Resurrect the Principles of ‘98

[Guest guest]

http://www.personalliberty.com/personal-liberty-articles/resurrect-the-principles-of-98/

In Knowledge, Health, & Freedom,

Doc

Resurrect the Principles of ‘98

 

March 22, 2010 by Bob Livingston 

 

 

For 15 months there has been a growing opposition to the increasing

encroachment of the Federal government over the rights of its citizens.

It finally reached a crescendo last week as the House worked to

steamroll Obamacare through despite objections by the vast majority of

the electorate.

The past 12 months have been extremely frustrating for many. People

voiced their opposition to Obamacare, Cap and Trade and stimulus bills

to their Representatives and Senators, but it seemed that most of their

opposition fell on deaf ears.

The Tea Parties were formed, and the shouting grew louder. Many of

the elected class who were supporting the growing government—both

Democrats and Republicans—found their town hall meetings to be

unpleasant places to be.

But still, government grew and spending increased… and the march to

Obamacare continued.

Deciding that their voices weren’t being heard and their marches on

Washington were being ignored, voters wanting smaller government and a

return to Constitutional principals voted in droves. The results were

upsets in New Jersey, Virginia and finally, in Massachusetts. The

election of Republican Scott Brown to the late Ted Kennedy’s senate

seat seemed to end the threat of Obamacare by eliminating the

Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority.

Supporters of small government and Tea Party activists breathed a

sigh of relief. But, despite President Obama’s promise to focus on

jobs, Obamacare didn’t die. It continued to fester and so the shouting

got loud again.

But still the elected class, pushing their socialist agenda and

seeking to control us from cradle to grave—seeking to enslave us with

unconstitutional mandates—didn’t listen.

Writing in Anti-Federalist letter No. 1, Brutus (Robert Yates) said

that in a free republic, all laws are derived from the consent of the

people and passed by representatives who are supposed to know the minds

of their constituents and possessed of the integrity to declare this

mind. Unfortunately, the representatives holding the majority don’t

possess this integrity.

So Brutus wrote: “If the people are to give their assent to the

laws, by persons chosen and appointed by them, the manner of the choice

and the number chosen, must be such, as to possess, be disposed, and

consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for if

they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the

people, the people do not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few.”

That’s were we are now—with sovereignty in the hands of a few. So

now it’s time to take the next step. Fortunately, we have the words and

deeds of some of our Founding Fathers to direct us.

Since its beginning the Federal government has sought to grow and

even those who took part in the framing of the Constitution have tested

it’s parameters by trying to intrude on the rights of Americans.

The second president, John Adams, signed legislation that made it a

treasonable activity to publish “any false, scandalous and malicious

writing.” This was one of the laws that became part of the Alien and

Sedition Acts. As a result, 25 men, most of them Republican supporters

of Thomas Jefferson were arrested and their newspapers forced to shut

down.

One of those arrested was Benjamin Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin

Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican

Aurora.

In response, Jefferson, then the vice president, secretly wrote the

Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. In them he argued that the Alien and

Sedition Acts were acts of usurpation—that the Federal government had

overstepped its bounds and was exercising powers which belonged to the

states.

After all, the 10th Amendment states: 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.

He saw the Constitution not as a document that restrained the

people, but as one that restrained the Federal government. And he

believed that was a good thing. As an aside: Obama has stated just the

opposite. He has said he finds it unfortunate that the Constitution

contains the restrictions on Government that it does.

Jefferson corresponded with James Madison (known as the father of

the Constitution) about the Kentucky Resolutions and Madison drafted

similar Resolutions for Virginia.

Both Kentucky and Virginia adopted the resolutions which essentially

said that when the Federal government assumes undelegated powers—those

not enumerated in the Constitution—those acts are “unauthoritative,

void, and of no force.”

These came to be known as the Principals of ’98.

It’s time to lobby your state representative and state senator and

governor and push for a law to prohibit the enforcement of Obamacare

and other unconstitutional laws in your state. It’s time to resurrect

the Principals of ’98.

Both Virginia and Idaho have voted to sue the Federal government

over Obamacare. You must push your state to do the same.

The overreach has gone on for far too long. In addition to Obamacare

there is the looming Cap and Trade legislation, there are restrictive

gun laws and, under George W. Bush, there was the USA PATRIOT Act and

the REAL ID Act (which states have resisted).

Resistance to a tyrannical government is very American. And if the

Federal government continues its oppression then it will be time to

consider other steps.

Writing to Madison in 1787, Jefferson said, “I hold it that a little

rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the

political world as storms are in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions,

indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the

people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should

render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of

rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is medicine

necessary for the sound health of government.”

And then there is one more step to consider. It was commonly

understood prior to 1861 that the states reserved the right to secede.

There had been talk of secession by the northern New England states

many times. Even Abraham Lincoln, as a representative, recognized the

states had the right to secede—he only changed his mind after he held

the reins of the presidency.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote: “If every infraction of a compact of so

many parties is to be resisted at once as a dissolution, none can ever

be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer

endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time

for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a

situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our

companions only when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of

our Union with them or submission to a government without limitation of

powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can

be no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful

to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as

they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as

wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as

acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to

the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of

separation.”

For too long we have failed in being watchful of every “material

usurpation” of our rights. But for the last year at least, we have

protested them. And our protests have fallen on deaf ears. Dissolution

must be in the back of our minds now. But, we’re not ready for that

step… not yet.