Rights are like a cookie, no matter how big the cookie and how small
the bites, eventually you run out of cookie"
In Part 1 of this series a concept was presented that
runs a bit contrary to current public conception � that the term States� Rights
can be used more for partisan benefit than a true
effort to protect the God-given Rights of the people. Part 2 demonstrated that as early as 1801 incursions attacking American
Liberty and States Rights had already started and have continued to this day. In fact
- in the 210 years since 1801 these incursions have grown into a
From a definition (
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia� Copyright � 2007)
of federated government
� The distribution of powers between the federal and state
governments is usually accomplished by means of a written
constitution, for a federation does not exist if authority can be
allocated by ordinary legislation. �"
Today it would be laughable to state that the federal
government does not create "new" authority from not only legislation
but also judicial edict and historically has also used armed
aggression. One does not have to look very far to find examples of
federal government laws that are obviously beyond the scope that any
of the Founding Fathers or Framers of the Constitution of 1787 could
Let�s look at such an example that most sane citizens
would agree is an example of the central government (The United States) that denies (as opposed to
guaranteeing) a citizen�s God-given Rights; is certainly on
questionable grounds for being within delegated powers; and is
somewhat stupid to boot.
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer in Ohio. The Secretary of Agriculture in
1940 established his grain quota as 11.1 acres under the Agriculture
Adjustment Act of 1938 based upon regulating inter-state commerce.
He grew 23 acres and used all of his grain to feed his livestock or
The law and case summary deals with "grain quotas"
laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President - to
regulate inter-state commerce. The farmer grew an extra 11.9
acres for use on his own land. This was deemed to be a violation of
the federal government "quota" established to regulate inter-state
commerce and he was fined. The Supreme Court (
, 317 U.S. 111
(1942)), sided with the government of which it is part � in
effect placing usage of private land for personal consumption into
the realm of inter-state commerce and Congressional
regulation even if the resulting product never leaves a citizens
In this case all three branches of the federal
government have in effect greatly expanded their "power" to regulate inter-state commerce delegated in Article I. Section 8:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the
, and with the Indian Tribes;
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.
It is certainly not obvious that grain grown on a
farm and never leaves the farm is Commerce
among the several
! The following excerpt from the referenced Supreme
Court decision confirms that this legislation was an expansion of
the power in the Constitution:
The present Chief Justice has said in summary of the
present state of the law:
'The commerce power is not confined
in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect
interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over
it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the
attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the
granted power to regulate interstate commerce.
The three branches of the federal government from my
perspective generated an expansion of their regulatory authority in
this case as they can do in any case where the three branches so
The issue being presented here is
whether or not such laws are good or bad. The issue is whether or
not the federal government has become the judge of what it can and
cannot do. It does not matter if you are a "conservative",
"liberal", "middle of the road", Republican, Democrat or just don�t
give a hoot. American Liberty is not a political position - it is a
form of government whose primary purpose is to guarantee your
our current form of government protect and guarantee our God-given
does not, and if it has become its own judge of what its powers are,
then regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum � from
right to left � you and your future generations will either belong
to an elite � or you will suffer tyranny!
For those who have problems understanding the second
bullet above � you do not understand why our Colonial forefathers
seceded and fought against the world�s most powerful nation to gain
their and your independence!
If you understand the second bullet then you also
understand why our Confederate forefathers seceded and fought
against the world�s most powerful nation in an effort to gain their
and your independence. If you do not understand the latter,
then you do not fully understand the second bullet.
A growing number of American citizens are finally
beginning to understand that the central government, known as the
government of The United States is not working like they want it to.
The mantra and battle cry for many of these concerned citizens is to
emphasize "States� Rights," "State Sovereignty," and "Nullification."
These concepts have a very solid foundation among
many of our Founding Fathers such as Patrick Henry and Thomas
Jefferson. Reusing the example from President Jefferson�s first
State of The Union report to Congress:
consider that this Government is charged with the external and
mutual relations only of these States; that the States themselves
have principal care of our persons, our property, and our
reputation, constituting the great field of human concerns, we
may well doubt whether our organization is not too complicated, too
expensive; whether offices and officers have not been multiplied
unnecessarily and sometimes injuriously to the service they were
meant to promote."
States� Rights as an aspect of government in our land draws support
from Article VII of the Constitution of 1787.
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be
sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the
States so ratifying the Same
This is clearly an agreement between the "States."
Historically this is confirmed by the fact that not all thirteen
States ratified the Constitution of 1787 at the same time. The
States created the government known today as The United States by
withdrawing from the previous government they had created by a
similar name under the Articles of Confederation (Article I):
The Stile of
this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of 1787 also supports the
concept of "States� Rights" (
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."
back and read the example above about the farmer who grew too much
wheat under the Congressional law. When the central government can
expand the legal definition of its delegated powers at will, how can
one ever define the phrase "not delegated?"
There is a major, very major problem with today�s
doctrine of "States� Rights" (including "State Sovereignty" and
over 200 years it has not worked! The Constitution was ratified in
1789 and the 10th Amendment was ratified in 1791 � so if
they are the solution - why has the problem gotten worse for 200
the opinion of this writer that if we are to restore and preserve
American Liberty for our future generations - State Powers must be
used as a check on the central government and to concurrently
guarantee our God-given Rights. We need to understand what went
wrong, why it has continued and what will have to be
done to avoid the cliff American Liberty is approaching. What
went wrong is complex and thus �