Posted by
RHRalls on Sunday, October 04, 2009 5:41:06 PM
Mr. President and all members of the Congress who might deign to read,
I write today as a concerned and humble citizen of our Republic in hopes of delivering before you a reminder and caution. I apologize for the length of this letter, but we are dealing with complex legal issues relating to the Constitution of the United States of America, so I beg your patience and forbearance.
I have written elsewhere, and to little note, of the unique nature of this Republic in its creation and founding. The United States of America was founded not by a national government, but of a legal compact between sovereign States and their people who established a Constitution of the United States of America, which act brought into existence a Federal Government; of which you are the Chief Executive Officer and Legislative Members. This Federation, entitled the United States of America, is a League and Union of those States that have joined it of their own free will. Under the compact of the Constitution of the United States of America those States surrendered specified powers and authorities in Article I, Section 10. for the common good to the Federal Government they had established. The authorities surrendered were those related to international affairs and relations between the States, but they retained those authorities regarding their own internal affairs and citizens, excepting fundamental rights. They also granted the Federal Government those powers necessary to its role in the Union of the States, which are specified and set forth in Article I, Section 8., and further modified by specific limitations placed in Article I, Section 9., along with the first ten Articles of Amendment; two of which – the First and Tenth – apply solely and specifically to the Federal Government that you serve, and eight of which – the Second through Ninth – apply equally to both the Federal and State Governments.
I have long found the following thoughts of Thomas Jefferson, expressed in a letter to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court William Johnson on 12 Jun 1823, most illustrative and an astute guide to the federal nature of this Republic:
“But there are two canons which will guide us safely in most of the cases. 1st. The capital and leading object of the constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others. In the latter case, then, constructions should lean to the general jurisdiction, if the words will bear it; and in favor of the States in the former, if possible to be so construed.”
“2. Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against the General Government, at the adoption of the constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice, within their own territory? ... Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning of words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on inference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob’s ladder? Such an intention was impossible, and such a licentiousness of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and break up the foundations of the Union. Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make anything mean everything or nothing, at pleasure.”
The Constitution of the United States of America is the body of laws governing this Republic and its governments, both State and Federal, as the “… supreme law of the land; …” (Article VI; Paragraph 2) and both the Federal and State governments, are bound by, and under the authority of, that law. On inauguration you swore the following oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Article II, Section 1., Paragraph 9)
In addition, in Paragraph Three of Article VI we find the following:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution;…”
This means that all the members of Congress are also bound by their word to support the law.
Have you been faithful to your word? Have you been faithful to your duty, which you accepted by giving that word?
At present members of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the President are attempting to enact an Universal Healthcare Act.
This leads us to a question: Under the law is the Federal Government granted the authority or power to enact such legislation? The answer to this question is: no. Having read the entire of the Constitution I can find no expressed authority or power within that supreme law that authorizes to the Federal Government power to enact such legislation.
Article the Tenth to the Constitution 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.”
If such power is not specifically delegated to the United States, what of implied power? Some will argue that the following clause grants the authority:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; …”
This quote, the opening of Section 8., Article I, contains the “General Welfare Clause” so often used to justify various acts of the Federal Government not justified by the enumerated powers contained in the Constitution.
However, we find that this clause was debated during the ratification of the Constitution, as the Anti-Federalists had anticipated the abuses of this clause, and the following was written by the primary author of that law, one Mr. James Madison (you may have heard of him), in what we know as Federalist No. 41 on 19 January in 1788 (which was a Saturday) in response to their arguments:
“It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
“Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare.’
“But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.”
From this we observe that clearly the primary author of the Constitution would disagree with such a construction. Yet, from the actions of the Federal Government since the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt I must observe that the Anti-Federalists had a more reasoned suspicion than Mr. Madison had allowed, and clearly were not laboring in any distress in rendering that objection; for that clause has been so abused, extracted from its context.
To Mr. Madison’s arguments I would add a question that if the General Welfare Clause does, as you would claim, justify a complete disregard of the enumerated powers and overrides Article the Tenth, then why ever did Mr. Madison and Mr. Gouverneur Morris so completely waste the wear on their wrists, time, effort and ink to write any more in Section 8., Article I than: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”? Why, I ask, did they do these things if but one, single general phrase renders void all else contained in the Law?
It is evident from both simple logic, and the arguments of the Author of the law, that the General Welfare Clause would not – and was never intended to – authorize the Federal Government to pass an Universal Healthcare Bill since it exists within a greater context that qualifies and limits its meaning, relating it only to the powers granted by law. Since no power delegated by the law provides the Federal Government with the requisite legal authority to enact any law or regulation of the Healthcare Industry, or provide an insurance program of its own drawn from the wallets of some citizens to the benefit of other citizens, then neither does the “General Welfare Clause.”
Others will argue the so-called “Interstate Commerce Clause” found in Section 8., Article I:
“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Here is found a standard argument in favor of Congressional power to regulate commerce in any manner it sees fit. Yet, that argument is based not in what the law says, but in interpreting a latter-day and artificial title applied to the clause in question as though that artificial title were the law. The law states “To regulate commerce … among the several States, …” which grants the Congress authority only over the actions of States regarding commerce, not individuals or private companies, since neither individuals nor private companies are States. It allows the Congress to prevent one State from charging various imposts, duties and excises on articles from another State or otherwise inhibiting free trade among people. Another common argument is that if some act or subject might in some manner, however abstract and remote, affect commerce between the States it may be regulated by Congress. Yet, that is a long stretch of pseudo-reasoning, for again: if so construed then the remainder of the enumerated powers are irrelevant, along with the first ten Articles of Amendment to the Constitution often called the “Bill of Rights.” I could find sufficient grounds in that position to lay aside all provisions of the Constitution, rendering void all the Rights of the citizens, all the authorities of the States expressed within and extend the power and reach of Federal Authority into every bathroom and closet in the United States. Could this have been the intent of the author of the Law? It would be nothing short of absurd to claim that it was. An authority to regulate actions of States does not extend to an authority to regulate people and businesses: if the law had been meant to allow the Federal Government to regulate individuals and business then such power would have been specified directly and would not require mystical demireasoned constructs of mythological proportions stretched into gossamer strands then twisted into Gordian Knots to justify them. If you would retort that the States are composed of people and that therefore any regulation of a State act is a regulation of an act of people and thus to regulate commerce among the States is necessarily to regulate commerce among people, then I would follow your argument to its equally absurd conclusion: if the States are people, then the people are likewise States. Since I am a people – for a person is one people – then I claim the authority of a State and shall elect two persons to represent me in the Senate and myself to represent me in the House … as a result, of course, we will need to expand the Capitol Building to house the, what?, 180,000,000 or so new Representatives and Senators that argument just generated.
In addition, medical care is in no manner commerce among the States: even private insurers are not allowed – by laws of very questionable legality under the Constitution – to offer their services in a State other than the State in which they are founded. Thus, in no manner does private medical insurance even represent “interstate” commerce, let alone commerce among the several States.
“Can any good be effected by taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning of words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on inference, from heaven to earth, like Jacob’s ladder? Such an intention was impossible, and such a licentiousness of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and break up the foundations of the Union.”
In addition to that I must ask: under what legal authority do you presume to force me, or any other citizen of this Republic, to purchase health insurance by law?! For one, I will refuse to participate in a government run program on moral grounds. Any medical services provided me under such a system were paid for by money taken from my neighbor to which I have neither claim nor right. I do not wish to rob my neighbor, be he rich or poor, to my benefit. Thus, I do not want your healthcare due to the injustice it represents. At this time purchasing coverage is beyond my means. Your legislation declares that either I sign onto your program – which I will not; or purchase my own – which I cannot afford; or get charged a fine – which I also cannot afford; or otherwise be arrested for a Federal misdemeanor and suffer a year in prison. I wonder if you recognize the rank injustice this represents? I do, and in honesty: it is intolerable.
First off: there is nothing in the Constitution that by any absurd stretch of preposterous sophistry in any way even remotely empowers you to force anyone to buy anything from anybody, even from you.
Secondly: Such a legislation will catch untold numbers of our citizens in a vicious catch-22 and will place upon them completely unreasonable burdens and arrests (refer to Article the Fourth). Untold numbers will be forced to choose either inflicting injustice upon their neighbors, or facing unjust arrest for both their refusal to inflict harm on others and their inability to pay for their own coverage.
Myself, I know not what others will do; but as for me, I would rather suffer injustice than inflict it that my conscience be clear before your Superior. I was shown by example that I should be willing to suffer any injustice in the name of Justice, and be unwilling to inflict it upon others. This example was set by the Messiah that you claim to adore. I will follow, whether or not you will.
Were I to enumerate all of the violations of law on the part of the Federal Government, not just under you, but including your predecessors all the way back to Roosevelt with one singular exception between then and now, then I would fill volumes. But as this letter has already grown lengthy I shall constrain myself to but one more – and particularly egregious – current violation.
Recently a corporation of the Federal Government launched an investigation of a private health insurance company for distributing mailers to its customers warning about provisions in the Universal Healthcare Bill(s) before Congress. Furthermore, it presented that company with the following directive(!!?):
“As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing” (INSTRUCTING?!!)“you to immediately discontinue all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your Web sites.”
I still find this breath-taking and so deeply disturbing that I shudder at each reading. This is a staggering, absolute, unequivocal and direct violation of Article the First:
“Congress shall make no law …; abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; …”
No Federal Corporation has any authority or power to investigate anyone for the exercise of their God-granted RIGHT of Freedom of Speech!! Let alone, Sir, direct them in what they can and cannot say in mailings or on websites, nor direct them to desist in the mailings!! Neither you, nor your corporations, are granted that power or authority under the law! In fact: you – and therefore your corporations as well – are specifically denied that power in no uncertain words! I know that you pretend and claim to support Freedom of Speech, but your actions have once again belied your words and you have here betrayed a hidden truth, for which your opponents, I doubt not, thank you. Even if their mailings were fallacious, the only corrective action allowed to you by law would be to dispatch your own mailings and render your counters in speech and address.
Thus, now we return to my question regarding your fidelity to your oath and duty. In Section 3 of Article II you are charged to “…take care that the laws be faithfully executed, …”. In honesty, can you answer – even as you support their continued violation – that you have taken such care? In honesty, can you say that you are a man of your word and can be trusted in your word, having sworn an oath to “…faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, …” and to the best of your ability “… preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” even as you act in the most determined manner to violate and erode the authority of that Constitution? Of what value is your word, if acted upon so lightly?
Considering that, when you claim that your Universal Healthcare will be “deficit neutral”, or any other such claim, how could I even consider taking you at your word?
Likewise applies to every member of the Congress, all of whom have sworn to support our Constitution upon taking their office.
I will remind you that asserting that the Constitution is a “living” document is to assert that there is no Constitution. No law that is “living” has any existence or authority, and no law ever written was intended to be “living.” You would never accept that any law you had enacted was “living” and enforce them all literally, yet in almost the same breath you claim that the laws that govern you govern not but as you deign to allow. There is a technical term for that behavior, and you are as aware that term as am I.
I would be very amused to witness what would happen in one of your courts or hearings were some miscreant to assert that the law he had broken was “living” and that his criminal act was therefore not criminal. How loudly you, or any judge, would laugh at the proposition! I can see the man now, standing before the judge in court, having been ticketed for driving 100 MPH through a 25 MPH residential street, claiming that since he was late for that movie he had acted from necessity and such justified his violation of the law, for since it is a “living” law he set it aside since it was interfering with his desires and he would have been late had he obeyed it. I can see the judge falling from the chair, face red and contorted from mirth as derisive cackles echo through the room from behind the bench, only a pair of flailing feet visible beyond, as the judge stutters between guffaws: “You should run for President or Congress!”
How would you respond to a State declaring that the Constitution was “living” and thereupon premising its act in signing a treaty and alliance with North Korea, or other foreign state? Or establish its own currency? Establish its own army, navy and air force, keeping ships and planes of war and troops in a time of peace? Lay duties on imports from other States? Or a group of States enter into a confederation of their own?
If you can assert a “living” Constitution, then so also could Virginia, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa or any other State within the Union. What unbounded hypocrisy it is for the Federal Government to claim the law has no hold upon it while enforcing it literally upon the other governments of the Union.
This leads us to the caution I mentioned in the beginning.
Now, I understand that what I have written will be perceived by many not as the warning it is intended to be, but rather as a threat. In anticipation of that response I present my assurances that I mean – and am – no threat to the lives, safety or property of anyone, nor do I intend a call to arms or rebellion. As a life-long student of warfare I am more familiar than most with the nature of war and the suffering it entails and would, as a result of that knowledge, hope not to start a war, but prevent it. I write in the hope – however remote that hope be – of reminding the Federal Government of the limitations of its power under the law and therefore to encourage it to resume legal operation and abandon the usurpations that have long characterized its actions in violation of the Law that is the very foundation of this Republic. The erosion of the authority of that Law is the erosion of the foundations of this Republic. Should the authority of that Law be removed, the authority of the Union and the Federal Government are removed with it: for it was that Law, which your actions now threaten, that brought both the Union and Federal Government into existence, and its auspices are your sole authority. Thus, the erosion of that Law represents a threat to yourselves as well as the States and the Citizenry.
“Such an intention was impossible, and such a licentiousness of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all power, general and particular, and break up the foundations of the Union.”
When any citizen breaks the law that citizen becomes a criminal, this same fact applies also to a government. These criminal behaviors threaten the security and stability of the Union, and that is what Mr. Jefferson was addressing in the above quote. Neither the States nor the Federal Government have the right or authority to break the laws that govern them anymore than any person has the right or authority to violate the law, and a government violating the law is just as criminal as any person who breaks the law.
When we break the law as citizens, the government inflicts upon us various punishments as it sees fit; when through your actions the government breaks the law, who inflicts punishments upon it? Who and what restrains it from the abuse of power, but the body of laws set to govern it? Once that law has been corrupted into such irrelevance that it no longer has any practical existence, what restraints shall there then be upon the government’s abuse of its power?
None.
Had you any respect for the law, your duty to us, your own positions and this Republic your first step in trying to provide an Universal Healthcare Act would have been to propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as provided under Article V of that body of laws, to grant authority to the Federal Government to regulate healthcare in order to enact the Universal Healthcare Bill you believe so necessary to our well-being. Instead, you are pushing for yet another usurpation of State authority in violation of the ruling body of law that governs you.
I recognize that it is your hope to turn this Republic from the Federal Republic as it was established into a National Republic that you believe a superior and more beneficent structure. While I as an individual disagree with that purpose and prefer the Federal Republic, I recognize that if the people of the Republic desire now a nationalist republic replace the existing Federation, it is their right to so establish.
It is within our power to modify the existing Constitution through the legal process of amendment provided for in the above referenced Article V, or adopt an entirely new Constitution through legal proceedings. The process is intended to prevent any easy change in those laws, which in turn gives all of us a chance to understand and discuss the efficacy of the idea proposed. We can turn this Republic into a national government of the same nature as that of other nations, should we choose to put all of our eggs in that one basket. However, such change should and must be made with the concurrence of the people, not over their heads and under the table as it is being done now. The inherent threat this represents to our freedoms and rights lies in the precedent it sets: that the Federal Government may set aside the limits of the powers delegated to it under law and assume all power that it desires over the lives of the American People. This is exactly what the Constitution of the United States was intended to prevent.
For the sake of peace and the common good I ask that you restrain yourselves to the accomplishment of your beliefs through legal instead of extra-legal means. I fear that no good will come upon us if you continue to erode the foundations of the Union and that the tumults that could result of its collapse will destroy that for which so many have suffered and died to create and sustain.
Thank you,
Your Obedient Servant,
Richard H. Ralls
OBSTANTIA.TYRANNIS.OBOEDIENTIA.DEO
REGEM.NIHIL.HABEMVS.NISI.IESVS
I have sent this letter to the following persons:
President of the United States Barack H. Obama,
Speaker of the House Of Representatives Mrs. Nancy Pelosi,
Representative Mr. Darrell Issa,
Senator Mrs. Diane Feinstein,
Senator Mrs. Barbara Boxer
Senator Mr. Thomas Coburn, M.D.