Transforming the Present Republican System into Monarchy

Writing to express the displeasure of the Commonwealth of Virginia toward the Alien and Sedition Act, James Madison wrote the following:

"That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy." [...] "That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

His complaint bears a strangely modern feel to it; the United States government has metastasized, grown bloated with powers neither granted nor enumerated by the Constitution but seized by creative interpretation of the language of the document. America has indeed become a "mixed monarchy" with a power-mad Executive Branch simply reaching it's hand to grasp whatsoever it pleases, with a Congress making laws based not on what is permissible under the Constitution but what is politically expedient, and with the Supreme Court engineering tyrannical social reconstruction via the expansion of certain general phrases to fundamentally reconstruct the meaning of our Constitution.

---

Take, for instance, the Affordable Care Act; proposed by the Obama Administration, pushed through Congress by a strictly partisan vote, a vote that only happened through deceit (the Senate vacated the entire House bill and substituted it's own using the same name and number as the House to get around the rule that spending bills originate in the House of Representatives) and bribery (the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, etc.) This overarching expansion of imperial power by the President and his supermajority in congress clearly tortured the Constitutional language, stretching the necessary and proper clause well beyond it's elastic limit and asserting that Congress may not be restricted in any fashion whatsoever where taxation occurs - an idea that is utterly abominable and would have Madison - father of the Constitution - rolling over in his grave. SCOTUS, ruling of the ACA, expanded the powers enumerated in Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution to include taxation of any individual just for existing - and not to pay down debt nor to finance national security. The key word "promote the general welfare" was magnified into an absolute power, a monarchical imperative. SCOTUS completely ignored every and any argument from enumerated Constitutional rights (not to mention those rights not enumerated - which are equally valid, as the Constitution restricts the power of the U.S., not of the citizenry). That the citizens have the right to not be forced to labor for another against their will (slavery) was ignored. So too was the right to privacy that SCOTUS imputed to the Constitution to enact abortion. So too was the Tenth Amendment limits imposed on the U.S. This ruling turned 120 plus years of American legal protections on it's head. Gay marriage, too, has been one of these classic examples of twisting the meaning of "certain general phrases". Marriage is a general phrase with a specific meaning, yet SCOTUS, in another classic split ruling, redefined it to mean a general contractual relationship between people as opposed to the specific definition of a man and woman binding themselves contractually for the purpose of procreation and raising a family. Having twisted the meaning of the word, the Court then found that homosexuals were not being granted equal protection under the law. Strange; by extending equal protection where it had never been (homosexuals are as free to marry as anyone, and always had been, just not each-other, at least not each-other and expect society to celebrate their union) they abridged the First Amendment protection against the prohibition of the free exercise of religion. Now Christians are being forced to celebrate a practice that is against their moral and spiritual code. An enumerated right has been obliterated by government under the auspices of protecting a right to something that has never been considered a right. Not to be outdone by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote a similar resolution opposing the Alien and Sedition Act for Kentucky. Here is an important point:

"...That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who adminster the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiesecence as highly criminal ..."

America has reached the point where the general government has become the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, and that, in Jefferson's opinion, is despotism. Certainly the imposition of the ADA and homosexual marriage through the erosion of language and assertion of authority by the central government over the individual states - many of which have laws against both - have de facto dissolved the individual states into mere provinces, completely overturning the 10th Amendment which asserts that the rights not expressly granted the United States government are reserved wholly to the states or the People. Now neither are being given a choice.

Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the state has the right to define the meaning of the term. SCOTUS grossly overstepped it's boundaries

Instead, we have a SCOTUS decision that is forcing business people to perform acts in violation of their religious beliefs and consciences. We have an elected clerk in Kentucky facing catastrophic fines and possible jail time for enforcing state law over the SCOTUS edict. Nowhere is marriage mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the state has the right to define the meaning of the term. SCOTUS grossly overstepped it's boundaries. That isn't stopping even some good conservatives from making the fundamental error of assuming what SCOTUS says is the final word. In fact, one writer suggested the clerk is behaving in a way not fundamentally different from a Muslim airline stewardess who refuses to serve cocktails on flights. That these two cases are not in any way similar, with the clerk having been elected by the people prior to the SCOTUS ruling and with her trying to uphold state law while the stewardess was hired with serving cocktails as one of her job duties seems lost on some. The reality is, the stewardess really has no right to legal complaint, the clerk is doing her job as she was deputized by the good people of Kentucky to do. And she is about to be made a huge example of by the forces of despotism.

It is time we stop surrendering our rights to the will of those in government

It is time we stop surrendering our rights to the will of those in government. The Kentucky clerk has every right to refuse to grant these licenses. She can and should follow the law of her home state. If Kentucky changes the law then she must either issue them or resign, but until then she has the right to refuse. Jefferson and Madison would both approve of at least the spirit of her actions. SCOTUS granted itself the right to judicial review and to interpret the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall simply asserted this authority in Marbury v. Madison, and SCOTUS has held itself in imperium ever since. But this was not the intent of the Founders; in Federalist 78 Alexander says of the Judiciary:

"This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security. "

And yet the Judiciary has become a political arm, making new laws on it's own behalf and working hand-in-glove with the other branches. Take John Robert's view of the role of SCOTUS:

"If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaning -- or ambiguity -- of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 133. Pp. 7-9. (b) When read in context, the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]" is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges."

And Roberts then immediately took to rewriting the law to make it pass muster, rather than SENDING IT BACK TO CONGRESS for a rewrite by the lawmakers. Granted, Roberts voted against the gay marriage decision, but one must ask by what metric the Supreme Court rules on laws? Roberts is eager to rewrite liberal laws, the liberal justices are eager to overturn ones they do not like. Either way we wind up with massive judicial overreach. America's central government is becoming a nation of men and not laws. It is no longer a federal system, but rather a central autocracy with the illusion of federalism left in place to keep the natives from getting restless. But the natives are restless, and a steady, firm refusal to obey the dictates of the central authority is becoming the only alternative to the encroaching tyranny. Given the awesome power of the U.S. military we are not going to see a revolution fought with guns as our forefathers prosecuted successfully; rather, it must be a rebellion that is small, with the simple push of individuals like Kim Davis, that county clerk who just said no to the imperial government. It will be through nullification - not the grand nullification of John C. Calhoun but the gentler sort, with individuals refusing to obey edicts but sticking to their oaths and to the laws approved by their fellow citizens. It's a restoration of the right law, not a rebellion. We are the defenders of the Law. They are the ones in rebellion here.