SUPPORTING BRIEF #4: LIMITATIONS OF FEDERAL POWER - THE DRED SCOTT DECISION OF 1857, Page 2
********************************************************************
Thus, we can see that the Constitution bars the federal government from making laws that displace the laws of a state or change the status of inhabitants of a state.
You may also find a historical note in the Dred Scott case of interest. What the federal government is doing is nothing new. Actually, the trick is very old. Justice Daniel, in his concurring opinion stated:
"'It is a necessary consequence of this equality, that each nation has a right to govern itself as it may think proper, and no one nation is entitled to dictate a form of government or religion, or a course of internal policy to another.' This writer (Chancellor Kent) gives some instances of the violation of this great national immunity, and amongst them the constant interference by the ancient Romans, under the pretext of settling disputes between their neighbors, but with the real purpose of reducing those neighbors to bondage; the interference of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, for the dismemberment of Poland; the more recent invasion of Naples by Austria in 1821, and of Spain by the French Government in 1823, under the excuse of suppressing a dangerous spirit of internal revolution and reform." supra., 484-485.
As we can see, there's always an excuse for every expansion of power.
"Mr. Madison, in the year 1819, speaking with reference to the prohibitory power claimed by Congress, then threatening the very existence of the Union, remarks of the language of the 2d clause of the 3d section of article 4th of the Constitution, 'that it cannot well be extended beyond the power over a territory as property, and the power to make provisions really needful or necessary for the government of settlers, until ripe for admission into the Union.
"... And to the power of admitting new States into the federal compact, the questions offering themselves are, whether Congress can attach conditions, or the new States concur in conditions, which after admission would abridge or enlarge the constitutional rights of legislation common to other States; whether Congress can, by a compact with a new State, take power either to or from itself, or place the new member above or below the equal rank and rights possessed by the others; whether all such stipulations expressed or implied would not be nullities, and be so pronounced when brought to a practical test. It falls within the scope of your inquiry to state the fact, that there was a proposition in the convention to discriminate between the old and the new States by an article in the Constitution. The proposition, happily, was rejected. The effect of such a discrimination is sufficiently evident.'" supra., 491-492.
It is interesting to note that Article IV, § 3 was adopted without debate.
"The clauses in the 3d section of the 4th article of the Constitution, relative to the admission of new States, and the disposal and regulation of the territory of the United States, were adopted without debate in the Convention." supra., 504.
If the federal government can govern in all of the fifty states at their own pleasure, they will, in effect, create an Empire.
"I seek in vain for an enunciation that a consolidated power had been inaugurated, whose subject comprehended an empire, and which had no restriction but the discretion of Congress. This disturbing element of the Union entirely escaped the apprehensive provisions of Samuel Adams, George Clinton, Luther Martin, and Patrick Henry; and, in respect to powers vested in a central government over distant settlements, colonies, or provinces, their instincts were always alive. Not a word escaped them, to warn their countrymen that here was a power to threaten the landmarks of this federative Union, and with them the safeguards of popular and constitutional liberty; or that under this Article there might be introduced, on our soil, a single government over a vast extent of country- a government foreign to the persons over whom it might be exercised, and capable of binding those not represented by statutes, in all cases whatever. I find nothing to authorize these enormous pretensions, nothing in the expositions of the friends of the Constitution, nothing in the expressions of alarm by its opponents- expressions which have since been developed as prophecies. Every portion of the United States was then provided with a municipal government, which the Constitution was not designed to supersede, but merely to modify as to its conditions." supra., 505.
"But the final expression of the will of the people of the States, in the 10th Amendment, is, that the powers of the Federal Government are limited to the grants of the Constitution." supra., 506.
In quoting from Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, the court said:
"The United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in cases where it is delegated, and the court denies the faculty of the Federal Government to add to its powers by treaty or compact." supra., 508-509.
Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the court stated:
"I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies and delineates the operations permitted to the Federal Government, and gives the powers necessary to carry them into execution." supra., 512.
The court stated that "The feudal system would have recognized the claim made on behalf of the Federal Government for supreme power over persons and things in the Territories." supra., 513. Also, "The Norman lawyers of William the Conqueror would have yielded an implicit assent to the doctrine, that a supreme sovereignty is an inseparable incident to a grant, to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the public domain." supra., 513.
Correspondingly today, both the Italian lawyers of Benito Mussolini's Fascist system and the German lawyers of Adolf Hitler's National Socialist system would have readily assented to federal laws that had full force and operation over the people in the states; especially those laws pertaining to control of the people's labor.
It is an ironic truth that the federal government today has more power over the states than they did over territories before they became states.
In order to impair or diminish rights and liberties, some proof must be given that it is constitutional.
"To impair or diminish either, the Department must produce an authority from the people themselves, in their Constitution; and as we have seen, a power to make rules and regulations respecting the public domain does not confer a municipal sovereignty over persons and things upon it." supra., 513.
"When the power of disposition is fulfilled, the authority to make rules and regulations terminates, for it attaches only upon territory 'belonging to the United States.'" supra., 514. (Do we live in a state or a territory of the United States?)
Justice Campbell, in his concurring opinion, summed up in a brief statement the import of Article IV, § 3. He stated:
"The distinguishing features consists in the exclusion of the Federal Government from the local and internal concerns of, and in the establishment of an independent internal government within, the States." supra., 516.
Have the people voluntarily assented to the federal laws which operate in the states? When compliance with law is accomplished by force and fear, there is no voluntary nature involved. It is pure, unbridled coercion.
Have the States become the political slaves of the federal government? Are their legislators a bunch of idiots, incapable of legislating on behalf of the people? If this be the case, then let us tell them all to go home and allow the federal government to govern in the states at their own pleasure, for they are all a bunch of idiots.
The ploy used by the federal government to gain power over the people and the states is an old trick with a new form. For example: Bismarck's aim, by implementing his social programs in the 1880's, was done to "make the workers feel that they were receiving direct benefits from the Empire." Encyclopedia Britannica, 1944 ed., Vol. 10, pg. 296 (emphasis added).
In the Social Security Act of 1935 we read: "The Board shall perform the duties imposed upon it by this Act and shall also have the duty of studying and making recommendations as to the most effective methods of providing economic security through social insurance..." U.S. Stat at Large, 1935, 74th Congress. Sess. I. Ch. 531. August 14, 1935, pg. 636. (emphasis added)
Political forces have engaged in ploys throughout the history of mankind to gain power over the people. The Social Security Act was a blatant violation of Article IV, § 3 of the Constitution; in that, it allowed, by the force of law, the federal government to govern within the states at their own pleasure and impose taxation upon the people's labor. As Justice Bradley stated in the case of Boyd v. U.S., 116 US 616:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure." supra., S. Ct. Rptr., pg. 535.
The Social Security Act also placed the taxing powers pursuant to the act in the hands of the Executive branch of government in violation of Article I, § 8. When an enormous amount of power becomes vested in the Executive, what kind of government does it reflect? Justice Campbell, in his concurring opinion in the Dred Scott decision stated:
"The first territorial government of Louisiana was an Imperial one, founded upon a French or Spanish model. For a time, the Governor, judges, legislative council, marshal, secretary, and officers of the malitia, were appointed by the President." Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How 393, 507.
In a footnote on the same page we read:
"Were the President an angel instead of a man, I would not clothe him with this power."
The Congress has surrendered so much power to the Executive over the past six decades, it boggles the mind to even read the powers contained in the Emergency Powers Statutes taken from the Senate Committee Report in 1973, 93d Congress, 1st Session, September, 1973.
I have searched in vain to try and find out if these powers still exist. I even contacted my representative in Congress several months ago on the matter. I have not heard from him. Therefore, I must assume these powers still exist.
imperialism. 1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. 2. advocacy of imperial interests. 3. (in British use) the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state. American College Dictionary, (Random House, N.Y., 1948), pg. 606.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." Article IV, § 4 of the U.S. Constitution.