• “Few and Defined,” not “Anything and Everything.”
    Articles,  Blog

    “Few and Defined,” not “Anything and Everything.”

    The powers of the federal government are “few and defined.” Today, the federal government claims the authority to do just about everything under the sun, from telling us what kind of plants we can grow in our backyard, to regulating the amount of water in our toilets. This is not what was promised During the ratification debates, opponents of the constitution feared the “whole mass of powers” held by the federal government would overwhelm the powers reserved to the States. In Federalist paper #45, James Madison forcefully argued that the constitution wasn’t set up that way. He wrote that the powers delegated to the federal government were “few and defined.”…

  • Patrick Henry on Making America “Great”
    Articles,  Blog

    Patrick Henry on Making America “Great”

    Patrick Henry did not want to make America “great.” A lot of people today seem to think the greatness of a country is in the size and scope of its government. They’ll point to the things it provides, like healthcare, social programs and other various services. Or they’ll talk about its military power and its place on the world stage. It wasn’t any different during America’s founding. After the Revolution, some people wanted to create a strong, centralized government so America could “be great.” During the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry was afraid the United States would end up with a powerful, consolidated National government, and that it would overwhelm…

  • Ratification History: North Carolina and Rhode Island Say No to the Constitution
    Articles,  Blog

    Ratification History: North Carolina and Rhode Island Say No to the Constitution

    Did you know North Carolina and Rhode Island were both independent countries for a short while even after the Constitution was ratified? Article 7 established the requirements for putting the new Constitution into effect. “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” Notice an important point here, ratification by those nine states didn’t automatically force the four non-ratifying states into the union. They would continue to exist independently until they ratified. And if a state never did ratify, it would never become part of the Union. There was no mechanism to force reluctant states…

  • Hamilton on Federal Overreach
    Articles,  Blog

    Hamilton on Federal Overreach

    Not valid. That’s what Alexander Hamilton called any federal act contrary to the Constitution. In Federalist paper #78, Hamilton wrote: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised is void.” And from this Hamilton drew the only logical conclusion. the road “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” In a nutshell, Hamilton told us the federal government is not supreme. Whatever authority it has was delegated to it by a higher authority – the people of the several states. If the federal government exercises any…

  • The Right to Choose with Cory Gardner
    Articles,  Blog

    The Right to Choose with Cory Gardner

    – [Narrator] In 2018, an incredible 46 states have legalized at least some form of medical cannabis, and so far, nine have legalized recreational use as well. Remarkably, some conservatives, lead by former attorney general Jeff Sessions, assert that federal law should trump the will of the states on this issue. What happened to federalism? Free the People sat down with US Senator Cory Gardner, whose state of Colorado was among the first to legalize the sale and use of cannabis. Senator Gardner isn’t the world’s biggest fan of weed, but he is a fan of the Constitution and its 10th Amendment. – Senator Gardner, thanks for sitting down with…

  • Executive Power under the Constitution
    Articles,  Blog

    Executive Power under the Constitution

    People often say they want a strong president who can get things done. But that’s pretty much the exact opposite of what the founding fathers set up under the Constitution. Because of their experience with colonial governors and the who ruled with almost complete and total authority, the Founding generation was determined to limit the power of the executive branch. They certainly didn’t want a president who could make law with the stroke of a pen. As Revolutionary War general John Sullivan put it, “I can by no means consent to lodging too much power in the hands of one person.” So to ensure the president wouldn’t rule over the…

  • Walter Williams: State vs Federal Power
    Articles,  Blog

    Walter Williams: State vs Federal Power

    James Madison, the acknowledged “Father of the Constitution” when he was explaining the constitution and he said that the powers that we gave the federal government are few and well-defined, and those left to the people and the States are indefinite and numerous. I think that all the States should recognize that the power lies with the states, not with the federal government. The States created the federal government the federal government did not create the States.

  • James Madison: Federal “Infrastructure” Spending is Unconstitutional
    Articles,  Blog

    James Madison: Federal “Infrastructure” Spending is Unconstitutional

    Did you know the federal government shouldn’t even be funding infrastructure? It might sound shocking, but it’s true. In fact, James Madison actually vetoed a “public works” bill funding infrastructure in 1817 calling it unconstitutional. The bill was “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States.” Virtually every American today would say that this is exactly what the feds should be doing. But the “Father of the Constitution” disagreed. Madison said: “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated… and it does not appear that the power proposed to…

  • Legal “Expert” Gets Supremacy Clause Wrong in Mainstream News Report
    Articles,  Blog

    Legal “Expert” Gets Supremacy Clause Wrong in Mainstream News Report

    Virtually any mainstream article that you read about state sovereignty or nullification is going to include a quote from a legal scholar. Now, nine times out of 10 this lawyer or law professor is going to cite the supremacy clause. It’s like federal supremacists think the supremacy clause is some kind of get out of jail free card. They slap it down and instantly any state action is invalidated. The Washington Examiner recently ran a fantastic article it was headlined “On the fifth anniversary of Snowden leak, one state effectively bans the NSA.” The article featured law recently passed in Michigan that bans all state support and cooperation with warrantless…

  • The “Commerce Clause” in 2 Minutes
    Articles,  Blog

    The “Commerce Clause” in 2 Minutes

    Supporters of the monster state want you to believe the feds can do just about anything they want under the commerce clause. They couldn’t be more wrong. The so-called “interstate commerce” clause is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. The founders explained that it authorizes the federal government to regulate the exchange of goods across state lines, along with some closely-related activities, such as navigation and marine insurance. This included policies traditionally governed by the rules pertaining to merchants. “Commerce” did not include other economic or non-economic activities. But today, the courts, bureaucrats and politicians have expanded the meaning of the clause to include any…