Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.

While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith have noted1 that:

“The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can operate…as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here [.] When this attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant.”

References

1.   Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith, “Consensual Citizenship” (Chronicles, July 1992)

Advertisements

Freedom in education: how it was lost

Dr. Joel McDurmon

June 17, 2012

http://americanvision.org/countyrights/?p=89

I have written how free, purely private education was the American way, and it worked. I mentioned how this was the norm up until at least the 1830s and really even beyond. I ended with the question, “Why did it change?” How was this high level of freedom and individual responsibility lost? How did a once-completely-free aspect of life come to be dominated by government mandates and taxation—that is, government confiscation of private property?

I mentioned how some claim that changes in society necessitated reform of education. For some reason or other, upswings in technology, mechanization, the industrial revolution, and a few other things allegedly changed the face of society so drastically that the only way to bring the masses of common people up to speed was for government to intervene, begin to confiscate and redistribute wealth with which to provide public schools. Does this argument have any basis in fact?

Only to a very limited extent. The truth involves much more than that.

The truth involves several factors that pertain mainly to elitist influences being imposed for the benefit of those who imposed them. Here we’ll cover the four most important social factors involved: First, a rival religious ideology; Second, reactions to mass immigration in the late 1840s and forward; Third, the forces of big corporate business; and Fourth, the allure of “free” education (in the sense of no financial cost) to the masses. Let’s look at what I mean:

First, the rival religion. This was the influence of Unitarianism, particularly through New England congregational churches, and mainly by the work of Unitarian activists. These individuals had abandoned many traditional Christian doctrines, and instead promoted the ideals that mankind could be perfected through proper education and training; they believed in the essential divinity of mankind; they believed that this divinity of man was most pronounced when mankind is considered collectively as a whole; so, therefore, they believed that the civil State was the highest expression of divinity on earth; and thus, they believed, that the State was the ultimate parent and benefactor of individuals.

Perhaps the most important of these types was the so-called father of public schools in America, Horace Mann. Mann, a Congregationalist minister, believed very strongly in the positions just stated, and more. Mann argued that human rights derive from Nature; and this Nature—with a capital “N”—he interpreted, “proves an *absolute right* to an education of every human being that comes into the world.” This is the classic “entitlement mentality” which has characterized leftism, communism, socialism, etc., before and since, which today is often applied to health care, employment, etc.—here Horace Mann applied it very early to education, by which he meant public education.

He argued two basic propositions about education: education should be secularized—geared toward civic virtue and efficiency rather than religious worldview—and education should be the function of the civil government, not families. In fact, he sought to replace the family with an explicitly paternal state. He called Society collectively a “godfather for all its children,” and said, “Massachusetts is *parental* in her government.”

Unitarian activists, such as Horace Mann, were ready and willing to employ government force in order to remake society according to their mandates and by their means—in fact, government force was the name of the game. Some of the guys in this movement were fiercely radical with this belief. In the mid-1850s, the radical revolutionary John Brown committed several acts of violence and murder in Kansas and in Virginia intending to start a slave rebellion that he thought would eventually bring about abolition. The underlying belief was that it is legitimate to use violent revolution to impose better social values. Shortly before his death by hanging, Brown himself made this point explicitly: he said he was “quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood,” and that this would never be done without “very much bloodshed.” He was a terrorist, born and bred on American soil, and carried out acts of terrorism on American soil, in the name of social and political change for the better. Now Brown himself had studied in Massachusetts to be a Congregationalist minister, but quit due to financial and health problems. But he established radical connections there that would help finance his later acts. The least publicized aspect of Brown is this: his six main financiers who propagandized his work for him back in New England were all six Unitarian Congregational ministers. And while not every one of these types believed in open revolutionary violence like Brown, nevertheless they all believed in using the force of government to bring about the social changes they thought desirable (which is really not much different if you consider it—it’s comparing one version of unwelcomed coercion for another, and in both cases, imposed by someone who thinks they know better than you, and who believes they have the right and authority to impose their view on you by force).

Mann certainly held such positions in regard to his agenda for imposing public education. He had three basic rules that summarize his view of education as a right, property as socialized, and individuals subservient to the will of the collective (as represented by the decisions of the civil government, of course). He wrote:

The successive generations of men, taken collectively, constitute one great commonwealth.

The property of this commonwealth is pledged for the education of all its youth, up to such a point as will save them from poverty and vice, and perhaps to prepare them for the adequate performance of their social and civil duties.

Note the language of salvation: public schooling required taking people’s property for the education of society’s youth, in order to “save them”; and save them from what: “poverty and vice.” So here you have not only a messianic state, but you have America’s first state-imposed war on poverty. (And it had no greater or more lasting effect on poverty then than it did in under Johnson in the ’60s.) Notice also that property would be taken toward this goal “up to such a point as will save them.” In other words, they would keep taxing and taking until they felt they fulfilled their mission—which is to say, there is no limit. Mann concluded by expressing what can only be called socialism:

The successful holders of this property are trustees, bound to the faithful execution of their trust by the most sacred obligations; and embezzlement and pillage from children and descendants have not less criminality . . . than the same offenses when perpetrated against contemporaries.

In the public schooling worldview, you do not own your property! You can never be a property *owner*; but only a trustee for the property of Society. It is society that determines who will get what and for what purpose; and any resistance to the government’s dictates in this area is considered a crime of embezzlement and pillaging (both crimes done by definition to other people’s property). Note again the religious language: payments in taxes for state-run education are “the most sacred obligations” which require “faithful execution.”

The alleged natural “right” which entitles every human being to an education is so sacred that it transcends that biblical command protecting private property. Mann said:

No one man, nor any one generation of men, has any such title to, or ownership in these ingredients and substantials of all wealth, that his right is invaded when a portion of them is taken for the benefit of posterity.

In other words, we’re going to tax you for education, and you’ll pay the tax and shut up, because you have no right to complain about it. It’s not really your property to begin with, and what we’re doing is for you own good and the good of posterity. Make this note: public schooling from day one was incapable of existing without socialism. It requires by definition the government to claim ownership over at least a portion of every individual’s property.

This was constantly sold to the public as something for their own good. Thaddeus Stevens used this very argument to defend Pennsylvania’s public schooling law of 1834 in the legislature the following year. To those who objected that it was morally wrong to tax some people to pay for other people’s education, he responded, “It is for their own benefit, inasmuch as it perpetuates the government and ensures the due administration of the laws under which they live, and by which their lives and property are protected.” See, the paternal state knows what is best for you, and what is the best use of your money, and besides, such measures “perpetuate the government” that knows all this! Who could be against that?

Mann made his views very explicit. Public schooling was the path to social salvation; all ills would be cured by its full implementation:

The common school is the greatest discovery ever made by man. . . . Other social organizations are curative and remedial; this is a preventative and an antidote; they come to heal diseases and wounds; this to make the physical and moral frame invulnerable to them. Let the common school be expanded to its capabilities, let it be worked with the efficiency with which it is susceptible, and nine-tenths of the crimes in the penal code would become obsolete; the long catalogue of human ills would be abridged; men would walk more safely by day; every pillow would be more inviolable by night; property, life and character held by a stronger tenure; all rational hopes respecting the future brightened.

This is language of healing and of hope. This is the language of religion, and Mann wanted it funded by the State. The scholar who studied the history of the state-takeover of education noted what action step Mann really had in mind here. It was the same thing public schools have said ever since: “give us the money and we can do it; our failure thus far is your fault in that we have received insufficient funds.” And of course, Mann like most public school advocates ever since believed that the school and its parent State had a right, an entitlement, to appropriate those funds from private people.

Overrun by such Unitarian thought, Massachusetts was the first state to create a State Board of Education in 1837. As its first chairman, they placed Horace Mann. Of interest was the timing of the creation of this secular board: up until 1832, the Congregational Church was an established church in that state—receiving funding from the state to pay her ministers, etc. That was abolished in 1832 (Massachusetts was the last state to do so), and the state-funded education program was in place in only five years. And in that same year 1837, Mann brokered a political deal that immediately doubled the budget for public education. Common schools were already being funded in Massachusetts by local taxes, but this was the first centralizing of it by the State. The astute observer will note what many public school critics to date have pointed out—the established churches were kicked out and the public schools were made the de facto state-church in their place, but were now officially a secularized state-church, and the tyranny was doubled in the amount of money appropriated for it.

This ideal of secular public school as a new established religion was expressed not only by the facts of the history, but openly in the statements and writings of the movers and shakers of the system. And the attitude lasted well into the twentieth century and exists still in the minds of many today, Christian or not. One representative figure who stated the truth explicitly was James Earl Russell who was Dean of Columbia Teachers College for thirty years, 1897–1927. The task of education, he wrote in 1922, was “making democracy safe for the world,” and this meant “teaching the proper appreciation of life-values.” Indeed, “The doctrine that all shall get what they deserve presupposes that the largest possible number shall be taught to want what it is right that they should have.” In other words, democracy will be great, as long was the public schoolmasters can first train the people what to want and how to vote. Put more succinctly, you can have whatever you want, as long as I have control over what you want! With his idea of democracy in place as an ideal, Russell made his replacement of the church explicit: he admired an era in which this type of trained democracy will “find it expedient to substitute for the established church of the old regime a state-supported and state-controlled school system.”

Of course, this state-controlled system was the antithesis of the free and private system which had existed and served America just fine for over two centuries to this point. Russell new this, and nevertheless saw the change as progress. Before as we mentioned previously, teachers had to compete with each other—and this bred greater choice, improved quality, lowered costs, etc. But socialists like Russell demeaned this system by saying “the teacher was a chattel sold on the open market”; instead he praised “The teacher as a civil servant whose foremost duty is the promotion of the welfare of the State.” He did get one thing right when he called this scheme “a new conception in American life.” It certainly was: not only was the civil State never meant to be a factor in education in the original American way, but the very conception and practice of civil coercion was a rejection of basic American freedoms: freedoms in traditional religion, property, business, and family—all of which had to be overturned and/or replaced in order to impose the grand scheme of State-supported and State-controlled education. Indeed, it was nothing less than a secularized replacement of the established church.

There was at least one religious group that saw what was going on, and they within just a few years began starting their own private schools as an alternative. This was the Roman Catholic Church, and the rise of Catholic parochial schools coincided with the rise of secularized Unitarian public schools from which they would become havens. More importantly, this became viable for them financially due to the second major factor, mass immigration.

Much of this immigration came from Irish Catholics who fled the Irish potato famine beginning in 1845. In 1825, there were only about 5,000 Irish in Boston. In 1845, the number had multiplied six times to 30,000, and they now made up about 30% of the population. These saw the imposition of government schooling as a secularized version of what was formerly Protestantism, so they started their own schools. This was true of most of the other early immigrant groups, most of whom came from Northern Europe, and were either Lutheran or Dutch Reformed. All of these groups started private schools so as to avoid the secularized indoctrination of the public school system, and these denominations still have these traditions today.

But many of the Americans, particularly the Unitarian minded-civil religion types, hated Catholicism, and saw immigrants as a threat, so they tried to use the force of government to impose their version of American culture on these people. To them, public school was not only a means to perfect mankind and cure society of all ills, it was a means of turning immigrants into “good Americans.” And over time, the secularized religious motive fell further into the background, and the promotion of Americanism became the thrust of public schooling. Of course, the America these establishments promoted was already a long way from the America that had once been free. Throughout this whole process, many orthodox Protestants accepted the façade of Christianity in the Unitarian-driven school system, and thus the idea was always accepted that “our” public schools are Christian. But they were so only on the surface—and that for deceptive purposes only.

Immigration not only caused cultural and religious tensions, but also created economic tensions as the labor market was flooded with hundreds of thousands of new people. Of course, with the industrial revolution gathering steam in the 1830s and forward, the waves of immigrants provided a source of very cheap labor. But factories and large business owners quickly learned what type of temperament and mentality was best suited for the tasks of factory labor—someone who was accustomed to repetition, schedules, monotony, quiet obedience, single file lines, etc. And these wealthy influences in society quickly learned they could steer public education to produce such workers.

So the third factor in the loss of liberty in education was the rise of big business, corporations, and particularly the influence of industrialization and factory mechanization. Not only does this pertain to the loss of liberty, but more importantly to the normalization of a life in which that liberty was gone. The mass production of public education became the tool by which America grew adapted to life without freedom in education, in which the question was never even raised.

Now here is where the issue of modernization and industrial revolution come in; and like I said, there is some truth (albeit very limited) to this phenomenon requiring changes in society. But here is the important qualification: the phenomenon itself did not require political changes for education, but rather big business found it profitable to ally with big government and leverage government power—just as the Unitarian ideologues had done for their agenda—in order to start mass-producing workers to meet the demand for factory labor. Soon, the schools mass-produced workers in the same way the factories mass-produced widgets.

And the atmosphere of public schooling was—or could be made—the perfect place for this training to occur. Looking back on the scenario, one education reformer, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., described that atmosphere in 1880:

Most of you, indeed, cannot but have been part and parcel of one of those huge, mechanical, educational machines, or mills, as they might more properly be called. They are, I believe, peculiar to our own time and country, and are so organized as to combine as nearly as possible the principal characteristics of the cotton-mill and the railroad with those of the model state’s prison. The school committee is the board of directors; while the superintendent — the chief executive officer — sits in his central office with the timetable, which he calls a programme, before him, by which one hour twice a week is allotted to this study, and half an hour three times a week to that, and twenty hours a term to a third; and at such a time one class will be at this point and the other class at that, the whole moving with military precision to a given destination at a specified date. He can at any given moment tell you exactly where any squad, or class as he would term it, is, and what it ought, at least, to be then doing. Mechanical methods could not be carried further. The organization is perfect. The machine works almost with the precision of clock-work. It is, however, company front all the time. From one point of view children are regarded as automatons; from another, as india-rubber bags; from a third, as so much raw material. They must move in step and exactly alike; they must receive the same mental nutriment in equal quantities and at fixed times: — assimilation is wholly immaterial, but the motions must be gone through with. Finally, as raw material, they are emptied in at the primaries and marched out at the grammar grades; — and it is well!

And he should have added, after graduation, corralled directly into the industrialized workforce; because, he had been trained for the past several years, to live a lifestyle of boring tasks, from one whistle blowing to the next. Horace man had been interested in education for the perfectibility of man. The industrialists couldn’t care less about perfectibility, they only cared about the trainability of man. And that legacy of public schooling has been with us ever since.

There is, by the way, much truth in Adams’ comparison of the public schools to not only mills and railroads, but the state prison. The same Unitarian reforming spirit that gave us the institution of public schools also produced, in the same era, the penitentiary, the insane asylum, and the poorhouse. All of these were built on the same theory that society was the bed of corruption, and the proper way to train people was to put them into a controlled atmosphere in which the allegedly corrupt external influences could not affect them; and this very popular theory was applied to the reform of criminals, the insane, the mentally ill, the poor, and to the education of children. So in the same decades of the 1820s–30s, this nation witnessed the explosion of official institutions for all of these issues, and the growing prevalence of using taxation and government control for these institutions.

And yet, as decades went on, and it became clear that the theory was bogus, that no genuine reform was made in criminals or the insane, and that corporate interests came to dominate the schools—in short, that the whole system was a failure—the officials merely continued to blame failure on the lack of funds and/or greater control. This was true so much so that one of the few historians of the Asylum phenomenon concluded of its legacy, “Failure and persistence went hand in hand.” Yet at the same time, when correctional institutions failed, advocates shifted their emphasis from “cure” to “prevention”—and thus, education instead of penal or remedial institutions. This was used, then, as an argument for greater government involvement and support of education.

Yet finally, as sort of a capstone upon these three major factors, Americans began to abandon home and private education due to the illusion that government schools were free. This creates different levels of motivation. Some buy the illusion completely: the school costs them nothing while it educates their children and simultaneously provides free child care during the day. This illusion is swallowed most readily by people who don’t own property, and thus never directly see a property tax appropriated from them personally. And since property tax is usually escrowed automatically, even most property owners don’t really feel the true weight of it anyway. Other people merely live content with the illusion, knowing it actually costs money, knowing they actually pay taxes to support it even if indirectly through increased rents, yet accepting this as moral or at least practical enough to live with. These people, too, once receiving the benefits, will defend the system which taxes other people to benefit them. Even among public officials who know better, the phrase is simply modified to remain deceptive: public education is free, “at the point of delivery” (which is, of course, an admission that it’s not free).

This all works together to make the perceived benefit of “free” education a powerful motivation among those who are dependent upon the system; they remain self-interested in perpetuating a system that confiscates property from some people and gives it to others. In short, once dependent, they become advocates. Yet the system, used and defended by so many conservatives and Christians, is based on an anti-Christian, socialistic system of values at its very core. It has more in common with Nazism than with anything that can be called a Christian society.

So how was liberty lost in the area of education? It was through anti-Christian ideology leveraging state power to impose a state-funded, state-controlled utopia. They established a whole new secular state church in the name of getting rid of state churches. It was through mass immigration that among other things sparked misguided Protestants to use government power to oppose Catholicism and turn Europeans into Americans. It was through the rise of industrialization and mechanization that used mass-production in education to create dutiful, reliable masses of workers for mass-production in factories. And it was through the vastly accepted myth that public schools are free, and the fact that we have now grown vastly dependent upon the benefit.

These things, all combined together, created a very powerful culture in which freedom in education is gone economically (we’re all forced to pay for public schools even if we don’t use them), and was almost lost practically, except in small enclaves, until the past few decades. But the one aspect in which it is still largely free is legally: you still can exercise the freedom if you choose.

Many Christians and others are realizing the need to reclaim our freedom in education; many are already practicing it as much as they can; and the tools and resources to make it viable, effective, and easy are today so vast and easy to find that there is no good excuse for anyone who loves liberty not to pursue it.

As I have already said repeatedly, this is the one area you can change drastically toward the cause of freedom right now. Nothing toward that cause will be easier, more effective, and more life-transforming for all involved, than restoring freedom for yourself and family in the area of education. And in the next article, I’ll tell you what to do, how to do it, and talk about the sacrifices it will take.

Any tax without prior voter approval is a bad tax

For those Missourians contemplating buying or selling a motor vehicle to another person, the purchase of that vehicle just became more expensive.  On February 18, 2013 the Missouri Senate passed Senate Bill 182, a bill regarding levying a local sales tax on all motor vehicles sales.

SB 182 stops counties and municipalities from collecting a local use tax on the sale of motor vehicles, trailers, boats, or outboard motors. Instead of a use tax, local government entities will impose a local sales tax on the sale of all of the aforementioned items, regardless of whether they were purchased in Missouri. The home address of the buyer is used in determining what local tax rates apply.

The total sales tax for motor vehicles, trailers, boats, or outboard motors sold at retail is the sum of the state sales tax (4.225%) plus the local sales tax (varies according to locality). The sales tax for all non-retail sales of the preceding items is the sum of the state highway use tax (4.00%) plus the local sales tax (varies according to locality).

All counties and municipalities that did not previously approve a local use tax must put to a vote of the people whether to discontinue collecting sales tax on non-retail sales of motor vehicles. If a local government does not hold such a vote before November 2016, the taxing jurisdiction must stop collecting the sales tax. Counties or cities may at any time hold a vote to repeal the tax. Language repealing the tax must also be put to a vote of the people any time 15% of the registered voters in a taxing jurisdiction sign a petition requesting such.

Why did the Missouri Senate pass this bill?

Quotes from several state and local elected government officials, business advocacy organizations, and local car dealers in a Southeast Missourian article titled “Sales tax fallout hits dealers, others” dated February 21, 2013,  stated a “level playing field” is needed between the car dealers in Illinois and Missouri. Whenever officials allude to fairness, bad things happen. One can conclude these officials support a statist approach to concentrating economic controls in the hands of the government. Being “fair” to all car dealers in Missouri can encourage an overall centralization of economic control at the state level.

The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things. This bill violates the rights of local governments by intruding upon the taxing authority a local government has with its citizenry. The state senators want to dictate to locally elected officials of Missouri how to run their communities. This is a huge usurpation of power of the state from the counties and cities.

Each local government in Missouri has made a social contract with its citizens. The contract provides for public order, protection of property, and access to public services such as highways, roads, and sewer. The citizens and their local governments determine the limiting of rights and the duties of each other.  The Missouri Senate overstepped its authority by directing local governments to collect sales tax on the purchase of vehicles without a vote of the people at the local level. Although there is a requirement to put the measure on the ballot of counties and municipalities that did not have a use tax prior to the passage of SB 182, it is a deep-rooted “Principle of Liberty” to get voter approval before imposition of a new tax. The Senate’s action in regards to the SB 182 smacks of governing at their whim rather than by law.

Even though SB 182 has passed in the Senate, the bill must go to the House. The Senate and House need to agree to the final language of the bill before sending it to the governor for his signature. The governor can veto the bill or sign it into law. But that is not the end of it. At any time, with 15% of the registered voter in a taxing authority’s jurisdiction signing a petition to put it on a ballot, the voters can nullify the tax.

It is time we send a strong message to the Missouri Senate by directing our local elected officials and our state representatives to kill this power- grabbing bill before rather than after it becomes law.

16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)

Far-reaching in its social as well as its economic impact, the income tax amendment became part of the Constitution by a curious series of events culminating in a bit of political maneuvering that went awry.

The financial requirements of the Civil War prompted the first American income tax in 1861. At first, Congress placed a flat 3-percent tax on all incomes over $800 and later modified this principle to include a graduated tax. Congress repealed the income tax in 1872, but the concept did not disappear.

After the Civil War, the growing industrial and financial markets of the eastern United States generally prospered. But the farmers of the south and west suffered from low prices for their farm products, while they were forced to pay high prices for manufactured goods. Throughout the 1860s, 1870s, and 1880s, farmers formed such political organizations as the Grange, the Greenback Party, the National Farmers’ Alliance, and the People’s (Populist) Party. All of these groups advocated many reforms (see the Interstate Commerce Act) considered radical for the times, including a graduated income tax.

In 1894, as part of a high tariff bill, Congress enacted a 2-percent tax on income over $4,000. The tax was almost immediately struck down by a five-to-four decision of the Supreme Court, even though the Court had upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War tax as recently as 1881. Although farm organizations denounced the Court’s decision as a prime example of the alliance of government and business against the farmer, a general return of prosperity around the turn of the century softened the demand for reform. Democratic Party Platforms under the leadership of three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, however, consistently included an income tax plank, and the progressive wing of the Republican Party also espoused the concept.

In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never received ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect. Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income.

This document settled the constitutional question of how to tax income and, by so doing, effected dramatic changes in the American way of life.

(Information excerpted from Milestone Documents in the National Archives [Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1995] pp. 69–73.)

 Page URL:  http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=57

U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20408 • 1-86-NARA-NARA • 1-866-272-6272

Apportionment and The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Fred Elbel.

Website by Fred Elbel, Elbel Consulting Services, LLC

Political representation in the United States is based upon creating constituencies in proportion to geographical areas. The US House of Representatives, for example, delimits seats proportionally between states. The states, in turn, create districts in which House members run.

The decennial US Census has been used since 1790 as the basis for the United States representational form of government. As a result of growing population, the number of House members eventually quadrupled in size. In 1911, the number of Representatives was therefore fixed at 435.

In principle, districts are reapportioned every ten years after the decennial US Census. The number of districts apportioned to each state is defined by Congress, in accordance with Title 2 of US Code. (In practice, the two major political parties vie for control of reapportionment in order to maximize their respective constituency bases). During the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled in a series of cases that congressional and state legislative districts must consist of relatively equal populations. Specifically, the Court’s decision in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) mandated that states apportion congressional district boundaries based strictly according to population.

Malapportionment can occur in the states as a result of failures to reapportion after significant population shifts within established districts. The resulting effect is that in a given House district, a House member can end up representing a much larger number of voters as compared with another district. The result is that citizens in the larger district have less direct access to, and influence upon, their elected Representative – thus diluting the principle of “one man, one vote”, which has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.1

Reapportionment based on non-citizens

As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If (illegal alien non-citizens are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes of citizens in states having relatively low populations of illegal aliens.

Similarly, congressional districts in those states with proportionately higher numbers of illegal aliens end up representing a large illegal alien, non-citizen, non-enfranchised population.

Illegal immigration has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations. Indeed, the presence of all foreign-born persons in 2000 (naturalized citizens, non-citizens, and illegal aliens) redistributed 16 seats, up from 12 seats in 1990.5

For example, in Southern California, several districts contain less than half of the eligible voters found in districts in other states.2 Indeed, 43 percent of the population in California’s 31st district is made up of non-citizens, while in the 34th district, 38 percent are non-citizens. In Florida’s 21st district, 28 percent of the population is non-citizen, and in New York’s 12th district the number is 23 percent.5 The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have. In addition, the presence of all non-citizens in the Census redistributed a total of nine seats.5

Apportionment Solutions

Reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of “one man, one vote”.

The most obvious solution to this inequity is to stop counting noncitizens for purposes of apportionment. Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that a census be conducted every 10 years expressly for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. Yet the Constitution does not specify the method of apportionment, or the composition of the population to be apportioned. Since the original 1790 apportionment, several different methods have been used, with the method of Equal Proportions being used since 1940.

Precedent is established in that Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment both explicitly exclude non-taxed Indians from apportionment. In addition, the 14th Amendment, Section 2 acknowledges that some may be denied the right to vote. 2

Although the Supreme Court has to-date favored counting both citizens and noncitizens in reapportionment cases, this interpretation of the Constitution appears to clearly go against the Founders’ intent. It should not require a Constitutional amendment to count only citizens for apportionment purposes, but in light of special interest groups pushing for open borders, perhaps an Amendment ultimately will be necessary.

“If, as I suggest, one person one vote protects a right uniquely held by citizens, it would be a dilution of that right to allow noncitizens to share therein.”

Kozinski’s opinion reinforces the concept that illegal aliens should not be count for apportionment purposes.

Given the number and power of special interest groups pressing for open borders, any attempt to change apportionment methodology would meet substantial resistance in Congress. Furthermore, the most serious obstacle to counting only citizens for apportionment purposes would remain: the inability to differentiate between citizens and noncitizens during the Census-taking process.

Ultimate Solution

The ultimate solution would be to enforce existing immigration laws both along the US perimeter and within in the interior, thus preventing additional illegal aliens from entering the US, while encouraging those already living here to return home to reunite with their families.

References

1.   Reapportionment, and United States Census, 2000 (Wikipedia)

2.   James Gimpel and John Edwards , Immigration Dilutes the Voting Rights of Citizens- Gimpel, The Social Contract (Winter 2005)

3.   Charles Wood, Losing Control of America’s Future — Census, Birthright Citizenship & Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Spring 2005) [This article is adapted from a larger paper, “Losing Control of America’s Future – the Census, Birthright Citizenship, & Illegal Aliens“, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Spring, 1999)]

4.   Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation’s Future — Part One — The Census and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter 2005) [This article is adapted from a larger paper, “Losing Control of America’s Future – the Census, Birthright Citizenship, & Illegal Aliens“, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Spring, 1999)]

5.   Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarota, and Amanda K. Baumle, Remaking the Political Landscape – The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment (Center for Immigration Studies, October 2003)

6.   Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarota, Leon F. Bouvier, Godfrey Jin-Kai Li, and Hong Dan, Remaking the Political Landscape – How Immigration Redistributes Seats in the House (Center for Immigration Studies, October 1998)

7.   Mark Krikorian, Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven Camarota, Noah M. J. Pickus, Remaking The Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, Panel Discussion Transcript, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Center for Immigration Studies, October 23, 2003)

8.   Steven A. Camarota, The Impact of Non-Citizens on Congressional Apportionment, Testimony prepared for the House Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census (Center for Immigration Studies, December 6, 2005)

9.   Leon F. Bouvier, The Impact of Immigration on Congressional Representation (Center for Immigration Studies, July, 1988)

10.   Steven A. Camarota Rotten Boroughs – Immigration’s Effect on the Redistribution of House Seats (Center for Immigration Studies, Fall, 1998)

11.   Dudley. L. Poston, “The U.S. Census and Congressional apportionment”, Jr. (Society, 34, March-April 1997, pp.36-44)

12.   Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Leon F. Bouvier, and Hong Dan, “The Impacts of apportionment Method and Legal and Illegal Immigration on Congressional apportionment in the Year 2000”, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Demographic Association, Orlando, Florida (September 25-27, 1997)

Sen. Paul Is Tea Party’s Best Hope For Political Power

An article by Dave Banks:

The Democratic Party’s triumph in November brought an abrupt end to the honeymoon between the GOP and the Tea Party, and now, like any fiery romance that unexpectedly turns sour, there’s a lot of finger-pointing as to what went wrong and who’s to blame.

Many GOP political pundits pin much of the responsibility on the Tea Party, specifically for its role in defeating GOP incumbents or establishment candidates who would have probably won in the general election. For Republicans, partisan control of Congress and the White House is the goal, and any win that helps achieve that goal is a good win, regardless of the candidate’s ideological purity.

The Tea Party sees things differently, believing that the GOP has failed because it lacks vision, which has resulted in the nomination of too many establishment candidates who cannot communicate the need for reform. And because most Americans understand the role the GOP has played in creating our fiscal problems, it is difficult for voters to trust a candidate who has long been embraced by the Republican mainstream.

From the beginning, those variances in political strategy were irreconcilable in many ways. But both sides entered the marriage willingly, appreciating the potential political advantages that each side could gain by sticking with the relationship.

The Republican Party, vanquished by the Obama revolution, was drawn to the Tea Party’s ability to motivate the base, viewing the movement as a way to reverse its recent political setbacks and create White House jobs and Hill committee chairmanships for GOP elites. Establishment Republicans thought that Tea Party members of Congress would abandon their drive for “radical” reform once they came to appreciate the benefits of “team playing.”

Tea Party leaders, however, felt that they could change their mainstream partner for the better, either by gaining voluntary converts to their brand of reform or by forcing the establishment to abandon fiscal irresponsibility. Because most Tea Party supporters had voted for the GOP in the past, many naturally believed that most other Republicans, including GOP elites, could be rehabilitated in a 12-step program.

After the 2010 election, things seemed to be on track, and establishment Republicans were willing to tolerate the boat-rocking of the Tea Party’s representatives. For its part, the Tea Party saw its strategy of increasing its numbers in both houses of Congress unfolding.

But with Obama’s re-election, the establishment’s patience evaporated and the “marriage” went south. One could surmise that political necessity will force reconciliation, but this relationship may not recover. The GOP and Tea Party have serious disagreements. That’s the 800-pound gorilla that few people have the courage to acknowledge openly.

The Tea Party is anti-establishment, offering a brand of political radicalism that would unravel centralized government. Its economic philosophy stands opposed to the Keynesianism long embraced by the GOP. Moreover, the movement calls for the devolution of power from any government — federal or state — to the individual. That type of devolution of government power is naturally aligned with social freedom, which explains why many Tea Party supporters, despite their private views, are publicly neutral on social issues.

The Republican Party, however, certainly favors centralized government when those powers coincide with the GOP’s political interests. After all, much of the transfer of powers away from the states to Washington, D.C., and from Congress to the White House was achieved with GOP support. And, of course, many social conservatives promote centralized government when that intervention supports their norms and values.

Though no one is yet seriously discussing a divorce or even a separation, the current relationship between the GOP and the Tea Party is simply unsustainable. Where the Tea Party will end up remains to be seen.

Undoubtedly, the GOP wants the Tea Party to abandon its anti-establishment “radicalism.” To further this objective, the GOP leadership is likely to reward or punish Tea Party members accordingly, as it apparently did when the Republican Steering Committee voted to remove Reps. Justin Amash (R-MI) and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) from the House Budget Committee. And as long as the Tea Party lacks real political structure, many of its members will depend on the GOP apparatus for fundraising and additional support.

The Tea Party is adrift, confused by its flirtation with the establishment and social conservatism. In its early stages, the movement embraced conservative constitutionalism and libertarianism and remained neutral on social issues. If the Tea Party were to choose a separate path or greater autonomy, it would have to go further, embracing freedom in all areas, both social and economic. Additionally, the Tea Party would have to believe that it could win and would win elections, even against Republicans if warranted.

Such clarity of mission would require a leader with a concise vision and the ability to help the Tea Party’s political transition. It would require an articulate leader who could explain to all voters why the Tea Party better represents their values. And it would require a consistent, effective leader — someone who is engaged daily in the fight for the Tea Party’s principles and who enjoys access to a grassroots network, independent of the GOP.

The only person who could reasonably fill that role is Sen. Rand Paul. The future of the Tea Party — and possibly that of the GOP — rests on his shoulders, regardless of whether he is ready for that responsibility.

Despite being Kentucky’s junior senator, Paul is a kingmaker and has vast potential to fundraise, with or without help from the Republican National Committee. Paul is rumored to be contemplating a run for president in 2016. The GOP establishment is counting on him to be a “team player” and run as a Republican, giving the establishment Republicans confidence that they can channel him in ways they find rewarding.

We can be almost certain that if Paul were to run as a third-party candidate, the Democratic nominee would win the White House. And the senator surely understands this. That’s why it’s likely that Paul will continue to work within the GOP, bolstering his credentials as a team player while remaining dedicated to changing the Republican Party from the inside.

That’s a pragmatic long-term political strategy — but one that doesn’t square with the spirit of the Tea Party movement. If the party’s most effective leader becomes too entangled with the establishment, the Tea Party will be at risk of becoming lost and fading into the Republican mainstream, at least in the near term.

However, Paul’s future as a viable presidential candidate is linked to the Tea Party’s potency, autonomy, and staying power. In a presidential race, he would need an enthusiastic base that does not identify with the GOP establishment to propel him to a front-running position. Politically, Paul needs the Tea Party as much as the movement needs him.

The Tea Party understands that America’s shared future is, and always has been, linked to freedom in all ways, in all shapes and forms. Its devotion to that most holy American principle is necessarily predicated on limited government at every level and the devolution of power to the individual. It is an ideology that appeals to all of humanity, regardless of race or gender, and it is the only principle that will allow the United States to prosper through the coming decades and centuries. It is also the standard that will grant the nation the ability to compete against the almost certain challenge from China in this century.

If the GOP is to appeal to the majority of the nation’s citizens and compete effectively in future elections, it will have to embrace the all-freedoms ideology that animates the Tea Party. And to accomplish that feat and overcome the doubts held by many Americans toward the GOP, the Republican Party will need the credibility of a strong, vibrant Tea Party as its vanguard. If Paul can convince the GOP he can deliver that prize, he will be in a strong position to become a leading voice in the emergence of a new Republican Party that appeals to a broader demographic base.

First, though, Paul will have to take leadership of the Tea Party. The movement needs his direction if it is to make the transition into a party of economic and social freedom with greater autonomy from the GOP. By providing that leadership, Paul will help preserve and grow the movement — and in the process, bring himself closer to the White House.

Dave Banks (dbanks@usawed.org) is a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute and the director of D.C. operations for the Alliance of Wise Energy Decisions (AWED), an informal coalition of Tea Party activists focused on energy and environment policy.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/16/sen-paul-is-tea-partys-best-hope-for-political-power/#ixzz2IhUgmehg

SEMO Homecoming Parade – 10/20/2012

Below are the pictures I took as we enjoyed our 2nd Tea Party entry into the SEMO Homecoming Parade.

This was the kick-off of our Here’s Your Bill project.  After handing out hundreds of our Flyers, we were happy to see that only a few were left laying on the ground post-parade!  Yes, we did pick them up.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Tell Advertisers: Ross / Stephanopoulos / Producers Must Go

The Cape County Tea Party staged a Facebook Event asking Conservatives to watch the Saturday 7/28/12 edition of Good Morning America and track the advertisers hawking their wares during the show.  This was in response to the smear of the Tea Party orchestrated by Brian Ross as well as (obviously) George Stephanopoulos the show’s producers.

For some of us it was a painful experience — especially during the seemingly 3-hour segment on Dancing With The Stars.

We realize that most advertisers are simply buying a package, and don’t really concern themselves much about content of the programming.  However, if Ross / Stephanopoulos et al had smeared the homosexual community, there would certainly be a backlash and advertisers would be put on notice.  If the Democrat’s KKK was being advocated, their would be a powerful citizen response.

So, below is the list of advertisers that I was able to draw from the show that day.  Not surprisingly, I found it hard to remember to watch/focus on the commercials.

I urge you to find one advertiser with whom you do business.  Take 5 minutes to let them know that you don’t appreciate them supporting ABC, Ross, Stephanopolus, and their producers’ smear of the Tea Party.  The advertisers certainly wouldn’t stand for a smear on the homosexual community or advocacy of the Democrats’ KKK; why would they stand for a smear on the civic, patriotic, peaceful Tea Party movement with which 48% of their potential customers agree?

  • AARP
  • AAG (Reverse Mortgages)
  • Ashley Furniture
  • Ashley Furniture (Carbondale)
  • Bassett Furniture
  • Blue Bunny Ice Cream
  • Chase
  • Discover Card
  • Ensure
  • Entrypoint (St. Louis Door Company)
  • Famous Footwear
  • Fiber One
  • Garnier
  • Gas-X
  • Google Nexus7
  • Hospice of Southern Illinois
  • International Delight (Coffees)
  • Jenny’s Uniform (Marion, IL)
  • K12.com
  • Kleenex
  • Michael B. Jackson (jacksonvision.com)
  • Neutrogena
  • Nissan
  • PetSmart (Worst Possible Business Neighbor)
  • Romano’s Marcaroni Gril
  • Target
  • Titlemax
  • Tums
  • United Healthcare
  • Ward Hyundai (Cape Girardeau, MO)
  • Ward KIA (Carbondale, IL)
  • http://www.MyDiabetes.com

 

Obama’s IRS Goons Now Attacking Tea Party

Reported on Breitbart’s Big Government, the IRS, at the behest of Democrat Senators, is now investigating such operations as ACORN, MORE, Project Vote, Media Matters, George Soros, and Warren Buffett to expose the voter fraud and tax evasion of those organizations.

Wait. No. They’re investigating local Tea Party organizations inquiring on donors’ names, donation amounts, office-seeking Tea Party leaders, and more:

In January and February of this year, the Internal Revenue Service began sending out letters to various local Tea Parties across the country. Mailed from the same Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office, these letters have reached Tea Parties in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio, and Texas (we are hearing of more daily). There are several common threads to these letters: all are requesting more information from these independent Tea Parties in regard to their nonprofit 501(c)(4) applications (for this type of nonprofit, donations are not deductible). While some of the requests are reasonable, much of them are strikingly onerous and, dare I say, Orwellian in nature.

What are local Tea Partiers to think with requests like “Please identify your volunteers” or “are there board members or officers who have run or will run for office (including relatives)”? What possible reason would the IRS have for Tea Parties to “name your donors” when said donations are non-deductible? These are just a few of the questions asked by the IRS in these letters, and one cannot help but suspect an intrinsic threat encompassing all these demands.

The other question is the timing of these IRS letters requesting reams of copies and hundreds of hours of work and potentially thousands of dollars in accounting/legal fees (all due in two weeks). Some of these Tea Party groups have not received anything concerning their nonprofit status since 2010 prior to these letters.

These documents are further undermined by a letter sent to the IRS Commissioner Shulman. Signed by six Senators, it requests that the commissioner investigate 501(c)(4) groups to determine whether they are engaging in substantial campaign activity, including opposition to any candidate. Who signed this letter? Senators Schumer, Franken, Udall, Shaheen, Whitehouse, Merkley and Bennet — all Democrats.

Could it be that these Senators want the IRS to investigate the nonprofit status of Media Matters and its coordinated political activity with the White House? Or perhaps they are concerned with nonprofit ACORN groups’ record of voter fraud, and other previous campaign abuses including alleged close ties with President Obama’s Project Vote? No, when these Senators sent this letter to the IRS commissioner, the message would be very clear. The 501(c)(4) groups they want investigated are not those with Democratic liberal ties.

More here

$50.00 Lesson

I’ve received this a few times via e-mail, and with one minor alteration, I thought it would be good food for thought today:

I recently asked my neighbors’ little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President someday.

Both of her parents, Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”

Her parents beamed with pride.

“Wow…what a worthy goal.”  I told her, “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that! You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house. ”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50? ”

I said, “Welcome to the Tea Party.”

Her parents still aren’t speaking to me.