If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
~ The Beatles in “The Taxman”
The folks who have given him that title are the progressives who have largely written the history we are taught in government schools. They revere him because he is the intellectual progenitor of federal power.
Marshall’s opinions over a 34-year period during the nation’s infancy – expanding federal power at the expense of personal freedom and the sovereignty of the states – set a pattern for federal control of our lives and actually invited Congress to regulate areas of human behavior nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. He was Thomas Jefferson’s cousin, but they rarely spoke. No chief justice in history has so pronouncedly and creatively offered the feds power on a platter as he.
Now he has a rival.
No one can know the true motivations for the idiosyncratic rationale in the health care decision written by Marshall’s current successor, John Roberts. Often five member majorities on the court are fragile, and bizarre compromises are necessary in order to keep a five-member majority from becoming a four-member minority.
Chief Justice John Roberts is the most hated man in the United States of America today. He will be hated forever by strict constructionalists, but he will not be hated by conservatives reasonably versed in Supreme Court rulings, they will simply dislike him. After all, Justice Roberts is on solid Constitutional ground.
(“…from the very origins of the American republic, such nationalist politicians and government bureaucrats as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln toiled mightily to rewrite American constitutional history in such a way that would have made the propagandists of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany blush”) Rethinking America’s Supreme Judicial Dictatorship by Thomas DiLorenzo
Yours Truly contributes an essay on how, from the very origins of the American republic, such nationalist politicians and government bureaucrats as Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln toiled mightily to rewrite American constitutional history in such a way that would have made the propagandists of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany blush.
Indeed, the latter characters might well have learned their tactics from their fellow nationalists in America generations earlier. Hitler himself did in fact quote Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in Mein Kampf to make his case for centralized governmental power and the abolition of states’ rights in Germany.
Obama’s little temper tantrum over the Supreme Court voting down his unconstitutional takeover of the health insurance industry may have awakened a sleeping giant — the Judiciary. Good lawyers know better than to tick off judges.
And your common graduate of Cleveland State University knows the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the law. Apparently a Harvard education was wasted on the president because on Monday, the president said it was “unprecedented” for a “group of unelected people” to tell him no. Instead of studying John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Barack Obama must have been poring over George Wallace’s tirades against that “group of unelected people” in Washington.
What sort of 40-year-old American who is not a socialist blathers on about “negative liberties”? He wants unlimited government. That’s socialism. Judge Jerry Edwin Smith called him on that perverted view of constitutional government. Expect more of these confrontations, not less as Barack Obama has chosen anger, hate and spite as his re-election theme.
WILL IT TAKE A REVOLUTION? (“That power the courts claim to have is called Judicial Review, and it is addressed nowhere in the Constitution”)
We are told that it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are constitutional, but that is hardly in line with the limiting principles offered by the U.S. Constitution. That power the courts claim to have is called Judicial Review, and it is addressed nowhere in the Constitution. In fact, the federal courts seized that power for themselves through an opinion written by Justice John Marshall in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803.
Kevin Gutzman’s James Madison and the Making of America takes what we thought was a familiar story and gives it a fresh and important interpretation that challenges old orthodoxies and helps us better understand important episodes in American history.
For instance, proper credit for the world-historic Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is at last granted not to its draftsman, Thomas Jefferson – who had his gravestone list the statute along with the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the University of Virginia as his proudest achievements – but to James Madison, who actually managed to get the statute enacted and who would have nothing inscribed on his gravestone.
More significantly, we are treated to a precise and detailed description of Madison’s evolving role vis-a-vis the drafting of the Constitution.
At the Philadelphia Convention Madison had championed a much stronger central government, a veto over state laws, and a diminished role and significance of the states.
He favored a national rather than a federal government, and one in which the states would be retained insofar as they might be “subordinately useful.”
His major proposals, including the veto of state laws, a legislature with plenary authority, and basing both legislative houses on population, were all rejected.Madison may be known as the father of the Constitution, but Gutzman is having none of it.
The federal government today can wage wars without the consent of our congressional representatives, overthrow foreign governments, tax nearly half of national income, abolish civil liberty in the name of “homeland security” and “the war on drugs,” legalize and endorse infanticide “partial-birth abortion”, regulate nearly every aspect of our existence, and there’s little or nothing we can do about it.
“Write your congressman” is the refrain of the slave to the state who doesn’t even realize he’s a slave thanks to decades of government school brainwashing.But Americans were not always slaves to federal tyranny. Perhaps the best illustration of this is how Americans once utilized the Jeffersonian, states’ rights traditions of nullification and interposition to assist President Andrew Jackson in his campaign to veto the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States BUS in 1832. Jackson essentially ended central banking in America until it was revived thirty years later by the Lincoln administration. The story is told in James J. Kilpatrick‘s wonderful 1957 book, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia.The Bank was notorious for fraud, mismanagement, corruption, and attempts to engineer a “political business cycle.” Prior to 1861, the American people were still sovereign over their government. They exercised that sovereignty in the way the founders intended: through state political conventions or legislatures. The federal government was their agent.Consequently, as early as 1816, Indiana and Illinois amended their state constitutions to prohibit the BUS from establishing branches within their jurisdictions. North Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland imposed heavy taxes on BUS branches within their states in attempts to tax them out of existence