Democrats Continue to Devolve the US into an Evil, Heartless, and Uncivilized Nation

 

ABORTION - late-term abortion

(Photo Credit: Robert Valencia)

by Diane Rufino, March 1, 2019

This past Monday, February 25, US Senate Democrats blocked a Republican bill – The BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT – that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t attempt to save the lives of infants born alive during failed abortions.

Why are Democrats openly embracing infanticide? What demons do they have whispering in their ears? What devil sits on their shoulders? What evil master do they serve?

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed.

Three Democrats joined Republicans to support the bill — Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Doug Jones or Alabama. Three Republicans did not vote, apparently because of scheduling issues and plane flight delays — including Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Tim Scott of South Carolina (a HUGE proponent of Life).

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”

To most people, it is a no-brainer that a doctor or other health-care professional should preserve the life and health of a newborn. Am I wrong to believe that the medical profession still adheres to the historic oath that dates back to Greek times, the Hippocratic Oath, which states that a doctor shall seek to preserve health and preserve life, to endeavor to do no harm?  The modern version of the oath includes this statement: “Above all, I must never play God.”

Ironically, one classical version of the Hippocratic Oath addresses abortion: “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.”

Last week, I watched the 2018 movie GOSNELL: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer with members of my Tea Party group. The movie chronicles the investigation by Philadelphia Police and the DEA of Kermit Gosnell, the infamous abortion doctor who operated an abortion clinic in Philadelphia, and his subsequent trial. Initially investigated for overprescribing OxyContin (oxycodone; an opioid derivative of heroin), a raid on his clinic uncovered horrors beyond description. He was charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit (“viability”), and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law (patients must wait 24 hours after proper consultation by the clinic). The murder charges related to a woman who died following an abortion procedure, and seven newborns who were killed by having their spinal cords severed with scissors after being born alive during attempted abortions. Surprisingly, the defense was able to mount an extraordinary defense of Gosnell and his practices, including an admonition by the judge that nothing asserted in the courtroom would be allowed to contradict a woman’s abortion rights. Towards the end of the trial, the prosecution was able to locate a young girl (in her teens) who worked at the clinic and who happened to take pictures of the babies who had their spinal cords severed by Dr. Gosnell.  When asked on the stand why she took the pictures, the girl responded to the effect that the babies were so big and so perfect and they looked like they should have been welcomed into a family, with brothers and sisters. She thought there should have been some record, a picture, to acknowledge their existence. Those pictures were shown to the jury, and one by one, their hearts melted and they looked down or began to sob.  Why? Because they inherently connected with the humanity in a newborn and even in a full-term fetus. Dr. Gosnell had committed atrocities that shocked their conscience. My suspicion is that they may have been convinced by the defense to overlook the successful abortions of a full-term fetus, but to take that additional step with callousness and without regard to the life on the medical table in front of him, struggling to move and breathe, wanting to be warm and cradled and comforted and kissed and loved, and take its life was an act of pure evil.

Inherently, we value life and we act under the teachings of compassion and care that our religion has impressed on us, even at some point in our lives.

The sad and tragic thing about this law is that it even needed to be introduced at all.  Providing medical attention and care to a newborn, even if it is a product of a failed abortion attempt, is the natural, the right, the intuitive thing to do.  How can those who would want medical care for themselves have the right to decide to deny it to others?  A life is a life.  It’s not defined by number of years but by DNA and breath and a beating heart.  It’s defined by an instinct to survive and continue living.

After the vote, President Trump tweeted: “This will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

Today the left uses the excuse that a baby inside the womb is the sole property and concern of the mother to justify its extermination. What will tomorrow’s excuse be?  Usefulness?  Competency?  Old age?

Here are my questions regarding this vote on this Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and in fact, regarding the extreme position that Democrats/liberals/progressives take on abortion rights in general:

(1)  Why do Democrats/liberals/progressives believe that abortion rights are broad and extensive enough to encompass a right to make sure that the abortion is successful, to the point that it includes infanticide?  In other words, why do Democrats/liberals/progressives believe that abortion rights are broad and extensive enough to include the right to condemn a baby born alive to be killed? The one thing the Roe v. Wade opinion seems to be clear on is that as long as the unborn is still inside a woman’s womb, it is not a life for which the Constitution or our laws can provide protection. But once that unborn has actually been born, then, as the opinion supports, that baby is now a new “life.”

(2)  The Fourteenth Amendment reads: “Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  According to the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment, any baby born, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, is a citizen and therefore a person with recognized liberty rights. If that is the case, then any person who terminates that life after birth, again even if that baby has suffered from an attempted abortion and even if that baby was intended to be condemned by the mother, is guilty not only of murder, but of intentional, premediated murder.

(3)  Democrats/liberals/progressives believe what Roe v. Wade stands for – that as long as the unborn is inside a woman’s womb, she has complete control over its destiny.  But once it emerges from the womb, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, then don’t both parents (mother AND father) have parental rights to that newborn baby?  Our child support laws would suggest so.

(4)  And if that “unwanted” baby should emerge from the womb, even if it is the result of a failed abortion, then wouldn’t that newborn baby become the ward of the state?  That is, wouldn’t the government (society in general) have the right and duty to care for it?

(5)  If all of the above are true, then how could any member of Congress, taking an oath to the Constitution, vote against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

(6)  The proper approach by government would have been to legislatively define LIFE at some point during fetal development.  (See my article “RESOLUTION to Define LIFE Through Legislation”).

To echo President Trump’s words, this vote by the US Senate “will be remembered as one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress. If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”

 

References:

“Dems Block ‘Born Alive’ Bill to Provide Medical Care to Infants Who Survive Failed Abortions,” FOX News, February 27, 2019.  Referenced at:  http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/us-world-news/dems-block-born-alive-bill-to-provide-medical-care-to-infants-who-survive-failed-abortions#/

Diane Rufino, “RESOLUTION to Define LIFE Through Legislation,” For Love of God and Country, February 24, 2019.  Referenced:  https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/02/24/model-resolution-to-define-life-through-legislation/

Advertisements

ABORTION: Why the Supreme Court Got it Wrong in Roe v. Wade (1973)

RIGHT TO LIFE - fetus in hand (from Prevent Disease Website)

(Photo Credit – Prevent Disease website)

by Diane Rufino, February 22, 2019

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down one of the most controversial opinions in its history. It issued its opinion regarding the constitutionality of state laws banning and even criminalizing abortion. In striking down those laws, it identified a new fundamental right – the right of a woman to have an abortion, at essentially any time during her pregnancy and for whatever reason. It decided the case of Roe v. Wade.

States are allowed to regulate a wide variety of actions in the interest of protecting the people within its borders. These are the laws that are pursuant to its vast “police powers” – the power to regulate for the health, safety, welfare,, and morality of its citizens. These are the powers reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment, and the powers intended to remain with each state. Aside from these police powers (the 10th Amendment), the Constitution puts certain limits the states’ authority to regulate. One of those limits is when there is an individual liberty right at stake. (And not just any “liberty right” at that; the right at stake must have been a recognized liberty right at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, which was 1868. For any other asserted liberty right, the Constitution would need to be amended per Article V’s amendment process. See the Appendix at the end of the article). In Roe v. Wade, Norma McCorvey (aka, petitioner Roe) argued that the Constitution protected her liberty to choose to have an abortion, and that that right was paramount to the state’s right to regulate abortion.
Disregarding the Court’s established jurisprudence regarding the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court agreed with McCorvey.

In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, he Supreme Court declared the right to an abortion is a fundamental liberty right that the state can only limit thru regulation if that regulation furthers a very strong state interest (a “compelling state interest”) and is narrowly-tailored to achieve that interest. That is, it cannot be overbroad. The Court then went on to conclude that a woman’s liberty right in controlling whether or not she is pregnant (hence, her right to choose to have an abortion) is stronger than the state’s interest in banning abortions outright.

Justice Blackmun wrote: “[Although] the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy … the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. … This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the 9th Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. … We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”

Blackmun also addressed the very controversial issue of whether a fetus is a “person” within the meaning of that word in the 14th Amendment. He continued:

“The Constitution does not define ‘person’ in so many words. … The use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally.… This persuades us that the word ‘person,’ as used in the 14th Amendment, does not include the unborn. … In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. … In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”

Blackmun then summarized the “balancing of competing interests” at stake in the issue of pregnancy and abortion in what has become known as “the Trimester Test”:

“A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

The opinion would go on to explain that the “health of the mother” does not necessarily only mean physical health. An abortion in the third trimester can be justified for any reason related to physical health, mental health, psychological well-being, age (being too young), familial (meaning the family wants the baby aborted), or even financial well-being. Even if the woman feels stressed from the pregnancy, she would be within her right to abort her later-term baby for “health” reasons. In other words, the opinion basically established the rule that a woman’s right to an abortion always outweighs the right to life for the unborn. Since 1973, Roe v. Wade has stood for the legal principle that a woman can have an abortion at any point in her pregnancy for any reason whatsoever, and neither the federal government nor any state can place any pre-conditions or restrictions on a woman’s right to that abortion. In other words, Roe assures women the right to an abortion on demand.

The infamous Roe decision (and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton) was the opinion of 7 out of 9 members of the court. Two justices dissented – Justice Byron White and Justice William Rehnquist. Justice White believed the Court created a new right not envisioned by the Constitution and both he and Justice Rehnquist believed the question of abortion was a state matter covered by the 10th Amendment.

Justice White wrote, in his dissenting opinion:

At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.

The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: During the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. he Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.

It is my view, therefore, that the Texas statute is not constitutionally infirm because it denies abortions to those who seek to serve only their convenience, rather than to protect their life or health. Nor is this plaintiff, who claims no threat to her mental or physical health, entitled to assert the possible rights of those women whose pregnancy assertedly implicates their health. This, together with United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), dictates reversal of the judgment of the District Court.

Justice Rehnquist dissented with these views:

I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of “privacy” is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not “private” in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the “privacy” that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

If the Court means by the term “privacy” no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of Mr. Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion that the “liberty,” against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court’s sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court’s opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature.  By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

And, as the 10th Amendment states so clearly, “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.” The power to regulate for the safety, health, welfare, and morality of its people are the so-called “Police Powers” reserved by each state under the 10th Amendment. Because the power to regulate abortions was not prohibited to the States under the Constitution or by the 14th Amendment, the power continues to reside with the state. [We are, of course, referring to abortions that aren’t absolutely medically necessary on account of rape or incest or to preserve the life or physical health of the mother; we are referring to the types of abortions that Roe and Doe filed suit for, and the types of abortions that our sexually-active and adventurous progressive/liberal population, which are merely and essentially for convenience].

The Roe v. Wade decision has resulted in the deaths of over 60 million children since that infamous January date.

Liberals and progressives, fearing that a right-leaning Supreme Court may try to limit a woman’s right to an abortion, have taken to their state legislatures to protect that right. And in many cases, as we are witnessing, they are doing so that would probably even offend the Roe court. States like New York and Virginia and Rhode Island and the District of Columbia are pursuing “late-term” abortion bills that essentially remove any meaningful state interest in the life of the unborn such that a woman can terminate her pregnancy at any point, even killing her living unborn. New York has already passed its law – the mis-named Reproductive Health Act, and the others no doubt will soon follow.

As horrible, as horrific, as heinous, as unconscionable as these laws sound, they are perfectly compliant with the Roe v. Wade opinion. That is the sad reality.

These “late-term abortion” laws show just how broad, and how cruel and insidious the Roe decision was (is).

The truth is that 31 states have relaxed abortion laws. At one time North Carolina had a fairly relaxed abortion law, but over the years, the state has exercised its interest in the life of the unborn. Currently, it is seeking to prevent any abortion after 13 weeks, except when the woman’s attending physician is able to explain why an abortion is needed to prevent risk of death to the mother or other medical emergency. 23 states permit a later-term abortion “for the life and health of the mother,” which essentially means that a woman can terminate her pregnancy at any time for any reason, since the Supreme Court has interpreted “health” to mean any number of things – physical, emotional, psychological, financial, familial, because of stigma, and for age or for stress. These 23 states are: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Compare this relaxed standard to the more strict one, which permits a woman to have a later-term abortion only if is necessary “for life and physical health of the mother.” Sixteen (16) states have this more strict standard – Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. There are 3 states that allow a full-term baby to be directly killed, but only if the pregnancy poses a direct risk to the mother’s life. Those states are Idaho, Michigan, and Rhode Island.

Now, take special note of these particular states: Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont. They don’t even require the pretense of a “health” reason for women to abort their full-term babies. In those 7 states, there are no bans at all on abortion at any stage. Those states are virtual killing fields. As Laurie Higgins wrote in the Illinois Family Institute: “It’s open season on babies who, through no fault of their own, have the misfortune of being conceived in the wrong womb.”

Just to drive home how barbaric a late-term abortion is – the kind of abortion just legalized in New York and the kind that Virginia expressly wanted to legalize, here is how a former abortionist describes the procedure:

“The baby is injected with a poison directly into his skull or torso. He then suffers a hideously painful death, which he will certainly feel because of his developed nervous system. The mother carries the corpse around in her womb for a day. The next day, there is an ultrasound to check if the baby is dead. If he isn’t….. if, by some miracle he survived and has been writhing and suffering in agony for the past 24 hours clinging onto life, then he will be injected again. The following day, the mother delivers her dead child. Sometimes she delivers him at the clinic, but if she can’t make it on time, the clinic is perfectly happy to recommend that she give birth into her toilet.”

What progressives and liberals don’t want the ordinary person to know is that all states allow late-term abortions that threaten a mother’s “life” – not just her “health.” There is no life-threatening condition that would ever necessitate the direct, intentional, active killing of a baby in the womb. There are relatively rare occasions in which continuing a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, but ending a pregnancy does not require the direct, intentional, active killing of a baby. The key word here is “baby,” which means that the unborn is fully-developed or near to being fully-developed and capable of being cared for outside the womb by the mother, caregivers, or by special incubators and machines that can provide the care and protection that the mother’s womb can until term.

If there is a life-threatening condition that would necessitate the termination of a woman’s later-term, near full-term, or full-term pregnancy, the best option for doctors and for the woman is to deliver that baby. There are possible instances (such as cancer, a debilitating heart condition, toxemia, exceedingly high blood pressure, etc) when it may be necessary to remove the baby from its mother’s womb, but it is never necessary to kill him before removing him. There is no medical reason, and certainly no reasonable or moral one, to take that extra step of preemptively killing the child. Doctors can induce delivery or perform a C-section to save a woman’s life in a life-threatening or emergency situation without dismembering, crushing, burning, or chemically inducing cardiac arrest in a baby. In some induced deliveries or C-sections, babies will not survive, but that is wholly different from intentionally killing them.

The point is – the FACT is – that a delivery must happen either way. If a mother in the third trimester decides she doesn’t want or can’t have her baby inside her, she is going to have to deliver him one way or another. The only question is whether she will deliver a dead child or a living one. Giving a lethal injection to the child may be the more convenient route, but since when do we as a society put a greater value on convenience than on life itself. It certainly isn’t the necessary route.

Our options should always fall on the side of respecting and preserving life. We are the nation founded on the great truth that we are created and the moment we are created, we are endowed by our Creator with the inalienable rights of Life and Liberty.

God help us if we don’t change our thinking on this subject and don’t put an end to the killing fields.

Now, to be fair, most abortions are performed prior to 21 weeks of pregnancy. Agencies like the Center for Disease Control and abortion doctors themselves like to point out that the overwhelming percentage of abortions are performed up to 21 weeks. But, as I’ll make clear later, 21 weeks (which is very close to medical “viability”) does not mark the start of “life.” The fetus became a new living human being before that – being fully formed (just still very tiny) and exhibiting the functions of life (although some are still weak). Heck, a fetus has a heartbeat at around 6 weeks (although it isn’t heard well on an ultrasound until week 8). The point is that although most abortions are performed during the first half of pregnancy, a good portion of abortions are on the living; they are killing unborn babies.

The New York Reproductive Health Act has ignited a new debate on the abortion rights – specifically on the scope of the right and the fact that the Supreme Court never once considered the growing fetus/baby to be a “life,” let alone a unique life (not a clone of the mother).

You can see from the Roe decision, that by giving women an expansive, unfettered right to terminate her pregnancy (under the guise of “controlling her reproduction”), we have ushered in an era of evil. Since the abortion clinics have opened their doors, a parade of horribles has ensued. It appears that dissenting Justice Byron White summarized the majority’s opinion pretty well when he wrote: “At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure. And the Court, for the most part, sustains this position: During the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus…” But he shouldn’t have been so kind to the majority. That last sentence should have read: “During the entire length of a pregnancy, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus.” That is exactly what the Roe decision stands for.

Because of this parade of horribles and the clear intent on the part of Democrats/progressives/liberals to of protecting this absolute right as against all those horribles, I have to believe that the Roe opinion can be re-visited for a more compassionate, moral, scientific outcome, and yes, constitutional decision.

For years, I have spoken and written about the Roe v. Wade decision (Supreme Court, January 22, 1973, announcing a fundamental right, or “liberty right” for women in aborting their unborn). I have held the opinion that the decision was perhaps incorrectly decided because its central premise was wrong. The Supreme Court, including conservative justice Antonin Scalia, made the underlying assumption that a “person” means someone who walks around, who has an independent life outside a woman’s womb. And therefore, the Court looked to the “viability” of the fetus in writing its Trimester Approach to when a woman has most control over her reproduction. The “Trimester Test” was the approach the Court used in summarizing the “balancing of competing interests” at stake in a woman’s pregnancy – the woman’s interest in controlling her reproduction and what happens in her uterus, the state’s interest in the life of the unborn, and the unborn’s right to the life it was intended to have. Sadly, the Court, in fleshing out the competing interests in its opinion, made it clear that any threat to a woman’s health in the third trimester (where typically the interests are greatest for the state and for the unborn) outweighs the interests of the other parties. And it explained that the threat need not be medical in nature. The unborn or the pregnancy itself need not pose any physical harm to her. Other types of harm justifying an abortion up until the moment of birth would include emotional, psychological, and even financial. The mere fact that the pregnancy poses stress on the woman would justify an abortion, according to the high Court. That is why Roe v. Wade stands for the general rule that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, for any reason. She has an unfettered right to abort her fetus or her unborn baby….. she has a right to an abortion on demand.

Anyway, going back to my concern with the Roe v Wade opinion. I believe the Court used the wrong approach in reaching its opinion. Again, it made the general assumption that a “person” means someone who walks around, who has an independent life outside a woman’s womb. And therefore, the Court looked to the “viability” of the fetus. Viability means that the fetus has reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. Today, medical experts believe a fetus is viable at around 24 weeks (which is about halfway in the second trimester). The proper assessment should have been when the fetus becomes a “life.” We know mere conception doesn’t equate to life; it merely sets in motion what would become fetal development resulting in a fully-formed baby that the mother welcomes into the world to continue its growth and development outside the womb. We also know that life does not equate to viability because viability just asks when the baby can likely survive outside the womb. Implicit in that definition is that there is already a “life.” It just looks to see how advanced in development that life is. The unborn cannot live without the protection and life-sustenance from its mother. Similarly, a newborn also cannot live on its own, without the protection and life-sustenance from its parents or other caregiver. A life scientifically comes into being when there is a heartbeat, when the baby has its organs, and when it is nearly completely differentiated so that really all that is needed is more growth and fine-tuning of its life support systems for the outside world. Under this definition, the unborn is a “life” much earlier than viability.

“Life” = “personhood,” and it should be that simple. What kind of society are we when we go out of our way, legally, emotionally, and psychologically to strip certain groups of their personhood and therefore their rights? The most brutal of killers gets our full attention regarding his rights and his place as “a fellow human being.” But the sweetest, most gentle, the purest, and the most helpless are the ones we minimized and disregard. The 8th Amendment is supposedly a testament to our compassion as a civilized society. If that is so, what is the Roe decision and what is New York’s “late-term abortion” law? I would submit that it is a testament to our savagery and to this the most selfish, self-obsessed, and immoral society. We simply can’t justify these polar extremes of our so-called “civility.”

The key is using “life” as the key determinative is that when there is a “life,” our laws provide protection, including observance of its fundamental rights. I look to the Declaration of Independence which professes:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness….

In other words, the minute an individual is created, he or she is endowed with inalienable rights, including the right to Life. Moreover, government is instituted for the primary purpose of secure those rights. It makes no difference whether that individual is 15 years old, 40 years old, 10 years old, 1 month old, or 20 weeks old. The minute it became a living being, it is understood to be entitled to the most essential of all inalienable (those attaching to our very humanity) rights. Technically, according to the words of the Declaration, the minute a new human being is created (joining of reproductive cells at conception; “conception” comes from “conceived” which means a new life, a new human being, has been conceived).

Therefore, a “person,” for purposes of our Rule of Law and our US Constitution (including the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment) includes the unborn. Again, maybe not exactly at conception and for several weeks after that, but certainly, and clearly, towards the end of the first trimester and the beginning of the second trimester. And as such, the unborn “life” has the same fundamental rights as the mother. Once the mother allows the pregnancy to reach the point where life has been created, then she holds no greater interest than the interest the unborn has in continuing its development. In other words, the “competing interests” explanation of a pregnancy shifts greatly. And unlike the Court’s opinion in Roe, where the unborn never was considered a legal “person” in order to take advantage of the rights and liberties enshrined in our Declaration, our Constitution, and our laws and therefore the woman held all the power to decide the unborn’s fate, the approach I believe should have been taken would recognize that the unborn is absolutely a “person” so that a woman does NOT have the unfettered right to abort her unborn, kill it, or otherwise dispose of it.

We can explain the failure of the Supreme Court in Roe using additional legal arguments as well.

The case involved a challenge to a Texas statute that criminalized abortion, which means that Norma McCorvey (aka Roe) filed suit claiming an infringement of an essential (liberty) right protected by the 14th Amendment. Challenges to state law claiming a violation of civil rights or liberty rights recognized by the Bill of Rights are brought under the Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment. Over the years since it was adopted, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to “incorporate” the liberty rights of the US Bill of Rights as against the states; that is, if the federal government cannot infringe on our religious liberty than neither can the states, if the federal government cannot ban firearms, neither can the states, and so forth and so on.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As the Court had noted, it first had to determine if the unborn are considered “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It concluded that they were not.

If the Court would have exercised proper interpretation authority and followed its own established 14th Amendment jurisprudence (precedent), it would have taken an originalist approach to the analysis, and the outcome would have been quite different (although not ultimately providing for the right of women to have an abortion; the decision would have been left to the states themselves).

Under an “originalist” approach, the Court would have had to determine what the word “persons” was understood to mean when the 14th Amendment was written and ratified. “Originalism” is often equated with “Textualism” (where judges look at the meaning of the words and intent at the time they were written) A honest analysis would have looked not only at the definition of the term “persons” around the time of 1868, but also at society’s view of abortion at that time. In fact, for a claimed right to be covered by the 14th Amendment and hence free from government/state regulation, that right would have had to have been considered an essential liberty right at the time the Amendment was adopted. In other words, the Court should have asked two questions: “What did the term ‘persons’ mean back in 1868?” And, “Was abortion considered a fundamental liberty right back in 1868?” [That is, the Court should have asked: Was the asserted right to an abortion “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)].

If the asserted right was not recognized at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, that means society was not ready to recognize it as such. To add a new right, one that is clearly defined only by the relaxed moral and sexual societal standards in this progressive/liberal age, the Constitution would need to be amended. And that would require the amendment process outlined in Article V.  We update our Constitution, not by the individual wisdom or opinion of a handful of judges but by the collective will of the people.

Josh Craddick, a Harvard Law student recently had a Law Review article published in which he looked into the definition of “persons.” In his article (“Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?”), he noted that layman’s dictionaries at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment (adopted on July 28, 1868) treated the concepts of humanity and personhood interchangeably. He also consulted William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a treatise that had profound influence on legal thinking, was used in American law schools, was relied on by the Supreme Court, and continues to be cited even today in Supreme Court decisions. It is cited at least 10-12 times each year. Blackstone expressly recognized that personhood and the right to life existed before birth. He set forth a simple and clear legal standard: “Where life can be shown to exist, legal personhood exists” (emphasis added). A look back through history shows that there were no laws to specifically protect the unborn prior to “quickening” (when the mother feels the baby begin to kick and move around) and prior to birth, and that makes sense in light of the generally-accepted definition of “personhood.” A pregnant woman was carrying a “life,” and hence she was carrying a new person.

With respect to the second question (“Was abortion considered an essential/fundamental liberty right back in 1868?”), Craddick researched the societal view of abortion back in the day. In his article, he showed that many of the states that voted to ratify the 14th Amendment had laws criminalizing abortion. What does that mean? It seems to confirm that at the time, Americans, state lawmakers, and government officials understood personhood to include the unborn, just as Blackstone defined it. It shows that society in 1868 viewed personhood and life in much the same way that pro-lifers understand.

Craddick wrote:

When the Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized children in utero as persons. Nearly every state had criminal laws proscribing abortion, and most of these statutes were classified among ‘offenses against the person.’ There can be no doubt whatsoever that the word ‘person’ referred to the fetus.” Twenty‐three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a ‘child’ in their statutes proscribing abortion. At least twenty‐eight jurisdictions labeled abortion as an ‘offense against the person’ or an equivalent criminal classification. Nine of the ratifying states explicitly valued the lives of the preborn and their pregnant mothers equally by providing the same range of punishment for killing either during the commission of an abortion. The only plausible explanation for this phenomenon is that the legislatures considered the mother and child to be equal in their personhood. Furthermore, ten states (nine of which had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment) considered abortion to be either manslaughter, assault with intent to murder, or murder.

The adoption of strict anti‐abortion measures in the mid‐nineteenth century was the natural development of a long common‐law history proscribing abortion. Beginning in the mid‐thirteenth century, the common law codified abortion as homicide as soon as the child came to life (animation) and appeared recognizably human (formation), which occurred approximately 40 days after fertilization. Lord Coke later cited the “formed and animated standard,” rearticulating it as “quick with childe.”

Craddick went on to point out that even by the mid-nineteenth century, courts and states alike, were increasingly rejecting the “quickening” standard as scientifically obsolete and replacing it with fertilization. Imagine that !!

Sadly, we all know the reasons the justices of the Supreme Court made that colossally-erroneous assumption that “personhood” means “someone who walks around, who has an independent life outside a woman’s womb.” First, the Court knew that society couldn’t be responsible for all the unwanted births; the burden they would impose on society would break our system of welfare and social services. Second, the case moved up through the court system at a time when the Women’s Rights Movement was fighting for equality in the workplace and in the home, with equality resting squarely on her ability to determine when, or if, she would reproduce. A woman could not control her career, her future, or even her burden at home if she were to be held hostage by her uterus and her God-given ability to bring forth new life. The Court, obsessed with social justice and equality, saw the case as one to give the Women’s Rights Movement what it wanted – the ability to finally be equal in the workforce.

Germany wanted a racially-pure German race. It felt it had that right as a sovereign country. After all, the Nazi movement was about nationalism. Germany would never be treated and punished, plundered and broken up like it was after the defeat of the Triple Alliance nations in World War I. For Germany to have the ability to engineer a pure German race (a “master-race”), it needed to accept the genocide of the undesirables.

We have to be careful what ambition causes us to sacrifice or condone.

Abortion has become all-too-often synonymous with “convenience.” It’s a “choice” – a choice to be pregnant or not to be pregnant. Again, most times, a woman or girl has an abortion very early on, before there is life inside her. But many times it’s not a “choice”; it’s a baby.

I think a case can be made that the right needs limitations, and if that can be achieved, then women can be both pro-life and pro-choice, if that makes any sense. If we look at a “Balancing of Rights” approach rather than a “Balancing of Interests” approach – that is, if we balance the rights of the woman to control her reproduction with the big daddy of them all, the right to life, of the unborn child, rather than balance the rights of the woman to terminate her pregnancy with the interest of the state in protecting the pregnancy – then we will come to a point in the pregnancy when the developing fetus becomes a “life.” At that point, society can then legally deny abortions (except for situations such as rape, incest, or risk to the woman’s life). A woman will enjoy a period of time to decide whether she wants to continue the pregnancy (hence, pro-choice), but if she waits too long, then she will not be able to abort the baby and will not be able to take a life (hence, pro-life).

We need to have conversations. We need to find common ground between pro-life supporters and pro-choice advocates. We can’t continue to offend so greatly our national conscience. Roe v. Wade needs to be re-addressed. A woman may very well be entitled to a right to abort her pregnancy, but at least that issue needs to decided by a court that is willing to do a correct and honest analysis – recognizing that the unborn becomes a life well before it is born and therefore it has the same rights that every other human being has. A woman may very well have the right to have an abortion if she chooses, but that right can not be so broad or expansive as to include the taking of another life.

We need to get this issue back into court and in front of reasonable-minded justices.

We need to stop the killing fields.

 

- 0000000
References:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U,S. 113 (1973), Majority Opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, Cornell Law Library – https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113%26amp#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO

Roe v. Wade, 410 U,S. 113 (1973), Dissenting Opinion, written by Justice William Rehnquist, Cornell Law Library – https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113%26amp#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZD

Roe v. Wade, Dissenting Opinion, by Justice Byron White – https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade/Dissent_White and
https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White

Laurie Higgins, “31 States Permit Full-Term Abortions,” Illinois Family Institute, January 28, 2019. Referenced at: https://illinoisfamily.org/life/31-states-permit-full-term-babies-to-be-killed-in-the-womb-for-virtually-any-or-no-reason/

Joshua J. Craddick, Joshua J. Craddock, “Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 40, No. 2 (2017). Referenced at: file:///C:/Users/diane/Downloads/SSRN-id2970761.pdf [Abstract: What should the legal status of human beings in utero be under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution? Other legal thinkers have explored whether a national “right to abortion” can be justified on originalist grounds. Assuming that it cannot, and that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey were wrongly decided, only two other options are available. Should preborn human beings be considered legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, or do states retain authority to make abortion policy?
The late Justice Scalia famously argued for the latter position and pledged he would strike down a federal ban on abortion. But is this view consistent with the original meaning of the term “person”? Using originalist interpretive methods, this paper argues that preborn human beings are legal “persons” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.]

Calvin Freiburger, “Article in Harvard Law Journal Concludes: The Preborn Child is a Constitutional Person,” Live Action, June 1, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.liveaction.org/news/landmark-harvard-essay-preborn-child-constitutional-person/

VIDEO: Dr. Anthony Levatino, former abortion doctor, explains that abortion is never medically necessary to save a woman’s life during pregnancy – https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=ysl1tRnk-ig [Let me illustrate with a real-life case that I managed while at the Albany Medical Center. A patient arrived one night at 28 weeks gestation with severe pre-eclampsia or toxemia. Her blood pressure on admission was 220/160. A normal blood pressure is approximately 120/80. This patient’s pregnancy was a threat to her life and the life of her unborn child. She could very well be minutes or hours away from a major stroke. This case was managed successfully by rapidly stabilizing the patient’s blood pressure and “terminating” her pregnancy by Cesarean section. She and her baby did well. This is a typical case in the world of high-risk obstetrics. In most such cases, any attempt to perform an abortion “to save the mother’s life” would entail undue and dangerous delay in providing appropriate, truly life-saving care. During my time at Albany Medical Center I managed hundreds of such cases by “terminating” pregnancies to save mother’s lives. In all those cases, the number of unborn children that I had to deliberately kill was zero.]

CHART: State-by-State Later Term Abortion Policies – https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/later-term-abortions/?currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=state-prohibits-some-abortions-after-a-certain-point-in-pregnancy–threshold-for-later-term-abortions–later-term-abortion-permitted-when-pregnancy-threatens-womans&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

State Facts About Abortion: North Carolina (Fact Sheet, May 2018), Guttmacher Institute – https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-north-Carolina

Brandon Moseley, “Federal Court Strikes Down an Alabama Abortion Law,” Alabama Reporter, August 23, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.alreporter.com/2018/08/23/federal-court-strikes-down-an-alabama-abortion-law/

GHI Breborowicz,” Early Pregnancy: Limits of Fetal Viability and Its Enhancement,” NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information), January 5, 2011; pp. 49-50. Referenced at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511 [“Viability” of a fetus, or “fetal viability,” means that the fetus has reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. Consequently, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability. Viability is not an intrinsic property of the fetus because viability should be understood in terms of both biological and technological factors. It is only in virtue of both factors that a viable fetus can exist ex utero and thus later achieve independent moral status. Moreover, these two factors do not exist as a function of the autonomy of the pregnant woman. When a fetus is viable, that is, when it is of sufficient maturity so that it can survive into the neonatal period and later achieve independent human status given the availability of the requisite technological support, and when it is presented to the physician, the fetus is a patient. In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age (Chervenak, L.B. McCullough; Textbook of Perinatal Medicine, 1998)].

“Can a Fetus Feel Pain?,” NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information), April 15, 2006; 332 (7546): 909–912. Referenced at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

“How Your Fetus Grows During Pregnancy,” American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG), (April 2018). Referenced at: https://www.acog.org/Patients/FAQs/How-Your-Fetus-Grows-During-Pregnancy?IsMobileSet=false

Traci DeVette Griggs, “New York’s War on Children Hits a New Low on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade,” Family Policy Facts (NC Family Policy Council), January 23, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.ncfamily.org/new-yorks-war-on-children-hits-a-new-low-on-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/

Roe v. Wade, Texas Bar – https://www.texasbar.com/civics/High%20School%20cases/roe-v-wade.html

Roe v. Wade (1973), as explained by Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel for Americans United for Life (AUL) and Melissa Murray, Berkeley Law School professor. [Clarke Forsythe is also the author of the book Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe V. Wade, and Ms. Melissa Murray in addition to being a law school professor, also as the Faculty Director for the Center for Reproductive Rights and Justice]. Referenced at: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/civil-liberties-and-civil-rights/amendments-due-process-and-the-right-to-privacy/v/roe-v-wade [See Appendix below for a transcript of this video]
APPENDIX: (Transcript of the Khan Academy Video, as modified a bit by Diane Rufino)

Question: “Mr. Forsythe, could you set the stage for us a little bit. What was going on during this time period?”

Mr. Clarke: “Well, there were efforts in the 1960s to repeal abortion laws in the individual states and when abortion activists were dissatisfied with those efforts, they decided to go into the courts. And around 1969, they took some cases into the courts and ultimately, there were 20 or more cases challenging state laws in the courts between 1969 and 1973. Roe vs. Wade was the case from Texas.”

Ms. Murray: “Roe was litigated in the early 1970s. It was a period of enormous change in the United States. We were beginning to see beginnings of the women’s rights movements, the beginning of the gay rights movement, and of course, the civil rights movement of the 1960s was moving in a lot of different directions. At the time, the question of abortion was very much on the minds of lots of different state legislatures because there had been moves to liberalize much of the criminal law that dealt with matters of sex and sexuality, including abortion. At the time, four states, New York, Alaska, Hawaii, and I believe Washington, had actually taken steps to repeal their laws criminalizing abortion. And about 13 other states had taken efforts to liberalize their laws criminalizing abortions, but in number of other states, around, at least 20 or more, there remained on the books, laws that absolutely criminalized abortion, except in situations where it would be necessary to preserve the woman’s health or life, or in cases of rape, incest, or fetal anomaly.”

Mr. Clarke: “Abortion rights attorneys sought plaintiffs who could challenge the Texas law and the Georgia law [ie, They were looking for a “test case”]. There were two attorneys from Texas who found Norma McCorvey, who they gave the pseudonym of Jane Roe, for purposes of protecting her privacy.”

Ms. Murray: “And so Norma McCorvey brought this case. She was an unmarried 22 year old woman living in Dallas County, Texas, who found herself pregnant for the third time. She gave birth to her first child, a daughter, and ultimately signed over custody to her mother to raise her since her life wasn’t very stable (she was moving around a lot). She gave her second child up for adoption. When she found herself pregnant for a third time, she wasn’t willing to do either of these things again and so she simply wanted to safely and legally terminate her pregnancy. But this was impossible under the Texas law. Texas had, since the 19th century criminalized abortion in all cases except those instances where it was necessary for the health and safety of the mother. And so she then was faced with the question of what was she going to do. And the only thing she could think to do then (that is, what her lawyers thought, and sought, to do), was to challenge the law as being unconstitutional. So she was put in contact with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, two young women who had recently graduated from law school. Sarah Weddington was only 26 years old at the time she helped Norma McCorvey bring this case. They sued the State of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of Texas’ criminal abortion ban.”

Mr. Clarke: “But as the history shows, there was no trial, there was no evidence, there were no expert witnesses. Jane Roe never testified. As we all know, she never got an abortion. She gave birth and placed her child for adoption.” [In the years after the decision, Norma had a complete change of heart and became a strong opponent of abortion].

Question: “Okay, so Roe was Norma McCorvey. Who was Wade?”

Mr. Clarke: “Henry Wade was the District Attorney for Dallas, Texas, where the case was filed in Federal District Court.”

Questions: “So the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. How did the Court rule?”

Mr. Clarke: “The Justices declared the Texas and Georgia laws unconstitutional and then rewrote a national law, a national abortion law, in which they said that the states could not regulate or limit abortion in the first trimester. They could regulate more in the second trimester, the second three months of pregnancy, to protect maternal health and they could regulate in the last three months of pregnancy, the last trimester, to protect maternal health or fetal life. The attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed that abortion fell within the right to privacy, even though privacy is not in the text of the Constitution, they said it was derived, or based in the language of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution even though the 14th Amendment doesn’t say anything about abortion, or the unborn child; the 14th Amendment just uses the term liberty. Ultimately the Court said that the right to abortion is part of the right to privacy based on the 14th Amendment.”

Question: “That’s very interesting. I’ve learned through many of these interviews, that this right to privacy is something that is never actually explicitly stated throughout the Bill of Rights, but there’s a penumbra of privacy that you see in a few ways. What was the Court’s reasoning that the right to an abortion could fall under this zone of privacy?”

Mr. Clarke: “If you read the Roe opinion – specifically, on page 152 of the opinion – Justice Blackmun starts out by citing a string of prior Supreme Court cases, beginning about 1910, which elude to a right of privacy which undergirds other rights in the Bill of Rights. Blackmun argued that these cases lead to a general right of privacy, and that this right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s right to an abortion. But then four pages later, on page 156, Blackmun turns around and says that abortion is inherently different from all those other cases that make up the right of privacy (including the right to use contraception and contraceptive devices to control fertility and reproduction, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) because it involves the taking of a life.”

Ms. Murray: “The right of privacy doesn’t actually come from Roe vs. Wade. It comes from a case decided about eight years earlier, in 1965, called Griswold vs. Connecticut. The issue in the Griswold case was whether a Connecticut state statute that made it a crime to use contraception or even to counsel patients about contraception violated the Constitution. Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut opened up a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. They were promptly arrested and the clinic was closed. They challenged the statute, arguing that the right to use contraception was a fundamental individual right. Furthermore, they argued that since individuals have the right to use contraception, doctors also have the right to advise patients about such. Patients are entitled to be informed about their medical choices. The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice William Douglas, agreed with the clinic. In the Griswold case, the Court articulated for the first time this right of privacy. The opinion explained that while the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First (the right to conscience created by the right to worship freely), the Third (the right to be free in one’s home from the quartering of troops), the Fourth (the right to be safe and secure in one’s own person, one’s home, and with one’s effects from unreasonable government searches and seizures), and the Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy which encompasses marital relations. Douglas, writing for the majority, indicated that this right had actually ‘been percolating in the Court’s decisions for some time.’”

Question: “Did any of the Justices dissent in the Roe decision and if so, why?”

Mr. Clarke: “Well there were two dissents, one by Justice White and the other by Justice Rehnquist. Justice White said that the Court was engaging in raw judicial power (ie, judicial activism) and that the Justices did not have the right or the authority, on account of the 10th Amendment, to strike down the abortion laws of the individual states: it could only rely on a doctrine called ‘substantive due process.’ The justices were addressing the assertion that a woman’s right to an abortion is a fundamental right and hence, under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, it cannot be violated or burdened. The Due Process Clause says that no person can be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” However, there are clear limits as to which individual “liberty” rights are imposed on a state (that is, those which it is obligated to respect and refrain from regulating). In in 1934, the Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” In other words, as explained further by the Court, the right must have been recognized as a liberty right (essential to our sense of ordered liberty) at the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment to be recognized by its Due Process Clause. Justice Rehnquist said that there is clear historical evidence that many states passed abortion limits and prohibitions precisely at the time of the framing of the 14th Amendment in the 1860s and leading up to 1868, which is when the Amendment was added to the Constitution. In other words, this history was evidentiary history. As such, this history of state limits and prohibitions on abortion actually served to contradict the petitioner’s (the birth control clinic’s) assertion that the 14th Amendment was intended to include a right to abortion.”

Question: “It appears that Roe is not the last word on abortion in the United States. There have been several later cases that were important to this as well, like Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, or Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt. Can you talk a little bit about how those cases have altered the scope of the right to abortion?

Ms. Murray: “As soon as Roe was decided in 1973, there was an effort to sort of roll it back and hem it in a little bit. Frank Church, who’s a Senator from Idaho, announced ‘The Church Amendment,’ which basically says that physicians don’t have to perform abortions if doing so would conflict with their conscience or conscientious beliefs. So we see one way to limit the reach of this right – by limiting the number of providers who are available to offer abortions.”

Mr. Clarke: “In fact, the Court has kind of cut back on Roe vs. Wade in four cases over the years. But then in 2016, it appeared to return to its original position that the state nor federal government would tolerate any impermissible burden to a woman’s right to an abortion:
Harris vs. McRae [A 1980 case in which the Court acknowledged that federal funding could be limited for abortions. The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program (established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act) were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions. Title XIX of the Social Security Act was enacted to provide federal financial assistance to states that chose to reimburse certain costs of medical treatment for needy persons. Beginning in 1976, Congress passed a number of versions of what was known as the “Hyde Amendment” which severely limited the use of federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under the Medicaid program. Cora McRae, a pregnant Medicaid recipient, challenged the Hyde Amendment, filing suit against Patricia R. Harris, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Supreme Court found that a woman’s freedom of choice did not carry with it “a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices”].
Planned Parenthood vs. Casey [A 1992 case in which the Supreme Court upheld various restrictions to an immediate abortion (an “abortion on demand”). The Pennsylvania state legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989, to required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court again re-affirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the Court imposed an articulable standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion, which is defined as a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement]. Other similar cases involving restrictions on immediate access to an abortion reached the same conclusion.
Whole Woman’s Health versus Hellerstedt [In 2016, the Supreme Court flipped. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of a Texas law that put limits on physicians performing abortions and on the abortion facilities themselves. A group of abortion providers sued the state. In a 5-3 opinion authored by Justice Stephen Breyer (remember, Justice Scalia had passed in February or 2016 and so it was only an 8-member Court at the time) the Supreme Court noted that the provisions that were challenged did not actually offer the medical benefits that they claimed to offer. Hence, as a matter of constitutionality, they were insufficient to justify the burdens on access that each of those provisions imposed.

Question: “What do you see as the future of Roe vs. Wade?”

Mr. Clarke: “Well, the Supreme Court has failed as the national abortion control board. It cannot monitor abortion. It can’t intervene, it can’t regulate or legislate itself, it can’t act as public health administrators, and it can’t investigate. And so I believe it’s absolutely certain that the Court, sooner or later, will have to overturn the Roe decision because of this failure and return the matter to the states.”

Ms. Murray: “Remember, when they were talking about repealing or reforming those abortion laws we referred to earlier, from the 1960s and 70s, it was connected in a big way to the growing women’s rights social movement. Perhaps the most critical question of that movement asked ‘What will be the role of women going forth in a modern society.’ When the question of contraception came before the Court in 1965, one of the questions was whether women should be allowed to control her reproduction and to choose when to have children…. Should she be allowed to control the timing of births in order to accommodate her career. It’s the same issue that came up in the abortion debate. If women were to have equal opportunities in the workforce, they would need to determine when they would become mothers and to determine the timing of their children. They would also need the flexibility to determine if they even wanted a child in the first place.”

Question: “So we’ve learned that the decision to legalize abortion in Roe vs. Wade was based on the right of privacy, which the Supreme Court has inferred from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Since the Roe decision, a number of other cases have set limits on abortion and abortion clinics. Clarke Forsythe argues that the Supreme Court has failed in regulating abortion and that the issue should be returned to the states. Melissa Murray, by contrast, suggests that the decision in Roe is crucial to giving women the freedom to join the workforce and make decisions about when to have children.

To learn more about his case, visit the National Constitution Center’s Interactive Constitution and Khan Academy’s resources on US Government and Politics.

This Thing We Call “Sovereignty”

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE - early draft

by Diane Rufino, February 20, 2019

On September 3, 1783, representatives from the American states, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay, and a representative of King George III signed the Treaty of Paris to officially end the American Revolutionary War against Great Britain. The first Article of that Treaty acknowledged:

“His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free SOVEREIGN and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof.”

In the Declaration of Independence, the document that  preceded the Treaty, the document which “proclaimed to a candid world” that the States were separating themselves from the political bonds with Great Britain (seceding from the British Empire) and declaring themselves independent, our Founders articulated the government theory that justified their act of secession and their independence. It was premised on the doctrine of INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY. This doctrine was articled by these words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness……… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security….”

In other words, the individual was born to be free and meant to live free. He has rights so foundational, so fundamental, so integral to his humanity, that they can never ever be taken away from him, or violated or burdened by government. In fact, as the Declaration says, governments are instituted for the primary purpose of securing the rights of the individual (while also establishing a peaceful ordered society for individuals to so enjoy their freedom). The people would always be greater than government.  Governments would always be subordinate to the will of the people. The rights of the individual would always be the priority in the American States. Governments would always be considered “temporary,” to exist at the will of the people and only to the extent that it protects their rights, keeps them safe, and extends their happiness. Government would never have any right or power to pursue or secure its own permanent existence. (Too bad Abraham Lincoln didn’t understand this founding principle; over 650.,000 lives could have been spared)

The first constitution of the “united States,” establishing the first union, was the Articles of Confederation. Article II of that document declared that “Each state retains its SOVEREIGHTY, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”  This provision would be the historical precursor to our Tenth Amendment.

The Tenth Amendment essentially states the very same thing; it just doesn’t include the phrase “each state retains its sovereignty.” But that fact is certainly implied.  Government powers reside with a sovereign state or entity.

This union, as we all know, was dissolved when each state convened a state convention to consider the ratification of the US Constitution of 1787 and therefore to form “a more perfect union.”  In other words, each state, as the Declaration described for the course of action with respect to Great Britain, “dissolved the political bonds” holding it together with other states.  Several states had issues with the new Constitution, skeptical of the new government so formed and the powers it was delegated, and so their ratifications were “conditioned” on several things: on amendments, on a Bill of Rights, and even on the fidelity of the government (its ability to remain limited). Four states that stand out in particular are New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. The first to ratify conditionally was Massachusetts. The state wanted a Bill of Rights to be included (it reserved the right to consider its ratification null and void should one not have been added). The first three states, however, took their conditioned stance more forcefully; they included “Resumption Clauses” in their ratification documents.  That is, they reserved the right, as SOVEREIGN states, to resume all the powers they had delegated in the Constitution.

Virginia included this provision in its ratification:  “Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”

New York included this provision:  ““That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same……”

And Rhode Island included this provision:  “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same……..”

Why did these states reserve the right to resume the (limited) government powers that were delegated by the Constitution to the new common government?  Because they were SOVEREIGNS with inherent rights to rule.

So what does this word “Sovereign” mean?  What is “Sovereignty”?  Many people don’t exactly know what the these terms mean and their significance.

Sovereignty is inextricably linked to the supreme right to govern and the supreme power to govern.

Government in the United States requires the understanding of three terms: Self-government, sovereignty, and social compact.

Sovereignty is the power to rule; to make laws and to govern; a sovereign is a country, government, or entity that has supreme power or authority.  The individual is a sovereign. It is a self-evident truth that individuals are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  “Unalienable” or “inalienable” means “incapable of being taken away.” Just as individuals, as sovereigns, have certain inalienable rights, other sovereigns (such as countries, governments, entities) have rights that can never be divested or taken away. That is what New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island articulated and re-asserted in their Resumption Clauses.

Individual Sovereignty is the inherent and independent right to do all that is necessary to govern oneself. In the United States, the People are sovereign. In fact, only the individual is truly sovereign, because only the people, and not government, have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, along with the right to protect and preserve it.

Governments govern people, and without people, there would be no need for government. In other words, the sovereign individual precedes government. Government has to get its powers (its authority to make law and to enforce laws) from somewhere and it’s the people who assign it those powers. They delegate the rights they themselves originally were vested with to govern themselves and their property to the government; dominion (jurisdiction) and power originate from the individual.

In the United States, we enjoy self-government, or at least, we used to. Increasingly government has taken it upon itself (at the federal, state, and local level) to tell us what we can and can’t do. When our country was founded, the people were trusted with self-government; they were, for the most part, moral and upstanding people who valued family and decency. They worked, provided for themselves, raised their families right, and therefore required minimal laws to constrain their conduct. But we all know what happened to the fabric of society and the character of too many people in our country; and so, more and more laws were required.

But let’s get back to government and the government philosophy on which our country was founded.   Government power originates from the people, for the people – “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The Declaration of Independence tells us this.  Government arises out of social compact. John Locke tells us this, and being that our Declaration was written with Locke’s philosophy in mind, our Declaration also tells us this.  The federal government was established by the social compact known as the US Constitution. The federal government is its “creation” – an agent to serve the states. State governments are established by the compacts that are the state governments.

John Locke’s philosophy of government is based on nature and natural law (Natural Law is referenced in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence).  Each person is an individual, of course. God created each of us with rights in our personhood; he didn’t create us with “collective rights.” Those would be “civil rights.” Long ago, human beings migrated around, to find land to farm, to provide food for themselves, to herd their animals, to provide shelter, to be near a ready food source, etc. They existed, pretty much, as individuals. But then as they populated, more and more individuals came to occupy the same area.  And that was OK because man is a social creature.

Because man is a social creature, he forms together into communities. And in order that communities run smoothly and common services be provided to protect everyone’s rights and property, governments are instituted. And so, individuals delegate some of their sovereign power of self-defense and self-preservation to a government. That is why the bulk of government is always supposed to be closest to the individual, where it is most responsible and most accountable. Our rights and liberties are most protected when people have the frequent opportunity to see their elected officials and look them in the eye, and when those officials see a personal story behind acts of legislation, etc.

This is exactly what our Declaration of Independence tells us about our individual sovereignty. In the first paragraph, we are told that our sovereignty is based on Natural Law and God’s Law – “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” The only rightful power our government has is the power that the People – by the consent of the governed and according to the precise language and intent of our Constitution – have temporarily delegated to it. In that grant of power, in a system based on the Sovereignty of the Individual, there is always a mechanism to take that power back. That is why the Declaration explicitly states that the People have the right to “alter or abolish” their government (when it becomes destructive of its aims). In fact, that right is so important and so fundamental, it is listed with the other inherent rights that individuals possess. In other words, what the Declaration is saying is that the People of the “united States” have the right to reclaim the sovereign power that they temporarily delegated to that government to govern and protect their liberties.

Again, this is because our system was premised on the Sovereignty of the Individual.

When government exceeds its powers, it takes powers away from other sovereigns that hold those powers – which are the States and the People (recognized or re-stated in the Tenth and Ninth Amendments, respectively).  Abuse of power is necessarily a usurpation of the rights of others. When government exceeds its powers, we are told that our only right is at the ballot box. This would indicate that the people are no longer recognized as sovereigns.  When government exceeds its powers, states have been told they must comply or they are coerced into complying. This would indicate that states are no longer viewed as sovereigns. But nothing has changed constitutionally to warrant this change in outlook or in government philosophy. The Declaration tells us, and sovereignty dictates, that individuals always have the right to resume their inherent rights and powers to govern. This, in plain terms, means that individuals always have the inherent right to secede (or abolish their bonds with government, including abolishing government completely) or to refuse to comply with an illegitimate, immoral, or arbitrary law (as Rosa Parks did). Similarly, states have the inherent right to resume their powers to govern within their borders and over their jurisdiction.  That resumption can take several forms, including secession (permanent, perhaps even violent), or nullification (peaceful; exercising the right not to recognize or enforce actions of the federal government that are in abuse of its powers).

Nullification and Secession are two rightful and reserved remedies reserved to the parties under compact theory.

If individuals or states no longer have a mechanism to take it back, then they are no longer sovereigns. If the government tells We the People that we don’t have the right, or the power, to “alter or abolish” our government for abuse or tyranny, then we have already lost our freedom and our system of government is no longer based on the sovereignty of the individual. If the States are told that they no longer have a recognized right of secession, then they are nothing more than geographical boundaries in one consolidated land, under the dominion and subjugation of the federal government.

Without the sovereignty that our country was founded on, the unique character of our government system – the premise that our rights come from God and that government is obligated to secure them, and that because we are such sovereigns, we can “alter and abolish” our government – becomes now merely a myth; it’s folklore…. “There once was a time……”  The fact is that government has taken over; IT has become the supreme sovereign. It has become so powerful that it has extinguished the sovereignty of the People and the States, or at least has whittled the reserved powers of the State down to nothing (token sovereignty).  We, in the United States, now enjoy our rights only to the extent that government allows us to. That’s the reality. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently threatened that Democrats will one day soon use the Emergency Powers Act to confiscate guns. And Senator Elizabeth Warren wants a near confiscatory income tax on the very wealthy. What the US Congress can’t, or won’t do, the federal courts will…  and they do.

If sovereignty is stripped and if rights and powers are permitted only to the extent that government allows, how are we any different from any other country where government is supreme over the individual?

In 1868, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no right to secession. (Texas v. White). It concluded that when the Constitution was signed, a permanent, perpetual Union was created. (However, Justice Salmon Chase did acknowledge that secession might be permitted if ALL states decided together to dissolve the Constitution and the Union or if the people revolted… In other words, only if people are willing to lay down their lives might they be permitted to wrestle sovereign power from the government). In a letter he wrote in 2006, Justice Scalia also opined that there is no right of secession. And in 1958, the Supreme Court ruled that States have no right to try to remind the federal government of its constitutional limits and to prevent its encroachments upon the rights of the people through nullification efforts (Cooper v. Aaron).

So, next time you hear people profess the opinion that the Supreme Court has given the final word on efforts to reclaim sovereign power, ask yourself: “Does it have the authority to permanently deny sovereignty?”  It does not.  It doesn’t even have the authority to temporarily deny it.  Sovereignty was not surrendered permanently in the creation of the US Constitution.

Nullification is an essential first step in reclaiming power that the federal government has unilaterally and inappropriately usurped from the states and from We the People. No one wants to exercise the right of secession. I’d like to think we would all prefer to remain in a harmonious relationship with our fellow states, if that can be possible.

 

- 0000000

Does President Trump Have Authority to Secure Our Southern Border?

trump - with wall behind him (jan. 2019)

by Diane Rufino (also referencing an article by Publius Huldah), January 15, 2019

QUESTION:  Can President Trump seal off our southern border?

There are three theories, perhaps even four, upon which President Trump can close our southern border, including providing a permanent, physical barrier:

(1)  IMMIGRATION AUTHORITY.  The President can suspend entry of individuals from Mexico and countries of Central and South America, per an express provision of the US Immigration & Nationality Act, and per the opinion of the Supreme Court in the recent case of the so-called “Muslim ban.”  Since the restraints in place at the order are currently ineffective to prevent the uncontrolled illegal entry into our country, a physical barrier would be necessary (under the “Necessary & Proper Clause”)

If Trump takes this option, he neither needs to get Congressional approval nor approval of (or review from) the courts. Neither can stop him because they have already given him that authority and recognized that he was given that authority. Congress did so in federal law (Title 8, Chapter 12 of the US Code – “Immigration & Nationality Act”) and the Supreme Court re-affirmed (in Trump v. Hawaii, June 2018).

Title 8, Chapter 12 of the U.S. Code, which governs “inadmissible aliens,” reads:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Notice some key language in that statutory provision:  “for any such period as he shall deem necessary”  and “impose on the entry of aliens ANY restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Again, every power that Congress is delegated (Article I, Section), including the power it willingly delegated to the President on this particular immigration issue, is subject to the “Necessary & Proper” Clause which the Supreme Court interpreted as “pretty much any means necessary which the government believes will help carry out the particular responsibility.”

The president has the authority to close the borders. And no lower court can stop him with an injunction…..  if he chooses to go this route.

(2)  DUTY TO REPEL INVASION. Congress can seal off the border pursuant to the authority granted to it to call up the militia (“to repel invasions”; Article I, Section 8) and pursuant to the DUTY delegated to the federal government in general to repel invasion (Article V, Section 4).  Additionally, Article II, Section 3 requires the President, as the Chief Executive of government power, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Article I, Section 8 authorize s Congress to call up of the Militia for three (3) purposes: To execute the Laws of the Union; To suppress Insurrections: and To repel Invasions.

Article IV, Section 4 reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

Article IV talks about a GUARANTEE.  It delegates an absolute responsibility on the federal government to provide certain protections for the States – to guarantee each State a republican form of government and to protect each against invasion. States are entitled to EXPECT this absolute guarantee. So, if Congress refuses to do its part, then the responsibility shifts to the President. In the end, the federal government MUST – absolutely MUST – protect all states against an invasion.

Indeed, there is an invasion of illegal aliens into our country, imposing severe burdens on our resources (including education, health services, social services, our tax dollars, and our law enforcement system. Taxpayers are entitled to the expectation that the money siphoned off their hard work and property will go only to those who are legal citizens in this country. More seriously, there is an invasion of illegal criminals, gangs, drug cartels and drug traffickers, and human traffickers. Prisons house disproportionate numbers of Hispanic criminals.

There are 48 US-Mexico border crossings – LEGAL crossings. But thousands upon thousands each year evade these legal points of entry to come to this country illegally, hoping to take advantage of our government’s refusal to enforce our country’s immigration laws and to take advantage of every benefit that America offers. (Note though that is the US were to go to war and impose a draft, illegals would not be called). There are approximately 414,000 illegals apprehended each year by a severely-limited and constrained task force of border agents. Imagine how many make it across the border and are not able to be apprehended. The numbers are staggering. And in the past several months, the rate of illegal crossings has increased 37%.  New American (online journal) estimates that 14,000 of these are violent criminals.

Most aliens that come to the United States illegally do so for a better life, for a chance to make more money. But the open border and uncontrolled illegal immigration brings other problems into our country. The United States is one of the key destination countries, if not the key destination country, for thousands of men, women, and children trafficked from all areas of the world. These victims are trafficked for the purposes of sexual and labor exploitation. Many of these victims are lured from their homes with false promises of well-paying jobs; instead, they are forced or coerced into prostitution, domestic servitude, farm or factory labor, or other types of forced labor. Between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked into our country each year, certainly prompting a humanitarian crisis.

And then there is the increase in drug smuggling across the border. Seizures of hard drugs like heroin, methamphetamine (meth), cocaine, and fentanyl spiked to the highest levels in years. The numbers reflect the trend of cartels turning to more potent drugs in pursuit of profits, as many of the individual states have decriminalized the use of marijuana, both for medicinal and recreational purposes. In the past two years, enough fentanyl (a synthetic opioid which is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine, and can be fatal the first time a person takes it) came into our country from across the southern border to kill every person in the United States. Two Hispanic men were arrested last year in NJ with enough fentanyl to kill the entire population of New Jersey and New York City (with intent to distribute). In NJ alone, in 2016, there were over 800 overdoses from fentanyl, and fentanyl was found in 2% of heroin that was tested in the state. Users are unaware of this. Just recently, in Nebraska, two Hispanic men were arrested for possession of enough fentanyl to kill about 28 million people (with intent to distribute and sell).

Finally, there is a significant increase in MS-13 gang membership and activity. MS-13 is a notoriously brutal gang based in El Salvador. In 2005, the Bush administration waged war on the deadly gang (similar to what President Trump is doing), and gang activity was stifled, but under the Obama administration, especially from 2012-2016, the gang has been able to rebuild itself. This resurgence represents a very serious threat to public safety in communities where MS-13 has rebuilt itself. The resurgence is directly connected to the illegal arrival and resettlement of more than 300,000 Central American youths and families that came here, undeterred, during the Obama years. All criminal gangs are a threat to public safety, but MS-13 is a unique problem because of the unusually brutal crimes its members have committed, its success in using intimidation to victimize and control people in its territory, and its focus on recruiting young members, often in schools. Technically, because most of the gang members are illegal, they could be targeted and removed from the communities they terrorize by law enforcement and ICE. However, because of sanctuary policies, and the proliferation of sanctuary states, cities, and communities, these gang members are protected from apprehension.

Taken together, it sure sounds like our country is being invaded. And that being so, every state is entitled to protection against it by the federal government. The simplest way to protect the states is simply to enforce our immigration laws and to seal and secure the border with a physical barrier. Make no mistake, we are suffering an invasion of individuals who are first seeking to evade our laws (the cornerstone of our society), and secondly, to do us harm (whether intentional or not, and whether violent or simply by overloading our resources, inciting protests and instability, or presenting a political crisis).

(3)  DECLARE A NATIONAL EMERGENCY (pursuant to the National Emergencies Act).  The goal of this approach is to get border wall funding thru the National Emergencies Act, by diverting money allocated to the military to use to build the wall.  The reason this option is an attractive option to President Trump is because once he declares a “national emergency,” a decision that is entirely within his discretion (and which many presidents before him did, for much more urgent matters), he is able to set aside many of the legal limits on his authority. He would become vested with certain “emergency powers,” such as by instantly becoming Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined executive powers. President FDR used national emergency powers to intern Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Bush used them to pursue warrantless wiretapping related to the war on terror, and President Obama on account of the Swine Flu outbreak in 2009.  (Actually, Obama claimed a state of emergency, thus invoking the Act, a total of 12 times].

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 authorizes presidents to issue an emergency declaration, but under certain constraints; he can only use powers Congress has already codified by law and he has to say which powers he’s using. The 1976 law was actually passed to rein in presidential abuse with relation to national emergencies. Past presidents such as FDR, Truman, and Nixon abused the power [In the 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of President Truman’s seizure and control of most of the country’s steel mills, in anticipation of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America. The Court ruled that Truman had over-stepped his authority].

The first thing President Trump would need to do is issue an emergency proclamation, explaining the nature of the emergency. Then he would need to identify which powers he intends to use. If Trump were to try to get border wall funding through the National Emergencies Act, the question then becomes which existing laws he could use to get the money. The Brennan Center for Justice believes there are at least 130 laws that contain special powers Trump could access (other legal experts say there are as much as 136 laws). Apparently, the law Trump is particularly interested in is one that allows him to reallocate military spending on construction projects for the wall. One law allows the defense secretary, after a national emergency declaration, to direct the army’s civil works program to construct a structure needed for national defense and use the military budget to do it. Another lets the secretary direct other military services for construction projects. For example, money could come out of the budget for building housing on military bases for service members and into the budget for the wall.

The White House has also reportedly directed the Army Corps of Engineers to take a look at its budget for potential funds to divert to the wall, including $13.9 billion from a disaster spending bill passed by Congress last year designed for relief projects in California, Florida, Texas, and Puerto Rico.

Alternatively, Trump could declare a “state of immigration emergency,” which unlocks an immigration emergency fund, which is generally supposed to be used to help states feed and house migrants and process their claims. The problem with this choice is that the immigration emergency fund doesn’t have nearly enough money to meet the amount requested – $5.7 billion.

Note, though, that the National Emergencies Act contains a mechanism for Congress to overrule the president by passing a joint resolution (both House and Senate). With Democrats in control of the House, it would presumably pass there easily, but most likely it would not pass the Senate, where Republicans recently increased their majority.

(4)  THE PRESIDENT’S DUTY TO ENSURE THE LAWS ARE ENFORCED.  Again, as mentioned above, Article II, Section 3 requires the President, as the Chief Executive of government power, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. If Congress won’t provide the necessary funding (less than 1% of the total US budget, and a fraction of what Congress spends on “pork” projects), than President Trump may have to accept funding from other sources, including donations.

Those are my thoughts anyway.

The real authority, however, is my good friend, renown Constitutional attorney and activist, Publius Huldah. In her latest article , “Yes! Trump Has the Constitutional Authority to Secure Our Southern Border,” she goes into detail as to why President Trump has the authority to secure our southern border.  Please take a read:

 

YES!! TRUMP HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO SECURE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER, by Publius Huldah

Instead of reading our Constitution and seeing what it says, Americans get their legal advice from what “everybody says.”

Now, they are hearing about “emergency powers”, and are in a tail spin. Did Congress’ “Emergency Powers Act” delegate to the President the power to call whatever he wants an “emergency” and then do what he deems best?

Our focus shouldn’t be on what can be called an “emergency,” but what does our Constitution authorize the federal government to do (if anything) with respect to the hot topic of the day?

Let’s look at Migration (immigration) in the context of the hordes of aliens storming thru our Southern Border. What does our Constitution say about it?

Art. I, § 9, clause 1, delegates power over Migration (immigration) to Congress. So Congress is to make the immigration laws; and the President, as Chief Executive, is to put Congress’ laws into effect.

Art. IV, § 4 REQUIRES the United States to protect each of the States against Invasion.

Art. I, § 8, clauses 15 and 16, authorize the calling up of the Militia for three (3) purposes: to execute the Laws of the Union; to suppress Insurrections; and repel Invasions.

Art. II, § 3 authorizes the President to recommend to Congress such measures as he deems necessary and expedient; to convene Congress on extraordinary occasions; and requires him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed (that includes the immigration laws.)

Art. II, § 2, provides that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. He is Commander-in-Chief of the Militia when it is called into active service of the United States. As noted above, the Militia may be called into active service to “repel invasions”.

So those are the Constitutional Provisions which apply to the invasion of our Southern Border.

America is finished if we don’t control our Southern Border. Congress and the President have clear constitutional authority – actually, they have the DUTY – to control our Southern Border.

The best way the control the Southern Border is to build a wall. [I know from personal observation during the Cold War that the wall the Soviets built between East and West Germany prevented people in the East from escaping to the West.]

What if Congress refuses to fund the wall? Must the President tell the American People, “Well, I tried. But my hands are tied. You better get ready for civil war.”

No! Art. IV, § 4 imposes on the United States the Duty to protect each of the States against invasion. If Congress won’t do it, the President must. He is Chief Executive of the United States. For him to refuse to act for the reason that Congress won’t fund the wall would be as contemptible as the Husband and Father who refuses to get armed to protect his Family because the government says he can’t be armed.

So, the President may solicit donations from the American People for funds, labor, and construction materials, to build a wall.

About “calling up the Militia” to “repel invasions” —   Well, we no longer have the Militia provided for at Art. I, §8, clauses 15 and 16. During 1903, the American People and their federal and state legislators (who had all “mainlined” on Progressivism) went along with the federalizing of the Militia. This was done with the federal Dick Act of 1903 (Militia Act of 1903), which converted the Militia into the National Guard, which is an adjunct of the federal military.

If we still had the “Militia of the several States,” it would be obvious that the Militia must be – and could be – called into national service to repel the “invasion” coming through our Southern Border.

But since we no longer have the Militia, we must rely on the closest thing to a Militia we have left, which is the National Guard. Congress has passed laws which authorize the President to call the National Guard into national service. The Militia Act of 1903 established the creation of the National Guard of the United States as the primary organized reserve force for the U.S. armed forces, thus federalizing state militias. The National Defense Act of 1916 gave the President authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. And the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933 made the National Guard a component of the Army

The point is that the President probably has authority to call up the National Guard to protect our Southern Border and the construction workers while the Wall is being built.

But if push comes to shove, the President has the Clear Duty to protect our Southern Border and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Remember – the Questions are always: “What does the Constitution authorize” & “What Duties does the Constitution impose on the federal government?”

There is no substitute for reading the Constitution for yourself. Article by Article – and then seeing how the Articles all work together – hand in glove.

 

References:

Publius Huldah, “Yes! Trump Has the Authority to Secure Our Southern Border,” Publius Huldah blog, January 15, 2019.  Referenced at:  https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/yes-trump-has-constitutional-authority-to-secure-our-southern-border/

Cort Kirkwood, “Trump Can Close the Border, Former Federal Prosecutor Says,” New American, October 25, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/30446-trump-can-close-the-border-former-federal-prosecutor-says

Hilary Hurd, Yishai Schwartz, “Supreme Court Travel Ban Ruling Summary,” Lawfare, June 26, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.lawfareblog.com/supreme-court-travel-ban-ruling-summary

11 Facts About Human Trafficking, Do Something.  Referenced at:  https://www.dosomething.org/us/facts/11-facts-about-human-trafficking

Raphael Carranza, “Harder Drugs, Higher Profits: US-Mexico Border Sees a Shift in the Kinds of Drugs Seized,” azcentral, February 23, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2018/02/23/united-states-mexico-border-patrol-drugs-seized/353260002/

“Synthetic Opioid Overdose Data,” Center for Disease Control.  Referenced at: https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/fentanyl.html

Jessica M. Vaughan, “MS-13 Resurgence: Immigration Enforcement Needed to Take Back Our Streets,” Center for Immigration Studies, February 21, 2018. Referenced at:  https://cis.org/Report/MS13-Resurgence-Immigration-Enforcement-Needed-Take-Back-Our-Streets

Emily Stewart, “How Trump Could Use a National Emergency to Get His Border Wall, Explained,” VOX, January 11, 2019.  Referenced at:  https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18172749/trump-national-emergency-government-shutdown-wall

Elizabeth Goitein, “What the President Could Do If He Declares a State of Emergency,” The Atlantic, January-February issue.  Referenced at:  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/    [Elizabeth Goitein is a co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice]

A Bill of Rights is What All Free People Are Entitled to Against Every Government

bill of rights - with james madison

by Diane Rufino, January 3, 2019

Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference……”    –  Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

December 15 marks a very special day in our founding history – On that date in 1791, the first 14 states (Vermont had just been admitted to the Union as the 14th state), ratified the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution, known collectively as our Bill of Rights. We often take it for granted that these first ten amendments, our Bill of Rights, are included in our Constitution, but if we want to point to one reason the colonies went to war for their independence from Great Britain, it was to permanently secure the rights embodied in our Bill of Rights from all reaches of government. Without the Bill of Rights, the revolution would have been in vein.  Thomas Jefferson, probably the Founder who exerted the most pressure on James Madison for a Bill of Rights, advised: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”  He wrote this to Madison on December 20, 1787, almost three months after the Constitution had been signed by its drafters in Philadelphia.

On Bill of Rights Day, we reflect upon those rights guaranteed in the first nine amendments (the tenth being a restatement of federalism – the strict separation of power between the federal government and the States) but more importantly, we should come to appreciate the efforts of certain particularly liberty-minded Founders who fought against great odds to make sure that our Constitution in fact included a Bill of Rights. After all, James Madison, considered the Constitution’s author, and most of the other Federalists did not see the need for a Bill of Rights and thought the Constitution wholly sufficient without it. That was the status of the Constitution when it went to the states for ratification.

What is a “Bill of Rights”?  A bill of rights, sometimes called a Declaration of Rights or a Charter of Rights, is a list of the most important rights belonging to the citizens of a country – rights that the King or other form of government must respect. The purpose is to protect those rights against infringement either by law or by conduct from public officials. The US Bill of Rights is the Declaration and enumeration is the individual rights memorialized in the Constitution intended to protect the individual against violations and abuses of power by the government. In that respect, our Bill of Rights is like most other bill of rights (including the English Bill of Rights is 1689 and the great Magna Carta of 1215).  This history of England, including the movement of groups of people (like the Puritans and Pilgrims), to the New World, is a history continually seeking for the recognition and security of fundamental human liberties. And early colonial history continued that tradition of setting out the rights and privileges of the individual in their government charters.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains its clear purpose. It reads: “The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

In other words, the Bill of Rights is a further limitation on the power of government, above and beyond those limitations already imposed by its very design and delegation of limited powers.

HISTORY:

Again, a Bill of Rights (or Declaration of Rights, or Charter of Rights), is a list of the most important rights belonging to the citizens of a country that the King or other form of government must respect. Bills of rights may be “entrenched” or “unentrenched.”  A bill of rights that is “entrenched” cannot be amended or repealed by the governing legislature through regular procedure, but rather, it would require a supermajority or referendum. Bills of rights that are “entrenched” are often those which are part of a country’s constitution, and therefore subject to special procedures applicable to constitutional amendments. A bill of rights that is not entrenched (“unentrenched”) is merely statutory in form and as such can be modified or repealed by the legislature at will.

The history of the world shows that there have been limited instances where the rights of the people have been enumerated and/or protected by a Bill of Rights. This history includes the following charters, documents, or bills of right:

  • Magna Carta (1215; England) rights for barons
  • Great Charter of Ireland (1216; Ireland) rights for barons – Ireland became independent of Great Britain in 1937
  • Golden Bull of 1222 (1222; Hungary) rights for nobles – which interestingly, included the right of Nullification
  • Charter of Kortenberg (1312; Belgium) rights for all citizens “rich and poor”
  • Twelve Articles (1525; Germany) – considered the first draft of human rights and civil liberties in continental Europe after the Roman Empire.
  • Petition of Right (1628; England)
  • English Bill of Rights 1689
  • Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789; France) – inspired by Thomas Jefferson
  • The US Bill of Rights (1791)

The roots of our modern-day liberty originated in England, as far back as 1100, culminating there with the English Bill of Rights in 1689 and ultimately providing the blueprint for our very own US Bill of Rights in 1791. The roots of liberty, including the roots of our very own American liberty rights, can be found in the selection of charters and documents listed below:

  • The 1100 Charter of Liberties (also called the Coronation Charter) – The 1100 Charter of Liberties was a written proclamation offered by Henry I of England and issued upon his accession to the throne in 1100. It sought to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals – most notably, certain marriage rights, rights of inheritance, amnesty rights, rights for the criminally-accused, and environmental protection (forests). It is considered to be the precursor to the Magna Carta.

 

  • The Magna Carta of 1215 (“the Great Charter”) – The barons at the time, frustrated by ten years of excessive taxation by King John in order to finance a campaign to regain lands in France only to watch the King return home in defeat, consolidated their power and threatened to renounce him. Over the next eight months, they made repeated demands to the King, requesting that he give them a guarantee that he would observe their rights. But these negotiations amounted to nothing. And so, on May 5, 1215, the barons gathered and agreed to declare war on him. On May 17, the barons captured London, the largest town in England, without a fight, and finally, King John took notice. With London lost and ever more supporters flocking to the side of the barons, he sent word that he would meet with them to discuss terms of peace.. Over the next few days, the barons assembled in great numbers on the fields of Runnymede, a relatively obscure meadow that lies between the town of Staines and Windsor castle, where King John was based. Negotiations took place over the next several days and finally, on June 15, King John affixed his seal to the document that would become known as the Magna Carta (or “The Great Charter”). The Magna Carta enumerated an expansive list (63 “chapters”) of rights for barons, and also provided the remedy of Nullification.  The principles extended beyond the often-recognized origin of the “No Taxation Without Representation” doctrine in chapter 12 (and hence the creation of a “people’s body” which addressed matters of taxation and spending) and the Due Process clause of chapter 39. The concepts of “Trial by Jury” and “No Cruel Punishments” are present in chapter 21; and the forerunner of the “Confrontation Clause” of our 6th Amendment addressed in chapters 38, 40, and 44. But the most important contribution of the Magna Carta is the claim that there is a fundamental set of principles which even the King must respect. Above all else, Magna Carta makes the case that the people have a “right” to expect boundaries from the King in their lives and with respect to their property. They have a right to expect “reasonable” conduct.  [King John would go on to ignore the promises he made in signing the Magna Carta]

 

  • The Petition of Right of 1628 – In 1628, under the leadership of Sir Edward Coke, a legal scholar-turned-practical politician, Parliament petitioned Charles I, son of the recently deceased King James I, to uphold the traditional rights of Englishmen, as set forth in the Magna Carta. It was an appeal to his sense of being a just King. Charles was already on his way to being a notorious tyrant. Parliament was not only fed up with is participation in the Thirty Years War (a highly destructive European war) against its consent, but when it refused to provide Charles the revenue to fight the war, he dissolved the body (several times, actually). That would lead Charles to raise revenue other ways – by gathering “forced loans” and “ship money” without Parliamentary approval (hence, taxation without representation in violation of the Magna Carta) and arbitrarily imprisoning those who refused to pay. Among the customary “diverse rights and liberties of the subjects” listed in the Petition of Right were no taxation without consent (as mentioned), “due process of law,” the right to habeas corpus, no quartering of troops, the respect for private property, and the imposition of no cruel punishment. King Charles did not consider himself bound by the Petition and so, he simply disregarded it. He would later be officially tried for high treason by a rump Parliament and beheaded in 1649. [The Petition of Right would have a profound effect on our US Bill of Rights: The Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment, the “Criminal Trials” clause of the 6th Amendment, and the “Civil Jury Trial” clause of the 7th Amendment all are influenced by the Petition of Right.  Furthermore, during the 1760s, the American colonists articulated their grievances against King George in terms similar to those used by Lord Coke in the Petition of Right to uphold the rights of Englishmen].

 

  • The English Bill of Rights of 1689 – After the Bloodless Revolution or “Glorious Revolution” (in which the English Parliament instigated a bloodless coup, replacing King James II with his daughter, Mary II and her husband, William III), Parliament set to right the abuses of its previous kings – Charles I, Charles II, and James II. It drafted and adopted a bill of rights, known as the English Bill of Rights, as which set out certain basic civil rights and clarified the right of secession for the British Crown. It was presented to William and Mary in February 1689 as a condition to the offer to become joint ruling sovereigns of England.  It was contractual in nature so that the acceptance of the throne was tied to their express promise to recognize the rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. A violation of that agreement would terminate the right of William and Mary to rule. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament. It further, and most importantly for this discussion, sets out certain rights of the individual, including:  the right to bear arms for self-defense, the right of Due Process, the right to petition government, such criminal defense rights as the right to be free from excessive bail, the right to a jury trial for the crime of high treason, and the right against any cruel and/or unusual punishment, the guarantee that there would be no taxation without representation, the right to be free of a standing army in times of peace, and the right to be free of any quartering of troops.  [Great Britain is unlike the United States in that it has no formal Constitution; rather, the English Bill of Rights, taken together with the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 are considered, in total, as the uncodified British constitution].

 

  • The colonies being organized under grants and agreements from England, it was assumed that English traditions applied. The colonists considered themselves British subjects and as such, they believed they were entitled to all the rights and privileges of Englishmen. That is why they reacted as they did to the taxes imposed by Parliament, why one protest theme was “No Taxation Without Representation,” why the Sons of Liberty formed, why they harassed the colonial stamp collectors and stamp masters until they resigned, why they engaged in acts of civil disobedience (such as preventing the British from unloading their ships at colonial ports) or hanging colonial governors in effigy, why they tossed crates of tea into the Boston Harbor, why men like Patrick Henry called for the raising and training of colonial militias, and why they were willing to confront the Redcoats with their muskets when they sought to destroy the stockpiles of colonial ammunition. It seemed that once again, as English history has shown true, Englishmen would have to exert their rights and demand that the King to respect them. Proper boundaries would once again have to be established.

 

  • King John’s rejection of the Magna Carta (1215) and King Charles’s rejection of the Petition of Right (1628) proved to our Founding Fathers that the system established in Great Britain provided only arbitrary security for individual rights. They would need to come up with a different system of government, grounded on more “enlightened” principles and “enlightened” government philosophy. And that is exactly what they did in the Declaration of Independence – announcing that the American states were united on the concept of Individual Sovereignty, that government power originated from the People, to serve the People, and not from kings (“the Divine Right of Kings”) to serve kings.

With what many believe to be divine guidance and protection, the thirteen original colonies fought and won their independence from Great Britain in 1781. Lord Cornwallis surrendered his British troops to General George Washington, Commander of the Continental Army, on October 19, 1781 and the Treaty of Paris, signed in September 1783, marked the official end of the struggle. Since the colonies worked together in a collaborative effort to communicate grievances and concerns to King George and Parliament and to engage in a concerted effort to prevent war, but then once war came, to fight and manage the war effort, it seemed only natural to continue to collaborate in their independence. The first attempt at a loose union of states, under the Articles of Confederation, was not very successful. The government lacked the enforcement power needed to effectively act on behalf of the states, such as the power to collect revenue to pay the war debt.

Taking note of the limitations of the common government (the Confederation Congress, aka, Congress of the Confederation, or sometimes even referred to still as the Continental Congress), certain members of our founding generation instigated for a Convention to amend that government. Eventually, in February 1787, Congress called for such a Convention to meet in May in Philadelphia “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government [the Articles of Confederation] adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” And so, the Convention did convene on May 25, 1787 in Philadelphia with delegates from all the states except Rhode Island. The Constitutional Convention, as it came to be known, quickly changed direction – from amending the Articles of Confederation to designing an altogether different form of government. James Madison would be the architect of that plan (the Virginia Plan).  The collective wisdom of the delegates at the Convention identified the weakness of the Virginia Plan, which for the colonies was the creation of a “national” government, with concentrated power in that government, rather than a “federal” government which left most of the sovereign power with the states. A federal government, with the sovereignty of the States keeping the sovereign power of the federal government in check, was the form of government that the delegates preferred. A government that could remain checked against abuses was one that honored the fiercely independent and freedom-loving nature of the colonies and one which would address the reasons for the revolution against Great Britain.

In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government — the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary.

The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration – or bill – of individual rights. As it turned out, and luckily for us as depositories of certain “inalienable rights” as well as civil rights (those belonging to individuals living in a society, subject to the rule of law), the lack of a Bill of Rights turned out to be an obstacle to the Constitution’s ratification by the states that could not be overcome. The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. According to James Madison, a leading Federalist, a Bill of Rights was not necessary, arguing that because the general government was one of limited powers, having only those powers specifically delegated to it and none touching on individual rights. Besides, he said, a Bill of Rights would only create confusion (inferring that any other right or privilege not listed in the Bill of Rights would be fair game for federal regulation) and also, state governments could ensure these freedoms without the need for a federal mandate. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government and knowing that history has clearly shown that governments tend to concentrate power and tend towards centralization and then tyranny/abuse, refused to support the Constitution without one.

At the close of the Philadelphia Convention, on September 20, 1787, the delegates left with mixed feelings about the document they drafted. Of the 55 delegates to the Convention, only 39 signed it.  Of the 16 that did not sign, some left early (for business, health reasons, family concerns, or out of protest) and some refused to sign out of protest. Some of the more important delegates (ie, position and/or influence in their states) who refused to sign were the following:  George Mason of Virginia (because it did not contain a Bill of Rights), Luther Martin of Maryland (because it violated states’ rights), John Mercer of Maryland (because it did not contain a Bill of Rights), Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (because it did not contain a Bill of Rights), John Lansing and Robert Yates, both of New York (because it created too strong of a government, which he characterized as much more “national” than “federal”), and Edmund Randolph of Virginia (because it contained insufficient checks and balances to prevent government abuse). Had some of our most active and influential founding fathers attended the Convention, there would have been far greater opposition to the final product. Those who refused to attend or who were unable to included: Patrick Henry (refused to attend, he “smelled a rat” who he believed would try to vest the common government with too much power), Richard Henry Lee (refused to attend because he too didn’t trust the motives of those who called it), Thomas Jefferson (was acting as Ambassador to France at the time, but offered to advise the delegates by correspondence), John Adams (was acting as Ambassador to Great Britain at the time), Samuel Adams (refused to attend because he rejected the purpose of the Convention) and John Hancock (refused to attend for the same reason as Sam Adams).

Many of those who refused to sign the Constitution vowed to fight its ratification at the state conventions – George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, the delegates from Maryland, Luther Martin and John Mercer, and the delegates from New York, John Lansing and Robert Yates. And some strong anti-Federalists who were not delegates at Philadelphia would oppose it as well –Richard Henry Lee, Sam Adams, John Hancock, James Monroe (Virginia), and New York’s Governor George Clinton (who wrote several anti-Federalist essays under the pen name “Cato”). Add to these “big guns” the biggest ones of all – Thomas Jefferson, who was as strong a proponent of a Bill of Rights as one could be, and Patrick Henry, perhaps our most vocal and passionate orator for liberty. Jefferson would have advised Madison to include one, and certainly would have taken issue with Madison’s position on the matter, even though he would have had to do so by correspondence. Perhaps that is the reason why Madison lapsed during the final days of the Convention in updating Jefferson as to the discussions and decisions made in the Convention. It wasn’t until a month after the Convention wrapped up, on October 24, that he finally wrote to him again and sent him a copy of the draft Constitution. We do know that as the debate intensified over a Bill of Rights, Jefferson wrote Madison with his strong opinion, including his letter of December 20, 1787, in which he wrote: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”   [The Appendix at the end of this article contains the full commentary in Jefferson’s letter relating to the lack of Bill of Rights in the new Constitution].

On September 28, 1787, the Confederation Congress (aka, Congress of the Confederation) advised the states to begin calling their ratifying conventions, and several did so immediately. Madison left the Philadelphia Convention uncertain what the outcome of the ratification process would be. The dissent by Edmund Randolph and George Mason, both from his home state, and then their refusal to attach their names to the Constitution weighed very heavily on his mind. As Kevin Gutzman pointed out in his book James Madison and the Making of America, the influence that those two men alone had in the overall ratification process potentially could more than counter the entire “unanimity” of the Convention.

As we will see, Madison not only played a leading role in bringing about the Philadelphia Convention (he and Alexander Hamilton orchestrated the report to the Confederation Congress – the Annapolis Report – which made the recommendation that a convention be called in May 1787 in Philadelphia to address the defects of the Articles of Confederation), but he also played a critical supporting role (through his writings) in the debates in the state ratifying conventions, and then a more formal role when ratification seemed to be doomed. The Constitution was “his baby” and he was going to do all he could to see it adopted and a stronger union created. [In September 1786, a conference was called in Annapolis, Maryland to discuss the state of commerce in the fledgling nation. The national government had no authority to regulate trade between and among the states. The conference was called by Virginia, at the urging of Madison, to discuss ways to facilitate commerce and establish standard rules and regulations. Only five of the 13 states sent any delegates at all].

Between November 20, 1787 and January 9, 1788, five states – Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut – ratified the Constitution with relative ease, although the bitter minority report of the Pennsylvania opposition was widely circulated. Despite overwhelming success with these early conventions, the Federalists were well aware of the difficulties that lay ahead. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York were still to come and they knew that North Carolina and Rhode Island weren’t going to sign. In other words, the difficult journey still lied ahead because the anti-Federalist (opponents of the proposed Constitution) were aggressively campaigning against ratification, six states were in doubt, and the magic number of 9 states (Article VII – when 9 states ratified the Constitution, it would take effect) might never be achieved.

In the month after the close of the Convention, Madison found himself in New York and with some time to spare. It didn’t look good; too many political heavyweights were lining up against ratification. New York was unlikely to approve the Constitution. When John Lansing and Robert Yates abandoned the Philadelphia Convention, as Gutzman wrote, “they said that they had not been sent to Philadelphia to replace the Confederation with a national government.” New York’s strongest political figure, its Governor, George Clinton, sided with Lansing and Yates. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Convention from NY, advised Madison that the best way to improve the chances of ratification in his state was to appeal directly to the electorate through the newspapers. After all, several anti-Federalists were already writing articles and other publications criticizing the Constitution and condemning the ambitious government it believed it created.

In addition to the anti-Federalist essays written by Governor Clinton (“Cato”), there were other, also powerful, essays published to criticize the Constitution and to highlight its many flaws. There was “Brutus” from New York (likely Robert Yates or Melancton Smith, or maybe even John Williams), “Centinel” from Pennsylvania (Samuel Bryan), “Agrippa” from Massachusetts (James Winthrop), and the “Federal Farmer” from Virginia (most likely Richard Henry Lee, or maybe Mercy Otis Warren). The is no list to identify with certainty which individuals authored the essays. Agrippa published 11 Letters “To the people,” and 5 essays “To the Massachusetts Convention” by February 5. Brutus published 11 of his 16 essays, Cato published all of his 7 essays, Centinel published 14 of his 18 letters, and Federal Farmer published all of his 18 letters between October 1787 and the start of the Massachusetts ratifying convention, which was January 9, 1788. Much to the dismay of the Federalists, the flood of Anti-federalist essays were starting to have their impact on the electorate and on more importantly, on the election of delegates, and key conventions were yet to meet (namely, New York and Virginia).  In fact, in both those states, the majority of delegates selected would be anti-Federalists.

[New York would call for its convention on February 1, select its delegates from April 29 to May 3, and set its date for June 17. Virginia would select its delegates in March, and set a date of June 2 for its convention].

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and prominent NY figure, lawyer John Jay agreed to address the anti-Federalist campaign, convinced that rejection of the Constitution would condemn the states to an unworkable union. It is likely that Madison took charge from the beginning, laying out a theme or roadmap for the essays, making sure that the criticisms of the anti-federalists were addressed, making sure the provisions of the Constitution that were most contentious were addressed and effectively explained, and that the arguments in favor of the Constitution were made that he wanted. When Jay became very ill, the bulk of the essays would have to be split between Hamilton and Madison; Jay would only be able to write 3 essays. The three men responded to each and every one of the criticisms of the anti-Federalist, in essay form, under the pen name “Publius.” Beginning in October 1787, these men penned 85 essays for New York newspapers and later collected them into 2 volumes entitled The Federalist (later to be referred to as The Federalist Papers), which addressed each concern of the anti-Federalists, analyzed the Constitution, detailed the thinking of the framers, anticipated scenarios posed by the critics, and explained what each provision meant. The Federalist Papers gave assurances that the fears of the anti-Federalists were unfounded and mere speculation and conjecture. One reading the Federalist Papers would believe the federal government to be one of strict and limited powers and without any threat of overstepping or abusing its powers. Comparing the government explained in the Federalist Papers to the one today would be to compare a pea to a grapefruit.

In contrast to its predecessor states (Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut), the Massachusetts convention was angry and contentious, and at one point, it erupted into a fistfight between Federalist delegate Francis Dana and anti-Federalist Elbridge Gerry when the latter was not allowed to speak. The impasse was resolved only when revolutionary heroes and leading anti-Federalists Samuel Adams and John Hancock agreed to ratification on the condition that the convention also propose amendments. In other words, Massachusetts’ ratification was a “conditional” one. [The convention’s proposed amendments included a requirement for grand jury indictment in capital cases, which would form part of the Fifth Amendment, and an amendment reserving powers to the states not expressly given to the federal government, which would later form the basis for the Tenth Amendment. Massachusetts’ Ratification is provided in the Appendix at the end of this article].

The next contentious convention would be in Virginia – in June.

At this point, I wanted to provide a timeline of the State Ratifying Conventions:

Timeline of State Ratifying Conventions:

Delaware – December 7, 1787 –  Delaware ratified the Constitution, 30-0.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/delaware-ratifies-30-0/ ]

Pennsylvania – December 12, 1787 – Pennsylvania ratified, 46-23.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/pennsylvania-ratifies-46-23/ ]

New Jersey – December 18, 1787 –  New Jersey ratified, 38-0.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/new-jersey-ratifies-38-0/ ]

Georgia – December 31, 1787 – Georgia ratified, 20-0.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/georgia-deed-of-ratification/ ]

Connecticut – January 9, 1787 –  Connecticut ratified 128-40.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/connecticut-ratifies-128-40/]  

Massachusetts – February 6, 1788 – The delegates to the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention were split on whether to ratify the Constitution or reject it, and so they came up with a compromise.  The high road explanation is that responsible leaders from both parties, including Adams and Hancock, convened and said, “Look, we’ve been at this now for nearly a month. We’re not making any progress whatsoever. The country is in crisis and if Massachusetts doesn’t sign, then we’re down the tubes. Is there some way we can come to some common ground on this?” And the common ground was that Massachusetts would ratify now with an expectation that in the First Congress amendments would be proposed to alter the Constitution. This is known as the Massachusetts Compromise. And enough people bought into it because Hancock bought into it, that it swayed enough delegates to ensure ratification. So the high ground is the sense of crisis, the sense of duty, the sense of Hamilton‘s remark in Federalist 85 that states would be better off signing quickly and working within the system, and that sense that Massachusetts had a responsibility to step up and take the lead. Ultimately, the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention ratified 187-168 with 9 proposed amendments – again with the understanding and expectation that a Bill of Rights would be added.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/stagethree/ ]

New Hampshire – February 14, 1788  – A majority of the delegates to the New Hampshire Ratifying Convention were opposed to ratification, and so the delegates to the convention voted to postpone until June 18, at which time they would take up the issue of ratification again.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/stagethree/ ]

Rhode Island – March 24, 1788 – Rhode Island rejected the call for a state ratifying convention; the state had no intention of even considering a new constitution.

Maryland – April 26, 1788 – Maryland ratified 63-11.   [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/stagefour/#maryland ]

South Carolina – May 23, 1788 – South Carolina ratified, 149-73, with 5 Declarations and Resolves.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/tansill/ratification-southcarolina/ ]

New Hampshire – June 21, 1788 – New Hampshire ratified 57-47, with 12 proposed amendments.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/new-hampshire-ratifies-57-47-with-12-proposed-amendments/ ]

Virginia – June 25, 1788 –  Virginia ratified 89-79, with 20 Bill of Rights and 20 proposed amendments.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/virginia-ratifies-89-79-with-20-proposed-amendments/ ]

On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress (still under the Articles of Confederation at the time), adopted the ratification of the US Constitution. The old union (13 colonies-turned-states) was dissolved at that point and a new union, comprising the states that had ratified up until this point (DE, PA, NJ, GA, CT, MA, NH, MD, SC, and VA) was formed.

New York – July 25-26, 1788 – New York ratified on July 26, after debating the day before whether to ratify with amendments or not. It ratified by a slim margin, 30-27, with 25 Bill of Rights and 31 proposed amendments.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/new-york-ratifies-30-27-with-31-proposed-amendments/ ].  The first three Bill of Rights read:

(1)  That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security.

(2)  That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve.

(3)  That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.  [= “RESUMPTION CLAUSE.”  This condition to ratification, as the states of Virginia and Rhode Island also exercised this condition, is critical to understanding the reserved right of a state to secede from the Union].

(4)  That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference of others.

(5)  That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well-regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State;

North Carolina – August 2, 1788 – North Carolina voted 184-84 against ratification.  [http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol4/northcarolina0802/ ]

On September 13, 1788, the Confederation Congress prepared for the new government to take its place. On January 7, 1789, presidential electors were selected, and on February 4, the first election was held to select representatives to the new government under the US Constitution. The candidates receiving the top votes for president were George Washington and John Adams, and so they became the country’s first president and vice-president, respectively. James Madison was elected to the first US Congress from the state of Virginia. The first US Congress was inaugurated on March 4, and finally, on March 30, Washington was inaugurated. He delivered what would become one of the most memorable and often-cited Inaugural addresses.

The first government created by the US Constitution was installed.

North Carolina – November 21, 1789 –  North Carolina ratified 194-77, with 20 Bill of Rights and 21 proposed amendments

Rhode Island – May 29, 1790 –  Rhode Island ratified 34-32, with 18 Bill of Rights and 21 proposed amendments.  [Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/tansill/ratification-rhodeisland/ ]

***  Timeline of Ratification of the US Constitution, Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/timeline/.  By clicking on the State Ratifying Convention, you can pull up the debates, the votes, and the proposed amendments associated with each state’s vote.  Also, I have included, in the Appendix at the end of this article, the proposed Bill of Rights and/or proposed amendments proposed by the certain states in their ratifications].

—————————————————————

Having co-written The Federalist Papers to help secure ratification in New York, James Madison left the state for Virginia, to take up the battle there. [The Virginia Convention would be held before the New York Convention, two weeks before, but as it turned out, they would continue simultaneously].  Back in Virginia, Madison would have to face Patrick Henry, George Mason, Edmund Randolph, James Monroe, Richard Henry Lee (one-time president of the Continental Congress) and William Grayson (VA representative in the Continental Congress). George Mason had authored the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the state constitution (chief author, at least) so he would clearly be a forceful authority on the necessity of a Bill of Rights. Mason and Lee would mount the most strenuous opposition to the proposed Constitution, in favor of amending it to include a Bill of Rights. Patrick Henry would oppose it on states’ rights grounds as well. He urged that Virginia hold out for amendments.

Virginia elected its delegates to the Convention in March 1788, and many men – many prominent men – ran for a seat. Interestingly, some of the more prominent men who chose not to run, or who did not win, included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Beverley Randolph, Richard Henry Lee, and a few others. The most prominent men who were elected included James Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Governor Edmund Randolph, James Monroe, William Grayson, Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, George Nicholas, former VA Governor Benjamin Harrison V, and John Marshall (who would go on to become our most influential Supreme Court Chief Justice). Of the 168 delegates, the majority were anti-Federalists.

In his book James Madison and the Making of America, Gutzman goes into detail with respect to Mason’s objections to the proposed Constitution. He wrote:

On October 7, Mason sent a letter to [George] Washington including his objections to the Constitution. An amended version of notes he had made during the Philadelphia Convention, this document essentially repeated complaints Mason had raised then: There was no Declaration of Rights, and the Supremacy Clause meant state declarations would be unavailing; the House was too small; the Senate had money powers, although it did not represent the people; the combination of legislative and executive powers in the Senate endangered liberty’ the federal judiciary would swallow up the state judiciaries and thus allow the rich to oppress the poor; the president lacked an executive council, which meant he would be led by the Senate; and the vice-president, in limbo between the Senate and the executive branch, was a dangerous personage – besides which he would give one state three Senate votes, which was unfair.

In addition to these objections, Mason also went public with his Philadelphia Convention prediction that the Commerce Clause would empower the eight northern states to abuse the five southern ones. There would be a tendency for Congress to read almost anything into the Necessary & Proper Clause, which threatened both states’ rights and individuals’ rights.  [James Madison and the Making of America, pg. 189]

Virginia’s Convention met from June 2 – June 27. The Convention would end up pitting Patrick Henry against James Madison, with the former spending much more time on the floor speaking.  Henry was Madison’s most formidable antagonist in the ratification fight.  Henry was perhaps our most passionate founding father, being known for his fiery speeches and his imagery. He was the voice of the revolution. As Gutzman wrote: “He was the great guardian of Virginians’ self-government and inherited rights. He was also an orator without parallel, one who could cause hair to stand up on the necks even of his most devout opponents.”  He did not disappoint at the Convention.

On June 8, he took to the floor to accuse the proposed government created by the Constitution of being a consolidated one. His position was that a confederated government (under the Articles) was being replaced by a consolidated government. He objected to the introductory phrase “We the People…,” claiming that it conjured up the notion that the government would be a consolidated national one. He wanted the language changed to “We the States…”  In his speech that day, he said:

“It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government. Having premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which, I confess, are not extensive, go into the discussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings-give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else: But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an fellow: Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man, may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old fashioned: If so, I am contented to be so: I say, the time has been when every pore of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American: But suspicions have gone forth-suspicions of my integrity-publicly reported that my professions are not real. 23 years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country; I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country: I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger.”

One of the more contentious days came on June 24; the Convention was winding down. George Wythe opened the day’s proceedings with a speech in favor of ratifying the Constitution before amending it. Madison followed, emphasizing many of the same themes he and Hamilton and Jay had addressed in The Federalist essays. Just as the elderly Benjamin Franklin had urged his fellow delegates in Philadelphia to quit their bickering and work together for the greater good at, Madison essentially tried to make the same point in Richmond. As to the position that amendments should be added before Virginia ratified, Madison argued that it was unreasonable. He didn’t think it was reasonable to expect the other states (eight of them) to retract their unconditional ratifications in order to accommodate Virginia’s demand that the Constitution be first amended, and particularly to include a Bill of Rights. Up until that point, Madison had remained relatively quiet at the Convention. And even when he spoke, he came across as meek. But he was never one to project very well. When he spoke on the 24th, it was in a strained, quiet tone. But he spoke articulately and rationally, and he addressed the many concerns of the anti-Federalists.

When he concluded, he yielded the floor to Henry. From Gutzman’s book:

An account given by Federalist Archibald Stuart proves the point. Henry concluded his speech by calling attention to ‘the awful dangers” attendant upon their vote. “I see beings of a higher order, Henry thundered, “anxious concerning our decision.”  “Our own happiness alone is not affected by the event – All nations are interested in the determination. We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race….”    [James Madison and the Making of America, pg. 233]

The Convention was getting ready to take a vote when an obscure delegate endorsed Patrick Henry’s call for a list of amendments. “The delegate said that he could not vote for ratification until he was assured that amendments protecting Virginians’ historic rights would be recommended. Madison answered that he would not oppose any ‘safe’ amendments (but continued to assert that he believed it unnecessary, and perhaps even dangerous.’” [Ibid, pg. 235]

Ultimately, on June 25, the delegates voted against first proposing amendments to the other states prior to Virginia’s ratification (ie, having the other states recall their unconditional ratification and re-consider ratification after amendments were added) and voted 89-79 in favor of ratification, with proposed amendments.  On June 27, the Convention adopted a set of 40 proposed amendments. A committee, headed by law professor George Wythe, drafted the amendments – 20 enumerated individual rights (Bill of Rights) and the other 20 enumerated states’ rights. The amendments were forwarded to the Confederation Congress. [Virginia’s Ratification is provided in the Appendix at the end of this article. Take note of its Bill of Rights – it includes a “Resumption Clause”].

While there were delegates at several conventions who supported an “amendments before” approach to ratification, it soon shifted to an “amendments after” for the sake of trying to hold the Union together. Ultimately, only North Carolina and Rhode Island waited for amendments from Congress before ratifying.

Four days prior to the conclusion of the Virginia Convention, on June 21, 1788, New Hampshire ratified the Constitution. What makes that date special is that when New Hampshire ratified, with its 12 proposed amendments, the required number of state ratifications, according to Article VII of the Constitution, had been met to establish the Constitution. [Article VII – “The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.”} The Constitution would become operational. A new union (comprised of those states that had ratified) was created and the new frame of government would be established.

The New York ratification convention met on June 17, 1788, while the Virginia Convention was still debating ratification. As with Virginia, a majority of its 67 delegates were anti-Federalists. (The New York Convention would last over month – from June 17 until July 26). On the opening day, the anti-Federalists, led by Governor Clinton, clamored for a Bill of Rights and fought to preserve the autonomy of the state against what it believed were actual and potential federal encroachments. Hamilton (the only NY delegate to the Philadelphia Convention to sign the Constitution) and the Federalists, on the other hand, contended that a stronger central government would provide a solid base from which New York could grow and prosper. While the debates were contentious, the Federalists were ultimately successful and on July 26, the Constitution was ratified by a very slim margin, 30-27, but with 25 Bill of Rights and 31 proposed amendments. The Convention also voted to call for a second federal convention.  [New York’s Ratification is provided in the Appendix at the end of this article. Take note of its Bill of Rights – it includes a “Resumption Clause”].

On September 13, 1788, the Articles of Confederation Congress certified that the new Constitution had been ratified by more than enough states for the new system to be implemented and directed the new government to meet in New York City on the first Wednesday in March the following year. On March 4, 1789, the new frame of government came into force with eleven of the thirteen states participating – and without a Bill of Rights.

Opposition to the new Constitution among leading Virginians lingered. It would continue to be a thorn in James Madison’s ass…  the man who deceived the states into sending delegates to Philadelphia believing they were tasked with proposing amendments to the Articles of Confederation (when all along, he wanted them to take up the issue of an all-new scheme of government – his scheme, the “Virginia Plan”), the man who thought his scheme had finally been realized, and the man who supposedly held that “not a letter of the Constitution” should be altered.

After Virginia’s ratification and New York’s ratification, the future of the Constitution, as ratified, was not certain.  New York wanted to call another federal convention (to amend the new Constitution?  To get rid of the new Constitution?) and several powerful Virginians, with Patrick Henry taking the lead, seemed likely to move for the same.

As fate would have it, Madison set his sights on the US Senate. But there was one problem for him – the Constitution (pre-17th Amendment) empowered the state legislatures to elect senators, but the VA state legislature (VA General Assembly) was comprised of many enemies he had made in his efforts to deceive the states at the Philadelphia Convention, to write the Constitution, and to secure its ratification, including the great Patrick Henry. And Henry and his fellow anti-Federalists got the chance to get even: in its selection of Senators,  the legislature chose Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson.

Both Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson agreed with Patrick Henry that the Constitution should have been amended to include a Bill of Rights (at the least) before it was ratified. Both, it seems, would favor a second convention.

Madison, at this point, was warming somewhat to the notion of amendments, but it’s not sure if he was warming because he agreed that a Bill of Rights is essential to limit powers of government or if he was just nervous that the issue might be the one to sink his Constitution. One thing is for certain though, he would have rather the Constitution be amended by the first option in Article V (amendments proposed by Congress and then sent to the states for adoption) than by a second convention (the second option in Article V; a convention of states). Kevin Gutzman addressed this in his book:

For one thing, some states would oppose a convention so strongly that they would reflexively oppose any amendment it might propose. For another, it would be easier to have Congress propose amendments than to follow the process in Article V of the Constitution for convening another meeting like the one at Philadelphia. Finally, another convention would include members with extreme views on both ends of the political spectrum, enflame the public mind, and produce nothing conductive to the general good. He had seen how the first convention had worked, and he did not want to hazard a second – which, too, would undermine the impression of the American republic’s stability left in European capitals by the success of the recent ratification campaign.  [James Madison and the Making of America, pg. 241]

Defeated in his bid for the US Senate, Madison decided to stand for the House of Representatives. But again, he would be at the mercy of his nemesis, Patrick Henry. Henry wielded power in the General Assembly, and that power included the ability to draw congressional districts. To spite Madison, he helped draw a map that put Montpelier (Madison’s home) in the same district as James Monroe’s house. In the Richmond Convention, Monroe had aligned himself with Henry, Mason, and Grayson and had voted “nay” on the vote for ratification. “Because Monroe had been an authentic hero in the revolution – suffering a significant wound in Washington’s great victory at Trenton – and had established a respectable legislative record in both Virginia and in the Congress of the Confederation, his opposition would be formidable.” [Ibid, pg. 241]

Madison campaigned against Monroe, and due to the contentious issue of the Constitution lacking a Bill of Rights, Madison softened on the issue of adding amendments. Perhaps all the letters that Jefferson sent him at this time emphasizing the need for a Bill of Rights had something to do with it.  “If pursued with a proper moderation and in a proper mode [meaning that the First Congress would propose amendments for the states’ approval, per Article V], they would serve the double purpose of satisfying the minds of well-meaning opponents and of providing additional guards in favor of liberty.”  [Ibid, pg. 242].  Taking Madison at his word and believing him to be a man of his word, voters selected him over Monroe for the US House of Representatives.

On March 4, 1789, the first US Congress was seated, in New York City’s Federal Hall. The first thing to do was to organize itself. On April 1, the House of Representatives elected its officers, and the Senate did the same on April 6. Also on the 6th, the House and Senate met in joint session and counted the Electoral College ballots for the selection of president. George Washington was certified as president (having been unanimously selected) and John Adams as vice president.

On April 30, 1789, George Washington was inaugurated as the nation’s first president, also at Federal Hall, delivering the Inaugural Address that James Madison had written for him. In that message, Washington addressed the subject of amending the Constitution. He urged the legislators:

“Whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question, how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted…..”

Madison knew that as long as the concerns of the anti-Federalists regarding the Constitution remained unaddressed, the threat of a new convention would remain, and so he would take the initiative to propose amendments (comprising a Bill of Rights) himself.  By taking the initiative to propose amendments himself through the Congress, he hoped to preempt a second constitutional convention that might, it was feared, undo  the difficult compromises of 1787, and open the entire Constitution to reconsideration, thus risking the dissolution of the new federal government. Writing to Jefferson, he stated, “The friends of the Constitution, some from an approbation of particular amendments, others from a spirit of conciliation, are generally agreed that the System should be revised. But they wish the revisal to be carried no farther than to supply additional guards for liberty.” He also felt that amendments guaranteeing personal liberties would “give to the Government its due popularity and stability.” Finally, he hoped that the amendments “would acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion.” [Historians continue to debate the degree to which Madison considered the amendments of the Bill of Rights necessary, and to what degree he considered them politically expedient; in the outline of his address, he wrote, “Bill of Rights—useful—not essential—”].  (see Wikipedia)

On June 8, Madison introduced a series of Constitutional amendments in the House of Representatives for consideration. Among his proposals was one that would have added introductory language stressing natural rights to the Preamble. Another would apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as the federal government. Several sought to protect individual personal rights by limiting various Constitutional powers of Congress. He urged Congress to keep the revision to the Constitution “a moderate one,” limited to protecting individual rights.

Madison was deeply read in the history of government and used a range of sources in composing the amendments. The English Magna Carta inspired the right to petition and to trial by jury, for example, while the English Bill of Rights of 1689 provided an early draft for the right to keep and bear arms and also for the right against cruel and unusual punishment.

The greatest influence on Madison’s text, however, was existing state constitutions, and especially Virginia’s. Many of his amendments, including his proposed new preamble, were based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which were drafted in 1776 by another great nemesis, anti-Federalist George Mason. To reduce future opposition to ratification, Madison also looked for recommendations shared by many states. He did provide one, however, that no state had specifically requested: “No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.” He did not include an amendment that every state had asked for, one that would have made tax assessments voluntary instead of contributions. Madison’s proposed the following constitutional amendments:

First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit: “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;” and in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: “After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to—, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than—, nor more than—, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto.”

Thirdly. That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: “But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives.”

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.

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 no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly. That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit: But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to — dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit: The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit: The powers delegated by this Constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the Legislative Department shall never exercise the powers vested in the Executive or Judicial, nor the Executive exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Judicial, nor the Judicial exercise the powers vested in the Legislative or Executive Departments.

The powers not delegated by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th, be numbered as article 8th.

[References:  See the Appendix, at the end of this article, for James Madison’s Speech in the House of Representatives, June 8, 1789, proposing a Bill of Rights, and also see Wikipedia: “United States Bill of Rights”].

The House passed a joint resolution containing 17 amendments based on Madison’s proposal. The Senate changed the joint resolution to consist of 12 amendments and rejected Madison’s suggestions for the Preamble. A joint House and Senate Conference Committee settled remaining disagreements in September. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent copies of the 12 amendments adopted by Congress to the states. Again, the states would have to call up conventions – this time to debate and ratify the proposed amendments.

In the meantime, North Carolina finally ratified the Constitution, 194-77, with 20 Bill of Rights and 21 proposed amendments. She remained true to her principles – that she would not ratify a constitution without a Bill of Rights included.  Note that while North Carolina was second to last to ratify the Constitution, she was third to ratify the Bill of Rights, on December 22, 1789).

On December 15, Virginia was the eleventh state to adopt the amendments. Having been adopted by the requisite three-fourths of the several states (there being 14 States in the Union at the time, as Vermont had been admitted into the Union on March 4, 1791), the ratification of Articles Three through Twelve was completed and they became Amendments 1 through 10 of the Constitution – also known as our US Bill of Rights. President Washington informed Congress of this on January 18, 1792.

The original First and Second amendments fell short of the required 3/4 majority to make it into the Constitution, but interestingly, the original proposed second amendment (which addressed when Congress can change its pay) finally was adopted in 1992 to become our last amendment, the 27th amendment.

Note that the US Bill of Rights applies only to action by the federal government. It places limits only on its power. As most of you may know from your state constitutions, states have included similar guarantees of liberty of their own. Article I of the North Carolina State Constitution, for example, lists the NC Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment has been mis-applied to incorporate all guarantees of rights and privileges on the states, and in fact, the 14th amendment, even though it was never constitutionally ratified, is the number one basis for all constitutional challenges.

It is a shame that the cartoon depiction of the Bill of Rights attached leaves off the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th Amendment states that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. And the 10th Amendment states that all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. These amendments underscore the unique foundation of American liberty – that government is not the ultimate sovereign and individuals enjoy only those rights and privileges the government is generous enough to grant them. In America, rights are endowed on each individual by the Creator, inseparable from our very humanity, and government power derives from the natural and inherent right of each person to govern himself and to protect himself, his family, and his property. This is the concept of Individual Sovereignty referred to in the Declaration of Independence, the document that provides the foundational principles, the rights, and expectations for each State in this Union (despite what the federal government might say). It is the document that recognized each state as an independent sovereign for the world to take note; it is the document for which the Treaty of Paris of 1783 addressed to end the war for American Independence. The treaty included this provision: “Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia[15]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states…..

James Madison wrote: “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example … of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness.”

I urge everyone to take time today and read the Bill of Rights and understand what each guarantees and why. After all, they protect your most essential liberty rights.

 

- 000000

References:

Kevin R.C. Gutzman, James Madison and the Making of America; St. Martin’s Press (NY), 2012.

Gordon Lloyd, “The Bill of Rights,” Teaching American History. Referenced at:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/roots-chart/

The Six Stages of Ratification – Stage III: Winter in New England: Postpone and Compromise (Massachusetts – February 6, 1788 and New Hampshire (postpones) – February 24, 1788) –http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/stagethree/

Report of the House Select Committee, July 28, 1789 –  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/report-of-the-house-select-committee/

House Debates Select Committee Report, August 13-24, 1789 –  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/house-debates-select-committee-report/

Ratification of the Constitution, State-by-State –  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/overview/

US Constitution, Virginia’s Ratification, from the Library of Congress (from its copy of Elliot’s Debates) –   https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html

Day-to-Day Summary of the Virginia Ratifying Convention  –   http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/virginiatimeline/   OR  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/virginia/

US Constitution, New York’s Ratification, from the Library of Congress (from its copy of Elliot’s Debates) – https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html

Day-to-Day Summary of the New York Ratifying Convention  –  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/newyorktimeline/     OR:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/newyork/

The Debates in the Several State Ratifying Conventions (Elliott’s Debates) – http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/   [On this site, you can click on links for the following state conventions and it will bring you to calendars so you can see what they did on a day-by-day basis: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina]

James Madison Proposes a Bill of Rights to Congress, June 8, 1789) – http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php

United States Bill of Rights,” Wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Patrick Henry’s Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 8, 1788 – http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, dated December 20, 1787, Founders Online –  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0454

Chart: Approval of the Bill of Rights in Congress and the States — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

 

APPENDIX #1  (Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, dated December 20, 1787, on the topic of the new Constitution and the lack of a Bill of Rights)

“…….I have little to fill a letter. I will therefore make up the deficiency by adding a few words on the Constitution proposed by our Convention. I like much the general idea of framing a government which should go on of itself peaceably, without needing continual recurrence to the state legislatures. I like the organization of the government into Legislative, Judiciary and Executive. I like the power given the Legislature to levy taxes; and for that reason solely approve of the greater house being chosen by the people directly. For though I think a house chosen by them will be very ill-qualified to legislate for the Union, for foreign nations etc. yet this evil does not weigh against the good of preserving inviolate the fundamental principle that the people are not to be taxed but by representatives chosen immediately by themselves. I am captivated by the compromise of the opposite claims of the great and little states, of the latter to equal, and the former to proportional influence. I am much pleased too with the substitution of the method of voting by persons, instead of that of voting by states….  There are other good things of less moment. I will now add what I do not like. First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of the general government which is not given, while in the particular ones all is given which is not reserved might do for the Audience to whom it was addressed, but is surely gratis dictum, opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument, as well as from the omission of the clause of our present confederation which had declared that in express terms. It was a hard conclusion to say because there has been no uniformity among the states as to the cases triable by jury, because some have been so incautious as to abandon this mode of trial, therefore the more prudent states shall be reduced to the same level of calamity. It would have been much more just and wise to have concluded the other way that as most of the states had judiciously preserved this palladium, those who had wandered should be brought back to it, and to have established general right instead of general wrong. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference……”

[Reference:  https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-12-02-0454 ]

 

APPENDIX #2  (James Madison’s Speech in Congress, June 8, 1789, proposing a Bill of Rights)

I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the house. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a committee of the whole, I think we might have rose, and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended on what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the legislatures of the several States, conformably to the 5th article of the constitution.

I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments; and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this house. But I cannot do this; and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe that if congress will devote but one day to this subjects, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures.

It appears to me that this house is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the state legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, as will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution, may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it, that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a republican government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community any apprehensions, that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this house, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents, their patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who as present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of federalism, if they were satisfied in this one point: We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes, and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acquiescence which our fellow citizens shew under the government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject; it is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community. I allude in a particular manner to those two states who have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the confederacy: it is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those states that are not come in, that we have seen prevailing [in] those states which are.

But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the general government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage, arising from the exercise of that power, shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose; and in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself: But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents, such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution.

There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution: Some were levelled against its structure, because the president was without a council; because the senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose; and controls the ordinary powers of the state governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.

It has been a fortunate thing that the objection to the government has been made on the ground I stated; because it will be practicable on that ground to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the government by those who promoted its adoption.

The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures are these:

First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration–That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people. That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly. That in article 2st. section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit, “The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made.” And that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit, “After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amount to after which the proportion shall be so regulated by congress, that the number shall never be less than nor more than but each state shall after the first enumeration, have at least two representatives; and prior thereto.”

Thirdly. That in article 2st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit, “But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of representatives.”

Fourthly. That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.

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 no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same office; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly. That in article 2st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly. That article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words to wit: but no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to___dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the classes following, to wit:

The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury, shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same state, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:

The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.

The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly. That article 7th, be numbered as article 8th.  The first of these amendments, relates to what may be called a Bill of Rights; I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the government and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper, nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of perhaps by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore the arguments drawn from that source, were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther, than to raise a barrier against the power of the crown; the power of the legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, came in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which, the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution.

But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many states, have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the states as well as the federal constitution, we shall find the although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency.

It may be said, in some instances they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind; this to be sure is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution.

In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from the social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the government; declaring, that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct: Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is to provide such checks, as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.

But whatever may be [the] form which the several states have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.

In our government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker: It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control; hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.

It may be thought all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defense; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one mean to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined.

It has been said by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a republican government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say that this objection lies against such provisions under the state governments as well as under the general government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper.

It has been said that in the federal government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained: that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the state governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is them who are to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary or proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the state legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those governments. I will state an instance which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The general government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the state governments had in view. If there was reason for restraining the state governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the federal government.

It may be said, because it has been said, that a Bill of Rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions: that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of the people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Beside some states have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution.

It has been said, that it is necessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular states. It is true, there are a few particular states in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but does it not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Beside this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the state legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operation of this government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a federal government admit the state legislatures to be sure guardians of the people’s liberty. I conclude from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquility of the public mind, and the stability of the government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of government, as a Declaration of the Rights of the people.

In the next place I wish to see that part of the constitution revised which declares, that the number of representatives shall not exceed the proportion of one for every thirty thousand persons, and allows one representative to every state which rates below that proportion. If we attend to the discussion of this subject, which has taken place in the state conventions, and even in the opinion of the friends to the constitution, an alteration here is proper. It is the sense of the people of America, that the number of representatives ought to be increased, but particularly that it should not be left in the discretion of the government to diminish them, below that proportion which certainly is in the power of the legislature as the constitution now stands; and they may, as the population of the country increases, increase the house of representatives to a very unwieldy degree. I confess I always thought this part of the constitution defective, though not dangerous; and that it ought to be particularly attended to whenever congress should go into the consideration of amendments.

There are several lesser cases enumerated in my proposition, in which I wish also to see some alteration take place. That article which leaves it in the power of the legislature to ascertain its own emolument is one to which I allude. I do not believe this is a power which, in the ordinary course of government, is likely to be abused, perhaps of all the powers granted, it is least likely to abuse; but there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets; there is a seeming indecorum in such power, which leads me to propose a change. We have a guide to this alteration in several of the amendments which the different conventions have proposed. I have gone therefore so far as to fix it, that no law, varying the compensation, shall operate until there is a change in the legislature; in which case it cannot be for the particular benefit of those who are concerned in determining the value of the service.

I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, “No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, etc.” were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controlled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.

I think it will be proper, with respect to the judiciary powers, to satisfy the public mind on those points which I have mentioned. Great inconvenience has been apprehended to suitors from the distance they would be dragged to obtain justice in the supreme court of the United States, upon an appeal on an action for a small debt. To remedy this, declare, that no appeal shall be made unless the matter in controvers amounts to a particular sum:

This, with the regulations respecting jury trials in criminal cases, and suits at common law, it is to be hoped will quiet and reconcile the minds of the people to that part of the constitution.

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the state conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated, should be reserved to the several states. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely, than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary; but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

These are the points on which I wish to see a revision of the Constitution take place. How far they will accord with the sense of this body, I cannot take upon me absolutely to determine; but I believe every gentlemen will readily admit that nothing is in contemplation, so far as I have mentioned, that can endanger the beauty of the government in any one important feature, even in the eyes of its most sanguine admirers. I have proposed nothing that does not appear to me as proper in itself, or eligible as patronized by a respectable number of our fellow citizens; and if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame, or abridging its usefulness, in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect.

Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this house the subject of amendments, and also stated such as wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support; I shall content myself for the present with moving, that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by congress to the legislatures of the states, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the Constitution of the United States. By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the house. I should advocate greater dispatch in the business of amendments, if I was not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the government.

[Reference:  http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php ]

 

APPENDIX #3  (STATE RATIFICATIONS):

I.  NEW YORK RATIFICATION (on July 26, 1788), with 25 Bill of Rights:

WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common—wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known.

— That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security.

—  That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve.

—  That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.  [Note:  This provision, or condition is known as a “RESUMPTION CLAUSE.”  This condition to ratification, as the states of Virginia and Rhode Island also exercised this condition, is critical to understanding the reserved right of a state to secede from the Union].

—  That the People have an equal, natural and unalienable right, freely and peaceably to Exercise their Religion according to the dictates of Conscience, and that no Religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law in preference of others.

—  That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well-regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State;

—  That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection.

—  That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

—  That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the Civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct.

—  That no Person ought to be taken imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, or be exiled or deprived of his Privileges, Franchises, Life, Liberty or Property but by due process of Law.

—  That no Person ought to be put twice in Jeopardy of Life or Limb for one and the same Offence, nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same Offence.

—  That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

—  That excessive Bail ought not to be required; nor excessive Fines imposed; nor Cruel or unusual Punishments inflicted.

—  That (except in the Government of the Land and Naval Forces, and of the Militia when in actual Service, and in cases of Impeachment) a Presentment or Indictment by a Grand Jury ought to be observed as a necessary preliminary to the trial of all Crimes cognizable by the Judiciary of the United States, and such Trial should be speedy, public, and by an impartial Jury of the County where the Crime was committed; and that no person can be found Guilty without the unanimous consent of such Jury. But in cases of Crimes not committed within any County of any of the United States, and in Cases of Crimes committed within any County in which a general Insurrection may prevail, or which may be in the possession of a foreign Enemy, the enquiry and trial may be in such County as the Congress shall by Law direct; which County in the two Cases last mentioned should be as near as conveniently may be to that County in which the Crime may have been committed. And that in all Criminal Prosecutions, the Accused ought to be informed of the cause and nature of his Accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the Witnesses against him, to have the means of producing his Witnesses, and the assistance of Council for his defense, and should not be compelled to give Evidence against himself.

—  That the trial by Jury in the extent that it obtains by the Common Law of England is one of the greatest securities to the rights of a free People, and ought to remain inviolate.

—  That every Freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person his papers or his property, and therefore, that all Warrants to search suspected places or seize any Freeman his papers or property, without information upon Oath or Affirmation of sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive; and that all general Warrants (or such in which the place or person suspected are not particularly designated) are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

—  That the People have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good, or to instruct their Representatives; and that every person has a right to Petition or apply to the Legislature for redress of Grievances.

—  That the Freedom of the Press ought not to be violated or restrained.

—  That there should be once in four years an Election of the President and Vice President, so that no Officer who may be appointed by the Congress to act as President in case of the removal, death, resignation or inability of the President and Vice President can in any case continue to act beyond the termination of the period for which the last President and Vice President were elected.

—  That nothing contained in the said Constitution is to be construed to prevent the Legislature of any State from passing Laws at its discretion from time to time to divide such State into convenient Districts, and to apportion its Representatives to and amongst such Districts.

—  That the Prohibition contained in the said Constitution against ex post facto Laws, extends only to Laws concerning Crimes.

—  That all Appeals in Causes determineable according to the course of the common Law, ought to be by Writ of Error and not otherwise.

—  That the Judicial Power of the United States in cases in which a State may be a party, does not extend to criminal Prosecutions, or to authorize any Suit by any Person against a State.

—  That the Judicial Power of the United States as to Controversies between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States is not to be construed to extend to any other Controversies between them except those which relate to such Lands, so claimed under Grants of different States.

—  That the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, or of any other Court to be instituted by the Congress, is not in any case to be increased enlarged or extended by any Fiction Collusion or mere suggestion;

—  And That no Treaty is to be construed so to operate as to alter the Constitution of any State.

Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution. In full Confidence nevertheless that until a Convention shall be called and convened for proposing Amendments to the said Constitution, the Militia of this State will not be continued in Service out of this State for a longer term than six weeks without the Consent of the Legislature thereof; — that the Congress will not make or alter any Regulation in this State respecting the times places and manner of holding Elections for Senators or Representatives unless the Legislature of this State shall neglect or refuse to make Laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same, and that in those cases such power will only be exercised until the Legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises; — that no Excise will be imposed on any Article of the Growth production or Manufacture of the United States, or any of them within this State, Ardent Spirits excepted; And that the Congress will not lay direct Taxes within this State, but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise shall be insufficient for the public Exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a Requisition upon this State to assess levy and pay the Amount of such Requisition made agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way and manner as the Legislature of this State shall judge best, but that in such case, if the State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such Requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this States proportion together with Interest at the Rate of six per Centum per Annum from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

[Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/new-york-ratifies-30-27-with-31-proposed-amendments/ ].

 

II.  VIRGINIA RATIFICATION (June 25, 1788), with 20 Bill of Rights and 20 proposed amendments:

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia, June 26, 1788. Virginia ratified the Constitution in two steps. The first was the declaration of ratification. The second was a recommendation that a bill of rights be added to the Constitution, and that a list of amendments also be added in accordance with Article 5.  [Reference: https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html ]

Step 1:

WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.  [Note:  This provision, or condition is known as a “RESUMPTION CLAUSE.”  This condition to ratification, as the states of New York and Rhode Island also exercised this condition, is critical to understanding the reserved right of a state to secede from the Union].

With these impressions, with a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions, and under the conviction, that, whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution, ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein, than to bring the Union into danger by a delay, with a hope of obtaining amendments previous to the ratification.

Step 2:  Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven (September 17, 1787), by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People, according to an authentic copy hereto annexed, in the words following:

Wythe reported, from the Committee appointed, such amendments to the proposed Constitution of Government for the United States, as were by them deemed necessary to be recommended to the consideration of the Congress which shall first assemble under the said Constitution, to be acted upon according to the mode prescribed in the fifth article thereof; and he read the same in his place, and afterwards delivered them in at the clerk’s table, where the same were again read, and are as follows:

That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable rights of the people in some such manner as the following:

1st. That there are certain natural rights of which men when they form a social compact cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life, and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2d. That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates therefore are their trustees, and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

3d. That the Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

4th. That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate public emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge, or any other public office to be hereditary.

5th. That the legislative, executive and judiciary powers of government should be separate and distinct, and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the public burthens, they should at fixed periods be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people; and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections, in which all or any part of the former members to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the Constitution of Government, and the laws shall direct.

6th. That elections of Representatives in the legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community, ought to have the right of suffrage: and no aid, charge, tax or fee can be set, rated, or levied upon the people without their own consent, or that of their representatives, so elected, nor can they be bound by any law, to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good.

7th. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws by any authority without the consent of the representatives, of the people in the legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8th. That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence and be allowed counsel in his favor, and to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty (except in the government of the land and naval forces) nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.

9th. That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, privileges or franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the law of the land.

10th. That every freeman restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to enquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied nor delayed.

11th. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.

12th. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy by recourse to the laws for all injuries and wrongs he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, and that all establishments, or regulations contravening these rights, are oppressive and unjust.

13th. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

14th. That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his papers, and property; all warrants therefore to search suspected places, or seize any freeman, his papers or property, without information upon oath (or affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an oath) of legal and sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive, and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend any suspected person without specially naming or describing the place or person, are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

15th. That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for the common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the Legislature for redress of grievances.

16th. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct.

19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

[References:  https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html  and http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/virginia-ratifies-89-79-with-20-proposed-amendments/ ]

 

III.  MASSACUSETTS RATIFICATION (“Conditional Ratification,” February 6, 1788), with 9 proposed amendments:

The Convention have impartially discussed, and fully considered the Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America, and submitted to us by a resolution of the General Court of the said Commonwealth, passed the twenty fifth day of October last past, and acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe in affording the People of the United States in the course of his providence an opportunity deliberately and peaceably without fraud or surprise of entering into an explicit and solemn Compact with each other by assenting to and ratifying a New Constitution in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure Domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty to themselves and their posterity; Do in the name and in behalf of the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America.

And as it is the opinion of this Convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this Commonwealth and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government, The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations and provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.

First, That it be explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be by them exercised.

Secondly, That there shall be one representative to every thirty thousand persons according to the Census mentioned in the Constitution until the whole number of the Representatives amounts to Two hundred.

Thirdly, That Congress do not exercise the powers vested in them by the fourth Section of the first article, but in cases when a State shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein mentioned or shall make regulations subversive of the rights of the People to a free and equal representation in Congress agreeably to the Constitution.

Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the Monies arising from the Impost and Excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the States to assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such Requisition agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution; in such way and manner as the Legislature of the States shall think best, and in such case if any State shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess and levy such State’s proportion together with interest thereon at the rate of Six per cent per annum from the time of payment prescribed in such requisition.

Fifthly, That Congress erect no Company of Merchants with exclusive advantages of commerce.

Sixthly, That no person shall be tried for any Crime by which he may incur an infamous punishment or loss of life until he be first indicted by a Grand Jury, except in such cases as may arise in the Government and regulation of the Land and Naval forces.

Seventhly, The Supreme Judicial Federal Court shall have no jurisdiction of Causes between Citizens of different States unless the matter in dispute whether it concerns the realty or personally be of the value of three thousand dollars at the least. nor shall the Federal Judicial Powers extend to any actions between Citizens of different States where the matter in dispute whether it concerns the Realty or personally is not of the value of Fifteen hundred dollars at the least.

Eighthly, In civil actions between Citizens of different States every issue of fact arising in Actions at common law shall be tried by a Jury if the parties or either of them request it.

Ninthly, Congress shall at no time consent that any person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States shall accept of a title of Nobility or any other title or office from any King, prince or Foreign State.

And the Convention do in the name and in behalf of the People of this Commonwealth enjoin it upon their Representatives in Congress at all times until the alterations and provisions aforesaid have been considered agreeably to the Fifth article of the said Constitution to exert all their influence and use all reasonable and legal methods to obtain a ratification of the said alterations and provisions in such manner as is provided in the said Article.

[Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/massachusetts-ratifies-187-168-with-9-proposed-amendments/ ]

 

 IV.  SOUTH CAROLINA RATIFICATION (May 23, 1788), with 5 Declarations and Resolves

And Whereas it is essential to the preservation of the rights reserved to the several states, and the freedom of the people under the operations of a General government that the right of prescribing the manner time and places of holding the Elections to the Federal Legislature, should be forever inseparably annexed to the sovereignty of the several states. This convention doth declare that the same ought to remain to all posterity a perpetual and fundamental right in the local, exclusive of the interference of the General Government except in cases where the Legislatures of the States, shall refuse or neglect to perform and fulfil the same according to the tenor of the said Constitution.

This Convention doth also declare that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.

Resolved that the general Government of the United States ought never to impose direct taxes, but where the monies arising from the duties, imposts and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies nor then until Congress shall have made a requisition upon the states to Assess levy and pay their respective proportions of such requisitions And in case any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition then Congress may assess and levy such state’s proportion together with Interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of payment prescribed by such requisition

Resolved that the third section of the Sixth Article ought to be amended by inserting the word “other” between the words “no” and “religious,”

Resolved that it be a standing instruction to all such delegates as may hereafter be elected to represent this State in the general Government to exert their utmost abilities and influence to effect an Alteration of the Constitution conformably to the foregoing Resolutions.

Done in Convention the twenty third day of May in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and eighty eight and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth

[Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/tansill/ratification-southcarolina/ ]

 

V.  NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION (June 21, 1788), with 12 proposed amendments:

In Convention of the Delegates of the People of the State of New—Hampshire June the Twenty first 1788.

The Convention having Impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitution for the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America & submitted to us by a Resolution of the General Court of said State passed the fourteenth Day of December last past and acknowleging with grateful Hearts the goodness of the Supreme ruler of the Universe in affording the People of the United States in the Course of his Providence an Opportunity, deliberately & peaceably without fraud or surprise of entering into an Explicit and solemn compact with each other by assenting to & ratifying a new Constitution in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, Insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves & their Posterity—Do In the Name & behalf of the People of the State of New—Hampshire assent to & ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America. And as it is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good People of this State & more Effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government— The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.—

First, That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised.—

Secondly, That there shall be one Representative to every Thirty thousand Persons according to the Census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of Representatives amount to Two hundred.—

Thirdly, That Congress do not Exercise the Powers vested in them, by the fourth Section of the first Article, but in Cases when a State shall neglect or refuse to make the Regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations Subversive of the rights of the People to a free and equal Representation in Congress. Nor shall Congress in any Case make regulations contrary to a free and equal Representation.—

Fourthly, That Congress do not lay direct Taxes but when the money arising from Impost, Excise and their other resources are insufficient for the Public Exigencies; nor then, untill Congress shall have first made a Requisition upon the States, to Assess, Levy, & pay their respective proportions, of such requisitions agreeably to the Census fixed in the said Constitution in such way & manner as the Legislature of the State shall think best and in such Case if any State shall neglect, then Congress may Assess & Levy such States proportion together with the Interest thereon at the rate of six per Cent per Annum from the Time of payment prescribed in such requisition—

Fifthly. That Congress shall erect no Company of Merchants with exclusive advantages of Commerce.—

Sixthly, That no Person shall be Tried for any Crime by which he may incur an Infamous Punishment, or loss of Life, until he first be indicted by a Grand Jury except in such Cases as may arise in the Government and regulation of the Land & Naval Forces.—

Seventhly, All Common Law Cases between Citizens of different States shall be commenced in the Common Law—Courts of the respective States & no appeal shall be allowed to the Federal Court in such Cases unless the sum or value of the thing in Controversy amount to three Thousand Dollars.—

Eighthly, In Civil Actions between Citizens of different States every Issue of Fact arising in Actions at Common Law shall be Tried by Jury, if the Parties, or either of them request it—

Ninthly, Congress shall at no Time consent that any Person holding an Office of Trust or profit under the United States shall accept any Title of Nobility or any other Title or Office from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.—

Tenth, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be quartered upon private Houses without the consent—of the Owners.—

Eleventh, Congress shall make no Laws touching Religion, or to infringe the rights of Conscience—

Twelfth, Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.—

And the Convention Do. In the Name & behalf of the People of this State enjoin it upon their Representatives in Congress, at all Times untill the alterations and provisions aforesaid have been Considered agreeably to the fifth Article of the said Constitution to exert all their Influence & use all reasonable & Legal methods to obtain a ratification of the said alterations & Provisions, in such manner as is provided in the said article—And That the United States in Congress Assembled may have due notice of the assent & Ratification of the said Constitution by this Convention.—It is resolved that the Assent & Ratification aforesaid be engrossed on Parchment, together with the Recommendation & injunction aforesaid & with this Resolution—And that John Sullivan Esquire President of Convention, & John Langdon Esquire President of the State Transmit the same Countersigned by the Secretary of Convention & the Secretary of the State under their hands & Seals to the United States in Congress Assembled.

[Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/new-hampshire-ratifies-57-47-with-12-proposed-amendments/ ]

 

VI.  NORTH CAROLINA RATIFICATION (November 21, 1789), with 20 Bill of Rights:

Resolved, That a Declaration of Rights, asserting and securing from encroachment the great Principles of civil and religious Liberty, and the unalienable Rights of the People, together with Amendments to the most ambiguous and exceptional Parts of the said Constitution of Government, ought to be laid before Congress, and the Convention of the States that shall or may be called for the Purpose of Amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the Ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the State of North Carolina.

Declaration of Rights:

1st. That there are certain natural rights of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life, and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2d. That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the people; that magistrates therefore are their trustees, and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

3d. That Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind.

4th That no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate public emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge, or any other public office to be hereditary.

5th. That the legislative, executive and judiciary powers of government should be separate and distinct, and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the public burthens, they should at fixed periods be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people; and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections; in which all or any part of the former members to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the Constitution of Government, and the laws shall direct.

6th. That elections of Representatives in the legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community, ought to have the right of suffrage: and no aid, charge, tax or fee can be set, rated, or levied upon the people without their own consent, or that of their representatives, so elected, nor can they be bound by any law, to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good.

7th. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws by any authority without the consent of the representatives, of the people in the Legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8th. That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence and be allowed counsel in his favor, and to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty (except in the government of the land and naval forces) nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.

9th That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, privileges or franchises, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the law of the land.

10th. That every freeman restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied nor delayed.

11th. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.

12th. That every freeman ought to find a certain remedy by recourse to the laws for all injuries and wrongs he may receive in his person, property, or character. He ought to obtain right and justice freely without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, and that all establishments, or regulations contravening these rights, are oppressive and unjust.

13th. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

14th. That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his papers, and property: all warrants therefore to search suspected places, or seize any freeman, his papers or property, without information upon oath (or affirmation of a person religiously scrupulous of taking an oath) of legal and sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive, and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend any suspected person without specially naming or describing the place or person, are dangerous and ought not to be granted.

15th. That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for the common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every freeman has a right to petition or apply to the Legislature for redress of grievances.

16th. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments; that the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of Liberty, and ought not to be violated.

17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the Laws direct

19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

20th. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Amendments to the Constitution:  (21 amendments were proposed, but I only included the first here):

  1. THAT each state in the union shall, respectively, retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government.

[Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/tansill/ratification-northcarolina/ ]

 

VII.  RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION (November 21, 1789), with 18 Bill of Rights:

We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known

1st That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them.

3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness [Note: This is a “RESUMPTION CLAUSE.”  New York and Virginia also included such a clause/condition in their ratifications], :-That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

4th That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence, and therefore all men, have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored, or established by law in preference to others.

5th That the legislative, executive and judiciary powers of government, should be separate and distinct, and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the public burthens, they should at fixed periods be reduced to a private station, return into the mass of the people, and the vacancies be supplied by certain and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be eligible or ineligible, as the rules of the constitution of government and the laws shall direct.

6th That elections of representatives in legislature ought to be free and frequent, and all men having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to the community ought to have the right of suffrage, and no aid, charge tax or fee can be set, rated or levied upon the people, without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor can they be bound by any law, to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good.

7th That all power of suspending laws or the execution of laws, by any authority without the consent of the representatives of the people in the legislature, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.

8th That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence and be allowed counsel in his favor, and to a fair and speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; (except in the government of the land and naval forces) nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself.

9th That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned or disseised of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property but by the trial by jury, or by the law of the land.

10th That every freeman restrained of his liberty, is intitled to a remedy, to enquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same if unlawful, and that such remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.

11th That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man the antient trial by jury, as hath been exercised by us and our ancestors, from the time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, is one of the greatest securities to the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolate.

12th That every freeman ought to obtain right and justice, freely and without sale, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, and that a establishments or regulations contravening these rights, are oppressive and unjust.

13th That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

14th That every person has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers or his property, and therefore that all warrants to search suspected places or seize any person, his papers or his property, without information upon oath, or affirmation, of sufficient cause, are grievous and oppressive, and that all general warrants (or such in which the place or person suspected, are not particularly designated,) are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.

15th That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together, to consult for their common good, or to instruct their representatives; and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

16th That the people have a right to freedom of speech and of writing, and publishing their sentiments, that freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.

17th That the people have a right to keep and bear arms, that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law except in time of war, rebellion or insurrection; that standing armies in time of peace, axe dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that in time of peace no soldier ought to be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, and in time of war, only by the civil magistrate, in such manner as the law directs.

18th That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent, to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid, are consistent with the said constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned, will receive early and mature consideration, and conformably to the fifth article of said constitution, speedily become a part thereof; We the said delegates, in the name, and in the behalf of the People, of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence-Plantations, do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence nevertheless, that until the amendments hereafter proposed and undermentioned shall be agreed to and ratified pursuant to the aforesaid fifth article, the militia of this State will not be continued in service out of this State for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof; That the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this State, respecting the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators or representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect, or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that n those cases, such power will only be exercised, until the legislature of this State shall make provision in the Premises, that the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this State, but when the monies arising from the Impost, Tonnage and Excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor until the Congress shall be have first made a requisition upon this State to assess, levy and pay the amount of such requisition, made agreeable to the census fixed in the said constitution, in such way and manner, as the legislature of this State shall judge best, and that the Congress will not lay any capitation or poll tax.

[Reference:  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/tansill/ratification-rhodeisland/ ]

The Constitutional Convention of 1787: Prayer Served a Purpose Just as Prayer Always Serves a Purpose

 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - Philadelphia Convention Center

by Diane Rufino, October 8, 2018

Here is a trivia question for you:  Who were the oldest and youngest delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787 ?

The oldest delegate, as many I’m sure remember from your history class, was Benjamin Franklin. He was the delegate from Pennsylvania and he attended the Convention at the ripe old age of 81. The youngest delegate was Jonathan Dayton, age 26, from state of New Jersey.

These two men share in a very special moment at the Convention:

On June 28, almost exactly a month after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia convened, the 81–year-old Benjamin Franklin rose to address his fellow members. He had become frustrated over the constant and fruitless bickering and the inability of the representatives to made any significant progress in amending the federal government. He noted how some members had already left in disgust.

He began by talking about the fact that they were a well-read group of men; they had enjoyed a classical education and some studied further. In preparing for their important task that summer –  of designing an appropriate government to unify the states – they brushed up on their ancient history. They reviewed ancient history and the models of government that were established back then. They analyzed why the Republics of the ancient civilizations and empires ultimately failed. They looked at the modern governments in Europe, but quickly concluded that none were suitable. The delegates at the convention couldn’t find any common ground.

And so he suggested that they appeal to God for help.

And then he delivered the first prayer of the Convention:

Mr. President,

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks in close attendance and in continual reasonings with each other, with different sentiments on almost every question, is melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?  In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.  And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?  Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, in Psalm 117:1a, that “Except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this. And I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.

Out of the 55 delegates at the Convention, only a handful were devoutly religious. And here was Franklin, perhaps one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers, calling for prayer and quoting Scripture. As James Madison noted, in the notes he meticulously took of the Convention, many were deeply moved.

New Jersey delegate Jonathan Dayton reported:  “The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the dose of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater that we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate!”

Immediately after Franklin spoke, Roger Sherman of Connecticut seconded his motion for prayer.

But the motion ended up fizzling out among the other participants. There were some who opposed to the motion to appoint chaplains to begin each day with prayer because they had no funds to pay such chaplains. In fact, he recorded his disappointment at the bottom of his prayer speech, writing: “The Convention, except three or four Persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.

What is important to note in this tiny bit of history is that Ben Franklin’s passionate plea served to break the stalemate, or impasse, that was crippling the convention. The delegates were dismissed for three days, and some, moved by Franklin’s words, attended the Old First Reformed Church, where Rev. William Rogers held a special time of prayer for the proceedings. Dayton reported that when the delegates met again on July 2, much of the animosity was gone:  He noted: “We assembled again; and … every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.”

While some difficulties continued to arise before the conclusion of the Convention’s business in September, the delegates apparently never returned to the fruitless bickering that had existed prior to June 28th.  It would certainly be an exaggeration to suggest that the drafting in earnest of the US Constitution began as the result of a prayer delivered at the Convention in Philadelphia, but Franklin’s call for prayer clearly played a pivotal role in softening the hearts and opening the minds of the delegates and reminding them that if they intended to proceed with such a critical undertaking without God’s help, all their efforts would be in vain.

 

References:

Ben Franklin’s Call for Prayer in the Constitutional Convention,” Lost Episodes in American History, March 21, 2013.  Referenced at:  http://lostepisodes.us/37/

“Benjamin Franklin’s Request for Prayers at the Constitutional Convention”  – http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/21/benjamin_franklins_request_for_prayers_at_the_constitutional__1.html

“Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention,” Wallbuilders –  https://wallbuilders.com/franklins-appeal-prayer-constitutional-convention/

Undoing the American Republic with Welfare and Institutionalized Poverty (That’s Why Welfare Reform is So Important!)

WELFARE - work hard, millions depend on you (BEST)

by Diane Rufino, September 30, 2018

Government programs such as welfare and other social means-tested programs characterize very well the government’s general policy towards poverty: Make individuals “comfortable” in their poverty rather than incentivize them to become self-sufficient. Those dependent on government have little incentive to vote against its interests; those dependent on government have little incentive to vote for fiscal conservatism and for constitutional conservatism.

The premise of this article is three-fold:

(1)  To make the argument that government entitlement and other social welfare policies (means-tested programs), rather than serving “the general welfare” and helping to raise people out of poverty, in fact are really just increasingly making individuals “more comfortable” in their poverty, are increasingly relieving them of the “burden” of having to provide for themselves and their families, and in their sum, are creating institutionalized dependency. We see it already, and have seen it for many years now – welfare has become a way of life and not just a temporary program of aid and assistance; even worse, it has become a generational way of life.

(2)  Dependency, and certainly institutionalized dependency, by its very nature, puts individuals completely at odds with the notion of freedom. An individual cannot be free and dependent on government at the same time.  As more become dependent on government, there is no other course than the destruction of our republic and the transformation to socialism. Socialism is the death blow to individual liberty. The rights of the individual, the property of the individual, the work and production of the individual, becomes subject to the needs and best interests of the collective. Socialism is the death blow to the great American experiment.

(3)  Entitlement Programs, like block grants to the States (per “contact agreements”), are Unconstitutional.

A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED POWERS?

As the title of this article suggests, I intend to address the constitutionality of Welfare and other means-tested social programs. The United States was once a country that prided itself on the ambition, creativity, ingenuity, energy, and production of the American people. Americans worked hard; they provided for themselves and their families. Without the lure of a safety-net, people became creative and ambitious and did whatever they could to make a living and provide for themselves and their family. With people like that, with social pressure like that, is it any wonder that our country was so successful and created such profound wealth? Is it any wonder that people were able to climb the social ladder so quickly and children and grandchildren became more successful than their parents? Is it any wonder why the United States became such an attractive magnet for the impoverished and downtrodden of the world?

But after the era of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the United States slowly and steadily became a welfare state, with Lyndon B. Johnson taking the most credit for what our country has become.  In 1964, with the Civil Rights bill looming, Johnson said to his political cronies: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Well, it did make quite a difference. Rather than help pull African-Americans out of poverty, welfare often doomed them to institutionalized poverty. Rather than help African-Americans overcome the prejudices, discriminations, and actions that held them back in the past, welfare was responsible for the greatest change in community dynamics which would have unfortunate consequences for them – it destroyed the black family.  The impact of welfare policies on marriage and family have been dramatic: Out-of-wedlock birthrates have skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the US but most notably among African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks specifically. And today, the numbers stand at 29% for whites, 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for blacks. In other words, thanks to the welfare state, the entire country is moving rapidly in the wrong direction, but blacks in particular have reached a point of veritable catastrophe.

Is welfare constitutional??   I’ll eventually get to that question.

First of all, where does the supposed constitutional authority come from to redistribute wealth in the name of “welfare” or “security”?  The usual answer is the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution. In the opening paragraph of Article I, Section 8 (which delegates to Congress the powers it is legally authorized to exercise), we find the “General Welfare” Clause. We have seen that term previously, of course – in the Preamble to the Constitution. In that opening paragraph of Article I, Section 8, Congress is granted power to tax and spend for the “general welfare of the United States.” From early in our history there were arguments about what sort of spending was truly for the general welfare. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued in 1791 that bounties paid to innovative new manufacturing concerns would qualify as spending for the general welfare. But Hamilton understood that the appropriations had to meet a standard of  uniformity throughout the Union. And for decades, Congress and various presidential administrations (mostly Republican) considered whether various “internal improvement” projects could legally constitute spending “for the general welfare.”

The government is not one of unlimited powers. We all know this. The US Constitution, as ratified by the individual states, created a common government of expressly-delegated powers which taken together, provide for some common essential functions (like safety and security, speaking with “one voice” in dealing with foreign nations and the Indian tribes, ensuring that commerce is made “regular,” and providing a uniform system of currency). Its powers were not intended to reach inside the state to regulate or affect the conduct of its citizens.

And yet the Constitution contains a clause that references “the General Welfare.” It’s called the “General Welfare Clause” and its purpose means one thing to big government folks and another to those who hold true to the historical view of the Constitution.

This clause is a special friend of  big-government politicians and intellectuals, and an enemy of limited-government folks. It is the catch-all phrase by which the federal government claims the authority to enact so much of its unconstitutional legislation and to carry out so much unconstitutional taxing and spending.

When the federal government wishes to create and expand welfare programs, to meddle in education, to provide grants for certain groups of individuals to attend college, to assist women in aborting their babies, to establish a national healthcare system, to serve the enormous immigration population (including illegals), to provide financial support for refugees, or to coerce the states to increase their drinking age or lower their speed limit,  progressives cite the “General Welfare” clause for constitutional authority.

Constitutional conservatives, on the other hand, push back with the argument that the General Welfare Clause is NOT, in fact a grant of power or source of authority.

Which is the correct view?  And why is it so important?

THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE:

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the delegated functions of the federal legislative branch (Congress): Its opening paragraph includes the General Welfare Clause:

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;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;  —And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[This last provision is called the “Necessary & Proper” Clause; it is typical language included in contracts at the time making clear that the party delegated a particular function or functions can take the “necessary” steps to carry out that function or those functions.]

FEDERAL SPENDING:  IS IT ALL CONSTITUTIONAL? 

The federal government spends money, through grants, tuition, other types of “assistance,” etc, to do things it cannot otherwise accomplish through actual constitutional authority. For example, the federal government provides funding to States to build roads, bridges, train tracks, airports, electric grids, libraries, swimming pools, housing, and other infrastructure; it provides funding to educate our children and to require public schools to implement affirmative action and other special programs for minorities and for students with disabilities; it provides funding for pre-school and day care; it provides funding to re-train the unemployed; it provides funding for relief aid; it provides funding for state and local law enforcement; it provides funding for Medicaid, food stamps, free lunch programs, and other social services; it provides funding to aid illegals; and it provides funding to individuals for college tuition, tuition remission, as scholarship awards, for housing, etc.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the US government the power to raise and spend money. Is that power limited?  Or is it unqualified and unlimited?  We all know the government’s view.

The government may believe it is justified under the General Welfare Clause, for example, to provide healthcare for the elderly (or for everyone), to provide old-age pension, to fund public health projects; to invest in and conduct basic research; to provide subsidies for agriculture; to build libraries, and even to provide emergency aid for natural disasters. But under what theory of a “limited government” is Congress justified in taxing and spending for such purposes as building roads, bridges, train tracks, airports, electric grids, libraries, swimming pools, and housing, educating our children, providing pre-school and day care; re-training the unemployed, and bailing out big banks and big industry (such as the auto industry)?  The answer is that according to the delegated powers vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8, none of those responsibilities is allowed. “The powers not delegated to the States, nor prohibited to them, are reserved to the States and to the People.”  Then Tenth Amendment tells us that all of these objects rightfully belong to the States. While the government assumes the authority to tax and spend for these objects from the General Welfare Clause, it is the Tenth Amendment that supersedes.

The amount spent on such programs is staggering:

First of all, the US Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary spending account for more than ninety percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the government services and programs on which many rely. Federal spending for 2015 was broken down as follows: Mandatory spending at 64.4%, Discretionary spending at 29.3%, and Interest on the debt at 6.03%.

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget that is decided by Congress through the annual appropriations process each year. These spending levels are set each year by Congress. In fiscal year 2015, $1.1 trillion out of a total budget of $3.8 trillion was spent on discretionary spending. By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs. Examples of other well-known programs paid for by discretionary spending include the early childhood education program Head Start (included in Housing & Community), Title I grants to disadvantaged schools and Pell grants for low-income college students (Education), other school funding, food assistance for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), training and placement for unemployed people provided by Workforce Investment Boards (in Social Security, Unemployment and Labor), and scientific research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF), among many others.

Mandatory spending is spending that Congress legislates outside of the annual appropriations process, usually less than once a year. Out of a total budget of $3.8 trillion, $2.45 trillion was spend on mandatory spending. It is dominated by the well-known “earned-benefit” programs Social Security and Medicare (that is, people have money taken out of their wages for these programs). It also includes widely used safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and a significant amount of federal spending on transportation, among other things.

Many mandatory programs’ spending levels are determined by eligibility rules. For example, Congress decides to create a program like Social Security. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program, and benefit levels for people who are eligible. The amount of money spent on Social Security each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits, whether or not they have paid into the program. [Note: Congress does not decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for Social Security or other earned benefit programs. Instead, it periodically reviews the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people, or offer more or less generous benefits to those who are eligible, and therefore change the amount spent on the program].

Mandatory spending makes up nearly two-thirds of the total federal budget. Social Security alone comprises more than 1/3 of mandatory spending and around 23% of the total federal budget. Medicare makes up an additional 23% of mandatory spending and 15% of the total federal budget. [See:  https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ ]

The question is: Are these grants and other forms of assistance to the States constitutional?  Perhaps such programs as Social Security and Medicare are constitutional, or at least at one time were (that is, when salary deductions for them were still considered a property right), but now they are simply considered another federal tax.

But what about the other programs??   Welfare (for the poor and the generational dependents), education funding, funding for transportation, state grants?

On the government’s website (https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-policies.html; “A Short History of Federal Grant Policy”), there is this explanation:

      Billions of dollars in Federal grants are awarded each year for programs and projects that benefit the public. This assistance is rooted in the Constitution and its call to “promote the general Welfare.”

      It wasn’t until the 1970’s, however, that Federal grant policy began to evolve into what it is today. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, passed in 1977, set out to guide government agencies in their use of Federal funds – particularly by defining the roles of contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants. Contracts, the law states, should be awarded when a Federal agency is acquiring something – an improved computer network, for example. Grants and cooperative agreements, meanwhile, should be awarded when a Federal agency is providing assistance, such as funding for a lower-income housing program in an at-risk urban community.

The federal government, by law, has established a grant program (mandatory grants and discretionary grants) whereby it provides funding to the states as a means to further its policies or to coerce conformity among the states on matters it has no actual constitutional authority to legislate. These grants are contractual in nature and so, legally, if the particular state accepts the money, it agrees to the conditions attached to it. It’s a matter of free will. And so the government achieves contractually, and coercively (because money is an attractive carrot) what it cannot achieve constitutionally. It is the means by which the federal government can control and coerce the States; it is the means by which the federal government can achieve an end-run around the Constitution and accomplish unconstitutionally what the Constitution legally does not allow it to accomplish. Federal grants to the states (grants-in-aid) are a primary mechanism that the federal government uses to extend its influence into state and local affairs.

The matter of federal funding and the coercion associated with it was addressed in 1987 with the Supreme Court case South Dakota v. Dole. The case centered on the constitutionality of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was passed in 1984.  Specifically the Supreme court was asked to consider the limitations that the Constitution places on the authority of the US Congress when it uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA) withheld 10% of federal highway funding from states that did not maintain a minimum legal drinking age of 21. South Dakota, which allowed 19-year-olds to purchase beer, challenged the law as an abuse of power, naming Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole as the defendant.

The Court, in a 7-2 opinion, upheld the statute’s constitutionality. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, articulated a 5-point rule for considering the constitutionality of expenditure cuts of the type in the NMDAA:

  • The spending must promote “the general welfare.”
  • The condition must be unambiguous.
  • The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”
  • The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
  • The condition must not be coercive.

Rehnquist concluded that the NMDAA met the first three restrictions and thus was a constitutional exercise of Congressional authority. Furthermore, he wrote that Congress did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it merely exercised its right to control its spending nor did the statute coerce the states since it cut only a small percentage of federal funding.  According to Rehnquist, Congress applied pressure, but not irresistible pressure.

I believe the opinion was a poor exercise of judicial interpretation, and it hurts me to say that considering what a fan I usually am of William Rehnquist.

While contacts are always allowable, the question I ask is whether it is constitutional in the first place for the federal government to collect tax money for the purpose of doing something unconstitutional (even if it is by contract). I think it is an unconstitutional object of the taxing power. The power to coerce through funding is the power to coerce period.

If the federal government can use public funding to extend its authority, why can’t a state government have its citizens withhold federal tax dollars and direct it to itself instead in order to further its state authority under the Tenth Amendment?

Federal grants, put simply, are not only an unconstitutional exercise of the federal taxing and spending power but act to distort and erode the critical balance of government power between the states and the federal government.

SEPARATE GRANT OF POWER OR QUALIFYING PHRASE?

The words “General Welfare” actually create something of a dilemma. Either the founders didn’t really intend to create a general government of limited powers, or the General Welfare clause doesn’t really mean unlimited federal authority to do things beneficial to the nation as a whole.  What is it?

The answer, of course is easy. It’s just not the convenient answer for the federal government.

The grant of power to “provide . . . for the general welfare” raises a two–fold question:  (1) How may Congress provide for “the general welfare,” and (2) What is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote?

The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion (to President George Washington and the First US Congress) on the government’s authority to establish a National Bank as follows: “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted, and although Congress has acted under that assumption, the Supreme Court has NOT upheld that view.

Let’s start by looking at construction:

The “General Welfare” clause, as one can notice and read, is set off by commas after the delegation of taxing power, for the purpose of clarifying WHAT the taxes collected are to be spent on. The powers enumerated in the following lines go into more specifics as to what Section 8 means when it says “to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” The fact that the framers followed up the general welfare clause in Article I Sec. 8 with specific enumerated powers indicates the latter – a qualification on federal authority. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.

We don’t need to speculate on what the “General Welfare” clause means and we shouldn’t have to take the word of a politically-appointed Supreme Court justice. We only need to look at the explanation provided by the author of the Constitution himself, James Madison.

In a letter to James Robertson, dated April, 20, 1831, Madison makes quite clear that the phrase “for the General Welfare” is not a separate grant of power:

“With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

The General Welfare Clause is not an enlargement clause, authorizing the government to tax and spend to pay the nation’s debts, to provide for the common defense, and to do anything it wants for the general welfare. It is a clarifying clause, serving once again as a reminder the goals of the government. The goals, of course, are stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:  “To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”

Again, if our Founding Fathers and drafters of the Constitution had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything it wanted in order to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific delegations of power. If the government was intended to be one of unlimited and consolidated powers, what state would have ratified it?  The truth is that the Constitution was sold to the States, through written and oral assurances, as one creating a common government of limited powers to serve the States and to carry out their common functions.

James Madison, as I hope everyone knows, was a primary author of The Federalist Essays, which became known as The Federalist Papers. Knowing that of the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, only 39 signed it at the end (September 17).  Some didn’t sign because they had already left explained the convention and several didn’t sign because they could not lend it their support.  He also knew that some heavy hitters refused to even attend the convention because of grave suspicions of what the convention might try to do and that they would not support his Constitution in the state ratifying conventions. And in fact, during the ratification debates, Anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution voiced fears that people would come along and assert that the term “General Welfare” granted unlimited power to the federal government.

Madison, together with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote the Federalist essays (ie, the Federalist Papers) as a means to explain each provision of the Constitution and for the purpose of providing assurances to the States as they contemplated whether to adopt it or not. In particular, the Federalist essays addressed the fears, the skepticism, the concerns of the Anti-Federalists (who had written a series of essays highlighting the defects in the new Constitution). The Federalist Papers, coming from the primary author of the Constitution, the man who called for the Convention, the man who provided the rough draft (rough outline) of the proposed new government), the man who attended each day, the man who took faithful notes of the proceedings and debates, the man who was almost universally perceived as being honest and trustworthy, and the man who most had a stake in seeing the Constitution through to its adoption (since it was his vision to scrap the Articles of Confederation) in favor of a new government), are without a doubt the most important and the primary authority on the meaning and intent of the US Constitution.

With that in mind, Madison addressed the scope of the General Welfare Clause in his Essay No. 41:

      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.

He went on, in Essay No. 41:

      In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. 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.’

Again, the Federalist Papers, because of how wrote the essays and for the purpose they were written, are the primary authority on the meaning and intent of the US Constitution.

Madison further illuminated the intended meaning of the General Welfare Clause in a letter written to Edmund Pendleton in 1793, pointing out that the phrase was lifted from the Articles of Confederation and was intended to retain its meaning in the new Constitution.

       “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.”

According to Madison, “the most important and fundamental question” with respect to the intent and meaning of the Constitution and the design of the government created was the meaning of and the relationship between the General Welfare Clause and the enumeration of particular powers in Article I, Sect. 8. This question, as he explained in Federalist No. 41, is the most “fundamental” because the answer determines the very “idea” or “nature” of the U.S. Constitution. It determines the ambition of the federal government.  Legal scholars and commentators virtually agree that the clause was not a separate grant of power but rather a substantive grant of power for the generally-stated end (see the Preamble to the Constitution). They agree that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase “General Welfare.” Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends.

I would argue then, that any “taxing and spending” for purposes not permitted under the enumerated powers, and in fact, reserved to the States per the Tenth Amendment, is impermissible and unconstitutional.

But we all know that the States are weak and the Supreme Court, because of its general aversion to cling to a meaning associated with an era long gone, intentionally ignores what our Founders have said and what they have written. They prefer to engage in their progressive way of interpreting the document in order to update it – which is merely a way of saying that they want to ignore the intended restraints on the federal government in order to transfer more and more power to it.

So the words “general welfare” must mean something other than a grant of power for Congress to do whatever it pleased. What exactly did the framers mean?

Two words in the clause hold the key – the words general and common. The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism.

Let’s look at what the Supreme Court has said:

The Constitution contains two references to “the General Welfare” — one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Supreme Court, in the case Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”  Furthermore, the Court has held that the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

“A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.”    [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, in §919]

Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

The problem with Justice Story’s comment (above) is that the “General Welfare” does NOT mean “General Interest to the federal government.” It means the “general welfare of the American people.” The clause means that the US Congress the power to spend for matters affecting only the national welfare, and not certain groups particularly.

The problem is that the federal government is addicted to taxing; it gives government the ability to carry out its expressly-delegated function and also the ability to carry out functions it has no authority to regulate. The latter it accomplishes by bribery – I mean, it offers the states grant money (in exchange for complying with conditions; conditioned spending).

When challenged on the federal government’s constitutional authority to create welfare programs, meddle in educations, take over public education, offer programs specifically for illegal aliens and Hispanic green-card holders, or run a national healthcare system, progressives will almost always appeal to the “General Welfare Clause.” Because they believe the government SHOULD be handling such tasks, they advance the “all-inclusive” and “all-authoritative” view of the Clause. And who is really willing to challenge this – the greater than 50% of the people who depend on government programs enacted “for the so-called General Welfare”?  At some point, there will be so very many people unable to support themselves and provide the substance to take care of themselves and their families and who look to the government that the federal courts are going to have to officially re-interpret the General Welfare Clause to give Congress a blank check to legislate for any reason related to the “general” welfare or to the welfare of any particular group of people. And perhaps that is the reason the government has, over the years, established so many policies designed to get Americans dependent on it for their essentials. Perhaps that is why Democrats in particular, continue to make sure that those on entitlement and other social programs are increasingly more “comfortable” in their poverty rather than pressured to abandon a life of dependency for one of employment and production.

WELFARE: CONSTITUTIONAL or NOT?  HOW BETTER TO PROVIDE A SAFETY-NET?

As explained above, I believe any taxiing and spending for objects NOT expressly tasked to the federal government by Article I, Sect. 8, is unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for (1) Discretionary Spending; (2) Grants and Other Types Assistance, which includes things like grants and scholarships for education, grants to the States (for roads, bridges, airports, ports, railroad tracks, public schools, Medicaid and other dependency programs, healthcare, etc); (3) Education; (4) Universal Healthcare; or (5) Welfare and other government-sponsored public assistance programs. All of these types of spending (although one might argue that for the most part, some are duplicated) allow the government to do the following:

(1)  Maintain a high federal taxation rate

(2)  Accomplish what the Constitution itself does not allow it to do.  (They permit the government to make an end-run around the Constitution)

(3)  Control people. A person dependent on government will never vote against its interests.

(4)  Exercise control over the States  (Most States can’t fund all that the State requires internally and for its people through the money that it raises by state taxation, and that is why they almost reflexively and automatically put their hands out when the federal government offers government assistance)

(5)  Apply coercion to the States.  (Again, most States can’t fund all that the State requires internally and for its people through the money that it raises by state taxation, and that is why they almost reflexively and automatically put their hands out when the federal government offers government assistance, even though they know that the funds come with strings and often times, it deprives the State of the decisions and options it could have exercised on its own)

(6)  Establish uniformity among the States (slowly erasing the borders that distinguish one state and its “politics” from another).  Dangling funds in front of a State that is otherwise strapped for funds is coercive pressure (regardless of what judges who sit on a bench in DC say) and usually results in the States accepting the money, agreeing to its conditions, and sacrificing little by little its state autonomy and sovereignty.

In other words, the spending identified above, including funding (grants) to the States and including welfare and other means-tested assistance programs, are unconstitutional.

Healthcare is a social program, plain and simple; it is socialist at its core. Those who the government determines are able to pay their insurance premiums must do so, and in fact, will be burdened with an increase in premiums. Why?  Because they are paying not only to cover themselves and their families, but to help cover all those in poverty who can’t afford healthcare on their own. It is a government program based on simple re-distribution of wealth and socialism. One group of individuals suffers a burden while another group receives a hand-out. Both pretty much get the same level of healthcare coverage.

Government, or universal, healthcare is not legitimately covered by the “General Welfare” Clause because the program doesn’t apply equally to everyone. It is a program whereby the government commandeers half the American population to cover (pay) the healthcare insurance premium costs of the other half. One half benefits in every sense of the word while the other half is forced to incur an additional burden.

Welfare, and other means-tested social programs, are other programs based on re-distribution of wealth. Those who work and make enough are required to pay federal income taxes. They work at least 3 months out of the year to pay the government what it requires, which is essentially 30% of their income and a lot more for other types of assets. Those who don’t work or only work a little (and don’t make enough) can go on welfare and can take advantage of other means-tested social programs. They can sit around and wait for their government checks – money that flows directly from those who earn and produce to those who don’t.

These programs are not legitimately covered by the “General Welfare” Clause because frankly, it doesn’t fit the definition of “general welfare.” The opening paragraph of Article I, Sect. 8 means that any tax collected must be collected in order that the government (Congress) can fund all the projects pertaining to the express powers granted to it (ie, the enumerated powers), which collectively are covered by the phrase “for the common defense and to provide for the general welfare.” Welfare and other means-tested social programs do NOT benefit the citizens of the United States as a whole, but rather benefit only a subset of the people. In fact, a good portion of citizens are harmed in order to benefit the others. That hardly seems fair. The Constitution doesn’t empower the US Congress to institutionalize giving and compassion. It only empowers Congress to act in those areas that the States originally agreed to in 1788. [On June 21, 1788 the Constitution became the official governing document of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of thirteen states to ratify it, per Article VII].

The grants to the States are simply unconstitutional because the federal government, in Article I, Sect. 8, was not delegated the authority to address any of the purposes for which the grants are offered. If the government can simply accomplish through funds (conditional funding) what it can’t accomplish according to the Constitution, then the government is not a limited one but one easily and most likely capable of becoming overly ambitious and controlling. If the government can simply accomplish through funds (conditional funding) what it can’t accomplish according to the Constitution, then our government is not longer “federal” but “national.” And we see that is absolutely true today.

Let’s go back to Welfare (and other means-tested social programs) and look at the inherent unfairness in the program. One group of people exists on welfare and other social programs; their needs and essentials are provided by the government. Since they earn no money, they pay no federal taxes. The other group is self-sufficient and is able to provide for themselves and their families (the way it was supposed to be), and because they are considered “successful,” the government demands that they pay a fairly substantial federal income tax. In fact, all their income, all their property, and all their assets must be diligently disclosed to the IRS.  Government, of course, doesn’t provide its own money but rather must obtain it, usually through taxpayer funding. So, the first group, on welfare, is not supported by the government but rather by hard-working tax-paying citizens.  One groups pays (heavily) and the other sits back and receives; yet both enjoy the freedoms, the civil rights, and the privileges, as well as the safety and security provided by the United States. But, truth be told, both exist differently and both are not served equally from the government. Here are some differences:

(a) Those on welfare don’t need to work; they don’t even need to get out of bed or get off the couch. They can socialize or they can spend all day with their kids.  Those not on welfare must work and must always be concerned that their jobs are secure.

(b)  Those on welfare don’t have to worry where their money comes from and don’t have to live check to check for their rent and their grocery bills. They get a check from the government which they can count on. Those not on welfare often live check to check; in fact, they sometimes have to take on a second job or have their spouse go to work to cover bills.  (The ironic thing is that those on welfare often tell Health & Human Services Office that there are no jobs, yet those not on welfare often have no problem finding a second job)

(c)  Those on welfare get a break in college tuition; there are lots of scholarship and tuition assistance aid to help them; those not on welfare pay more for their children to go to college.

(d)  Those on welfare get free healthcare.  Those not on welfare have to pay for their own health insurance or make sure they get a job that provides it.

(e)  Those on welfare (or those who meet other means-tested criteria) can also get food stamps (to help them buy more nutritious food), assistance for daycare (even though they don’t work), housing assistance, assistance to help cover heat and air-conditioning, etc etc.  In other words, over the years, more and more social programs have been created to help make people more comfortable in their poverty. They do NOTHING to help them become independent and self-sufficient, and in fact, do everything to establish the hand-outs as a way of life.

(f)  Those on welfare can have all the kids they want, including with as many different men as they want. Sure, they are supposed to disclose the name and contact information of the father of each child to Health & Human Services, but knowing people who have worked with HHS, women aren’t always forthcoming with such information. My mother, who worked for years with the New Hanover County Department of Health & Human Services, used to tell me how frustrating it was to work there and what a scam Welfare is. She told me how mostly black women would come in to the office with two and three and four kids and want their check. She would ask them for the name of the father of the children, and the response would be “I don’t know” or “Just give me my damn check.” She would call for her supervisor and eventually, every single time, they would get their check without giving any information.  Those not on welfare have to make a cost-benefit analysis when planning their families. Having children isn’t a scam to them or a money-making scheme. Their concerns are always whether they can afford them and provide a good life for them.

(g)  Those on welfare are supposed to continually look for work and report their efforts to HHS, but we know that’s a joke. Most know exactly how to game the system. When those not on welfare need to find a new job, they make an honest and great effort to do so.

(h)  Those on welfare can do drugs and abuse alcohol whenever they want and still collect their checks. Those not on welfare must always conduct themselves in a manner to be good and responsible employees; they must show up for work on time, be alert, be productive, not call out excessively, and must be able to pass an on-the-spot drug test.

(i)  Those on welfare never have to worry about keeping a record of their expenses, keeping receipts, or hiring an accountant to navigate the federal income tax form. They never have to worry about being audited by the IRS or will never know the absolute fear of getting a certified letter from them.  They will never have to worry about having the IRS telling them that they should have paid more in taxes and so, the money they planned to use for a vacation must be turned over immediately. Those not on welfare are slaves to the IRS and to the April 15 deadline to file their taxes.

(j)  Those on welfare never have to worry about saying or doing anything on social media or in their private lives that might somehow prevent them from receiving their checks. Those not on welfare, however, must forever be diligent in what they say, how they say it, where they say it, to who they say it, and they must be careful to give the appearance of being neutral on religion and politics and social issues should a co-worker somehow find out or should Human Resources find out. Personal opinions and politics, and activism and association…  these once traditional exercises of the First Amendment now can be reason to be fired from a job or to be denied an interview.

(l)  Those on welfare automatically get an increase in their living expenses with each additional child. Those not on welfare do not. Those not on welfare (ie, those who have honest employment) cannot game the system and defraud their employer.

(m)  Those on welfare can exploit various ways to exploit the entitlement system, including colluding with men to have additional children and splitting the welfare funds.

Welfare and other government hand-out programs offer only one positive benefit: They offer a safety net to those who temporarily are unable to work and provide for themselves and their family. This safety net was intended to be temporary, to provide for the individual while he or she figures out a way to get back on his/her feet and back into the workforce. It was NOT intended to be a way of life. It was NOT intended to be a viable alternative to a career or being a productive member of society. On the other hand, welfare and other government hand-out programs offer many negative effects (many perhaps are unintended consequences), including the following:

  • They generate and reward sloth
  • They relieve too many young people of the energy they would need to invest in an education or to learn a skill
  • They result in a lack of ambition
  • They result in an obese population (as someone from New Dehli once explained to his family: “I want to live in America. I want to live in a country where the poor people are obese.” Dinesh D’Souza tells this story)
  • They have resulted in, and continue to result in, the destruction of the family unit (welfare contains marriage penalties)
  • They have increased, and continue to increase, the level of poverty in our country [Families with an absent father, black and white alike, generally occupy the bottom rung of America’s economic ladder. Regardless of race or ethnicity, the poverty rate for single parents with children is several times higher than the corresponding rate for married couples with children. According to Robert Rector, with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty”]
  • They inspire and encourage too many people to stay on welfare and not look for employment (cost-benefit analysis)
  • They perpetuate of ignorance, illiteracy, etc
  • They serve as a viable alternative to getting an education
  • They reward those who did not take public education seriously nor took any initiative to learn a skill
  • They reward women for having children without being married
  • They reward women for not cooperating with authorities to identify the father or fathers of their children (in order to have them provide child care)
  • They have created generational government dependency (young girls imprint on their mothers and get pregnant without being married in order to be taken care of rather than get educated and work)
  • Rather than serve the positive goal of providing a temporary safety-net until the applicant can get back on his or her feet, they have become a permanent means of support. Dependency has become a way of life. (Over the years, more and more social programs have been created to help make people more comfortable in their poverty. They do NOTHING to help them become independent and self-sufficient, and in fact, do everything to establish the hand-outs as a way of life)
  • They have resulted in the increase in crime, drug use, and human decay [In agreeing to sign the Civil Rights legislation of 1965, LBJ’s chief objective was to reduce dependency by blacks and put an end to the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. He said he wanted “to break the cycle of poverty” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” He further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs”]
  • They have ruined whole communities
  • They have created a class system in the US (those who are dependent and are takers; and those who are independent and produce).
  • They have caused one group of citizens to distrust and to have no respect for another group of people (because many recipients are non-citizens)
  • They have caused people to question the legitimacy of the voting system [Is it fair for people living off the government (ie, other people), to have the ability to vote and have a say in how other people’s money is spent? Maybe there should be a progressive voting system like there is a progressive income tax…. Those with more money and assets are taxed at a higher level so maybe their votes should carry greater weight]

To highlight the differences between those on welfare and other social programs with those who provide for themselves one sentence, I would sum it up this way: Those on welfare receive a check without any conditions attached; those not on welfare are subject to.

The federal government has been financing government-provided welfare since the 1930s. Of the more than $1.1 trillion spent in fiscal year 2016, federal expenditures accounted for $829 billion (or 74% of all funding related to welfare programs), and state expenditures accounted for $297 billion (or 26%). Most state spending ($213 billion) is done on one single program – Medicaid. In terms of GDP, welfare alone accounts for 6%. It has risen steadily and quickly in the years after Ronald Reagan left office. During LBJ’s term, welfare spending accounted for 1.5% of GDP; during Carter’s term it more than doubled – to 3.6%; during Reagan’s term, it remained the same and even dipped; but then after he left office, it began to increase quickly and steadily.

Imagine how much each taxpayer could be relieved in his or her federal taxation burden if the federal government taxed only for the spending for which it is constitutionally allowed.  Imagine how much each individual State could then tax its citizens. They would be able to raise money on their own to cover internal expenses – the running of the State and the care of its people – and more importantly, they could spend that money AS THEY SEE FIT, and not within the conditions imposed by the federal government. Imagine how, if this financial dependency were ended, the rightful balance between federal and state government power could be better achieved.  Taking away the financial power to coerce and control leaves the States in a better position to stand up to the federal government rather than to cower and concede.

As mentioned above, the spending identified above, including funding (grants) to the States and including welfare and other means-tested assistance programs, are unconstitutional.  Yet there are citizens who feel passionate and strongly that those who can give up some of their income should do so in order to take care of those who are less fortunate, those who are legitimately disabled (and not like some friends I know who filed for disability because of their obesity), those who work but can’t provide enough for their family (while still continuing to have more and more kids), those who are here illegally and need help providing for their growing families, those who have children without being or getting married (including those who refuse to provide information to the authorities for child-support), those who are crafty at defrauding the system, those who ignored the opportunity to become educated and hence can’t get anything other than a minimum-wage job, and those who simply don’t want to work.  I wonder if they feel so passionate and so supportive of these people because they know that it is other people’s hard-earned money that will be used to support them. I wonder if they would feel the same if the money was taken from them, their family, their food allowance, and their recreation fund.  I think the only legal way that the federal government can offer welfare and other means-tested assistance programs is if it asks each taxpayer, at the time they file their taxes, if they would be willing to donate additional of their money for the care of the poor. I’m sure many would agree to do so. I’m also sure that such programs would have much less funding which means criteria would be stricter and time restraints would have to be added. The programs would clearly have to be temporary in nature and because of stringent criteria, there would be indirect pressure to get off as soon as possible.

So, let me list out some solutions to the problem of federal discretionary spending, including Welfare and state grants:

(i)  My first solution to this out-of-control, unconstitutional-taxing and spending bloated government is for the States to challenge each item of federal spending for constitutionality. For each item that is not constitutional, the federal income tax rate should be reduced accordingly.

(ii)  My second solution (and this one is for Welfare only) would be the one outlined in the previous full paragraph (each taxpayer can offer to send additional of their money to the government for welfare programs). Personally, I like this one.  This forces people to put up or shut up. It forces people to put their money where their mouth is.

(iii)  My third solution is each state to establish a State Escrow Account. (I’ve written an article on this and how it would work).  Each State would review the federal budget and determine which items are constitutional or not. It would then adjust the federal budget accordingly. Then it would determine the pro rata share of that budget that North Carolina residents would provide. The state would require all residents to have their federal income tax first reviewed by the State Treasury Department. Only the portion that corresponds to constitutional federal spending would be forwarded to the IRS and the remainder would be deposited in the State Escrow Account. The state would then determine for itself what to do with the escrow funds – either returning it to its residents or applying it to state projects, thus relieving the state of any un-necessary reliance on the federal government and moving the state towards the independence it was intended to have.

(iv)  My last solution is to keep welfare and the other means-tested social programs, but to treat them like state grants and attached strict conditions to recipient status. Remember, welfare and other such social entitlement programs are like state grants in that they both are an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing and spending power. Conditions should be attached for two essential reasons: (1) to ensure that recipients can only receive benefits for a LIMITED time (there will need to be time limits); and (2) to make it so burdensome that recipients will want to get off of government assistance as soon as possible, whether that means they will look at marriage and education more favorably or will invest in career training programs or will make sure they do not have further children which may tend to keep them dependent on government aid. Some conditions that should be placed on free government aid (ie, other people’s money) include:

  • Mandatory birth control. (No government check without first receiving a monthly birth control shot)
  • No increase in the welfare check and no additional funds should the recipient have another child while on public assistance
  • Suspension of the right to vote
  • Definite earmarks are attached to the funding. Funds can only go towards essential food items, housing, and transportation. Any person on government assistance who can afford a new car will be automatically kicked out of the program
  • No free cell phones
  • No visits to the nail salon
  • No funding for air-conditioning (Lowe’s sells a great $12 fan which works wonders in the heat)
  • Mandatory proof of job searches (including signed statements from each employer consulted, including the reason the person could not be considered or interviewed. Job searches will be viewed with extreme scrutiny for potential for fraud and abuse; for example, a person who has a criminal record should not be looking for a job with law enforcement or education, daycare, etc because such jobs expressly require employees to have no criminal background history)
  • Mandatory community college or GED courses for those who did not graduate high school or who barely graduated (those who severely lack the basic skills and knowledge imputed on an adult, or a young adult)
  • Mandatory college or community college courses for those who have no college diploma, associates degree, vocational training, etc (No government check without a report showing course status; if a person is not working, he or she must be developing their career and building valuable job skills)
  • Children of a person on welfare must be doing well in school (average or better)
  • Proof of citizenship must be provided (and confirmed by the Social Security Department). Identity fraud will result in immediate deportation
  • Recipients must show they are drug-free (mandatory drug-testing)
  • Random audits will be conducted
  • Mandatory visits from a social worker to assess the cleanliness and order of the home and the environment for the child (or children)
  • Recipients must be available for community service when the state government needs them

I’m sure there are other conditions that I haven’t thought of and I’m sure that others would make some suggestions of their own.  In fact, I would encourage those who have read this article to comment and add their suggestions.

Milton Friedman, an economist, was highly critical of welfare, and noted several times how it should be judged by its results and outcomes and not by its intentions.  He also said: “There’s been one underlying basic fallacy in this idea of welfare measures, and that is that it is feasible and possible to do good with other people’s money. That view has two flaws. If I want to do good with other people’s money, I first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people’s money, at it’s very bottom, is a philosophy of violence and coercion. It’s against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money. In the second place, very few people spend other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own.”

If we are going to coerce and extort money from taxpayers, not merely to provide safety and security for the country or to legislate for the enumerated objects in Article I, Section 8, but also to support those who don’t want to even try to support themselves and their families, then the very least we should do is provide accountability to those taxpayers (those hard-working men and women whose paychecks are seized by the government for 1/3 of the year) and that is to attach strict and limiting conditions to welfare checks. The program, which would have to be run as one that is contractual in nature and not as a constitutional responsibility, must be so burdensome, so intrusive, so violative of freedom, and so unattractive to the recipient that he or she will absolutely want to spend as little time as possible on it.  Well that’s the hope anyway.

 

References:

John Perazzo, “How the Liberal Welfare Destroyed Black America,” Front Page Magazine, May 5, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262726/how-liberal-welfare-state-destroyed-black-america-john-perazzo

Mike Maharrey, “The General Welfare Clause is Not About Writing Checks,” The Tenth Amendment Center, August 28, 2014.  Referenced at:  https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/28/the-general-welfare-clause-is-not-about-writing-checks/

Federalist No. 41 –  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp

“Federal Aid to States and Local Governments,” Congressional Budget Office (CBO), April 18, 2018.  Referenced at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/federal-aid-to-state-and-local-governments

The Delegates Who Didn’t Sign the Constitution –  https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/those-who-didnt-sign-the-constitution/

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (May 27 – September 1787) –  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html

“Federal Grants to State and Local Governments (1960-2017) – Chart Analysis,” Mercatus Center (George Mason University).  Referenced at:  https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Federal-grant-aid-state-and-local-chart-analysis-pdf.pdf

“Federal Spending on Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: In Brief,” Congressional Research Service, Feb. 6, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf

“Spending for the General Welfare,” Cornell Law School.  Referenced at:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank (1791), Avalon Project (Yale Law School).   Referenced at:  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

Grant Policy –  https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-policies.html

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?,” National Priorities Project.  Referenced at:  https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Matthew J. Franck, “The Lawless Welfare State,” National Review, Jan. 13, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2010/05/17/lawless-welfare-state/