Select Page

Repeal, Don’t Replace, ObamaCare

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Republicans are criticized for not having a plan ready to replace the failed ObamaCare as most of the 2016 Republican Party presidential contenders had promised its demise if elected. The House of Representatives made over 60 attempts to repeal The Affordable Care Act since its passage in 2010. So why has this not happened with Republicans now in control of the Legislative and Executive branch’s of government?

Many Republicans like their new found power over a seventh of the economy and are reluctant to give it up. They propose allowing insurers to sell across state lines, forming high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, creating a tax credit to help people afford coverage, and “beefing up” health saving accounts. The basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is simply, “We can do it better.” Notice their use of controlling adjectives: allowing, forming, creating, and “beefing up.” Healthcare would remain nationalized.

Missed entirely is that the Constitution allows only the option of repeal. Anything more would require a new amendment to the Constitution transferring a new power, healthcare, from the states where it resided, to the federal government as per Article V. All power was distributed in 1787. Any rearrangement of that distribution requires a new amendment to the Constitution.

Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. Thomas Jefferson expressed it best when he said: The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.” Its called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties.

So it is with federal and state governments as Jefferson suggested. The Founders, however, were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington said it best: “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” So one builds a fireplace before one brings fire into his home for warmth so that it does not burn down his home. That fireplace is the Constitution, in particular Article I, Section VIII.

Simply, government grows. To harness this tendency both partners in government were given lists of duties: the federal government Article I, Section VIII. Everything it did was to be clearly linked to an enumerated grant of power. Healthcare cannot be linked to an existing enumerated grant of power. The States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. “James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” That the federal government took this power unto themselves in 2010 is not constitutional authority to continue the confiscation.

The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow this from New Jersey and that from Oregon and yet something else from Alabama in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. This process refines legislation and when enough states think it better handled at the federal level they, in a new constitutional amendment, can pass it to the federal partner. Citizens of a state not happy with experimental regulation can move to one of the 49 other states less controlling.

Had our “power crazed” federal partner refrained from their natural inclination to take over healthcare we could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers and been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried state healthcare: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify the “pitfalls” in the area. The federal partner took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory on the whole nation, thus it failed.

The Founders did not dare leave the vague phrase “general welfare” to future federal power grabbers. To prevent the interpretation that it meant “everything” they added clauses 2-9. Listed are 14 powers, five dealing with borrowing money, regulating its value, and counterfeiting. The other nine included naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.” healthcare, or anything remotely like unto it, is not listed.

Who decided the division of powers—the states? And they kept that right to decide in Article V of the Constitution. They forfeited only specific named powers that they could not reasonably do as states, as for example, a common currency. Why would they give any more power? They had just rejected the flow of power from the Colonies to Parliament and the resultant avalanche of rules descending from them in return. After all, the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. There intent was to handcuff the federal government so that such could never happen again, not give it free reign.

Constitutionalists must insist that Republicans and Democrats restrict themselves to the Constitution. Repeal, don’t replace, ObamaCare or get a new amendment to it. Don’t damage the Constitution further by ignorance of it.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

The Constitution Will Automatically “Drain the Swamp”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

A major campaign promise of President Donald Trump was to “drain the swamp” in Washington DC but anyone the least bit familiar with the Constitution as designed by the Founders understands that it automatically does this if adhered to strictly, which neither major political party has done for most of a century. That is why we have the swamp to drain now.

Swamp drainage is not new. Collectively the Founders were against big government, which they had experienced and rejected by revolution. The “Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance,” noted in the Declaration of Independence, ended with the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was designed to prevent its return.

State government already predated the Revolution, by in the case of Virginia 157 years, and it was the states that performed the primary role in both early national Constitutions to organize a federated government, not to dominate or replace them, but to perform the functions they collectively viewed as national. Under federalism two governments would co-exist, the federal to handle primarily foreign related issues and the states domestic issues—neither master nor servant to the other.

Both the Articles and the Constitution specifically were design to harness the federal government from expansion in light of George Washington’s famous analogy. “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” The first contract placed too much restriction on the federal government necessitating in the Constitution a readjustment but in each case states played the primary role in the readjustment.

The first division of power is between the states and the newly created federal government with the states getting all power not specifically assigned to the federal government. Again, this division predates either national contract. The Constitution then divided federal power into three co-equal and separate branches of government: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each with specific and limited grants of power and each designed to serve as a check on sister branches preventing them from growing that power.

The legislative branch was to make “all” federal law as stated in Article I, Section I (no authority to create unelected bureaucracies to do it for them, which goes far in draining the swamp) with House and Senate members fully reading and understanding every law or rule placed over the people. But their ability to make “all law,” (Article I, Section I) was restricted to just four areas as per Article I, Section 8: to tax, to pay debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the national defense. Taxes were to “be uniform” throughout the states and there were no qualifiers on “to pay the debts.” General welfare and national defense were far too vague and subject to wide interpretation and abuse thus the semi-colon following Clause I, Clauses 2-9 defined what was general welfare and Clauses 10-17 what was national defense. Giving them too necessary specificity.

Most of the swamp is housed under Congress’s failure to accept the limitations of this section of the Constitution. Today they legislate as though there were no limitations. Consequently, whether challenged by the Supreme Court or not, most federal law is outside the Constitution and the “Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance,” are found in the programs they created without specific constitutional base as for example: Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, environmental protection, climate control, Obamacare, growth of federal land without military purpose, foreign aid, nation regime change, creation of regional or international governments like the United Nations that impacts our national defense, to name a few.

All of these should have been added to the Constitution by way of amendment, which requires three fourths of the states to approve —or not, as required in Article V. Draining the swamp would include the thousands of people who manage these programs because if we really followed the Constitution most of these functions would not exist or would have been incorporated by the states that wanted them. At any given time there exist 9-15 thousand lobbyists that hang around our legislators enticing them to go off the Section 8 list to make law that benefits their interest in exchange for election contributions. Legislators fall like over-ripe fruit to this ploy. Certainly congressional adherence to the Constitution would remove most of them.

The President too is limited to a list housed in Article II, Sections II and III as is the Supreme Court in Article III, Section II. Neither has constitutional authority to create swamps but they can impact them, the president by executive orders and the Court by rulings that give legitimacy to swamps created by its sister branches. All other power was reserved to the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights.

So serious swamp drainage would follow serious adherence to the Constitution, which Congress has shown little interest is following. Constitutionally they have no authority to do anything that is not listed, or added to the list by way of amendment to the Constitution. Ignoring Article I, Section 8 gives them power to exchange legislative favors for campaign contributions, which keeps them in office. Although Trump appears to be serious about swamp drainage both major political parties like swamps. Until that ends real swamp drainage is not likely to happen any time soon.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Letter to Trump, How to Cut the Federal Bureaucracy

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Dear President Donald Trump,

The bureaucracy is out of control enlarging itself at every turn. Every political science Intro to Government text has a chapter addressing this problem convincingly showing why the government is unable to stop or even significantly slow this expansion and Ronald Reagan was the only president before you that even tried. The fifties movie “The Blob” starring Steve McQueen comes to mind; an enemy absorbing and devouring people, with an ever enlarging appetite as it did.

The Constitution designates Congress as the only federal rule-making branch of government. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” Article I, Section 1. The choice of the word “all,” was deliberate. There exists no constitutional authority for Congress to delegate this responsibility to any other body. Citizens should be secure in the knowledge that they have three elected officials (their House and Senate members) that have fully read and understand every law or rule placed over them. The Founders made no distinction between laws or rules, as each is a prohibition of some activity.

But decades ago Congress got lazy and started creating organizations to administer and create the details of a law, thus thousands of “little laws” (“regs,” short for regulations) emerged—often giving the law a twist never intended by the original bill.   The Founding Fathers were aware of this practice and listed it in the Declaration of Independence as one of the reasons supporting the revolution from Great Britain, “He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”

Congress has allowed these “multitudes of new offices,” to essentially decide what the law means. These creations benefit Congress in two ways. Bureaucracies do most of the work—making “little laws”—and this also conveniently leaves Congress with an enemy to combat of their own making. Members love, and get elected by, “bureaucracy bashing.” An example is the 2700 page National Healthcare Bill that created 159 separate organizations to manage, each capable of hundreds of additional rules and regulations. An older example is the Environmental Protection Agency. A prominent housing contractor once told me that one-third of the cost of a new home went to fulfill regulation requirements. “It did not lift a shovel of dirt or pound a single nail.” But it did “harass our People.”

Seemingly there is no way to stop bureaucratic growth, but the growth, like cancer, must be fed by taxes, which “eat out their substance.” But what is obvious to everyone else is seldom so to the enlarging bureaucracy whose new employees become ever more vocal, with a vested interest in its defense, sustainment, and enlargement. Obviously any plan to succeed must have bureaucratic support. “Goliath” must agree to undertake one serious diet or it will never happen.

Some thirty-five years ago such a diet came across my desk authored by F. F. McClatchie. My students since were asked to be the bureaucracy to determine if it would work. At least 90% chose to be laid off. It seems so easy. It has five steps.

One, freeze immediately all federal hiring of new employees. There will be resistance but not enough to stop this step because “their” job is secure. Mr. President, you are to be commended for having implemented this step, please consider the next four.

Two, lay off 10% of all existing employees each year, selecting those to be laid off by lottery. This ensures that the layoffs will be “fair,” that is, the bureaucrats can’t play with the deck. That way, those who are part of the fat are not in charge of cutting the fat. This step will meet serious resistance so must simultaneously be accompanied by step three.

Three, continue to pay the laid-off bureaucrats at their wages as of the layoff date. This would insure their full cooperation. In fact, their full-time vacations would no doubt thrill them. This would save billions of dollars since they would no longer occupy office space or waste paper, to say nothing of working mischief. They could no longer interfere with business, saving countless billions for productive uses. Few will reject this offer but it can’t go on forever, as it is immoral to pay someone for doing nothing.

Four, reduce each laid-off employee’s paycheck by 10% per year. This would ensure that sooner or later he would seek productive employment. He may choose to bank the new salary, or vacation a year or two, before returning to full employment in the private sector. In the meantime, he will spend the money on hobbies, travel, etc., and keep the economy roaring along with no additional tax burden

Fifth, continue this process until the government is operating efficiently at approximately 1/10th the current payroll or less. Those opting not to be laid off could be part of these.

At 20 trillion dollars in debt this nation is close to bankruptcy. We desperately need a solution that works before we bankrupt. President Trump, together with your reduction of bureaucratic regulation by 70%, this plan has the highest probability of any solution suggested of saving us from the bureaucracy blob.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Dumping TPP Placed Kink in Globalist NWO Plans

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Many still do not understand the significance of Trump’s Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) pullout. It was the most serious blow to the globalists in 100 years. In the political literature of the last 100 years internationalism, world government, new world order (NWO), world order and globalism are synonymous. They suggest a progressive transfer of national sovereignty to a higher level of government such as the United Nations. The idea of the 1950’s and 1960’s was to increasingly enlarge the UN until it was the recognized world government with total power. When possible this process continues.

Since countries have been slow to forfeit their national sovereignty to the UN, proponents next encouraged regional governments—uniting countries into geographical units, as for example the European Union, then later, when peoples and nations get used to this power transfer, unite them then into a single political unit. Since countries will never initially unite into a single political unit, the plan was to begin with economical unity then progress to the political unity desired, precisely as was successful in the E U. The unification of Europe into a regional government processed through the following five stages: European Coal and Steel Community, Common Market, European Economic Community, European Community, and finally European Union when political unity was possible.

The USSR, after the fall of communism in 1989, transformed itself into the Commonwealth of Independent States Free Trade Area (CISFTA)—a regional government of nations still under the control of Russia. The world has since been divided into other regional governments each following the European Union model and free trade agreements (economic persuasion) have been the favorite tool. Currently there are 23 such regional agreements each at a different stage in the unifications of the countries in their regions and most still saddled by the necessity of using the somewhat deceptive “free trade” terminology. In time the plan is to reduce 206 countries to less than 20 regional governments turning these countries into mere states of regional countries—a much more manageable world, globalists believe.

Some of these perspective regional governments have progressed beyond the need to keep the “free trade” terminology when they describe themselves as for example, the African Economic Community and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), both uniting large sections of Africa. The Council of Arab Economic Unity (CAEU) uniting northern Islamic Africa and the Middle East is another. South America is to be united by the Southern Cone Common Market, frequently referred to as Mercosur. It has progressed to the point that it now has a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which is a final step toward political unification. But most still need these words. Central Europe is to be united by the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA). The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) exists to unite countries from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka.

In the United States The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was to gradually unite Canada, the United States and Mexico into one regional government as had the European Union united Europe. A real border was never to be implemented because in time we were to be the North American Union complete with open borders of the people within and with an amero dollar to match the euro dollar. To globalists national sovereignty is the enemy. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, that depend on and protect national sovereignty, cannot be allowed to obstruct the move to a world government.

The main reason that the U.S. was not to have an effective southern border prior to the political unification of the three countries was because Mexico was so far behind the other two countries in economic development and it needed time to elevate itself. Mexicans flooding the U.S. for better paying jobs and many sending a portion of their money back to families in Mexico or opting to retire in their homeland with pensions acquired in the U. S., helped in Mexico’s economic elevation.

Some trade agreements also intentionally interlaced with other trade agreements. The three countries in NAFTA also are signatories of the 5,600 paged Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), just ended by President Trump. Had it been implemented it would have governed 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports and 26 percent of the world’s trade. It would have been the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region regardless of what the U.S. Constitution might say.

Its sister trade deal the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), called for by President Barack Obama in his February 12, 2013 State of the Union Address, would have economically merged the European Union and the United States much more closely with respect to market access, specific regulation and broader rules. Secret negotiations on the TTIP are expected to continue through 2020 and remain classified so the extent of this merger is unknown.

Trumps opposition to illegal immigration and his pulling out of the TPP negotiations are the most serious blows to the globalists in 100 years and will never be tolerated by them. They will continue to spew hate for him. His announced objective to renegotiate NAFTA as well and his probable pull out of TTIP too, may make him the most influential president rescuing us from world government.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Trump Saves U.S. from the Trans Pacific Partnership

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

For readers who do not understand the international trade deals of the last 25 years, notably NAFTA, GATT and TPP, you will never fully grasp what President Donald J. Trump has just done for the Constitution and against the proponents of globalism. In his first day in office, pulling the United States out of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership, he has done more to return us to constitutional integrity and to international free market economics than the last four presidents combined. Space permits our confining ourselves to the threat averted to the Constitution.

International trade deals have historically been a mix of oxymoron’s: Republicans for and Democrats against, with the actual trade deals finalized and implemented by Democrat presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Unions, considered left, and Tea Party folks, considered right, have been consistent opponents, as have constitutionalists. Thus, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul are on the same side, the former yelling in opposition to the TPP, “No more secret trade deals!” And, “No more special deals for multinational corporations!!”—Both accusing Obama of selling us out.

In 2013, the Washington Post was the largest newspaper to print some of the “secret” parts of the TPP observing that by then, after nearly a decade of negotiation and 19 secret meetings, had become a regional government document of a hefty 5,600 pages. “Which when finished, will govern 40 percent of U.S. imports and exports” and “26 percent of the world’s trade.” It will be the law of the land for the United States and 11 other countries in the Asia-Pacific region—without the input of a single member of Congress. This in violation of Article I, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that mandates that all legislative powers reside in the House and Senate and in no other body. In fact, until 2015 members of Congress had not been allowed to even see the treaty whereas privileged corporations had no problem with access.

The paper continued, “The treaty has 29 chapters, dealing with everything from financial services to telecommunications to sanitary standards for food,” demonstrating the wide variety of areas believed to be affected by it, but again, it is the secretive nature of it that is most offensive. Apparently TPP participants signed “a confidentiality agreement requiring them to share proposals only with ‘government officials and individuals who are part of the government’s domestic trade advisory process’.” That excluded you, the media, Congress, and me.

The Post acknowledged that the agreement “encompass a broad range of regulatory and legal issues, making them a much more central part of foreign policy and even domestic lawmaking.” Such is curious. The Constitution requires the approval of your two U. S. Senators and your House member for every regulation upon you. There exists no language in the Constitution that any other individual or body—especially an international body—can perform this function. And, international law should not affect “domestic lawmaking.” You have the right to know that these three have read every rule emanating from the federal government upon you. The admission that the TPP will influence foreign policy is interesting as only the U.S. Senate may influence foreign policy as per Article II, Section II.   Giving a “more central part of foreign policy” to an international agency would have virtually voided the Constitution in this area.

The Post identified “60 senators (who) have asked for the final agreement to address currency manipulation.” Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden, both Democrats, have been especially vocal about the Obama “Administration’s refusal to make draft text available.” Wikileaks published the chapter on intellectual property raising “many questions about copyright protections.” Obviously this treaty, while billed as just a trade agreement, included music, film, books, the Internet and appeared to restrict everything in the industry. And this was but one of 29 chapters.

The implementation procedure of the globalists was to gain consensus among the countries signing it, all had by February 4, 2016, then present it Fast Track and without debate to both branches of Congress for a simple up or down vote.   Again, this procedure flies in the face of the Constitution. Treaty making, an agreement between two or more countries, is a shared power between the president and the senate. The president “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Barack Obama did not seek Senate advice; indeed he has not even allowed the Senate to read his treaty prior to November 5, 2015, even then he accepted no changes in it. Then he presented it to both houses for a simple majority vote instead of only to the Senate for a two-thirds vote as constitutionally mandated.

Law by a single man excluding Congress is unconstitutional. International law imposed by an army of unelected bureaucrats is not freedom. The Trans Pacific Partnership would have siphoned decision-making power from the elected to the non-elected in a foreign land and would have affected every American. A signature by any member of Congress or by a president would have violated his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Thank God Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not present it to the Senate when finished and President Trump took it off the table entirely.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Use the Constitution to Recover Confiscated State Land

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Utah stands out in its desire to retain public land not given it when it became a state and in using original intent in interpreting the Constitution, but her leaders do not understand the Constitution well enough to see that the Constitution already corrects the problem if used as designed. This ignorance dangerously undermines the Constitution.

Fourteen of Utah’s highest elected leaders, with sabers rattling threatening retaliation, bemoaned the President’s executive order removing from Utah’s public use an area the size of New Hampshire. Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch plan to reintroduce legislation-exempting Utah from the Antiquities Act. Both hope the Trump Administration will help them reverse the Obama executive order. State Attorney General Sean Reyes wants to sue the federal government but this action failed with respect to the Grand Staircase National Monument. Other options suggested include defunding the monument, or through Congress, reducing its monumental size from 1.35 million acres to something more reasonable. Governor Gary Herbert gave the weakest response, offering no remedy.

All of this anger will result in votes in their next elections but none of it will result in an ounce of change. If not rescinded by Trump, the Monument will still be in place long after these politicians have been replaced. These solutions only complicate the problem enlarging the power of the federal government for the next confiscation challenge whether by Trump or yet a future Clinton or Obama.

Why not use the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution that restricts the federal government, (the executive, legislative and judicial branches) to the enumerated clause of Section I Clause 8, which lists the areas in which the federal government can legislate, execute, and adjudicate? All powers not specifically listed, or added later to the Constitution by way of the Amendment process outlined in Article V, are left to the States.

This clause divides all federal power into the four following areas: Congress has power to tax, pay debt, provide for the general welfare and common defense. So as to restrict the federal government from enlarging its power, which is its natural tendency to do, the last two grants of power of the four each had an additional eight clauses giving clarity to what was meant by general welfare and national defense. Clause 17 restricts the federal government to only 10 square miles for a capital and allows other property for military purposes. Other than this there exists no federal land outside territory awaiting statehood as per Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.

Even with this clarification states, fearing that the federal government might still like to grow at their expense, refused to ratify the Constitution without additional restrictions harnessing it more fully to the enumerated powers, hence the Bill of Rights. These end with the handcuffs of Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The proper response to the most recent monument declarations, Bears Ears and Gold Butte (and in any other state where the state government has to protect its authority), as is the cases for Utah and Nevada, is to refuse to recognize it and boldly so state. It is quick and final. The solution is definitely not to sue the federal government as this only places the decision in another branch of the same federal government, which almost always rules to increase federal power. Once rendered there, it only makes it more difficult to not comply. It is not to hope that Trump will rescind it because it asks another federal entity to do what the executive branch never had power to do in the first place. It is not to ask Congress to declare that the monuments be smaller in size as that implies that they had the power to create them in the first place. None of these is likely to work. What works is to honor the Constitution and declare boldly that the federal government has no constitutional authority to own, manage or control property outside national defense within its state boundaries.

Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were each especially vocal with respect to states having the authority to “Just Say No!” to federal law not enumerated. Such was used in 1798 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, in 1832 in the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, and more successfully with the northern states, especially Wisconsin, in 1854 over the highly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act. Today 30 states currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form despite objecting federal law, and most states continue to refuse to implement the federal Real ID Act. Without new amendments to the Constitution these, and many more issues, remain state issues.

Remember the states created the federal government in the first place and they created a system called federalism which recognized the principle of dual sovereignty, neither is master or slave to the other. Each viewed state nullification as an important check on unacceptable federal assumption of state powers. No branch of the federal government, not even the Supreme Court, has the constitutional authority to destroy this check. The Constitution will recover confiscated state property if governors have the fortitude to use it. Tell Governors Herbert and Brian Sandoval to use it.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.