege. Some rights are actually licensed – making them a revocable privilege – as in the case of gun control laws. As I have explained, rights are

114 unconditional and are not subject to a vote of the majority. Americans must defend their rights vigorously and many, but not enough, do. Government, properly run, has no other responsibilities other than protecting our rights. The numerous social welfare programs in which our government participates today is not a proper role of government. This is the proper role of the individual, the family, and the communities to take care of their own. Justice Chase wrote: ―I cannot subscribe to the omnipotence of a state legislature, or that it is absolute and without control…There are certain vital principles in our free Republic governments, which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty, or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established.‖

Principle #5. The Federal government should do only those things which the states cannot do for themselves. State government should do only those things which the counties cannot do for themselves. County government should do only those things which the family and individuals cannot do for themselves.

115

The Pyramid of Responsibility shows the proper relationship between governing bodies from the individual at the base to the federal government at the apex. Notice the greatest governing body, the individuals, retains the bulk of the responsibility in a self- governing republic. Also notice the federal or central government retains the least amount of responsibility, albeit the important role of protecting our rights. Due to the misinterpretation of the extent of the powers of the federal government as pointed out in the first section of this book, the pyramid has become inverted with the bulk of the responsibility for the individual improperly usurped by the state and federal government. As demonstrated by W. Cleon Skousen in his book The Making of America this upside down pyramid was experienced before by Moses who found that the Israelites‘ needs were too numerous to be managed from the top down.

116

Moses, who in this model represents the federal government of the United States today, found it impossible to be everything to everybody. Only when the pyramid was righted and the individuals assumed the bulk of the responsibility to govern themselves did the system work.

117

The base of the Pyramid of Responsibility is made up of millions of individuals, each with rights guaranteed by both their state and federal constitutions. The first and foremost responsibility each individual American holds is the responsibility to protect his or her life. Self defense is a lawful right, which allows individuals to protect themselves at all costs, even if that means taking another person‘s life. The ultimate responsibility for one‘s right to life can only exist with each person individually. This responsibility cannot be passed on completely to the county sheriff, the state police, or the FBI. For example, if someone breaks into your house and threatens your life, who is responsible to make sure your life is safe? At that moment it isn‘t the sheriff because he is not there. It is you and you alone. You can call the sheriff for aid, but if your life is in imminent peril, you and you alone are responsible. The most basic unit of a collection of individuals in a society is the family. In the above example, if a perpetrator broke into a home and threatened one of the individuals,

118 other family members can assume some or most of the responsibility to protect the threatened individual, e.g., a father protecting his children. Several families unite and form a community. A chosen member of the community can be delegated with the responsibility of protecting the individuals of the community to the greatest extent possible. However, the ultimate responsibility never leaves the individual. A deputy sheriff is an example of this. Communities unite and form a county. A sheriff is then chosen to supervise the deputies in charge of the protection of the individuals within the communities. Counties unite and form a state. States unite and form a country, more properly called a federation or a federation of states. Federal policemen are then chosen under the supervision of a president to protect the individuals as they move between the states. The federal government is also responsible for the defense of America‘s boundaries. This seemingly simplistic example of the proper relationship between the individuals and the people they choose to represent them is the proper workings of a representative democracy or republic. Government, therefore, is nothing more than a collection of delegated individual responsibilities. In a republic, does the individual give up his or her entire responsibility to the government? No; government can never assume all the responsibility that belongs to the individual as was demonstrated using the example of individual protection of one‘s life. Where, then, does the government‘s responsibility start and end? The government‘s responsibility starts and ends as allowed by the individuals. An individual‘s responsibility to himself or herself is called a right. Rights cannot legally be violated by anyone; the states‘ and the federal constitution guarantee it. If a people‘s rights are taken away, they have lost their freedom. Rights can be taken away legally when an individual violates the rights of another. Murder is the prime example. Each individual in the United States has the right to life, liberty, and possession of property. If another individual violates those rights, then they forfeit their own. Murderers who take the right of life lose their own right to life and can be executed. A kidnapper who violates another‘s right to liberty loses his right to liberty and goes to jail. A thief who violates another‘s right to own property likewise loses his right to property and also gives up his right to liberty.

119 Things the Government Should Not Do

Ezra Taft Benson, in his essay ―The Proper Role of Government‖, stated it this way:

―A category of government activity which, today, not only requires the closest scrutiny, but which also poses a grave danger to our continued freedom, is the activity not within the proper sphere of government. No one has the authority to grant such powers, as welfare programs, schemes for redistributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning. There is one simple test. Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal? If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf. If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient. If I could only force the ignorant to provide for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth! But if we permit government to manufacture its own authority out of thin air, and to create self-proclaimed powers not delegated to it by the people, then the creature exceeds the creator and becomes master. Beyond that point, where shall the line be drawn? Who is to say ‗this far, but no further?‘ What clear principle will stay the hand of government from reaching farther and yet farther into our daily lives? We shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland that ‗...though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.‘ We should also remember, as Frederick Bastiat reminded us, that ‗Nothing can ever be used from the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or

120 one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in‘.‖ 102

Principle #6. Never ask a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. The smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide, to correct, to keep it solvent, and to keep our freedom.

―It is a firm principle that the smallest or lowest level that can possibly undertake the task is the one that should do so. First, the community or city. If the city cannot handle it, then the county. Next, the state; and only if no smaller unit can possibly do the job should the federal government be considered. This is merely the application to the field of politics of that wise and time-tested principle of never asking a larger group to do that which can be done by a smaller group. And so far as government is concerned, the smaller the unit and the closer it is to the people, the easier it is to guide it, to keep it solvent and to keep our freedom. Thomas Jefferson understood this principle very well and explained it this way: ―The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State government with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under

102 Ezra Taft Bension, The Proper of Government

121 the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.‖ 103

Principle #7 Capitalism advocates the principles of competition and choice in a free market setting and if allowed to operate without government interference is a proven formula for prosperity.

―How much is a cow worth?‖ my grandfather rhetorically asked me during my first economic lesson. As I scratched my head he answered with a smile, ―What someone is willing to pay for it.‖ The old timers, many of whom were uneducated by today‘s standards, had an innate understanding of how economies work. Their understanding of capitalism made America the most prosperous nation on earth. However, America was turning away from the principles of the free market and capitalism by the 1920‘s; choosing rather a path toward socialism, which to date has America no longer the economic super power of the world. In fact, America is on a course, unless changed, for financial collapse. In medicine we learn that the body lives in a fairly narrow pH (acid/base) range. Whenever the pH of the body leaves the neutral or safe zone, reactions occur which bring it back. Markets operate much the same if allowed. When a market is out of balance there are reactions, which will return it to the equilibrium where the buyer and the seller agree. In fact, in any given moment in America‘s markets there are reactions by buyers, sellers, producers, and consumers in the billions. Amazingly, if the system is allowed to correct itself after the day has ended, all the equations equal and another day begins. Markets, like bodies, continue to operate smoothly until external forces disrupt the normal processes. The worst thing governments can do when markets are equilibrating (adjusting to external forces which have thrown it out of balance) is to intervene. Markets are too complex for a few government planners to have any chance of understanding the proper corrections. Many of our economic problems throughout the history of the United States can be traced back to government planners attempting to force market corrections, through instruments like the Federal Reserve artificially manipulating interest rates to either stimulate growth or suppress inflation, when in fact

103 Ezra Taft Bension, The Proper of Government

122 they only make matters worse. The best use of government, when it comes to the well- being of the economy, is to provide a fair playing field for the players and then step aside. This of course is in line with the proper role of government being simply to protect our rights to life, liberty, and property. The doctrine of government inaction in the market place is called Laizze-Faire, a French word meaning ―let it be‖. Pronounced ―lesse- fair‖, this free market doctrine was prevalent in the United States up until the 1920‘s. Isn‘t it interesting how the American economy has proceeded ever since, beginning with the Great Depression and ending with today‘s recession and federal debt of over $12 trillion dollars? Capitalism, the free market, and Laizze-fair are terms that are used interchangeably, all advocating the exchange of goods based upon supply and demand with no government interference. The profit incentives provided by this economic system are the motive for people to create wealth. Left alone, people of all races are incredibly ambitious when they believe they can acquire wealth. It is when governments intervene, establish price controls, grant subsidies, and tax excessively to implement spending programs, that incentives for profit are removed and the ambition of the people to create wealth are lost. No one wants to toil for another, unless done strictly for charity. And people especially won‘t toil any more than they have to at the end of a master‘s whip. People, as a rule, are innately instilled with significant degrees of charity to help the unfortunate amongst us. And I believe if the people were left to the responsibility of taking care of the poor and afflicted, without the forced coercion of the government, they would rise to the occasion. Instead, our laws demand we give to the poor, removing our natural desire to help. The redistribution of wealth, or socialism, is a false principle that removes the desire of the people to create wealth. Productivity goes down while animosity towards the government goes up. The poor, instead of learning to help themselves, are made slaves to the system that ostensibly is there for their benefit.

123 Pilgrims: America’s Test Case

America‘s first European settlers tested the principles of socialism with terrible results. William Bradford, the leader of a group of 40 pilgrims, established one of America‘s first settlements in Plymouth, New England in 1620. The pilgrims had arrived in America under contract with merchants from London. They were to work the land and return a portion of their labors. The contract stated that just and equal laws based on the Bible would apply and each pilgrim would share equally in the work and equally in the rewards (socialism; everyone is treated equally). The pilgrims were to work the land, then store the fruits of their labor in a common warehouse. Each was then entitled to one share. No one owned any land and all the homes built belonged to the community. Sounds great doesn‘t it? It reminds me of the many programs instituted by America today, where those who are the most successful are taxed heavily to take care of the less successful (forced or false charity). I would image that at least half of the pilgrims thought this was a pretty good plan; at least the half that were the least productive. The main problem, as the pilgrims were soon to prove, is socialism removes all incentive to work hard. After all, why break your back going the extra mile when your neighbor, who is content with moving at a snail‘s pace, receives the same reward you do. As you will read, socialism didn‘t work then and it won‘t work now. Bradford soon realized just how poorly socialism performs. He wrote when speaking of the new social system,

―The experience that was had in this common course and condition tried sundry years that by taking away property and bringing community into a common wealth would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God. For this community, so far as it was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most fit and able for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength for other men‘s wives and children without any recompense. That was thought injustice.‖

124 Bradford soon realized that if the pilgrims were to flourish, a different social system must be employed. Consequently, every family was given their own plot of land to work and was given the opportunity to profit (capitalism). The results were predictable as evidenced by the following comment from Bradford,

―this had very good success for it made all hands industrious so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.‖

The truth is there are few if any of America‘s problems that cannot be solved by the free market. Yet, people consistently look to government for answers. Real solutions to America‘s problems will never be found by government, only through the free market exchange of goods and services and the natural charity of her people. No executive taskforce can ever equal the power of true capitalism. And it is so simple; all we have to do is let it work. If the do-gooders would just step to the side, capitalism would deliver solutions faster than the government spends money.

Principle #8. He governs best, who governs least.

George Washington warned, ―Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master!‖ Why do men, when they get a little power, immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion? Is it the nature of man? Apparently so. The simple fact about governance is: no one can govern another better than the individual can govern himself. It is the time tested principle of freedom. Self- governance, like the free market, only works when left alone. When government interferes with an individual‘s responsibility to himself or herself, like a market with excessive taxes, the machine begins to operate unnaturally. People, when given a chance, can do remarkable things with their lives. America‘s freedom has given room to some of the greatest advances in human thinking since the world began. However, throw in excessive governance (taxes and regulations) and watch the machine down-shift. People do not work or function well in the presence of an overlord. They become spiteful and

125 mean. The smart government official does absolutely no more than he must to protect each individual‘s right to life, liberty, and property.

Principle #9. The key to success of a free nation is a well-informed electorate.

George Washington knew the importance of informing the electorate:

―A primary object…should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing…than…communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?‖

―Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impression so immediately from the sense of the [people] as in ours, it is…essential.‖ 104

Principle #10. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and you feed him for life.

It is a fact, if you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less of something, tax it. Our social welfare programs are nothing more than subsidies for the poor. And true to the above maxim, they create more poor. Why work when the government will feed you, give you free medical care, take care of you for the rest of your life? It requires a lot of effort to make something out of one‘s self. It is much easier, especially when the going gets tough, to just let the government send you a check. The compassionate conservative has a different approach; give the poor a hand up, not a hand out. Create in the individual the desire for self respect by showing him or her, the way to succeed. The most important part of success is the effort required to achieve it. We esteem highest those things, which cost the most.

104 George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, by John C. Fitzpatrick, GPO, 1931-44. Vol. 32.2.

126 America’s 2nd Civil War

Hopefully, by now, I have convinced you where ―The United States of America‖ left the road of prosperity and greatness. You should also now understand the answer to returning America to her greatness is by showing respect and reverence to the God who created her by returning to the sacred principles of the United States Constitution. Now I will show you how! The real power in America has always rested with the States and their sovereign 10th Amendment rights. Without the states, there is no federal government. The states created the federal government; they can control it or dissolve it. Remember the States retained all of the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the United States Constitution. And the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are few and defined. Yes; the powers have been greatly broadened beyond their original scope by liberal interpretations of certain clauses and by improper rulings by the Supreme Court. However, our system of government was built on the principles of checks and balances. One of the checks on the federal government is simple disregard by the states for unconstitutional federal mandates. If many or most of the states would rise up in open defiance against unconstitutional mandates, our federal government would be forced to comply with the Constitution as it was originally founded. Just as the New Deal created the environment for improper rulings by the Supreme Court in the 1930‘s, states defiance can create an environment to correct those rulings in our time. Political pressure changed America in the 1930‘s; it can change it back in the 2010‘s. In fact, I believe this is the only way America, as we know her, will be saved. I fear if things are left as they are, America will literally be divided into pieces, much like the former Soviet Union. Some think this would be best, but I am not one of them, at least not yet. Of course if a state openly disregards what it believes is an unconstitutional mandate by our federal government, consequences ranging from minor to major confrontations will ensue. The first thing the federal government would do is discontinue the appropriation of federal funds – state sanctions – that are attached to the area of conflict. This has been the proverbial ―carrot in front of the horse‖ to coerse compliance

127 of unconstitutional mandates for many years. When you think about it, the states have literally been selling their states‘ rights by accepting unconstitutional appropriations from the federal government. In many respects, the states are the ones to blame for America‘s predicament, because they have allowed themselves to be extorted. The nature of government is well known; it will take what ever it can, until it is stopped. And it must be stopped, no matter how painful and how loud the socialists cry! If the states are ever to regain their true sovereign rights and return the federal government to its limited role, they must be willing to forsake the bait – federal monies – and become truly independent in areas where the federal government has no constitutional authority. Likewise, the federal government could no longer expect ―defiant states‖ to fund unconstitutional appropriations to ―compromising states‖. In other words, the defiant states must take a principled stand and say, ―We will not accept other states‘ money for things that are purely our state‘s issues. In return, don‘t expect us to pay for those things that are purely the expense of another state(s). We will take care of our own problems; the other states can take care of theirs. All we want the federal government to do are those things enumerated in the United States Constitution.‖ Hurricane Katrina comes to mind as an example of another state(s) problems. Is it the responsibility of someone who chooses to live in a place where hurricanes do not occur on a predictable basis to pay for someone‘s destroyed house, who does? I don‘t think so. I feel sorry for them, but they are ones who chose to take the risk, not me. Think of the billons of dollars in disaster relief that could have been avoided if the people knew there was no one to ―bail them out‖ if they lived in a danger zone. They would either be more selective where they chose to live or would make sure they have plenty of insurance. For people who live in a relatively safe zone, but are unfortunate victims of unpredictable disasters, they still could rely on the natural charity of their fellow Americans. If the federal government wouldn‘t force Americans indirectly by using their federal taxes to help disaster victims, I believe, many would gladly help as they could. That is true charity, opportunities most Americans have been deprived of for a long time. In order to stand on their own, all the states must be on an ―equal footing‖ with each other. As you already know, that means they must have complete sovereignty over

128 their land and all other areas necessary to provide the revenues to allow them to operate independently. Let‘s use Idaho, my home state, as a theoritical example. Idaho, one of the poorer states in the union, actually receives more federal appropriations than it pays in federal taxes. And rightly so, as I showed you in Chapter II, most of Idaho (63%) is under the de facto ownership of the federal government. This, however, is anything, but fulfillment of the ―equal footings doctrine‖ requirement. Idaho and her citizens rightfully own all the land within her borders, with the exception of the land owned by the American Indians. Instead of being a ―welfare state‖ that is dependent on the federal government for monies, I can assure you, Idaho would much prefer to stand on her own. I believe this is also true for the rest of the states. I am also quite sure, the wealthier states – states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in appropriations – would be more than happy to let Idaho and the poorer states stand on their own. They would, however, have to give up their unconstitutional voice in Congress on how the public lands outside of their states are managed. If Idaho and the rest of the states each stood on their own – accepted only constitutional appropriations from the federal government and paid only their constitutional share of the federal taxes – they wouldn‘t need the federal government to interfere in states‘ rights issues. The way it stands right now in Idaho and many other western states is: without control of the public lands there is not enough revenue to effectively operate the state and therefore they must rely on federal welfare. For those states that already own or control all of the land within their state‘s boundaries, yet still find themselves in need of federal welfare, they need to look towards modifying the way their state governments has been operating. No state with complete sovereignty should find herself in need of federal welfare! If they do, they need to elect different government officials. Most states, including Idaho, not only need complete sovereignty, they need to reevalute the principles of the proper role of state and local government as well. California is a prime example of a state government that not only needs her land back, but needs an entire overhaul of her state government. The principles of the proper role of state and local governments are a topic for another book! First we must fix the federal government, and then we can fix the states‘ governments.

129 You may be asking yourself, what are those unconstitutional mandates that must be defied? I have mentioned some of them before, but let me be more to the point. If you agree with Madison, Jefferson, Rammell, and many others that the phrase ―and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States‖ simply introduced the enumerated powers that followed, then you must also admit the federal government has no constitutional authority to tax, borrow, or spend monies in any of the following areas, which are not enumerated nor implied through the elastic clause in the United States Constitution:

1. Welfare for the individual states’ poor. Includes Medicaid (free medical), housing, food stamps, and everything else you can image. If a person is below the federal poverty limit (family of four in 2009, $22,050), the federal government sends them money in one form or another. Poor people in America don‘t even have to be citizens and pay taxes to qualify, as was pointed out in the illegal immigration section of this book. They just have to be poor. 2. Medical and retirement benefits for the individual states’ seniors. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to require employers to deduct Social Security or Medicare payroll taxes from an employees pay, then use that money to pay for previously retired persons benefits. 3. Charity for the individual states and for foreign countries. Includes disaster relief from hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, disease, and anything else. 4. Infrastructure development for the individual states. Water, sewer, bridges, roads, utilities, buildings, and etc. With the exception of our federal transportation system both on land and water that is used for interstate and foreign commerce and defence, many projects are unconstitutional. Museums, monuments, parks, walk ways, etc., are blatantly unconstitutional. 5. Education of the individual states’ students. ―No Child Left Behind‖, student loans, English proficiency programs, meals for students, etc. There is no constitutional authority whatsoever for anything related to education,

130 unless it is necessary to implement one of the enumerated powers like defense. 6. Federal land (State land) management. Federal permits to use public lands for logging, mining, grazing, natural resource development, recreation, and all other uses of public land. The Endanger Species Act, The National Environmental Protection Act, The Wilderness Act, and all other Acts that affect state public lands are unconstitutional. Many federal laws even extend beyond public lands. Consider the reach of the National Environmental Protection Agency when it comes to private land. Many farmers, ranchers, and business owners are under strict environmental laws. Most, if not all, of the environmental issues are properly the jurisidiction of the states.

As you read through the above list, you should have been astounded at how much the Constitution of the United States has been ignored. It is really quite amazing we have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power from the states. Then again, once the Constitution was ignored the first time, it was easy to ignore it over and over again. What boggles my mind is how our United States Senators and Representatives who know they are voting on bills that are contrary to the Constitution can raise their arms to the square and swear to defend it. What happened to their integrity?!! Whatever the excuses, the time has come when we can no longer ignore the United States Constitution, America‘s blueprint for success. America is very close to being a socialist country where only very high taxes can sustain the profligacy of our federal and state governments. American freedom will soon to be lost, if the states don‘t make a stand. I believe all it will take to save our freedom is for one state to elect a governor with the courage to say ―No more.‖ Once a state makes a stand behind her governor, then other states will follow her lead. Pretty soon, the majority of the states will join the fight and the federal government, whether they like it or not, will be forced to comply with the United States Constitution. I believe the United States Constitution is ―hanging by a thread‖ and has been for a long time. I also believe the people of the United States have the power to save it. The question is: Do we have the will?

131 Hope

Can America find her way back home to the safety of the Constitution? Can she show reverence to the God who established her by the charitable way the people live their lives? Will she bow her knees and repent to the God she has offended? Time will tell. America will either unite into ―one nation indivisible under God‖ or she will fail. Over 230 years ago America rallied under the inspirational words of Thomas Paine when he said, ―These are the times that try men‘s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; ‗tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.‖ 105

Now America stands on the great battlefield for freedom once again, but this time the enemy is within. The perverse doctrine of socialism must be destroyed. America must return to the sacred principles of the United States Constitution. It will take the entire will and power of the people to win this war. It‘s time for a transplant of the ―original heart and soul of America‖ established by God. Can we do it? I believe we can!

The Final Battle

…And the capitalists fought back for their freedom and vowed to save the Constitution. And God was on their side. And the armies of socialism led by Satan began to fear. And good men and women rallied to the cause. And the Constitution‘s original meaning was restored. And America reset her course and returned to her glory. And freedom,

105 Thomas Paine The Political Works of Thomas Paine, p. 55

132 prosperity, and happiness were once again found in the ―home of the brave and the land of the free‖!

Back cover

Quote from William C. Hayward, author of ―How the West Was Lost‖

Quote from Donald W. Schanz, Ph.D., Constitutional Studies.

Our freedom vouched safe by the United States‘ Constitution is a national treasure for each person in our country. It is a gift from God and needs our protecting hand if it is to endure for the sake of our posterity. The principles and ideals that have established and preserved our great Republic must be taught in our schools, universities, in the Halls of Congress, in our literature and on our air waves. Dr. Rammell‘s book brings us back to our foundational principles in an attempt to re-establish and teach these nearly forgotten ideals. I heartily encourage all freedom loving people to read and study this important work.

133

134