Allegedly W referred to the constitution as "just a damned piece of paper". It's outrageous that a president who took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution" would speak of it in such demeaning terms. But in point of fact the constitution is just a piece of paper. It can only stand up if the people stand up for it. Therein lies the problem; the American people don't give a rat's ass about the constitution. Sure there are some people who speak up for the 2nd amendment, or perhaps the 1st, and occasionally other parts of the constitution, but by and large the American people just don't know about, or care about the constitution. So while the constitution is being systematically destroyed the people just sit back and say; ho hum. That will be our undoing.

Want an example? Ask your non-Libertarian friends what habeas corpus is. Or ask them what is in the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

There was a libertarian leaning radio talk show host named Mark Scott who put it this way: "The American people don't know. They don't know they don't know. And they don't give a damn."
That sums it up.

I perused the online sections of your ongoing manuscript, UNLAWFUL GOVERNMENT: Preserving America in a post-constitutional age and can only say: BRAVO!

From your Introduction, I conclude that you're one of the most refreshing constitutional thinkers I've read in a long while. Your writing is reminiscent of Lino Graglia back on one of his good days. A breath of fresh air!

I am a professional engineer by formal education, but have read in tax and constitutional law for over ten years as a personal passion. In your introduction, you say: "Very few law students take the time to learn about the Constitution or its roots; those who bother to study the Constitution at all focus on judicial decisions of the past two or three generations, to the virtual exclusion of any prior decisions or other authorities such as the Federalist Papers or the constitutional ratification debates. Modern lawyers thus drift unanchored to any reverence for the very system in which they practice, so it comes as no surprise that they display adolescent, destructive zeal to impose their vision of the ideal society by means of the government’s coercive machinery."

Amen!! I've sat in a courtroom several times to present motions for judicial review and the like, and have been astounded at the superficial, mechanic's prattle and banter among the lawyers. What has happened to the practice of law?

I love reading well-written briefs on constitutional law. I believe they're more valuable to our civilisation than the greatest piece of art or music; more vital to our future as a republic than the greatest scientific discovery! Yet, it is exactly as you say: few lawyers aspire to such thinking, study, or writing. And how few judges would respect it if they did!

I was set straight on many issues about the framers upon reading Ferdinand Lundberg's Cracks in the Constitution many years ago. A more recent work along the same lines is Kenneth Royce's Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government. So I've learned better than to think the document is perfect; but it's more than adequate for national restoration, if it can be enforced.

You and I and so many on this forum keenly desire to see the Constitution restored; but at this point in the game, We the People and the aggrieved sovereign States will only see it restored IF WE BEGIN TO ENFORCE IT OURSELVES as Jefferson suggested in the Kentucky Resolution. As you so cogently observe in your Introduction, the federal government has reached that point described by Jefferson, as the sole judge of the limits of its own powers!

Of course this is high rebellion by the creature against its creators. Jefferson posited (and we have no higher authority on that matter!) that in such times, We the People through our States are the only parties able to judge of the infraction, and to apply the remedy.

I'd like to buy five copies when you do the first print run. I'll send you a PayPal or check.

May I ask you to consider how the Tax Honesty Movement and my proposed America Again! project might fit in with your vision for constitutional redux? In that vein, I'll here engage a few points from the introduction to your book, viz:

"government’s sole mission is to preserve our rights, and that we may abolish government when it expands its reach beyond this modest role."

This is an accurate re-statement of the original charter of our primordial republic in the Declaration of Independence. But I hope we can agree that, although it served our colonial founders well in our War for Independence, we need not repair to force of arms just yet, seeing as we have this supreme Law of the Land, as the Supremacy Clause puts it? I offer the America Again! project for your consideration. No arms required. Not even tar and feathers; yet if rolled out nationally with sufficient scale and tactical wisdom (legal tactics and PR savvy) it can have more force than a nuclear blast.

www.american-glasnost.blogspot.com

"How does the federal government exercise so many powers, when the Constitution grants it so few?"

Wilton, men in power always seek more power, whether bureaucrats or politicians (statesmen being such anomalies today). Institutions always seek to grow, be they religious or secular; a bigger budget next year than this one is always in view. It comes down to money: if you allow the Congress to use the IRS and misrepresent the Tax Code to extort a trillion dollars annually from individual 'Taxpayers' (besides another TWO trillion from other forms of taxation) and if this torrent of cash -- the corrupting equivalent of 10,800 major drug cartels (using DEA's yardstick) operating inside the DC Beltway! Men are not angels; they do what they do because they have your cash to do it with.

Cut off their cashflow, and they will do proportionally less. The economics is simple, but given three generations of government-run education, the mass psychology is daunting.

"I shared my concerns with other students in law school and, later on, with fellow members of the legal profession. What I encountered ranged from indifference to hostility. During such conversations my peers revealed a deep disregard for the constitutional design and for the American citizenry itself."

Amen, HALLELUIA! Finally an honest lawyer willing to speak the truth to his profession. What a refreshing and courageous statement, reminiscent of Nino Scalia, Edwin Vieira, and Andrew Napolitano. Bully for you!

"Having uncritically absorbed their modern legal education, my friends refused to acknowledge that “judicial review” means only the uncompromising application of the Constitution to novel circumstances – an approach now derided as “original intent” and deemed worthy of scorn. Today’s lawyers have taken for granted their professors’ sentiment that judicial review amounts to something much more sweeping and audacious, namely the power to decree society’s changing standards and to smuggle those changes into the Constitution without regard for the amendment process. Such is the unavoidable result of ignoring original intent, for any other mode of interpretation is not interpretation at all, but rather imputation and transformation."

Oh, how I hope your book ends up in conservative law schools, along with Ed Vieira's How to De-Throne the Imperial Judiciary!

"Either the Constitution is binding or it is not. The prevailing view I was running up against held that the Constitution as written and intended is not binding...that Americans should not be trusted to govern themselves...an astounding stance for persons sworn to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law to take.... When I would press my points, I finally arrived at my friends’ last line of defense: even if many modern federal programs are technically unconstitutional, Americans have grown accustomed, and it would cause turmoil to attempt to undo such programs at this late date. In other words, my friends were invoking “the people” now...but not when those changes had actually been imposed (when the people’s input was ignored). ...the Constitution is indeed no longer the “supreme law of the land” but... (t)he federal government acknowledges no authority higher than itself, since it can expand or contract the Constitution’s meaning as it sees fit – an outright repudiation of the rule of law, which binds both government and governed alike."

There is as cogent a statement of our constitutional crisis as I've ever read. But have you considered the recourse that lies, as Jefferson suggested, close at hand?

We the People through the Grand Jury in our State court can exercise our original jurisdiction under the Supremacy Clause, adjudicating those numerous high crimes against us, the aggrieved and defrauded People of our aggrieved and defrauded State, committed by the U.S. Congressman or Senator thus indicted.

This is the key aspect of the America Again! project. Local groups would convene to read the annual 'report card' (pre-indictment Bill of Grievances) each Independence Day in the hometown public library or city park of that member of Congress. Thus no corrupt member of Congress -- or even corrupt D.A. or Grand Jury -- could drag their feet too long. Independence Day rolls around every year, and the local group could have several meetings and legal deadlines during the year as well.

During the year, the groups could sponsor muster and training activities for firearms use, safety, maintenance, and tactical exercise as well as emergency preparedness of all kinds, for young and old. This is what Dr. Vieira, in his book Constitutional Honeland Security, Volume 1 calls a "Citizens' Homeland Security Association" which is the ad hoc precursor to a well-regulated militia under the aegis of the State Legislature and its State Law authorizing such.

The importance of this primordial American social and law-enforcement institution cannot be overstated, as Ed Vieira makes clear. The "liberty teeth" that George Washington so praised were expected to be bared not in helter-sketlet vigilante fashion, but in well-regulated citizen groups. Homeland Security in its proper sense -- rather than the proto-fascist jackboot troops now growing over the land!

This is our republic to keep, as Ben Franklin said. We have not kept it -- and a gaggle of goose-hunters pissed off at government will not restore a thing.

The militias in every American city and town are simply assumed by the U.S. Constitution, as the 2nd Amendment makes clear. The Heller court just reiterated that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Fine; but neither history nor tactical wisdom would suggest an 'each man to his tent!' restoration of the rule of law!

This aspect of the America Again! project would also deal with local emergency preparedness, neighborhood safety, and other issues of local government. It's not only an excellent opportunity to involve the young and the elderly in the community's well-being; it's the surest, most visible, most threatening (to evildoers) safeguard to liberty against an ever-encroaching D.C. Leviathan.

But not, of course, until Tax Honesty has greatly reduced its financial supply lines.

"In the name of “democracy” and “human rights,” our self-appointed enlightened classes endeavor to export their handiwork abroad in order to erect supra-national political machinery and to weaken or abolish the sovereignty of the nation-state."

So here you are rooting for national sovereignty, which seems a good thing, as opposed to some One World Government, right? But this is not the battle being fought today, Wilton. Read Davidson & Rees-Mogg's The Sovereign Individual and consider their thesis, because it appears to be unfolding around us exactly as they predicted a decade ago: the nation-state is a dying institution after the advent of the computer and internet. That genie will not be put back in the bottle, because given time, intelligence can always trump muscle. Guerilla wars are not winnable by the large pwer, history shows. Money (and talent, and brains) flow to value. Redistributionist police states are decidedly out of style; falling under their own weight in any case.

"Their sense of urgency is quickened by the fact that technology has enabled individuals to communicate and interact in a global environment blissfully free of centralized oversight. Nothing frustrates the idealist more than people pursuing their own happiness, and the crusade to assert global control will doubtless proceed under the guise of protecting the downtrodden and the disadvantaged, just as it did within the United States itself. Even now, despite the absence of a reigning global authority, proposals exist to harmonize governmental policies among various nations in order to achieve just this result. Nations who choose not to cooperate are targeted for censure, sanction, or outright military conquest. This is an ominous trend, for a worldwide political sovereignty, whether “democratic” or otherwise, would be an unparalleled nightmare. Our freedom relies not on what governments can do, but rather on what governments cannot do. Without other sovereignties or competing sources of legitimate authority, a global government would enjoy unilateral, unbridled sway over all our lives, leaving us no hope of expatriation or escape."

You are much more pessimistic than world demographics indicate. As a percentage of the world's marketplace, there are more sovereign individuals and mobile entrepreneurs today than ever. They reproduce, you know; whereas bureaucracies die of infirmity. Which you later admit:

"Truth be told, the government is accelerating its domestic and foreign activities precisely because it already feels its legitimacy slipping away. Ours is an age of decentralization and individual empowerment, and people need government less and less. This has provoked government into desperately attempting to prove not only its legitimacy, but its absolute necessity to protect us from all dangers, real or imagined."

Oh! You mean there really AREN'T any boogeymen behind those Orange-Alert government warnings on all the MSM, that "credible sources indicate a terrorist attack may take place in the Chicago area in the next ten days..."? Gee, I thought this George Orwell scenario was kinda fun! Random terror from our own government every few weeks just to keep us on our toes? Healthy and running, you know?

"The worshippers of the mega-state are the true barnacles of a bygone era. We must drop the veil from our eyes and acknowledge that this government has outrun both its mandate and its usefulness."

Exactly; and the goal of Tax Honesty is to cut federal revenues drastically which is the ONLY certain method of cutting government. Little money, little government is a 100% proven proportional relationship. Stop letting the IRS skim your checks unless you're involved in taxable activity spelled out in the Tax Code. Otherwise you're funding the Leviathan State with one hand, while trying to slap it to its senses with the other (tied behind your back).

"I charge that the federal government has exceeded its lawful boundaries and that we as Americans are no longer bound to obey it." This is an ambiguous statement. No American is legally required to "obey the federal government"; but we are required to obey federal laws made pursuant to (and specifically not repugnant to) the Constitution for the united States of America. There is no other law binding any American. You and I have no problem obeying constitutional federal laws, but we citizens have never been bound to obedience of unconstitutional ones -- much less to 'obey' administrative or judicial dicta or fiat!

"I and others like me do not seek to impose upon others, but rather to resist illegal imposition upon us. Nothing demands that we endure the incitement of foreign enemies, the refusal to secure our borders, the redistribution of our wealth, the monitoring of our daily activities, the reordering of our private and professional relationships, or the debasement of our children’s minds. We have no duty to weather these plagues, and we will rid ourselves of them as soon as we refuse to bend knee to the few who claim the right to rule us."

Wilton, I guess you've missed the home-office movement, the homeschooling movement, the house-church movement, and the Tax Honesty movement? See my monologue called "The Two Americas", where I describe the amazing disparity among those of us who've pressed towards law-abiding, patriotic personal sovereignty, and those who are stuck in last century in all these areas...and complaining the whole time!

"Elections will not achieve this, for elections leave the deviant political apparatus intact. The fact that questions of constitutional first principle – which should remain beyond all political debate – are up for grabs every election cycle reveals the self-defeating nature of any possible electoral outcome. The two major parties differ solely on how to employ their illicit power. No government voluntarily surrenders such power, and there is no reason to think that this one ever will."

Amen! That's why I ceased voting years ago, right after George II took office. It is time to take up a full-orbed self-government fitting the 21st century and a self-governing population with a superb Constitution that needs only be ENFORCED. Thomas Jefferson gave us the constitutional principle when John Adams pulled a G.W. Bush (with the Alien and Sedition Act debacles) but the American people have never just joined together as self-governing communities of free people under law, and just exercised our duty for self-government!

I'm not willing to go as far as Bob Schulz has done with his "We The People Congresses"; ad hoc vigilante legislatures meeting in refrigerator boxes in back yards. Our form of government is not broken; it is only that corrupt, feckless politicians hold too many offices. They are easily bought and sold by the real powers of the world, who have bought and sold feckless politicians throughout history.

We the People have much more power to change all of this than we have been willing to concede to ourselves. And this without bending or breaking one single solitary law or principle of American government. Establishing precedent as far as constitutional law? Yes, to be sure. But there is nothing wrong with showing members of the U.S. Congress that not only are they not above the law, and not only is the Constitution now back in effect 100%...but they get no more cover from the corrupt federal courts!

Nor even from spineless State district court judges if it comes to that; the most important court in turning the tide for America Again! is the court of public opinion.

"To break the government’s unlawful grip, only withdrawal from the government’s pattern of “legitimized” violence is necessary: withdrawal of our participation and our recognition. Do not vote in federal elections or work for the federal government..."

Tax Honesty trumps all of that by a mile. Nothing talks like money.

"Get involved in your local community. Assume personal responsibility for rearing and protecting your children."

You're describing homeschooling, and the America Again! project here.

"Lower your tax liability as far as possible. Feel no shame in skirting federal regulations while conducting your business or handling your finances in the most sensible way. Learn about America’s true history. Share your thoughts with others. Do not shy from the truth, no matter how unpleasant. And remember that while the people who follow such counsel may be few, freedom has always enjoyed far more beneficiaries than advocates."

There you go! You're describing Tax Honesty. My tax liability to the IRS is ZERO, every year for over a decade now. There are 67 million other non-filers in America. We're sure doing our part!

Looking forward to part 2 - -