Our Founders
would have never even debated such a proposition; they probably would have
reached for their guns.
The Patriot Act has survived so long
because of the persistent myth surrounding the "supremacy" of federal law.
Article VI of the Constitution includes the so-called "supremacy clause,"
which states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the
Land." All judges, legislators, and executive officials, at the State and
federal levels, are bound by "Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution." This apparent confirmation of the supreme power of federal
law is actually tempered by the letter and intent of the
Constitution.
The "supremacy clause" is limited to those
powers of government enumerated in Article I, section 8 of the
Constitution. The president has no real powers; he only enforces the
constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress. What little power the
president has is limited and clearly defined in Article II . The Supreme
Court has absolutely no power; its only job is to rule on the
constitutionality of the actions of the other two branches of government.
If either branch chooses to ignore the Court, then there*s nothing the
Court can do to enforce its decisions. It*s that simple.
Speaking
of the "supremacy clause" in Federalist #27, Alexander Hamilton said, "the
laws of the Confederacy as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its
jurisdiction will become the Supreme Law of the land . . . Thus the
legislatures, courts, and magistrates of the respective members (States)
will be incorporated into the operations of the national government as far
as its just and constitutional authority extends" (emphasis in the
original). The "supremacy" of national laws, as Hamilton declared in
Federalist #34, is "expressly" confined "to laws made pursuant to the
Constitution" (emphasis in the original).
Federal "supremacy" is
further limited by the Tenth Amendment. The original seven articles of the
Constitution were ratified in 1789. The Bill of Rights was ratified in
1791. By declaring, "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 Tenth Amendment amended the
"supremacy clause," further solidifying the limitations of federal power.
Thus, federal powers are clearly confined to those enumerated in Article
I, section 8 of the Constitution.
By logical interpretation,
there is no federal power to provide Social Security, conduct random
searches at airports, fund education, feed the children of the poor,
provide medical care for the elderly, or declare certain substances to be
illegal. Regardless of the wishes of a majority of Americans, no such
powers are enumerated in the Constitution.
Also absent from the
enumerated powers of the federal government is the power to abridge any of
the liberties of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot
Act, which does exactly this, is therefore null, void, and unenforceable.
It should be treated as an act of treason against the Constitution, and
when necessary, forcefully resisted.
Opposition to the Patriot Act
is growing. To date, more than a hundred communities have passed
resolutions condemning the act. In some instances, local law enforcement
officials have been directed not to cooperate with federal officials
acting under the broad and unconstitutional directives of the Patriot Act.
Most of these condemnations, however, are merely symbolic. Only one
"community" has passed a resolution with any real teeth, one that would
surely make the Founder Fathers beam with pride.
The Alaska
Legislature recently passed a resolution which "recognizes the
Constitution of the United States of America as amended by the Bill of
Rights to be the supreme law of the land" (emphasis added). The resolution
clearly recognizes the limiting power of the Tenth Amendment. The
resolution states, in part, "to the extent legally possible, agents of the
state . . . shall not assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations,
interrogations, or arrest procedures," in violation of individual civil
rights and liberties, the U. S. Constitution, or the Alaska Constitution.
In effect, the Alaska Legislature has nullified the Patriot Act.
More States should follow the lead of the Alaska Legislature and
defend the Constitution, as the Founders would have done, against the
growing fascist tyranny in Washington. It*s the prudent, constitutional,
and peaceful course of action. Otherwise, contemporary American patriots
might be forced into the potentially ugly business of exercising their
Second Amendment right to defend their life, liberty, and property against
the encroachments of yet another George so far
away. |
