Loving God, Loving America: Keeping Your Balance in a Freefall World

By Gary Henderson

Reprinted from The American Thinker, August 25, 2013

What has happened to our Constitutional republic? Where is the rule of law? What about “the consent of the governed”? The President and Attorney General pick and choose which laws they will enforce. Faceless bureaucracies and nine unelected, unaccountable men and women in black robes dictate how we must behave and what we must believe, controlling every aspect of our national life. A screaming pro-abortion mob storms the Texas legislature, injecting chaos to prevent a vote against late-term abortions until after the midnight deadline closes the session. A single district judge, secretly gay, annuls the overwhelming majority decision of California voters rejecting homosexual marriage. This can’t be right.

You’re a Christian and a patriot, frustrated and angry that America’s leaders reject God, support Islam, and are moving towards criminalizing Christianity. You love your country and its heritage, but see it being driven towards Marxism and economic collapse. The people doing that damage are breaking all the rules of our political system, so you don’t see how you can “play fair” and have any effect opposing them. They seem determined to steal any remaining freedoms and smash the few remnants of Judeo-Christian morality, trampling on our Constitutional rights with abandon.

But didn’t Jesus say to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies”? Do you let them walk all over you? That can’t be right either.

How do you walk as a Christian and a patriot, doing all you can to preserve the America you love for your children and grandchildren, while leaving it all in God’s hands and “being anxious about nothing”?

First, the Christian part.

Get serious about being a Christian. You are a sojourner; this is not your home. God’s priorities are not the same as yours, and when you pray for Him to fix things you may not like how He does it. He scraped Jerusalem to the ground and sent them into 70 years of exile when His people ignored His commands; what will He do if His people today — the church — will not “humble themselves and pray and seek [His] face and turn from their wicked ways”? It won’t be pretty, but He will do whatever is required to get our attention and obedience.

Yes, He has blessed America, and blessed the world through her. But He’s much more focused on your character than America’s survival; nations rise and fall, but He’s training you for eternity. “Love your enemies” and complete, unconditional forgiveness of everyone are commands, not requests; do you not understand what happened on the cross?

His love, however, is not soft, weak, gullible, naive, or pandering. It was love that whipped the moneychangers at their tables in the temple and called the Pharisees a den of vipers. It was love that submitted to torture and brutal murder, buying the forgiveness of every sin on earth, and it was love that walked into Hell and brought out the captives. That’s the love you’re called to.

Next, give up anger, entitlement, and caring what people think, so you can deal effectively with the treachery of the world without being controlled and driven by it. The maker of Heaven holds you in His hand; why do you care what others say about you? Get over it.

When you are no longer reacting in anger and hurt feelings, you can think clearly and see what’s happening. When you give up being offended, give up protecting your rights, you can focus on His priorities instead; and when you aren’t protecting your reputation you are free to do and say what’s needed in every situation.

Now you’re ready to be a patriot.

You believe that our Constitution created the best form of government ever devised by man, enabling the prosperity and personal freedom that act as magnets drawing millions here from all over the world. But you also see it being aggressively, continually violated, and you see the inevitable result of that national unfaithfulness to the founding principles unfolding in our society and economy. Disaster is imminent.

You depend on elections to be your opportunity for change; but when your beliefs and priorities succeed in an election, the opponents run to friendly federal judges and leverage judicial tyranny to overturn the results. If that fails, they threaten violence in the streets. Throughout this whole process the mass media distorts the truth and encourages the poorly-informed population to believe lies, and your opponents even use the power of federal agencies to frighten and discourage those who would stand with you.

Why are you upset that others cheat and lie? Did you not expect it? In fact, they probably think you cheat and lie. But you’ve given up anger, remember? And you don’t care what people think of you. So you are able to talk about any of your concerns with anyone, anytime, calmly and with love and forgiveness in your heart towards them.

OK, you’re still working on that part.

Think of it as a chess game; expect to be attacked, think long term, and don’t take it personally. More importantly, remember that our warfare is not with flesh and blood, but with the forces that drive those opposing us. Seek the wisdom that is wiser than the foolishness of men.

Let’s go a level deeper. What if your assessment of their actions is correct, and their actions will in fact result in more damage to things you hold dear? And further, what if your assessment of their motives is correct, that they are acting from an intentional desire to grab personal power and wealth at the expense of people, traditions, and what’s left of our freedoms? In short, what if they are truly acting from evil motives to accomplish destructive ends?

Jesus requires us to love our enemies. Roll that around in your mind, let it sink in, plumb the thought until you realize what He is saying: we are to love even those who seek our destruction.

How can this be? It is because they are made in God’s image, just as you are, and He honors every man’s free will.

We are required, as Christians, to extend to them the same freedom to choose that God does, and the same forgiveness that God extends to us. They are as free to choose their motives as you are. They are as free to choose their actions, and suffer the consequences, as you are. The cross paid for their sin just as fully as it paid for yours; their sin is no worse than yours, in the eyes of God.

Does that mean we are doormats? Do we not deal with criminal actions?

Of course we do. There’s no conflict between true Christianity and self-defense, criminal prosecution, the death penalty, and other means of providing necessary consequences for evil actions. God gave government the power of the sword for a reason, and in America, “we the people” are the source of sovereignty for all branches of government. We delegate some of that sovereignty as “police power” to our cities and states so that evil actions will incur appropriate consequences.

So we deal firmly with wrongdoing, passionately opposing destructive actions in the political arena, in the schools, in the media; but we do it with grace, realizing that we are dealing with spiritual forces more than human ones, and without condemnation, hate, or condescension for our opponents. They have as much freedom to be wrong as we do!

Now you’re ready to walk as a Christian and a patriot: passionately loving America, but not clinging to it; extending forgiveness and respect to those who, like yourself, don’t deserve it; and looking for the part God has for you to play in the unfolding of our part of history, the part we call “today.”

It is crucial to leave results in His hands, realizing that He is working on many levels and in many hearts, and that the specific, local outcome we desire may not be in His plans at all.

We may see an extension of the American blessing, and we may not. Nations rise and fall, and He has them all in His hands. This is just a small part of a much longer story called Eternity, in which all men get to make their choices, and in which — at some point we cannot imagine — every knee will bow, and every tear will be wiped away.

Gary Henderson is the author of “Freedom. You Can Handle It. But Hurry!”

Posted in Priorities, The State of the Nation, Walking with God | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

It’s Time for Plan C

By Gary Henderson

Reprinted from The Patriot Post, May 17, 2013

When Mrs. Powel asked Benjamin Franklin after the Constitution was drafted, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” he famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

We will now find out.

The Declaration and the Constitution offer three firewalls, three levels of protection, to keep the republic from collapsing into some form of tyranny. Plan A is not working. Plan B is viable, but is being adopted slowly and perhaps too late. Plan C has not been tried.

The problem has become urgent now that the federal government, created to be subservient to the states, has completely overwhelmed them and routinely dictates how things must be done in every aspect of American life. Most of this smothering control is in clear violation of Constitutional limits. The bully now runs the playground. We no longer have fifty laboratories of freedom, and soon may have no freedom at all.

In the words of Charles Evans Hughes1 on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, “When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.”

Plan A

The founders worked hard to protect us from the possibility that the new government might soon overreach its carefully-drawn boundaries. The first firewall was to assign each part of the federal government its own specific authorities, expecting each branch to defend those prerogatives and responsibilities from encroachment by the others. But the executive and legislative branches have completely surrendered their right to decide whether actions of the other branches are Constitutional or not; today we assume the judicial branch has complete say in the matter. Congress and the President freely create unconstitutional law and count on the Supreme Court to either stop it or let it pass, depending on their goals.

If one branch has complete discretion over what the Constitution means, it has far more power than was intended; Jefferson warned2 us that allowing this situation to develop with the judicial branch in particular would lead to the Court becoming despotic. Today we see it in action.

So Plan A, the separation of powers, has failed. Our lives are often dominated by a single swing vote at the Supreme Court. When those favoring the heavy hand of government obtain a bare majority over those who favor Constitutional freedom, tyranny reigns. The current cost of just one of those decisions now numbers over fifty-four3 million lives, with perhaps a million more being lost each year.

Plan B

The second firewall was the strict reservation to the states of all rights and authorities not specifically assigned to the new government. But Plan B has also failed: just like the various branches of the central government, the states have abandoned their rightful place in protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. They have capitulated to the idea that the federal government is supreme; if an appeal to the Supreme Court does not right the wrong, then that wrong stands unchallenged.

The federal government encourages that belief. When Governor Sam Brownback signed legislation4 declaring that federal actions violating the Second Amendment would not be honored in Kansas, Attorney General Eric Holder declared5, “… [the Kansas law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional…. Under the Supremacy Clause… Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities.”

A minor point has escaped Mr. Holder: the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution cannot authorize ‘official responsibilities’ which are specifically forbidden by other clauses of the same document.

In Federalist 466, James Madison assured the voters that today’s situation would never arise:

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every [State] government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted…. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both … that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

However, here we are. As we watched routine TSA violations of the Fourth Amendment at the Houston airport, a police officer shrugged and said to me, “That whole area is federal. They do whatever they want.” Indeed they do, and apparently they think we must do whatever they want as well.

The Texas Attorney General is reported to have said his entire job now consists of going to work, suing the federal government, and going home. This is unacceptable. We have better things to do with our lives and our money than to have both of them squandered by the tyrant class. That’s what 1776 was all about, after all.

Plan C

What is our alternative, when Plan A and Plan B have both failed us? Plan C is waiting in the final phrase of the Tenth Amendment7, which says the powers not delegated to Washington are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That’s us. The people.

The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution implementing its principles, are based on the belief that “we the people” are sovereign. The city, county, state, and federal governments work for us. We delegate some of our authority to them in order to protect our lives, our families, our property, and our freedom to live our lives in peace; but we never give up that authority, and we can take it back if needed.

We have as much authority as anyone else to decide whether federal actions are Constitutional; in fact, we have more authority than Washington, because the federal government was established and limited by us, not vice-versa. When a State declares that a particular federal action violates Constitutional authority, and therefore will not be honored in that State, it is acting on behalf of the people, and it is speaking with the authority delegated to the State by the people who live there.

What if the State you live in fails to act?

The next line of defense must be “we the people.” But how? Acting within what organization, what process, what leadership, if both the federal and state authorities have abdicated their responsibility? When the first two firewalls have failed, when both the federal and state representatives have acceded to tyranny, what can we do?

Perhaps the next place we can make a stand is at the county level, or in groups of counties.

At this level there are elected governments and independent law enforcement entities, both of which are accountable to the people within those jurisdictions and act within their sovereign, delegated authority. The County Sheriff in particular works for the people, not for the state or the federal government, and has taken an oath to support the Constitution and defend the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But counties do not typically have the authority to make law, in the same sense that states and the federal government do. How do we declare things to be unconstitutional, acting as “we the people” in a specific county, and enable the County Sheriff — who has the authority, the organization, and the processes to enforce it — to do so?

If this were done, each such county could become home to people and companies that welcome the freedom from the costs and burdens being imposed by an abusive federal government, and reap the economic benefits of that freedom. The more counties that take that stand, the more pressure on their State to do likewise.

Part 2 of this series, “Plan C: County Freedom,” will explore how this approach can be implemented and the barriers to be overcome.

Gary Henderson is author of “Freedom. You Can Handle It. But Hurry!”8

Posted in The Constitution, The State of the Nation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Freedom! But Hurry …

Freedom. You Can Handle It. But Hurry!  The second edition is out – after the election, the Obamacare ruling, and increasing evidence of where this administration is headed.

The nation is arming itself. Why?

Anyone who paid attention in history class can answer the question.

This book shows you the American dream, how it is being destroyed, and what we can do to save it … so those guns won’t need to be used. If the federal government won’t willingly obey the law, the states must force it to do so. If they will not, tyranny will come to our counties, our neighborhoods, and our front doors.

Freedom. For you, your kids, your grandkids … it’s still possible, but we need to hurry.


Available in print from online bookstores, and in the various ebook formats for the Kindle, the Nook, and the Apple iBook readers.



Posted in The Constitution, The State of the Nation | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are Treaties the Supreme Law of the Land?

By Gary HendersonReprinted from The Patriot Post, February 13, 2013Let’s listen in on a conversation:

– If the Senate approves that U.N. treaty, I’ll lose my gun rights!
– Well, no.
– If the Senate approves the other U.N. treaty, I won’t be able to raise my kids the way I should!
– Yes, you will.
– But the Constitution says a treaty becomes the supreme law of the country!
– Yes, but …
– Everyone says that’s what would happen, and I’m worried. With this President …
– This President and Senate, already in open violation of their Constitutional obligations, could do massive damage to the traditions, laws, and freedoms of this country.
– Right. That’s right! So why shouldn’t I be worried?

Why, indeed?

We seem to believe that the Senate, with the President’s signature, can indeed adopt any foolishness proposed as a treaty by the UN or any another country and thereby accomplish whatever they want, regardless of Constitutional limits or the will of the people.

Is that what the founders intended? Is that what the Constitution says? That such an action would become the supreme law of the land, and as such override the Constitution, all federal and state laws, and all legal precedent since the country began?

No, thank goodness, that’s not what it means.

Take another look at the supremacy clause in Article VI of the Constitution1, and how it relates to laws and treaties:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


The first phrase establishes that the Constitution and laws written “in Pursuance thereof” by the new federal government — the “United States” — will be “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Consider that phrase, “in Pursuance thereof.” Are all laws created by the federal government done in pursuance of the Constitution? Apparently not. What shall be said of those that are not, those that are in clear violation of the Constitution?

The Tenth Amendment2 emphasizes that all powers not delegated to the new federal government “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” When the federal government takes unauthorized actions, it is trespassing on the authority reserved to the states and the people, and those actions do not rise to the level of law.

But is this reading too much into the word “Pursuant”? Doesn’t it just mean anything they choose to do as they go about governing the country?

Alexander Hamilton offered these assurances in Federalist No. 333 to those fearing exactly this misuse of the supremacy clause:

But it will not follow … that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. … It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that [the clause] EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed.

So Mr. Hamilton, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, declares that any action taken in violation of the specific terms of the Constitution is not “pursuant,” and in fact needs to be treated as an invasion into the states’ authority and an act of usurpation. It is so obvious to him that he apologizes for even mentioning it.

To those who wrote the Constitution, “in Pursuance thereof” meant actions that are clearly within the assigned responsibilities given to the federal government, and nothing more.


Moving to the next phrase in Article VI we find a similar constraint being expressed regarding treaties: “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States…”

So apparently treaties can be made that are not “under the Authority of the United States.” Obviously this would include treaties that we have not signed, but it must also include treaties that the federal government does not have the authority to sign — treaties not signed “pursuant to” the Constitution, treaties dealing with areas that are not in fact under their authority.

Gun Control

For example, a treaty might arise that affects an area of society or American life that the federal government is specifically forbidden from addressing. If the UN proposed a treaty governing the manufacture, sale, or ownership of firearms — just to choose something completely at random, very unlikely to ever happen — the federal government would not be permitted to sign that treaty, because the Second Amendment2 specifically forbids the federal government from taking any such action. If the Senate and President were to approve such, it would still have no legal effect and should be ignored by the states and the citizens.

Thomas Jefferson explained it this way in the Kentucky Resolutions of 17984:

…whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…

In the Virginia Resolution of 17985, James Madison, the “father of the Constitution,” declared that:

…in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted [by the Constitution to the federal government], the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil…

But if they sign such a treaty and the enforcers come, will your state “interpose” on your behalf? Will your county Sheriff even know that he has a role to play, and that his oath of office requires him to stand between you and this “exercise of other powers” never given to the federal government?

The Rights of the Child

What if they approve a treaty affecting how you raise your child? Many have trumpeted the dangers of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and warn of its potential impact on your ability to raise your own children.

The Tenth Amendment is as strong as the Second. You will search in vain for the Constitutional phrase that conveys authority to Congress, much less to an external body like the U.N., to have anything to say about your parenting methods. In America that responsibility is part of the vast body of rights that are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

But should the government ever sign such a treaty, and the federal agents (or state agents working at their direction) come to your door, the crucial question will again be whether your local law enforcement is prepared to deal with it appropriately and defend you.

What if it gets into the courts and the Supreme Court approves it? Doesn’t the Supreme Court get to decide what’s “Constitutional”? When the Supreme Court decides something, don’t we all have to obey?

Not according to the founders, the men who wrote the rules. Congress and the states have at least as much right to decide the matter.

As James Madison told Congress on June 18, 1789, “Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.” In other words, “Congress, you have just as much right to decide what is Constitutional as the courts do!”

And Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 816 that nothing in the proposed Constitution “directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”

In fact, the states have more authority than the federal courts, since the states formed the federal government, not the other way around.

This may be a surprise, since it contradicts your entire life’s experience, but the nine unelected friends of the President who sit on the Supreme Court cannot rewrite the Constitution any more than you can. Neither can the Senate and the President by simply signing a treaty.

Unless we let them.

Gary Henderson7 is author of “Freedom. You Can Handle It. But Hurry!8

Posted in current events, The Constitution, The State of the Nation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

If the Constitution Doesn’t Matter …

Originally published in AmericanThinker.com on February 7, 2013

By Gary Henderson

The Congress votes on restricting the size of ammunition magazines, expanding controls over who can buy guns, and limiting the types of guns that citizens can buy, even though the Constitution expressly forbids them from passing any such laws.

The EPA director uses a false email identity to hide her communications from public scrutiny. An entire network of three-letter agencies takes over Congressional functions and operates outside of Constitutional bounds as unaccountable lawmakers, enforcers, and judges in every area of life.

The president decides he doesn’t care for certain laws and therefore won’t enforce them, even though that is his job. He demands that private companies obey his wishes, and attacks those who don’t.

The Congress votes on far-reaching laws without even reading them. The Supreme Court declares them to be Constitutional even though they are outside the functional areas delegated to the federal government. The Senate can’t be bothered to consider a budget.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, but the president casually waives the application of onerous legislation for companies he favors, sparing them massive cost and compliance burdens that their competitors must still bear.

The federal government refuses to carry out its Constitutional border control responsibility, and sues a state that tries to protect itself by enforcing existing federal law.

The Tenth Amendment reserves all undelegated powers to the states or the people, but the docile states take federal money and mostly operate as federal departments, not as independent and sovereign entities.

In 2008 our current president said we need a “civilian national security force” as large and well-funded as the U.S. military. Domestic agencies have now stockpiled over a billion rounds of ammunition, much of it hollow-point cartridges designed for close-combat use… inside the country?

Does the Constitution not matter anymore?

George Washington believed that

…the Constitution, which at any time exists ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.

The means of changing it “by an explicit act of the whole People” are set forth in the document itself, and they don’t include having a “living document” draw deeply on something that looks like a homemade cigarette, wander among the penumbras and emanations, and declare itself to mean something new, something never before imagined.

The only alternative is for it to be discarded, if not kept; there’s no provision for it to be gently smudged into a slightly different set of “suggested guidelines” for each new administration. It has no severability clause allowing some pieces to be kept and others struck. Picking and choosing is not an option.

So has it been discarded? Are we in a post-Constitutional period, as Mark Levin suggests?

Let’s take a stroll through a world where the Constitution no longer governs:

The first Article is gone. Well, look at that. We no longer have a Congress, and no one has the power to tax us for the responsibilities listed in Article I, Section 8. There is no Senate, and no House of Representatives. The smoke-filled cloakrooms can be aired out and turned into museum storage. The restaurants around the Capitol will have 535 fewer customers for lunch when the moving vans are gone, not counting reporters, lobbyists, and others who can go back to their hometowns and find real work.

Article II is gone. We no longer have a president. Whoever is living in the White House needs to pack up his family and go find a job; he’s trespassing on someone else’s property, and there’s no Treasury to pay that pension he was counting on. Put the teleprompter on eBay and give the Japanese shotgun to someone who can actually point it at the skeet.

Article III is gone. That grand Supreme Court building is empty. The District of Columbia can use the building for a City Hall. Oops, the District of Columbia is gone, and we have a square section of land between the states that has no government. (Actually, that’s not much of a change.)

The ACLU no longer has to worry about the Ten Commandments being displayed in a government building, since the building has outlasted the government. In fact, the ACLU may need to find real work too.

Article IV is gone. No new states can be admitted to the Union; of course, there’s no Union left to be admitted to.

Article V? No need for rules to amend a discarded document. Article VI? The states can make their own treaties, and there’s no more need for an oath to support the abandoned document.

And so it goes. If the Constitution no longer matters to the president, the Congress, or the Supreme Court, then it no longer matters. To anyone.

But that’s the document that creates and defines the structure and role of the federal government itself. If we have no Constitution, then we have no federal government.

Perhaps those who refuse to honor the Constitution should consider where that road leads. This could have a serious impact on the housing market along the Potomac.

And without a federal government, who will bail out California?

Gary Henderson is the author of Freedom. You Can Handle It. But Hurry!

Reprinted from: AmericanThinker.com

Posted in The Constitution, The State of the Nation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How Do We Deal with Constitutional Crime?

Have you noticed there is no penalty for violating the Constitution?

No penalty for Congress for not obeying their own laws, such as the one requiring a budget be passed each year?  No penalty for an Administration that aggressively works against the Second Amendment?  No penalty for a President who seizes for himself the authority assigned to Congress?  No penalty for TSA agents who violate the fourth amendment all day long in our airports?

It’s higher than state or federal crime, which is handled by state and federal courts.  It’s crime against “we the people” … but there’s no court available and there are no penalties defined …

Until we can put the federal beast back inside its cage (its Constitutional limits), we have to handle this in the states where possible. We who formed and limited the federal government need to defend the rights and authorities we kept “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” by disallowing federal lawlessness within our borders.  The county Sheriffs have that authority.  Sheriffs who allow the TSA to abuse citizens at airports within their counties, for example, are in clear violation of their oath of office.

And if Congress allows the President to trample on its authority, shame on “we the people” for electing such poor representatives.

Perhaps impeachment is the missing ingredient.  It’s how the founders expected us to deal with misbehaving officials, and we’ve lost the knack.

Posted in The Constitution, The State of the Nation | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Need for the States to Act

Texas has begun a new legislative session, and in order to reduce the damage that can be done, we only allow them to meet every other year.

As they send out notes to their constituents on their priorities, I keep looking to see if defending us from federal overreach is on their list.  As this administration brushes more Constitutional restraint aside each day, we move closer to massive societal disruption, and the only feasible solution is for the states to “just say no” to this flood of abuse.  In the past I’ve found that reaching out to both state and federal representatives on this subject results in a deafening silence.

In particular, a priority should be supporting the county Sheriffs in their ability to deal with federal agents enforcing unconstitutional acts within their counties.  A simple proclamation would be a major step forward, simply acknowledging their existing authority to do so as the ultimate law enforcement in their counties.  Of course, a state legislature actively declaring particular actions as “null and void” would be even better.

As I mentioned in a recent American Thinker article, James Madison scoffed at the idea that the states would ever allow the federal government to reach this point (Federalist #46), and described what would happen if they did.  It’s not pretty.

Is your state acting to protect you?  Talk to them.  The alternative is that the citizens will eventually have to do it themselves.

Posted in Priorities, The Constitution, The State of the Nation | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment