On this day in 1787 the single greatest document in defense of liberty found life.  Take a moment to bask in its power and simplicity.

[Constitution for the United States of America]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Read more

Still more from from an email thread:

It is a tough sell – but if one is going to go Constitutional, and not be 1/2 way about it, you do have to accept that sometimes "tough love" has to be a part of it.  Until I saw Greg’s depiction of what the Amendment had done, I merely thought that a Senator was just like a Congressman – albeit with a different title and only 100 of ’em.  Given what the political climate is today, and the ills that have been set upon us by that repeal (states rights and all that portends), I’d be willing to give up my direct vote to put that part of the Republic back in.

People often whine that Americans are ungovernable – the Founders deliberately made it difficult to get things done and now with Obama and the Progressives ramming all this stuff through, it should be obvious why – and why the brakes have to be reset.  From Betsy’s Page:

That supposed stimulus bill that the Democrats passed yesterday to help fund state workers carries strings telling the states how they must use the money.Specifically, the bill stipulates that federal funds must supplement, not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year’s spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year’s level.

Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi did the math and figured out his state will be…

Read more

The 17th Amendment – the one that shifted the election of Senators from the State Legislators (a key part of holding the power of Federal Government in check vis-a-vis that of the States) was flogged by Progressives at the turn of the last century as being "anti-cronyism".  Why shouldn’t the public vote on Senators?

Much to the delight of Progressives, it passed – IMHO, it set the stage to vastly increase the power of the Federal government.  Why?  The "power governor" (like the speed governor in a car) that kept the States in the game that put the States’ rights and interests first was gone (watch the videos here and here from a 912er).  Obamacare – would it have passed?    Boortz has more thoughts (and a recap of the NH CD-1 Candidates thoughts after the jump):

Can you imagine how our own battle with illegal immigration might be different if the Senators still represented state governments? Illegals cost state governments tens of billions of dollars. The children of illegals have to be educated and their emergency medical needs must be tended to. Then there is the crime costs associated with illegals. Here are just a few estimates of the cost of illegal immigration to some individual states:

    * Florida: At least $2 billion a year.
    * California: Over $10 billion a year.
    * Kansas: (yes … Kansas) $442 million a year.

And then there’s Arizona … the cost there is over $1.3 billion a year. Arizona tries to do something to solve the problem. It’s clear that the federal government will do nothing to control illegal immigration so long as The Community Organizer is in office … so the Arizona legislature steps up. As soon as Arizona passes its law many other states reveal plans to do the same. The Obama steps up and orders the Justice Department to file a lawsuit against Arizona … to sue Arizona for its attempt to enforce laws that the federal government refuses to support. How might this have all been different if Arizona, New Mexico and all of the other states considering passing laws to stem the invasion of illegals had official representation in Washington in the person of two Senators each?

Then there’s the issue of unfunded mandates. Medicaid…

Read more

The time on being on "government auto-pilot" is over.  We have seen what Government does when ordinary folks like us just merely voted and then dismissed government from our minds, feeling that we have done our civic duty.  Why not?  Government, GOOD government, should always be in the background, perhaps the "third" background, as we take care of the really important things in life: God, family, friends, jobs, and the like.  Most Conservative have, and still believe, that Government should be limiting itself to only a few things, and doing them well – but only those things.

So little we have realized that while we have done thought so (truly believing that government SHOULD be limited, thus it is, but now waking up to the fact that it isn’t), there are those that decided that their mission was to push the boundaries of government.  Like this yutz – Congressman Pete Stark of California. 

We now hear "The sleeping giant has awoken"; the electorate, those that still believe in the principles that drove the ideals in the Declaration and the Constitution, have come to the conclusion that WE are the responsible ones for OUR government and NOT just those we elect.  Simply just voting is no longer sufficient – because of Progressives, we are in a "Forever War" over what this country should be – lest they continue to move us to a totalitarian state, not at the barrel of a gun but by dint of a pen, laws, and regulations.

And we have become educated…and we have had to.  Ed Morrissey has it right:

Normally combative (and aggressively insipid in most cases), Stark seems to be collapsing in on himself as the woman builds an argument effectively enough to win applause from her fellow constituents. The bombastic Stark is almost inaudible when he admits that ObamaCare is a symptom of a federal government that no longer adheres to Constitutional limitations, and indeed doesn’t recognize them at all.

We were given a government that was meant to be limited.  Have we thrown that away? Or have we recovered our roots, and our senses, in time to save it for our children and grandchildren?

A longer version of the video after the jump:

Read more

From Human Events, via LewRockwell.com:  

The Right To Nullify This Government

BY THOMAS E. WOODS, JR.

EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS the same drearily predictable charade repeats itself. This time time we’re really going to limit government! Or so they tell us. We on the Right then dutifully compose our letters to the editor, attend rallies, and vote for candidates without whom, we are breathlessly assured, we shall all revert instantly to barbarism. And no matter who wins, the federal government grows and grows. The Right gets a bunch of pretty speeches, and the Left gets the victories.

The passive approach of crossing our fingers and hoping Washington will follow the Constitution has not worked.

Read more

From Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., via LewRockwell.com: “On Independence Day weekend Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and I appeared on Freedom Watch, Judge Napolitano’s new program on the FOX Business Network. In the first segment, the Judge and I discussed my new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, which argues that the states have the right to prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws within their borders. In the second, we were joined by Monica Crowley and Professor Randy Barnett, the latter of whom was skeptical of nullification as a valid constitutional doctrine or a plausible strategy against the growth of federal power….”

Read more