Sunday, September 6, 2009

The Separation of Spheres; Constitutional Limits

County Sheriff America's Last Hope

JAMES Madison, the fourth President of our new nation,
and considered the leading authority and expert of our
Constitution said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of
the state legislatures to erect barriers against the
encroachments of the national authority." In other words, it
was anticipated by the Founders of our country that state
legislatures would "erect barriers" against the overzealous
acts of an out of control Federal Government. I am more
than certain President Madison and his fellow framers would
not mind one iota, if other town and county officials did the
same. In fact, it appears that state legislatures could surely
use the help and back-up. Furthermore, in our successful
action, Mack v U.S., the Supreme Court reiterates this point
quite clearly and makes Madison's assertion even more
powerful."The great innovation of this design was that our
citizens would have two political capacities, one state and
one federal, each protected by incursion by the other, a
legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing
two forms of government, each with its own direct
relationship, its own privity, its own set of rights and
obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by
it." Madison is then quoted by Scalia, "The local or
municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions
of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective
spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is
subject to them, within its own sphere." The feds must stay
within their proper "sphere"

(ie: 10 miles square--emphasis my own)

and it's our job to make sure that
they do just that. A point to emphasize once again is the
original intention by our Founders to maintain the federal
"sphere" as small and impotent.
Justice Scalia emphasizes this point, "This separation of the
two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural
protections of liberty, a healthy balance of power between
the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk
of tyranny and abuse from either front." Madison's wisdom
is thus employed once again, "Hence a double security arises
to the rights of the people. The different governments will
control each other, at the same time that each will be
controlled by itself." So who is charged with safeguarding
the people from the Federal Government when it refuses to
control itself? (Please write the answer in the space
Does it get any clearer than this? One of our "structural
protections of liberty" is based on the notion and principle
that "different governments" will keep each other in check
and by so doing; provide a "double security" to the rights of
the people. In this most monumental Tenth Amendment
Supreme Court ruling, Justice Scalia stated, "The power of
the Federal Government would be augmented immeasurably
if it were able to impress into its service--and at no cost to
itself--the police officers of the 50 States." Scalia seemingly
makes it clear that the federal government DOES NOT have
the power or authority to "impress" the police from the states
into federal regulatory programs. On the other hand, the
power of the Federal Government would be "augmented
immeasurably" if the police from the 50 states went along
with or allowed the federal government to do whatever it
wanted. We do not have a lawful obligation to go along with
them; in fact, documentation would show quite the contrary.
Finally, and most unambiguously, the Supreme Court ruled
repeatedly in this case "state legislatures are not subject to
federal direction." So when the Federal Government goes
too far, we should not only refuse to go along, but it is up to
us to "erect barriers" against such encroachments and thus
be found on the side of the people to provide them with the
protection they depend on. Doing so is right and proper and
in accordance with our oath to support this Constitutional
Republic. How could we do otherwise? And if we do
otherwise; what does that make us?

No comments: