Interesting history, but I didn’t see the relation it has to this month-old article. Could you explain, please? Maybe there was something in the comments I glossed over?

Incidentally, this was actually most likely a hoax, it turns out in retrospect…

the Constitution [..] George W. Bush called “just a goddamned piece of paper”

…although, he certainly may have thought it, or said it in private.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/003880.html

Amendment X 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.

Hypocrisy and politicians! There is nothing new in this love-match made by Cupid’s arrow of self-interest, right? Wrong, in the current flurry of state legislatures passing or considering resolutions asserting state sovereignty, many politicians are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

With close to 30 states having approved or currently considering resolutions of sovereignty, it is noteworthy how many Republicans are now standing up to be counted as defenders of the Constitution, especially after their silence during the Bush administration’s eight-year-assault on the Bill of Rights. And what of the Democrats who were formerly vehement critics of Bush’s actions? They have suddenly gone silent as the Obama administration continues many of Bush’s policies they once opposed. Hypocrisy and partisan politics, of course, but above this is a more fundamental issue involving the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

After the Constitution was ratified by state conventions, the constitutional debate continued with the submission of a Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton argued against such a bill, asserting that the people had not surrendered their rights in ratifying the Constitution, so such protections were unnecessary. “Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” Furthermore, Hamilton feared that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected.

Opposed to Hamilton’s argument, Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as ambassador to France, supported such a bill. He wrote to James Madison, the author of the Constitution: “Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”

Madison was, like Hamilton, concerned that enumerating such rights could “enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution.” Consequently, he submitted the following draft of the Ninth Amendment to the Congress: “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”

Madison further elaborated on these rights in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights: “It has been said, by way of objection to a Bill of Rights. …that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the power enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the Constitution are retained; that the Constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a Bill of Rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.”

Today, after the Bush administration’s restrictions of constitutional rights through the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Act of 2007, the Military Commissions Act, and Presidential Decision Directive 51, with Republican and Democratic congressional acquiescence, the rights debate has devolved to the States. Consequently, the Tenth Amendment has moved to center stage.

Ratified on 15 December 1791, the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the national government to the States or the people. Based on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation where “each state retains its sovereignty,” it restates the Constitution’s principle of federalism, and in supporting States Rights, it makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to those powers granted in the Constitution.

Previously, States Rights was used to justify two indelible moral stains on the national character: slavery and segregation. However, today the issues include 2nd Amendment gun rights, unfunded mandates and demands from Washington, D.C. on how to spend stimulus money, national identification cards, and a presidential declaration of martial law, among others.

While most of the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution did not grant the national government any power that it did not expressly mention, most American political leaders since the Civil War have opined that the Constitution grants the national government the authority to do more or less anything that is not expressly prohibited by the first eight amendments. And with the contemporary submission of Congress to the Executive, the debate is now between the States and the Executive.

The present debate is constitutionally necessary and long overdue. As the debate unfolds, hopefully not into a full-blown constitutional crisis – the last one resulted in the Civil War – partisan politics and party loyalties will undoubtedly be the surface politics on the television screen and talk radio. Will the public realize that the Constitution is not what George W. Bush called “just a goddamned piece of paper”? Since the Republican and Democratic Congresses have been missing in action, it’s time for the States to reclaim Jefferson’s “half a loaf.”

Brad K. Berner formerly taught at Arizona State University and is currently living and teaching in Moscow, Russia.

bernerbrad@hotmail.com

1. he supports protectionism

2. he’s for deporting migrant workers

3. he supports the Fed

and he was seen as more libertarian than Bob Barr? unbelievable

Unfortunately, correct.

If it’s anyone besides Eris, I think we can safely say they were all filthy statists from the git-go anyway.

I have attempted to help various “reformer’s” compete against the “insiders” at a number of conventions in the past. One of the problems I have encountered is that the “reformers” are only loosely organized and tend to shun away from learning the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and the correct wording and timing of motions. Organizing for the 2010 convention should have already started. State party conventions, that will choose state chairmen who will have a great effect on regional LNC representatives, will be held starting next month..

Yes, I believe that the corrupt practices of the insider clique at national have been going on since at least 1996, that they are knowingly acting in corrupt, unethical, and wicked manner, and that they are, therefore, evil. In some cases, the goal seems to be to harm the LP for the benefit of the GOP, or to bring GOP candidates into the LP to shift the synthesis by ramping up the antithesis. In other cases, as hard to fathom as this seems to be, the goal seems to be raw power and money, the control of which the LP offers very little, but some people have small ambition.

Since you don’t send a lot of money to the national LP, I think it doesn’t much matter what you think of the idea. But, if you think that people who have lots of money to send to the national LP should do so without regard to how their money is being spent, then you are being very foolish.

You have to look at the current budget of the LP and ask yourself why membership renewals are down from 2000, why donations are down, why people are increasingly dissatisfied with sending their money to the LP. If you don’t, then you’ll never understand it.

The LP is offering a government of openness, transparency, freedom, peace, and prosperity, but it doesn’t actually operate that way. Many people are foolish enough to send them money, any way, I guess, but not everyone. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

We’ll have to work out your penance later.

i should not have said Rads , so Brian don’t throw it up in the future:)

what I meant was some LPers , and I apologize to any fellow Rads who may have been put off by my comments.

Promotion, to find other people who can do all these things…

Outline for Liberty Activists project – which Donnelly was also working on…in case anyone wants to work on it…

Liberty Activists website.

The idea is to create and share effective outreach material for activists who are guided by the non-initiation of force principle in the political arena. Although I don’t think LP infighting is the most productive focus, message boards for things like ride and room shares would help get more of “our” people to be able to afford conventions.

Here’s what I am thinking:

Having effective outreach tools will help recruit the kind of people we need in the party as well; we especially need young people, women, artistic types (including musicians, etc), racial/ethnic diversity. Having tools like youtube clips, flier designs, etc. created and passed around will help with such recruitment efforts.

The boring and stodgy, unupdated in a gazillion years, outreach materials LP national has are not very attractive, thus ensuring an aging, non-diverse, left-brained thinking predominated, non-activist membership base. This is bad both for the LP and the radical agenda within the LP.

Materials should be available for downloading as well as editing multiple versions, wiki style.

The website should be a hub of activity and a place for activist tools.

There should be a PHP board, or something where ideas for action can be kept in one place.

Libertarians are aging; where is the concerted effort to reach a new generation? For the most part there is a lack of creative youtube clips and art and street activism, such as we saw with the Ron Paul campaign. I don’t think it’s because we are more liberal on some social issues.

The party is overly focused on left brained logic – not enough on music, art, different ways of reaching more people. Activism is not encouraged or nourished; the party is mainly interested in members for their money only. No activist culture; main activity is monthly get together boring bitch and moan fests.

Some useful feature this website should have:

- Membership. A point of contact and knowing who is who is basic.

- Member blogs and/or aggregation of outside blogs. This foments a libertarian blogosphere and ferments ideas, discussion and participation.

- Collaborative creation and editing of documents. This is critical for coming up with a public agenda, so we’re all on the same page and
know what we’re working for.

- RSS. So people can easily be informed of updates. This makes it easy for people to stay informed and active.

- Forums, mailing lists, chatrooms, mini-sites, IT technical help documents. For on-demand IT infrastructure for collaboration and projects.

- Howtos. Activism resources. Introductions to LP and radical topics for newbies

- Document archive. For reference purposes.

- Highly searchable, pages rank well in the search engines, easy to find. This makes it easy for like-minded people to find us.

Not sure if George wants to keep the domain I suggested for this purpose, which he registered and hosts:

http://www.libertyactivists.com/

disaffiliating and purging and encouraging donors to kill the LP is not the answer .
again the answer is recruit mote members in uor own image and bring them to convention and win.

I dont give money to National , I cant afford to what money I give goes to my state affiliate fundraisers etc . This is besides the $25 national membership fee as it is a requirement of our state and county that to be a delegate at either one must be a member of national.

however I do give some time to National as in I campaigned a little for our candidate for pres and organized a fundraiser for him . This is even though I did not vote for him or believe in him . I geuss I have a different outlook , I disagreed but still did my job as a NV ex-comm member and worked for the candidate my party chose.

you keep saying evil and I feel thats too strong a word. Do you know people are in allegiance with Satan or are you just running off at the mouth again?