Ed. Note: In any conversation political correctness is liable to raise its ugly head. Most of us recognize it and are prepared to defend our Conservative principles. There are many things that Liberals say that, as President Reagan once famously said, just are not so. Some would go so far as to say that they use lies when talking about the Constitution, so learning what they are helps to be ready to refute them. Republished from Examiner.com, by Robert Moon, March 8, 2015.
10) The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants when they are born inside the United States.
The text of the 14th Amendment reads: “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.”
Most people just disregard the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording as meaningless legal jargon, but it is the most critical part. It was added by the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically to prevent anyone from misinterpreting it to imply any kind of birthright citizenship for foreigners. He went out of his way to make this unmistakably clear from the beginning: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. And as I have noted before, this was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction , not U.S. jurisdiction.
All the evidence shows that liberals simply invented this phony right out of thin air and forced it into effect without any basis whatsoever, in open defiance of what was intended.
9) State nullification and interposition measures won’t work and are not valid.
Numerous laws have been successfully nullified over the years by states simply ignoring and defying illegal federal attacks on their rights, ranging from the REAL ID Act of 2005 (which is still on the books, but no longer enforced after two dozen states refused to acknowledge it), to the Firearm Freedom Act (passed in nine states, introduced in dozens of others, which halts the enforcement of illegal federal gun laws), to the medical marijuana laws that now exist in twenty-three states despite the ongoing federal ban on the drug.
The Federal Government was never intended to be the sole determiner of the size and scope of its own power. And the right of states and citizens to resist unconstitutional laws (as opposed to politely begging lawless tyrants to change their minds) has always been intended as a natural check against federal encroachments.
Liberals erroneously insist that the Founders never actually endorsed the use of such measures. But Thomas Jefferson enthusiastically advocated nullification as the “rightful remedy” to lawless federal tyranny in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799. And the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison, called state interposition our solemn ‘duty’ when faced with such abuses in the Virginia Resolution of 1798.
Furthermore, nullification and state interposition were used early in our history to defeat various unconstitutional policies, ranging from the Alien and Sedition Acts, to Andrew Jackson’s protectionist tariffs (as well as the resulting ‘Force Bill’). The Founders considered it both our right and responsibility to rise up and “alter and abolish” government that becomes adversarial to our rights and interests, as they spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
Even the New England states and politicians who condemned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions for disputing the authority of the Federal Government to enact their speech- trampling “sedition” laws later made references to those very resolutions to resist and nullify other federal abuses. These ranged from a crippling trade embargo against belligerent European powers in 1807, to a bill for military conscription after the War of 1812, to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
And such bold acts of defiance against relentless federal power grabs do still occur to this day, as we saw with last year’s controversial but successful standoff at the Bundy Ranch in Nevada.
The Supreme Court has struck down various nullification attempts, most notably in 1958, stating, “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.” But this ignores the obvious fact that refusing to comply with unconstitutional (i.e., invalid) laws is defending the Constitution, not violating it.
As Alexander Hamilton put it (Federalist 78):
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorise, but what they forbid.”
Liberals insist that state interposition and nullification are unconstitutional, as if the same Founders who tirelessly evaded government taxation and who violently seceded from Britain would have ever sided with (incorrect) legal technicality over our God-given right to self-rule (‘When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty’). But this ignores the reality that the Constitution and the Federal Government only exist as grants of power from The People.
We don’t need express permission from the Constitution to reject the legitimacy of unconstitutional federal laws. Unconstitutional laws are automatically invalid. All governmental legitimacy comes from The People.
We don’t get our permission to do things from the Constitution. It is an expression of our will. The Federal Government gets its permission to do things from the Constitution (i.e., from us). And when it tramples the
document that authorizes its very existence, it renders itself illegitimate.
8) The 1st Amendment creates a separation of church and state.
“Separation of church and state” is an invented myth. It appears nowhere in the Constitution. It is an outright fabrication used by the left to misrepresent a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists (explaining to them that the Federal Government had no business establishing any kind of national religion) as proof that the Founders actually wrote the 1st Amendment to eradicate all things Christian from all things public–a blatant falsehood that has been used to shove a tyrannical Atheist agenda down America’s throat.
New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights was added specifically to convince them that this new federal government we were creating would never trample their rights. Seen in its proper historical context like this, it becomes clear that the Bill of Rights was a protection of the States and The People vs. the Federal Government. What the 1st Amendment expressly protects is the “free religious exercise” of the states and citizens, by preventing the Federal Government from imposing a religion at the national level.
This in no way implies that any and all signs of our Judeo-Christian heritage (‘One nation, under God,’ ‘In God We Trust,’ etc.) must be erased from all federal buildings, our currency, or the Pledge. In fact, Benjamin Franklin himself proposed that our Great Seal be an image of Moses parting the Red Sea, with the inscription, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”
And it certainly doesn’t imply that state and local governments face any federal restrictions whatsoever on their decisions regarding religion (that would be the exact opposite of the 1st Amendment’s stated intent, in fact). If people find it inappropriate, for instance, for an Alabama judge to decorate his courthouse with a Ten Commandments display, then, according to the Constitution, that is a matter for the people of Alabama to decide, not some federal court.
The Federal Government even being involved in such a case constitutes an outright reversal of what the Founding Fathers put in place. Some of the ratifying states, like Massachusetts, even had official state religions at the time of the Founding. Clearly, this is not what was intended.
The left’s deliberate misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause as a license to trample the religious speech of Christians (and only Christians) is based on nothing more than Atheists not wanting to have to witness or tolerate any acknowledgement of our Judeo-Christian roots. But this vindictive, tyrannical bigotry ignores the fact that such acknowledgements in no way constitute the creation of a national religion or a violation of anyone’s rights.
Liberals simply pretend that the Constitution says what they want it to say and relentlessly misinform the public to make it seem valid.
7) The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to pass any law it deems necessary.
This clause was an almost completely meaningless footnote intended only to clarify that Congress can pass laws that are required to carry out its authorized functions. For instance, if a building must be constructed in order for Congress to exercise one of its enumerated powers, the Necessary and Proper clause allows it to purchase the building materials and hire the workers necessary to complete the project.
It in no way changes what Congress is authorized to do. As Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. explains in Nullification , James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, numerous representatives at the state ratifying conventions, and even Alexander Hamilton are all on the record confirming that this clause gives Congress no additional power whatsoever:
In Virginia, George Nicholas said ‘it was no augmentation of power,’ and Madison said the clause ‘gives no supplementary powers.’ Archibald Maclaine said in North Carolina that ‘the clause gives no new power.’ In Pennsylvania, Chief Justice Thomas McKean explained that it ‘gives to Congress no further powers than those enumerated.’ James Iredell said the same thing in North Carolina…
…Even Alexander Hamilton [wrote in Federalist 33] ‘that the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same’ if the ‘necessary and proper’ clause were ‘entirely obliterated.’
‘In sum,’ writes Harvard’s Raoul Berger, ‘the records make plain that the necessary and proper clause was merely designed to specifically authorize the employment of means to effectuate, to carry into execution, granted powers, not to augment them; and they strongly read against the doctrine of implied powers.’ Woods goes on to further cite James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, widely-respected judge and constitutional scholar St. George Tucker, Senator John Taylor, Judge Spencer Roane, and many others all confirming that this was always the understood meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. In short, liberals simply decided to exploit the obscure, irrelevant passage to “discover” endless new powers for the Federal Government, based on absolutely nothing.
See also the outraged and virulent reactions of the states (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, for instance) the first time the Federal Government tried to transform this utterly insignificant clause (as well as the General Welfare clause) into a sweeping power grab, to defend the criminalization of free speech under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
6) The 1st Amendment protects any and every form of human expression, as long as you are not inciting panic or violence.
Again, New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added specifically to assure them that this new Federal Government being created would never trample their rights as sovereign states. It is a protection of the states and The People vs. the Federal Government.
The 1st Amendment was added to protect your right to dissent against the Federal Government . Liberals attack this right at every turn (see Card Check, the “Fairness” Doctrine, and numerous other speech-trampling abuses of power here) while blatantly misrepresenting the 1st Amendment to protect
pornographers, Islamic terrorists, flag-burners, and even child molesters…anything except what it was intended to do.
Virtually every single thing liberals claim about the 1st Amendment is the exact opposite of the truth.
5) The Constitution gives federal courts the authority to create, modify, and overturn laws as they see fit–a power known as “judicial review.”
Judicial review is a fraudulent, invented power that was never mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or intended by the Founders, who called the judiciary the “weakest” branch with the least capacity to “injure and annoy” our rights, as Alexander Hamilton put it. The notion of an un-elected, unaccountable handful of federal tyrants overturning democratically-enacted state laws on a whim and issuing arbitrary edicts from on high about every aspect of our lives is a complete and utter betrayal of everything the Founding Fathers put in place.
James Madison tried multiple times to give the Federal Government the authority to veto state laws during the Constitutional Convention and it created such an uproar that it nearly derailed the entire process and was eventually abandoned altogether. States and citizens were to be all-powerful in governing their own affairs. Federal courts were only ever given the authority to preside over individual “cases and controversies” within their incredibly narrow jurisdiction, not to invent rights, determine policy, or impose taxes, as they now routinely do at will.
In fact, the Founders intended federal judges to be so peripheral to the decision-making in this country that they even went so far as to give Congress full control over the kinds of cases federal courts can even hear…which judges now just freely disregard with zero consequences–even when they have been directly ordered by Congress not to interfere with certain laws, as with the Defense of Marriage Act.
As Thomas Jefferson put it (writing to William C Jarvis in 1820):
To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate arbiters of constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps – and their power is the most dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the Elective control.”
Under the Constitution, the correct way for the Supreme Court to handle a law like Obamacare, which utterly tramples the Constitution, would be to refuse to even hear the case on the basis that there is no constitutional way to rule on a case involving a law that is completely unconstitutional. Federal courts have the authority neither to overturn nor to legitimize federal or state policies.
Liberals simply fabricated this bogus, sweeping power for the federal courts out of nowhere and relentlessly used it to subvert the will of The People, destroy American culture, and impose liberty-killing attacks on their opponents.
4) The General Welfare and Commerce clauses authorize the Federal Government to do anything it feels like, as long as it can be construed to promote the general welfare or to involve anything one state does that could in any way affect any other state.
It is a matter of record that the Constitution was ratified as a strict, narrowly-defined enumeration of federal powers. Anything not specifically spelled out in it as a federal power is a federal power that does not exist, and that must be left to the state and local levels.
The Framers identified each Congressional power in Article I, Section 8 (why would they do this if the General Welfare and Commerce clauses granted Congress a blank check to do whatever it wants?), and even added the 10th Amendment to further clarify that this is all it is authorized to do.
When the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison, was confronted with this exact attempt to illegally expand federal powers in 1817, he responded by emphatically condemning it as a lawless attempt to shred our Founding document. He also explained that it would never have been ratified in the first place if anyone involved had mistaken it to mean something so broad.
He clarified that the powers of the federal government are “few and defined,” and that the rights of the states and The People were “numerous and indefinite.” He went on to explain that such baseless butchery of what was implemented by the Founders would render “the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would give the Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them.”
The General Welfare Clause was added to the Preamble merely to explain the purpose of this new Federal Government being created, and again to the Taxing and Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8, to enable Congress to raise funds for its authorized activities under the Constitution. This in no way changes what Congress was authorized to do.
As Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. noted in Nullification , the only Founding Father anyone can find who ever even suggested a different interpretation was Alexander Hamilton. But this would be the same Founder who repeatedly denied that the clause would ever be twisted to illegally expand federal power into things like agriculture, for instance (Federalist 17 and 34), only to turn around and reverse his position once the Constitution was safely ratified.
Woods adds that Hamilton is also the only Founder who wanted the president to serve for life, to hand-pick Senators and state governors for life terms as well, and who wanted to model our system after the wildly tyrannical and unjust British system that we had just fought a revolution to get away from. Hamilton also publicly admitted that he was completely out-of-touch with the principles and intentions of the rest of the Founders.
Additionally, the Commerce Clause was added to Article I, Section 8 to authorize Congress to normalize and free up trade with “foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The part that mentions “the several states” was about keeping the states from using tariffs and discrimination to disrupt commerce. It was a grant of authority to Congress to settle interstate disputes.
As the Architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison explained it:
[It] grew out of the abuses of the power by the importing States in
taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and
preventative provision against injustice among the States themselves,
rather than as a power to be used for positive purposes of the General Government”
See also the outraged and virulent reactions of the states (Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, for instance) the first time the Federal Government tried to transform this clause (as well as the Necessary and Proper Clause) into a sweeping power grab, to defend the criminalization of free speech under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
No one involved in any part of the drafting of the Constitution interpreted the Commerce Clause to imply sweeping federal authority over all activity in one state that could ever affect any activity in another state. This is an absurdly baseless and outrageous assault on the facts by liberals, as usual.
3) The 14th Amendment forced the restrictions placed on the Federal Government to be applied to the states, so everything the Founders put in place to protect state sovereignty and self-rule is now null and void, and the Federal Government now rules over all with total impunity.
The 14th Amendment is a complete bastardization of the Constitution (which created a severely limited Federal Government that was supposed to leave 95% of the power at the state and local levels), and it was illegally “ratified” at the tip of a bayonet, through open blackmail and coercion after the civil war. But even if you accept this lawless reversal of our Founding principles of self-rule and decentralized government power (i.e., liberty), all it does is require states to offer equal protection and due process to freed slaves, as with all other citizens.
Nothing about this implies that the rest of the constraints placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution to protect state sovereignty and individual rights are now to be forced on the states…thereby perversely obliterating states’ rights and self-rule, and leaving every state and citizen permanently with a federal gun to their heads. Even the Constitution-shredding tyrants who railroaded the 14th Amendment through never intended for it to apply all federal limitations to the states, as the record of their debates during its passage clearly shows.
In fact, the Blaine Amendment of 1875, which sought to apply the 1st Amendment restrictions imposed on the Federal Government to the states, proves this beyond dispute…as it was proposed after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Why would this amendment be needed if it were already a matter of law?
Another confirmation that state sovereignty remained overwhelmingly intact after the 14th Amendment is this statement from the Supreme Court in Lane County vs. Oregon (1869):
Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution.
The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union
by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power,
directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government,
which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States. But
in many articles of the Constitution the necessary existence of the
States, and, within their proper spheres, the independent authority of
the States, is distinctly recognized. To them nearly the whole charge of
interior regulation is committed or left; to them and to the people all
powers not expressly delegated to the national government are
Once again, what the left is arguing here is a blatant and deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution designed to destroy state sovereignty, concentrate power into the hands of the few in Washington, and strip us of our God-given right to self-rule.
2) The Supremacy Clause makes federal laws “the supreme law of the land,” so states and citizens are subordinate to the Federal Government and must comply with whatever it says.
-The 10th Amendment:
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.”
Once again, New York and Virginia originally refused to ratify the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added specifically to assure them that this new Federal Government being created would never trample their rights as sovereign states. The 10th Amendment was even added to further clarify that virtually all the power in this country was to remain at the state and local level, where the individual has maximum control over his own affairs and community.
The only authority the Federal Government was ever supposed to have was what the Founders expressly identified in the Constitution as a federal power (settling interstate disputes, dealing with foreign governments, border control, etc.). Everything else was to to be left to the states and citizens.
The Supremacy Clause merely establishes that the Federal Government is the final word on the very few things in which it is authorized to be involved. It in no way grants federal officials blanket authority over the states. The Founders would be appalled to hear anyone even suggest such an obscenely dishonest misinterpretation of what they intended.
Additionally, what the Supremacy Clause actually states is that the Constitution and “laws in pursuance thereof” are the law of the land. Laws that exceed the limits of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers are unconstitutional and are thus not “in pursuance thereof,” hence they are invalid.
What the Constitution created was a coalition between sovereign states , not an all-powerful body ruling over them from on high. The Framers were excruciatingly clear on this point in all their writings, discussions, and every public statement they made at the Constitutional Convention. Again, the Constitution would have never even been ratified if anyone involved would have mistaken it to imply the kind of limitless power liberals now insist on pretending
it was given.
1) The 2nd Amendment only protects the right of the states to maintain militias, rather than the right of individuals to bear arms.
-Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution already provides for the existence of such militias. There would be no reason for the 2nd Amendment to exist if this were correct.
-When the Framers drafted the Bill of Rights, they went out of their way to specify “The People” when talking about the rights of the individual and “The States” when talking about the rights of state governments. For liberals to be correct on this, the 2nd Amendment (‘the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed’) would have to be the only place in the entire document in which the meanings were reversed.
-The term “well-regulated” in 1789 meant correctly-calibrated and properly formed. There is abundant evidence of this and it is beyond dispute. When the first part of the 2nd Amendment justifies gun rights by explaining, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…,” it is clarifying that you cannot have the kind of disciplined and well-trained citizen militias necessary to repel foreign invasions, put down unrest, and resist
government tyranny without an armed populace. This was made unmistakably clear by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist 29, and by the original wording of the 2nd Amendment:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.”
But liberals deliberately misrepresent the 2nd Amendment’s wording to argue that the Founders (who used armed revolution to overthrow the government) only actually supported the right of states to operate their own government-controlled militias, despite them being on the record emphatically stating the opposite. These would be the same Founding Fathers who made it a requirement that every citizen own a firearm at one point.
Liberals also cite examples of armed rebellions that were put down by George Washington as proof that our Founders never intended for us to be able to take up arms against federal tyranny. But this flies in the face of everything we know about the Founding Fathers, who talked routinely about refreshing the “tree of liberty” with the “blood of patriots and tyrants,” and who enthusiastically embraced such rights in no uncertain terms in the Declaration of Independence.
Yet again, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment was drafted specifically to convince New York and Virginia that this new Federal Government we were creating would never be able to trample their Natural Right to self-rule as an armed, free people. The Founding Fathers had no illusions about the tyrannical inclinations of government, and they enshrined gun rights in the Constitution as a protection of the states and The People against the Federal Government for the clear and stated purpose of armed resistance to tyranny.
This is an undeniable fact that liberals simply choose to lie about non-stop…as with everything else they say about the Constitution.
Republished from Examiner.com. CLICK HERE for the original article.
This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Please honor attribution.