by Michael Cummins, TenthAmendmentCenter.com.
In one of his final acts as president, James Madison did something almost unthinkable by modern standards: he vetoed a bill solely on Constitutional grounds.
President Madison agreed that it made sense to use federal funds for the construction or upgrade of vital roadways and canals within the states. But the Internal Improvements bill of 1817 was contradicted by a higher law, namely the absence of a concomitant enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Being among the Framers of our legal system, Madison understood that when two laws clash, the higher one wins out. True to his oath of office, he refused to challenge the Constitution by endorsing an invalid inferior statute.
Seeing this specific issue coming to the fore, Madison had a couple years earlier let Congress know exactly how everyone’s spending wishes could come to pass. He encouraged Congress to fire up the process for amending the Constitution. Given the substantial support that the notion of federal spending on infrastructure enjoyed, it seems likely that the states would have been willing to delegate such power to the federal government, if asked. Congress instead tried the easy route, in the vain hope that Madison was bluffing. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
John Locke on the Law and Man's Natural Right to Self Defense
"Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another."
To read more on this topic, click here.
To read more on this topic, click here.
"An Ambigious Conservative - The Life and Thought of Edmund Burke"
By Edward Feser, from The American Conservative.
For some conservatives, the value of tradition lies in its tendency to reflect an eternal order, a natural law of which tradition is but an approximation. For others, long-established practices and institutions are valuable because they provide the stability societies need for their well-being. The first sort of conservative is liable to advocate a departure from tradition if it too imperfectly reflects the natural law. The second is more likely to favor preserving tradition, even when this might entail a compromise on moral principle, in the interests of maintaining continuity with settled expectations and respect for precedent. Whereas conservatism of the first sort often rests on a robust metaphysical conception of human nature and systematic moral theory, the second type is commonly associated with skepticism about the possibility of metaphysical and moral knowledge.
Edmund Burke is interesting for many reasons, but perhaps chief among them is that he appears to straddle this divide between conservatisms. On the one hand, he clearly regarded those traditions he sought to preserve as deriving from a divine order to which we are duty bound to submit ourselves. On the other hand, he was highly suspicious of abstract theory of any sort. The essays in Ian Crowe’s important new anthology reflect this tension and thereby illustrate how the conflicts that often arise among contemporary conservatives may well have their origin in the thinking of their common spiritual father. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
For some conservatives, the value of tradition lies in its tendency to reflect an eternal order, a natural law of which tradition is but an approximation. For others, long-established practices and institutions are valuable because they provide the stability societies need for their well-being. The first sort of conservative is liable to advocate a departure from tradition if it too imperfectly reflects the natural law. The second is more likely to favor preserving tradition, even when this might entail a compromise on moral principle, in the interests of maintaining continuity with settled expectations and respect for precedent. Whereas conservatism of the first sort often rests on a robust metaphysical conception of human nature and systematic moral theory, the second type is commonly associated with skepticism about the possibility of metaphysical and moral knowledge.
Edmund Burke is interesting for many reasons, but perhaps chief among them is that he appears to straddle this divide between conservatisms. On the one hand, he clearly regarded those traditions he sought to preserve as deriving from a divine order to which we are duty bound to submit ourselves. On the other hand, he was highly suspicious of abstract theory of any sort. The essays in Ian Crowe’s important new anthology reflect this tension and thereby illustrate how the conflicts that often arise among contemporary conservatives may well have their origin in the thinking of their common spiritual father. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
Friday, November 20, 2009
"Law Is A Negative Concept"
Excerpt from "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat, 1850.
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.
Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?
But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?
To read more, click here.
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.
Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?
But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements — legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?
To read more, click here.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What is a classical liberal?
As Ron Paul put it, "This much is true, you have been lied to." The political establishment has re-written history and changed the meaning of age-old terms in a plot to control the lives its citizens. In For A New Liberty, the 20th century's greatest intellectual libertarian, Murray Rothbard, takes the first chapter to cut through the lies and present the political history of the US as it really was. The Ludwig Von Mises Institute has made this book available in both MP3 and PDF formats for anyone interested. Below I have a link to the audio of the first chapter in MP3 format. Please open it directly or download it because this is ESSENTIAL information that every American needs to know. But beware, it has the potential to turn much of what you have thought upside down.
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/1.mp3
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/1.mp3
Monday, November 16, 2009
"Principles of Liberty in our Founding Documents"
From NCCS.net, November Newsletter.
Those who are familiar with the 28 Principles of Liberty outlined in The 5000 Year Leap, are acquainted with the claim that these are the principles upon which the Founders based our new government, thereby assuring us of lasting peace , prosperity, and freedom. Occasionally the question is asked, “Where can we find these principles in our founding documents?” This letter will help the reader make that connection.
First, however, one point needs to be made clear. There is a notion today that the Declaration of Independence is not really a part of American jurisprudence and that the principles contained therein cannot be referred to as a basis of American law. This line of thought is usually concluded by saying that if a principle cannot be found in the Constitution, such as a belief in a Creator, it is not part of American culture or law. This idea is blatantly false. The Declaration of Independence has been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America . (See John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution , pages 360-362)
The following, then, are some of the ways in which the 28 Principles of Liberty were emphasized as the Founders structured our government. . . .
To read the entire newsletter, click here.
Those who are familiar with the 28 Principles of Liberty outlined in The 5000 Year Leap, are acquainted with the claim that these are the principles upon which the Founders based our new government, thereby assuring us of lasting peace , prosperity, and freedom. Occasionally the question is asked, “Where can we find these principles in our founding documents?” This letter will help the reader make that connection.
First, however, one point needs to be made clear. There is a notion today that the Declaration of Independence is not really a part of American jurisprudence and that the principles contained therein cannot be referred to as a basis of American law. This line of thought is usually concluded by saying that if a principle cannot be found in the Constitution, such as a belief in a Creator, it is not part of American culture or law. This idea is blatantly false. The Declaration of Independence has been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America . (See John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution , pages 360-362)
The following, then, are some of the ways in which the 28 Principles of Liberty were emphasized as the Founders structured our government. . . .
To read the entire newsletter, click here.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
"Traitors to the American Revolution"
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, TenthAmendmentCenter.com.
The American Revolution was waged against a highly centralized, nationalistic governmental tyranny run by a king, namely, the British Empire. The king enriched himself and his regime through the economic institution of mercantilism, defined by Murray Rothbard as “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” This system impoverished the average Englishman but was a perpetual source of power and riches for the king and his political allies. That is why the system lasted so long (at least two centuries) despite the fact that it was so harmful to the average citizen.
After the Seven Years War with France the king of England needed to pay off his war debts, so he stepped up the application of the corrupt mercantilist system to the American colonists. He did so with numerous taxes and interferences with international trade that benefited British businesses and the British state while treating the colonists like tax serfs. The “train of abuses” delineated in the Declaration of Independence were mostly abuses of the colonists for the purpose of plundering them with the British mercantilist system.
There was always a group of men in American politics who were not opposed to the evil mercantilist system in principle. They recognized it as a wonderful system for accumulating power and wealth as long as they could be in charge of it. Being victimized by it was another matter. These men, led by Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists, strived to implement an American version of British mercantilism as soon as the Revolution was over. In doing so they were traitors to the American Revolution and the worst kind of corrupt, power-seeking political scoundrels. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
The American Revolution was waged against a highly centralized, nationalistic governmental tyranny run by a king, namely, the British Empire. The king enriched himself and his regime through the economic institution of mercantilism, defined by Murray Rothbard as “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” This system impoverished the average Englishman but was a perpetual source of power and riches for the king and his political allies. That is why the system lasted so long (at least two centuries) despite the fact that it was so harmful to the average citizen.
After the Seven Years War with France the king of England needed to pay off his war debts, so he stepped up the application of the corrupt mercantilist system to the American colonists. He did so with numerous taxes and interferences with international trade that benefited British businesses and the British state while treating the colonists like tax serfs. The “train of abuses” delineated in the Declaration of Independence were mostly abuses of the colonists for the purpose of plundering them with the British mercantilist system.
There was always a group of men in American politics who were not opposed to the evil mercantilist system in principle. They recognized it as a wonderful system for accumulating power and wealth as long as they could be in charge of it. Being victimized by it was another matter. These men, led by Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists, strived to implement an American version of British mercantilism as soon as the Revolution was over. In doing so they were traitors to the American Revolution and the worst kind of corrupt, power-seeking political scoundrels. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
"Nullification in the Bluegrass State?"
By Michael Boldin, CampaignForLiberty.com.
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
In states around the country, there's a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution -- the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to "Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law"
While the FFA's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
Kentucky Joins Movement to Resist Abuses of Commerce Clause, 2nd Amendment
In states around the country, there's a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution -- the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment. Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.
The latest to join the FFA movement? Kentucky. Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to "Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law"
While the FFA's title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
What are Letters of Marque and Reprisal?
From Constitution.org
Letters of marque and reprisal are commissions or warrants issued to someone to commit what would otherwise be acts of piracy. They will normally contain the following first three elements, unless they imply or refer to a declaration of war to define the enemies, and may optionally contain the remainder:
1. Names person, authorizes him to pass beyond borders with forces under his command.
2. Specifies nationality of targets for action.
3. Authorizes seizure or destruction of assets or personnel of target nationality.
4. Describes offense for which commission is issued as reprisal.
5. Restriction on time, manner, place, or amount of reprisal.
Many of these documents were taken, with permission, from the Isle of Tortuga site, which is about piracy and letters of marque. Here is a link to our local copy of their Letters of Marque page.
The U.S. Constitution provides, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11:
The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To learn more, click here.
Letters of marque and reprisal are commissions or warrants issued to someone to commit what would otherwise be acts of piracy. They will normally contain the following first three elements, unless they imply or refer to a declaration of war to define the enemies, and may optionally contain the remainder:
1. Names person, authorizes him to pass beyond borders with forces under his command.
2. Specifies nationality of targets for action.
3. Authorizes seizure or destruction of assets or personnel of target nationality.
4. Describes offense for which commission is issued as reprisal.
5. Restriction on time, manner, place, or amount of reprisal.
Many of these documents were taken, with permission, from the Isle of Tortuga site, which is about piracy and letters of marque. Here is a link to our local copy of their Letters of Marque page.
The U.S. Constitution provides, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11:
The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To learn more, click here.
"Remember the Constitution and our Veterans Today"
By Jake Towne.
"Soldiers' supreme wish is to avoid war, for the costs are inevitably paid with their blood and brains." - Jake Towne
Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic." All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen. I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
"Soldiers' supreme wish is to avoid war, for the costs are inevitably paid with their blood and brains." - Jake Towne
Today, many Americans take a moment to remember the veterans that have fulfilled their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies foreign and domestic." All too many have paid the ultimate price, many defending their fellow soldiers, and many believing they were defending their countrymen. I am sure that this year the all-too-fresh Fort Hood tragedy will be on the minds of all. . . .
To read the entire article, click here.
Monday, November 9, 2009
"Gold and Freedom"
By Jacob Hornberger, CampaignForLiberty.com.
...When the Framers were deliberating over the Constitution, they were fully aware of the dangers to people's freedom and well-being posed by a profligate government. As British subjects, they had experienced firsthand the ever-increasing taxes imposed by their king to finance his ever-growing expenditures. As revolutionaries, they had also experienced the ravages that come with the inflation of a currency to finance government expenditures. That's what "Not Worth a Continental" referred to. As citizens living under the Articles of Confederation, they knew the damage that irredeemable paper money can bring to a society.
The first thing to keep in mind about the Constitution was its dual purpose: to bring into existence the federal government while, at the same time, protecting the nation from it. While the Framers understood the need for government, they also understood that that same government constituted the greatest danger to their freedom and well-being...
To read the entire article, click here.
...When the Framers were deliberating over the Constitution, they were fully aware of the dangers to people's freedom and well-being posed by a profligate government. As British subjects, they had experienced firsthand the ever-increasing taxes imposed by their king to finance his ever-growing expenditures. As revolutionaries, they had also experienced the ravages that come with the inflation of a currency to finance government expenditures. That's what "Not Worth a Continental" referred to. As citizens living under the Articles of Confederation, they knew the damage that irredeemable paper money can bring to a society.
The first thing to keep in mind about the Constitution was its dual purpose: to bring into existence the federal government while, at the same time, protecting the nation from it. While the Framers understood the need for government, they also understood that that same government constituted the greatest danger to their freedom and well-being...
To read the entire article, click here.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Does the Federal Government have a right to take your property?
An individual asked Paul the following question:
"Does the Government have the right to confiscate your property and all your possessions just because they think they have probable cause and the right to do so ?"
Paul then answered the question, but asked me to clarify using the Constitution. Here is my response.
-----------
I was asked to clarify Constitutionally the answer to your question. I would suggest that we need first to look at the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that all people have a right to their life, liberty and the fruits of their labor. This is part of what they considered the "Natural Law" that governs the universe. One of our founders' great inspirations was the enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, who wrote:
"...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to..."
His basic point was that man injects part of his life and liberty into achieving certain ends, which are his property. To put it another way, you take some of the time of your life and of your own decision serve your fellow man through providing goods or services, and what you get in return is property. That property is the a tangible product of the mixing of your life and liberty, and to rob someone of their property is then to rob them of part of their life and liberty. This natural law precedes all and is above all human governments, thus it is their responsibility to uphold it. Out of all of our founders, Thomas Jefferson most completely upheld these natural property rights by abolishing all federal taxes, taxation being an unlawful (even for governments!) plundering of individuals.
With that in mind, our founders added the 4th and 5th amendments into the Constitution. These were compromises with natural law which allowed for some government theft of private property, but set strict limits through both procedure and extent. The 4th amendment says, "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." This allows for government seizure of private property, but only within stict procedural limits including warrants that describe the specific objects to be seized and reasons for seizure of the objects. Therefore, the federal government could not lawfully take all of a person's property without a warrant listing every single object that the individual owns! Second, the 5th amendment says that an individual may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So if the government does take a person's private property, it is required to give just compensation.
But as always happens with government, you give them a little power and they twist it to be a lot of power. Thus has happened with the 4th and 5th amendments. They were meant as limits to the power of federal seizures but instead have been used as a license for federal seizures.
I know this is a somewhat longer response than you were expecting, but I hope you enjoyed it nevertheless. It's time we put more Thomas Jeffersons in power... if any still exist.
"Does the Government have the right to confiscate your property and all your possessions just because they think they have probable cause and the right to do so ?"
Paul then answered the question, but asked me to clarify using the Constitution. Here is my response.
-----------
I was asked to clarify Constitutionally the answer to your question. I would suggest that we need first to look at the Declaration of Independence. It clearly states that all people have a right to their life, liberty and the fruits of their labor. This is part of what they considered the "Natural Law" that governs the universe. One of our founders' great inspirations was the enlightenment philosopher, John Locke, who wrote:
"...every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to..."
His basic point was that man injects part of his life and liberty into achieving certain ends, which are his property. To put it another way, you take some of the time of your life and of your own decision serve your fellow man through providing goods or services, and what you get in return is property. That property is the a tangible product of the mixing of your life and liberty, and to rob someone of their property is then to rob them of part of their life and liberty. This natural law precedes all and is above all human governments, thus it is their responsibility to uphold it. Out of all of our founders, Thomas Jefferson most completely upheld these natural property rights by abolishing all federal taxes, taxation being an unlawful (even for governments!) plundering of individuals.
With that in mind, our founders added the 4th and 5th amendments into the Constitution. These were compromises with natural law which allowed for some government theft of private property, but set strict limits through both procedure and extent. The 4th amendment says, "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." This allows for government seizure of private property, but only within stict procedural limits including warrants that describe the specific objects to be seized and reasons for seizure of the objects. Therefore, the federal government could not lawfully take all of a person's property without a warrant listing every single object that the individual owns! Second, the 5th amendment says that an individual may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So if the government does take a person's private property, it is required to give just compensation.
But as always happens with government, you give them a little power and they twist it to be a lot of power. Thus has happened with the 4th and 5th amendments. They were meant as limits to the power of federal seizures but instead have been used as a license for federal seizures.
I know this is a somewhat longer response than you were expecting, but I hope you enjoyed it nevertheless. It's time we put more Thomas Jeffersons in power... if any still exist.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Jake Towne on Freedom Watch!
We were very excited to see one of our own LBCCS members, Jake Towne, on Feedom Watch with Judge Napolitano last Wednesday! You can watch the video below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
