A brief discourse on Constitutional Law
In 1861, a proposed amendment, numbered thirteen, was signed by President Lincoln. This was the only proposed amendment that was ever signed by a president. That resolve to amend read: "ARTICLE THIRTEEN, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." (In other words, President Lincoln had signed a resolve that would have permitted slavery, and upheld states' rights.) Only one State, Illinois, ratified this proposed amendment before the Civil War broke out in 1861. On January 31, another 13th Amendment (which prohibited slavery in Sect. 1, and ended states' rights in Sect. 2) was proposed. On April 9, the Civil War ended with General Lee's surrender. On April 14, President Lincoln (who, in 1861, had signed the proposed Amendment that would have allowed slavery and states rights) was assassinated. On December 6, the "new" 13th Amendment loudly prohibiting slavery (and quietly surrendering states rights to the federal government) was ratified. The language of Article 13, Section 2, reads thus: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." This is in direction contradiction to the law set forth in Article 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." If Lincoln's originally drafted Article 13 had been presented again after the war, giving other states the chance to ratify it, Congress (and the Federal government, as such) would have been permanently limited in its governance to the protection of life, liberty, and property, as was originally planned by the Framers of the Constitution.
Some of you may have heard of House Resolution 418, sometimes referred to as the REAL ID Act of 2005. This Act requires all states to convert their Drivers' License/State ID programs to a REAL ID-compliant National ID standard, so that they may be used as a system of Federal identification. The bribe for states to participate is $3 million to stem the cost of upgrading the BMV systems. States can, of course, refuse to participate (most states have provisions in their Constitutions that say State Law supersedes Federal Law), but of course this isn't without penalty: after 11 May 2008, citizens who don't possess REAL IDs will be required to have Passports (that's $95 now, but I predict that the price will be jacked up soon) in order to set foot on Federal property (this means claiming Social Security benefits, for many people) or to travel on commercial aircraft. As it stands, Passports will be required within the next year to travel to and from Canada, where this has never been a problem before.
This Act is, at the very least, unconstitutional. It violates at least 3 of the 10 Articles in the Bill of Rights:
ARTICLE IV: 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.
ARTICLE IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
ARTICLE X: 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.
Pay special attention up there to articles IX and X. The REAL ID Act is a shining pinnacle of the corruption that has been eating away at the foundations of Washington for years.
We must ask ourselves, if this law is unconstitutional, is it really a law? The short answer: no. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall, unanimously decided that an unconstitutional law is void, as if it had never been written:
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. [...] It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
Why, then, should we adhere to the letter of a law that is non-existent? That would be the same as admitting that our Constitution, the very backbone of our country's government, is no more than a rag. The only flaw here is that the law will continue to be enforced by the tyrants that ILLEGALLY passed it, unless it is appealed to the Supreme Court and ruled definitively unconstitutional.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson
I've already done so, but I would like to urge you all: please write to your district's State Representative. Since this bill has already passed through the Federal government, it's up to the States now to decide if they'll accept it. Most states have email forms on their official websites for contacting your state representatives, and it only takes a few minutes. Urge them to say NO to HR 418. This is only one more step toward the complete cessation of States' Rights and the fall of the Constitution and rise of a Police State.
I leave you with a few quotes:
"As you may have heard, the U.S. is putting together a constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? Think about it -- it was written by very smart people, it's served us well for over two hundred years, and besides, we're not using it anymore." - Tonight Show host Jay Leno
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
And, finally, from the Declaration of Independence:
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e. the protection of life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Some of you may have heard of House Resolution 418, sometimes referred to as the REAL ID Act of 2005. This Act requires all states to convert their Drivers' License/State ID programs to a REAL ID-compliant National ID standard, so that they may be used as a system of Federal identification. The bribe for states to participate is $3 million to stem the cost of upgrading the BMV systems. States can, of course, refuse to participate (most states have provisions in their Constitutions that say State Law supersedes Federal Law), but of course this isn't without penalty: after 11 May 2008, citizens who don't possess REAL IDs will be required to have Passports (that's $95 now, but I predict that the price will be jacked up soon) in order to set foot on Federal property (this means claiming Social Security benefits, for many people) or to travel on commercial aircraft. As it stands, Passports will be required within the next year to travel to and from Canada, where this has never been a problem before.
This Act is, at the very least, unconstitutional. It violates at least 3 of the 10 Articles in the Bill of Rights:
ARTICLE IV: 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.
ARTICLE IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
ARTICLE X: 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.
Pay special attention up there to articles IX and X. The REAL ID Act is a shining pinnacle of the corruption that has been eating away at the foundations of Washington for years.
We must ask ourselves, if this law is unconstitutional, is it really a law? The short answer: no. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall, unanimously decided that an unconstitutional law is void, as if it had never been written:
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. [...] It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
Why, then, should we adhere to the letter of a law that is non-existent? That would be the same as admitting that our Constitution, the very backbone of our country's government, is no more than a rag. The only flaw here is that the law will continue to be enforced by the tyrants that ILLEGALLY passed it, unless it is appealed to the Supreme Court and ruled definitively unconstitutional.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. - Thomas Jefferson
I've already done so, but I would like to urge you all: please write to your district's State Representative. Since this bill has already passed through the Federal government, it's up to the States now to decide if they'll accept it. Most states have email forms on their official websites for contacting your state representatives, and it only takes a few minutes. Urge them to say NO to HR 418. This is only one more step toward the complete cessation of States' Rights and the fall of the Constitution and rise of a Police State.
I leave you with a few quotes:
"As you may have heard, the U.S. is putting together a constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? Think about it -- it was written by very smart people, it's served us well for over two hundred years, and besides, we're not using it anymore." - Tonight Show host Jay Leno
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - Thomas Jefferson
And, finally, from the Declaration of Independence:
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e. the protection of life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.