What Is Conservatism?

It's a dark and light thing

Posted by E Pluribus Unum (Profile)

Monday, October 26th at 9:30PM EDT

Is darkness the opposite of light?

In a conversational and practical sense, you could answer yes. You can live your life treating these as opposites and you would function just fine. Yet you would be factually, scientifically wrong.

Darkness is the absence of light. You may think that’s a ‘distinction without a difference’. Walk with me and I’ll show you otherwise, and why the distinction is at the very heart of what makes our conservative struggle so epic, so grand in both scale and importance; a struggle for all time.

The Dark Sucker

You know about the Dark Sucker Theory, right? It’s a humorously offered proposition that light bulbs don’t actually emit light: instead, they suck the darkness out of the immediate area (thus, ‘dark suckers’). Others have expanded it into a more robust, and still more hilarious, treatment of the physics of darkness and light (for example, instead of photons, there are ‘darkons’ whose paths bend in response to gravity).

The dark sucker hypothesis is an application of the the Limbaugh-patented device ofillustrating absurdity with absurdity to point out that darkness is not the opposite of light; it is the absence of light.

Conservatism is the anti-ideology

Political Conservatism is not an ideology, nor is it properly the opposite of leftism, marxism, statism, socialism, fascism, communism, or any other insipid, failed ism.

Conservatism is not much more than the principle that government should jealously protect the citizens from itself, and from each other. Ideologies, as the first order of business, implicitly sacrifice the freedom so jealously guarded by conservatism. They seek to define, construct, and design a government-managed system based on some beliefs or notions, imposed more often than not for the supposed good of the citizens subjects.

How we more specifically define conservatism is subject to some debate. Even the great Russell Kirk struggled with a compact definition, leading him to his Ten Conservative Principles that were his best shot.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.
[...]
It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives’ convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims.

At an even lower level, it boils down to this, really. Conservatism is the style of governance of a nation that supports the imposition of enough order, and no more, to secure the basic rights and the maximum sustainable liberty of individuals. Facing outward, it supports a foreign policy robust enough, and no more, to secure the internal system.

Flowing from that I believe comes the core thoughts of of Kirk’s Ten (my paraphrase).
–There are absolute right and wrongs, that dictate both basic rights and basic duties.
–Man’s ability to govern without ruling is less than assured.
–Freedom is paramount.
–Untested new is not often better than established old.

Take away conservatism, what do you get?

All these isms — leftism, marxism, statism, socialism, fascism, communism, fascism, or just plain old-fashioned totalitarian dictatorship — are just various manifestations of theabsence of conservative principles. Most of these are built on some misguided notion that if the state can control enough factors of human civilized life, it can bring about a superior reality. Even well-meaning systems are horribly flawed, and make the fatally stupid assumption that the people in power will guide their actions for the best of their citizenssubjects.

Conservative principles are uprightness and liberty with order. In the absence of conservative principles, the guaranteed result is powerlust, tyranny, human slavery, oppression. In whatever organized or disorganized form it takes, and whatever motives might have inspired it, the end — the inevitable, inescapable end — is unbridled power, license, and excess for the rulers, and poverty and oppression for everybody else.

Don’t believe it?

Let’s play the absence-of-Kirk game

Let’s take away all ten Russell Kirk principles, and see what it leaves us:

1. No enduring moral order.
With no intrinsic right and wrong, then there can be no expectation that people with their hands on the levers of governmental power will act with honesty or integrity, or with the needs of their constituents in mind. Ah, who cares!

2. No adherence to custom, convention, and continuity.
Old-school is just old-fashioned. There is no value in things being done the way they were before. New ideas are cool.

3. No principle of prescription.
There *is* no wisdom of the ages. Family is unimportant. The Constitution should be “living” because those people could not anticipate the modern world. Schools, not family, should be the source of a child’s values.

4. No principle of prudence.
I have a brand new idea! And I think we should totally remake the fabric of society to conform to my new idea. I haven’t really thought about unintended consequences, but hey, I’m smart and popular, so I must be right.

5. No principle of variety.
We must impose equality! It’s unfair that some people are better at what they do, work harder, went through a grueling training process, made sacrifices. Everyone should make the same amount of money, there should be no punishment for bad investment or bad decisions, no child should be left behind, and everybody should have universal health care, paid for by those greedy, cheating rich!

6. No principle of imperfectability.
We really should be more lenient on criminals. They’re misunderstood, we should focus on rehabilitation, they had a rough childhood.

7. Freedom and property are not closely linked.
You can be free, even if we confiscate most of your money through taxes. We can impose all manner of ridiculous regulation on businesses and individuals without seriously infringing on your liberty.

8. Voluntary community is not required, involuntary collectivism is acceptable.
The government can regulate, at its discretion, what groups you can and cannot belong to, what kind of neighborhood you can live in. Further, we can even force you into communities, and dictate exactly what social and professional relationships you must have.

9. No need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.
People who hold power for long periods of time are never corrupted (unless they’re Republicans, of course). There are no needs for safeguards like the threat of impeachment, Senate confirmation hearings, judicial review, veto power, veto override, checks and balances, and separation of powers.

10. Permanence and change need not be recognized and reconciled.
Just forge on! Change!

The absence of conservatism. Looks pretty fun, doesn’t it?

Why they call it conservative

Outside of politics,Merriam-Webster defines conservative as:

a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional
b : marked by moderation or caution
c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

It’s not so hard to see how the term came to be embraced. It’s not an exact match, to be sure. Conservatism is cautious about change, but not overly so. It respects the wisdom of tradition. While the normal definition fails to account for the central theme of conservatism it’s not a far stretch to say that conservatives seek to “conserve” the core freedoms, the fundamental rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the perfect word, perhaps, but it’ll do.

And it is the perfect political philosophy.

Conservatism in America

This week’s striking Gallup poll on political ideology is further confirmation that the United States is in essence a conservative nation, which has ironically become even more conservative under Barack Obama. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate and 20 percent as liberal. This is the first time conservatives have outnumbered moderates in America since 2004.

These are staggering figures when you consider that the Left currently dominates the Executive Branch of the US Government, both Houses of the United States Congress, the federal bureaucracy, huge swathes of local government in many big cities, academia, the public school system, and most of the establishment broadcast and print media in America. The figures show there is a huge disconnect between the American public and those who wield much of the political power in the country.

Most significantly, Gallup’s 16 surveys of 5,000 adults conducted across 2009 have definitively shown that conservatism is on the rise despite the election in 2008 of the most liberal president in American history. The biggest factor pushing up conservative support has been a shift among independent voters, 35 percent of whom now describe themselves as conservative, compared to 29 percent in 2008.

The Gallup survey also reveals a distinctly rightward shift in public attitudes since the Obama administration took office, with a growing backlash against the US government’s support for big government solutions to the country’s economic woes, as well as a marked rise in public support for socially conservative views.

Here are several clear-cut examples of rising support for traditionally conservative positions on some of the biggest policy issues of the day, as outlined by Gallup:

• Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009.
• The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009.
• Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict — the traditionally liberal position — fell from 49% to 44%.)
• The percentage of Americans favoring a decrease in immigration rose from 39% in June/July 2008 to 50% in July 2009.
• The propensity to want the government to “promote traditional values” — as opposed to “not favor any particular set of values” — rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.
• The percentage of Americans who consider themselves “pro-life” on abortion rose from 44% in May 2008 to 51% in May 2009, and remained at a slightly elevated 47% in July 2009.
• Americans’ belief that the global warming problem is “exaggerated” in the news rose from 35% in March 2008 to 41% in March 2009.

Last November, liberal commentators wrote off conservatism in America as dead and buried. As the latest Gallup poll shows they were spectacularly wrong. It is no coincidence that the most watched news network, the top selling national newspaper, and the most listened to radio shows in the United States are now all conservative.

The success of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, is a powerful symbol of a vigorous challenge to current liberal dominance of Washington. The vast conservative blogosphere is also an increasingly influential force, from National Review’s The Corner to The Drudge Report, as are leading conservative commentators such as Charles Krauthammer. Combine that with a huge rise in membership this year for grass roots conservative groups campaigning against higher taxes, socialized health care, increased government spending, and defence cuts, and you have the foundations of another conservative revolution.

The spirit of Ronald Reagan is alive and well in America, exemplified by strong public backing for the principles of limited government, free enterprise, individual responsibility and a strong defence. The White House should sit up and take note: it is liberalism, and not conservatism, that is in decline in the United States.

Healthcare Mandate Unconstitutional

Constitutionality of Health Overhaul Questioned

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:07 AM

By: Donald Lambro, The Washington Post

On top of all the other obstacles facing President Obama in his quest to pass health reform is this one: Does the U.S. Constitution allow the government to require uninsured Americans to buy medical insurance or impose a tax penalty if they refuse?

Congress has never before required citizens to purchase any good or service, but that is what both House and Senate health bills would mandate.

While this debate has been overshadowed by other issues involving the plan's nearly $1 trillion cost and its government-run option, the constitutional argument strikes at a pivotal part of the health care plan's finances. To make a government-run health care plan work, the nation's largely uninsured young adults would need to be covered to help subsidize medical care for older and typically less-healthy Americans, legislators say.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed the complaint Thursday when she was asked by a reporter if the Democrats' health reform proposal was constitutional.

"Are you serious? Are you serious?" Mrs. Pelosi replied.

But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said the argument could not be ignored.

"I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I think it's wrong to mandate that the American people have to do anything," he told reporters at his own press briefing last week.

The question of the mandate's constitutionality "hasn't been part of the public debate, but the legal community has been debating it. It's been on all the legal blogs," said Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He said "the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to force Americans to purchase health insurance."

In 1994, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office noted that a "mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action."

"The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States," the CBO said. The statement was part of an analysis of then-President Clinton's ill-fated health care reform plan, which also required that all Americans purchase health insurance plans.

The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce ... among the several states" - a clause that has served as the foundation for broad economic regulatory and taxing powers claimed by the legislative branch.

But Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, asks, "Where in the [Constitution] is the power to mandate that individuals buy health insurance?" His answer: Nowhere.

"The business of providing health insurance is now an entirely intrastate activity" beyond the regulatory sway of the federal government, he said.

Washington lawyers David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argued in an Aug. 22 column in The Washington Post that Congress has no constitutional power to tell people what they must buy.

"The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress, and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it," they said.

But other legal scholars say that the Supreme Court has in recent decades taken a much broader view of Congress' commerce powers and would likely do the same in this case if the legislation's mandate is challenged in court.

"I would be willing to wager with Professor Barnett that the Supreme Court would uphold such a mandate, given the court's expansive reading of the Commerce Clause. In fact, I don't think the vote would be close," Washington and Lee University professor Timothy Stoltzfus Jost said.

Even some conservative legal analysts who oppose the health care reform think that in the end, if the legislation passes, Congress would win in the courts.

"In this case, the overall scheme would involve the regulation of 'commerce' as the Supreme Court has defined it for several decades, as it would involve the regulation of health care markets. And the success of such a regulatory scheme would depend upon requiring all to participate," writes Jonathan H. Adler, law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland was asked at a news conference recently whether Congress had "the power to mandate that somebody buy health insurance." He replied: "Promoting the general welfare in the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. Clearly, this is within our constitutional responsibility."

The Senate Finance Committee, which recently approved one of the Senate's two main health care bills, "thoroughly explored the issue and believes that the policies put forward in our bill will fall within" the constitutional powers of Congress, a top aide said.

But the excise tax that would be imposed on anyone who did not purchase insurance and its enforcement "would invite [constitutional] scrutiny," said a paper presented to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies by Peter Urbanowicz, a lawyer and health care management consultant, and Dennis G. Smith, senior research fellow in health care reform at the Heritage Foundation.

They cited Columbia University health policy professor Sherry Glied, named by Mr. Obama to a top policy job in the Department of Health and Human Services, who warned that "developing a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country."

"It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable."

Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved

Conservative Counter Mobilization

More Signs of Trouble for 2010 William Galston

The current state of American politics presents a paradox. On the one hand, survey after survey testifies to the rock-bottom standing of the Republican Party. Fewer Americans identify with the party than in the past, and fewer trust it to deal with the country’s problems. On the other hand, there are hard-to-ignore signs of a conservative resurgence. A 15,000 person Gallup survey out today shows that 40 percent of Americans now identify themselves as conservative (up from 37 percent at the time of Obama’s election), while only 20 percent regard themselves as liberal (down from 22 percent). Far more independents (35 percent) consider themselves conservative than was the case a year ago (only 29 percent).

These findings would be less compelling if they were not linked to conservative shifts on specific issues--but they are, and the Gallup organization enumerates a considerable list. Among them: increasing opposition to government regulation of business and gun ownership; an uneasy feeling about the influence of labor unions; increasing support for immigration restrictions and government promotion of traditional values; and diminished support for strong action on climate change. The percentage of Americans who believe that government is trying to do too much stands at its highest level (57 percent) in many years. Trust in government is near all-time lows, and Americans believe that 50 cents of every federal tax dollar is wasted--the highest level ever.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that unified Democratic government has sparked a conservative counter-mobilization. Because we cannot rerun history as a controlled experiment, we will never know whether this could have been avoided had the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats adopted a different strategy. In any case, it’s too late to reverse it.

Still, Democrats must ask themselves whether there’s anything they can do over the next year--for example, a meaningful shift toward fiscal restraint--to reduce the intensity level of the conservative assault. If not, the combination of an energized opposition and an electorate battered by high unemployment, slow growth, and the perception of out-of-control spending could set the stage for an ugly outcome. This wouldn’t mean that Republicans had regained credibility as a governing party; odds are that it will take more than two years to erase the public’s sour memories of the Republican congressional majority and George W. Bush’s presidency. It would mean that a substantial portion of the electorate wanted to send Democrats a message that they had gone too far.

The Clinton administration (in which I served) was derailed by the results of its first midterm election, and it took Democrats a decade to recover. While there are reasons to believe that Republicans won’t do as well this time, Democratic leaders should take seriously the possibility of a significant electoral reverse and act strategically to make it less likely.

Prosperity Linked to Democracy

Let Freedom Ring
Joel Kotkin, 10.27.09, 12:01 AM ET

With autocratic states like China and Russia looking poised for economic recovery, it's often hard to make the case for ideals such as democracy and rule of law. To some, like Martin Jacques, author of When China Rules, autocrats seem destined to rule the world economy.

A columnist for the Guardian, Jacques predicted that by 2050 China will easily surpass America economically, militarily and politically. The belief in the power of autocracy even extends to such leading American capitalists as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who have nothing but high praise for what Gates enthusiastically describes as a "brand-new form of capitalism."

Fortunately a new study released Monday by my colleagues at the Legatum Institute refutes the notion that the road to worldly riches lies in autocracy and repression. In a careful study of everything from economic opportunity, education and health to security, freedom of expression and societal contentment, the Legatum "Prosperity Index" makes a powerful case for the long-term benefits of democracy, free speech and the rule of law.

Some of this stems from how Legatum measures prosperity. The survey takes into account both wealth and well-being, and finds that the most prosperous nations in the world are not necessarily those that just have a high GDP, but that also have happy, healthy, free citizens.

The top of the list, which ranks 104 countries, is dominated by flourishing democracies. The only exception in the top 20 is No. 18's Hong Kong, which ranks first in economic fundamentals and continues to be ruled, if not quite democratically, under a far more permissive system than the rest of mainland China. The next semi-autocratic state on the list is Singapore, at No. 23--another Confucian-style autocracy with great economic and human capital fundamentals.

This linking of democracy and prosperity with well-being is by far the most significant aspect of the study. But what else determines the success of nations in the modern world?

1. Small democracies do best.

The denizens of the Greek city-states or their Renaissance counterparts would have recognized something of themselves in the small, well-managed countries that dominate the top of the list. The top five, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway--as well as the Netherlands at No. 8--certainly fit this description. These countries rank highly on the quality of life measurements, and, not surprisingly, their main cities also tend to dominate the most-livable-cities lists. With the exception of Switzerland and the Netherlands, these places do not perform as well in terms of basic economics, scoring between 10th and 18th. Although some might ascribe these rankings to successful social democratic policies, virtually all these mini-states have instated significant market-oriented reforms in recent years.

Other top players Australia (No. 6) and Canada (No. 7) are far larger than their European rivals. And though their citizens are not as socially coddled as in Scandinavia, they enjoy strong democratic institutions, high levels of social well-being and good governance and education.

And in purely economic terms Australia and Canada boast better economic fundamentals than the Scandinavian countries. One reason may be their enormous stockpiles of natural resources, now in high demand from countries like China and India. These countries also benefit by a large and often skilled migration from these and other Asian countries.

2. Among the mega-countries, the U.S. is still way ahead

Don't cry for me, America. In terms of the large countries, both in population and size, no one comes close to the No. 9-ranked U.S. Indeed there's not another country with over 100 million people on the list until you get to Japan at No. 16.

Like all big countries, America is a complicated place, with distinct areas of strength as well as disturbing weaknesses. The U.S. leads all countries in entrepreneurship and innovation and ranks second in the stability of its democratic institutions--the Swiss are No. 1. Less than optimal health and safety rankings, however, push America from the top. Its economic fundamentals are also sub-prime, ranking only 14th, which isn't surprising in light of persistent current account and now government deficits.

Despite its problems, the U.S. still outperforms its other large rivals, not only Japan but also the U.K. (No. 12), Germany (No. 14) and France (No. 17). Yet judged within the ranks, all four of these economies have to be considered successful in terms of delivering prosperity and a reasonably high quality of life to their citizens.

3. Breaking down the BRICs

The Index's most fascinating findings can be found a bit further down. The focus of the world's economy has been shifting to countries that have been--and in some cases remain--governed by Communist, military or single-party dictatorships.

Democracy's efficacy can be seen clearly in success enjoyed by the former European Communist states--the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia and Hungary--all of which land in the first third of the ratings. Similarly, Taiwan (ranked 24th) and South Korea (26th), long ruled by military-dominated dictatorships, show how democratization and rising prosperity can flourish together.

This pattern can also be seen among the "big boys" of the economic upstarts--the so-called BRIC countries. Here the leaders of the pack are both functioning democracies, Brazil (No. 41) and India (No. 45). These rapidly growing economies are kept out of the top tier by significant shortcomings in vital fields such as education, health and public safety.

The other two BRIC powers, China and Russia, neither of which can be considered anything close to open societies, lag behind. Russia's mineral wealth gets it a respectable 39th in economic fundamentals, but a lack of democracy, personal freedom and personal safety--as well as poor governance and corruption--drags it down to a paltry 69th. China, ranked a disappointing No. 75, also performs admirably on economic fundamentals, clocking in at No. 29, but is hammered for glaring shortfalls in democracy, personal freedom and governance as well as health and education.

4. Autocracy may seem to pay, but not in the long run

Throughout modern history, autocracy has proved effective in sparking fast growth, but a pervasive democratic deficit, poor governance and lack of personal freedom seem likely to constrain long-term progress. For one thing, the ruling elite in the dictatorship is under no strong compulsion to adjust to the needs of its population. Short of forestalling outright rebellion, nest-feathering tends to gain the upper hand.

As you get to the bottom of the list, the price of dictatorship rises higher still. In this nether-region, there is nary a democratic state. Some of the low-ranking Third World countries are obvious--like Cameroon (No. 100) or Yemen (No. 101)--but some potentially rich but despotically ruled nations do poorly as well.

Take, for example, No. 94 Iran, a country with enormous natural resources, a well-educated population and a rich cultural heritage. A reasonably enlightened Iran would likely sit in the top third of the list instead of skipping toward the bottom.

Even the bottom-ranked country, Zimbabwe, left its colonial period with a thriving agriculture sector and great mineral wealth. Here again despotic rule has shown itself an adept destroyer of economic promise.

In these times of acute self-doubt not only in America but across the democratic world, the Legatum ratings validate the idea that if democracy is not the inevitable wave of the future it represents by far the most efficient way to manage a society. In the end, democracy and prosperity prove not two distinct elements, but, in fact, inextricably linked to each other.

Joel Kotkin is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is executive editor of newgeography.com and writes the weekly New Geographer column for Forbes. He is working on a study on upward mobility in global cities for the London-based Legatum Institute. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin early next year.

Enough's Enough

Nanny State, Squared

By Investor's Business Daily

Big Government: Hardly a day passes without the unveiling of some new federal intrusion into our lives. At some point Americans must say "enough's enough," or sit silently as all our precious liberties are taken away.

The Democrats in Congress and the White House are pushing through the most sweeping changes toward direct government control of our economy since at least the Great Depression. Consider just a few news items from recent days:

• The Senate moves to give the Food and Drug Administration huge new power over what we eat and drink, and what medicine we take.

• A House panel OKs a new Consumer Finance Protection Agency that will have direct control over consumer credit from banks and businesses - potentially killing a private system of consumer borrowing that, whatever its flaws, has led to unparalleled consumer wealth and access to credit.

• A new "bailout" is proposed for small businesses that will further distort markets, punish successful companies and reward failure. The opposite, in other words, of a free market economy.

• Execs of companies that took government bailouts get their pay slashed - courtesy of U.S. "paymaster" Kenneth Feinberg.

In ways large and small, it's easy to see we're building a nanny state that will make Europe's seem modest by comparison. After all, this doesn't even include health care "reform" or cap-and-trade. Soon, the federal government will control every aspect of our lives - though the Constitution explicitly forbids it.

This is the inevitable result of the massive expansion of government over the past year. The $700 billion TARP program, the $787 billion stimulus, a planned "second stimulus," $13 trillion in new debt over the next decade - inevitably, we'll see new government controls and regulations on nearly everything.

"They are awakening a vast regulatory apparatus with authority over nearly every U.S. workplace, 15,000 consumer products and most items found in kitchen pantries and medicine cabinets," the Washington Post has observed.

Too bad none of it's working. White House economic adviser Christina Romer acknowledged Thursday the stimulus is running out of steam - despite the $194 billion spent.

Meanwhile, the TARP czar admits that, despite comments last year that the bailout could end up paying for itself, very little of the more than $700 billion will be paid back.

What do we get? A slow-growing economy, fewer jobs, government-controlled incomes and trillions in new debt. Some nanny.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/10/23/nanny_state_squared__97467.html

Tennessee Boycotts Unconstitutional Federal Laws

State launches boycott of 'unconstitutional' federal laws
Urges 49 others to join in combating government's 'abuse of authority'

---

Posted: October 21, 2009

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Tennessee is urging 49 other states to come together and create a "joint working group between the states" to combat unconstitutional federal legislation and assert state rights.

Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.

State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been "blurred, bent and breached."

"The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay," Lynn wrote. "Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be."

She continued, "Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution."

Lynn said that the people created the federal government to be their agent only for certain enumerated purposes.

"The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States," she wrote. "The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves."

She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.

"With this in mind," she wrote, "any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress' authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom."

In one example of Tennessee's battle against federal government policies, federal gun regulators wrote to gun dealers around Tennessee in July, dropping the hammer on a state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

More recently, the state of Montana filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana's management of its own firearms.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3.

The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.

The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.

Montana's plan is called "An Act exempting from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana."

The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood in 1889.

"The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889," the law states.

The lead attorney for the plaintiffs' litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.

"We're happy to join this lawsuit," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, "because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.

"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," added MSSA President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."