libertylegalfoundation.org

Last Saturday was Constitution day. 224 years ago on September 17, 1787 our Founding Fathers signed our Constitution. That day was the first time in human history that a new government voluntarily codified the limits of its own power. This was certainly a high point in humanity’s struggle for freedom.

The United States Constitution codified the fact that certain rights are given by God, as the Founding Fathers had first officially recognized years earlier in our Declaration of Independence. The Declaration and Constitution both recognized that God-given rights cannot be taken away by government.

Contrary to the modern teachings of our public school system, the purpose of the Constitution was not to simply set up three branches of government. It had a much more important purpose: to explicitly limit the authority of the Federal government, and to recognize that all remaining authority was vested in the people. In other words, God gives us Life and Liberty and Property. We then create government and give government some of our authority so that government can do certain things for us. You see, government is our employee. We have all the power. That is what the Constitution recognized and codified, for the first time in human history.

Unfortunately power corrupts. Those to whom we give our authority have turned it against us because they want to be the boss (sound familiar?). They now tell us what to do, when, how, why, how much…And they use our own authority to punish us if we resist.

It took generations, but our Constitution has been nearly destroyed because it has been forgotten. I have a calendar in my office that I got at an office supply store last January. Last week I noticed that Constitution day was not marked on my office calendar. “Peace Day” is marked. Every full moon is marked.  Grandparents Day, First Day of Fall, Mexican Independence Day, Australian and New Zealand Labor Day, Daylight Savings, Kwanzaa, and many other days are marked on my mass-produced office calendar. But not Constitution Day.

This is why we have Presidents, Congressmen, Judges and Governors that ignore the Constitution. Because they can – because the Constitution has been forgotten. Because most Americans no longer know WHY it existed in the first place, or why it matters. This is what we must change.

Liberty Legal Foundation’s mission is to restore the Constitution through challenging flawed Supreme Court precedent. Part of the reason we chose that mission was because through high-profile legal battles we can raise awareness of how much America has lost. We can re-educate the people (and the courts) about what the Constitution says and does.

If we are to re-capture America’s greatness we must help America re-discover WHY it was great in the first place. Whether individual judges agree with us in court or not, we can educate Americans about the authority that comes to them from God, and only then, to government. If they understand that government has stolen the people’s authority and rights, we can get them back in the fight and we can re-establish our Constitutional Republic.

Last Thursday the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate. Actually, to be more accurate, the 4th Circuit ruled that it would not rule on the individual mandate. Instead it found legalistic rationalizations to avoid doing its duty.The 4th Circuit ruled that the State of Virginia doesn’t have standing to challenge the individual mandate. The 4th Circuit also ruled that Liberty University can’t challenge the individual mandate because the individual mandate is a tax, not a penalty.

Both of these rulings directly conflict with other Circuit Court rulings on exactly these issues. We now have disagreement between the 4th Circuit, 6th Circuit, and 11th Circuit regarding several issues. Again, this means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up these cases very soon.While I disagree with the 4th Circuit’s ruling that the State of Virginia lacks standing to challenge the individual mandate, the ruling does highlight an important point: Virginia’s law nullifying the individual mandate is nothing more than political bluster from Virginia State politicians. Virginia’s nullification law has no effect in the real world because it has no means of enforcement.

Nullification is a Constitutional doctrine where a State or individual ignores a Federal law because the law is unconstitutional. Nullification is a valid and powerful Constitutional doctrine. Long ago the Supreme Court established that unconstitutional laws are void. A state nullification law is simply legislation passed by a state that expressly concludes that a specific Federal law is unconstitutional. Unfortunately all current attempts by state legislatures to use this powerful doctrine have failed because they lack any kind of enforcement mechanism. They leave no consequence for the Federal government if it ignores the attempted nullification. In reality these so-called nullification laws aren’t laws at all, they’re simply unenforceable resolutions. To be a real law, as opposed to a resolution, a legislative act must include a consequence for failure to follow the law. In other words, if you can ignore the so-called law and nothing happens to you, it isn’t really a law. Virginia’s so-called law nullifying the individual mandate, is a perfect example. The law essentially said that no Virginia citizen can be required to purchase health insurance. However, it did nothing to protect Virginia citizens from the individual mandate because it created no consequence for the Federal government if the Fed gov ignored the Virginia law. The 4th Circuit’s ruling recognized this failure of the Virginia law. Because Virginia had based its standing claim on its toothless attempt to nullify the individual mandate, the 4th Circuit concluded that the State didn’t have standing. According to the 4th Circuit, because the Virginia nullification law doesn’t require or allow the State to take any action upon violation of its law, the State STILL has no legal interest in whether or not the Federal government enforces the individual mandate against Virginia citizens. Again, I disagree with the Court’s ruling for reasons I won’t get into here. But their ruling makes an important point: the Virginia legislature failed its citizens. It publically said that the Federal government is violating its citizens rights, but isn’t willing to do anything about it. Virginia said, we’re going to highlight this violation by recognizing it and publically condemning it, AND we’re going to sit here and do nothing while it happens.   I admit that I’m being a little harsh toward Virginia. It did, after all, sue to prove that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. This is more than many other states did. But its lawsuit has now been dismissed because it failed to pass a nullification law that had any teeth. My home state of Tennessee is in even worse condition. Tennessee passed an Obamacare nullification law, AND the Attorney General of Tennessee refused to join any lawsuit challenging any aspect of Obamacare. So, Tennessee is currently in the position of publically acknowledging that the Federal government is violating its citizens Constitutional rights, AND it is actively doing nothing to stop the violation. Worse, its State legislators are patting themselves on the back for passing a meaningless nullification resolution. Unlike other state legislators, Tennessee legislators can’t plead ignorance about the toothlessness of their nullification act. Last Fall and Winter Liberty Legal Foundation actively lobbied the Tennessee legislature to pass several nullification bills that all had teeth. The bills we supported were different because they created criminal penalties for violation. Our bills would have made it a felony for any government agent, Federal or State, to attempt to enforce any Federal law that has been nullified by the State. After enactment, these bills would have required local law enforcement to arrest Federal agents if they violated the nullification law. Liberty Legal was successful in getting two bills introduced into both houses of the Tennessee legislature, and getting several legislators to support these bills. Unfortunately both b ills were killed in committee. We will be lobbying harder during the next session. Nullification laws with provisions for arresting Federal agents would obviously lead immediately to court challenges between the State and Federal government. But that’s the point. The 4th Circuit just refused to rule on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate by claiming that the State has no legal interest in the individual mandate. If any State had an IRS agent sitting in a jail cell, or even passed a law allowing them to jail an IRS agent, legal standing would not be a problem. In fact, Obama’s Department of Justice would likely file their own lawsuit against the State the day after such a bill was passed. Passing a nullification bill with teeth would force the Federal government to bring the battle to us. Currently we have States like Virginia and Tennessee passing toothless nullification bills and the Federal government’s response is to ignore them. We Constitutionalists need to start fighting smart. Force the enemy to come to us. We hold the high ground. Yet we continuously fight on their terms. This is why Liberty Legal Foundation refuses to challenge the individual mandate alone. We insist that ALL of Obamacare is outside of the Constitutional authority of Congress. By doing this we take the fight to where we want it to be. We lobby for nullification bills with teeth, so that the Federal government can’t simply ignore nullification. Liberty Legal’s methods will force the Federal government to come to us. It will force them to justify THEIR arguments, rather than the other way around. We need your help to turn this fight around. Please contact your state legislatures and insist upon State nullification laws that would criminalize Federal enforcement of unconstitutional Federal laws. Please continue to spread the word about Liberty Legal Foundation. And please give what you can to support our efforts.

On August 12th, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Georgia ruled that the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional. This ruling directly conflicts with the 6th Circuit’s June 29th ruling. The conflict between circuits virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will be taking up these cases within the next few months. We should have a ruling from the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of Obamacare by next Summer.

Our plan has not changed: Liberty Legal Foundation will file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court as soon as the Court announces that it’s going to hear any Obamacare case.

The 11th Circuit Court’s opinion again confirmed all of Liberty Legal’s arguments. Throughout the opinion the Court describes how current “commerce clause precedent” leaves essentially no limits on Congressional authority. Or, to be more accurate, the Court explains that if there are any limits they are undefined, difficult to describe, limited in practical application, and unclear. Yet the Court fails to identify the real problem. Instead it addressed the issue as it was argued by the plaintiffs’ attorneys. It focused on the individual mandate as a new level of Congressional power grab. Here’s just a little of what the Court said about the individual mandate:

“Every day, Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest or save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children’s education, and their health care. The government contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes. Under this theory, because Americans have money to spend and must inevitably make decisions on where to spend it, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to direct and compel an individual’s spending in order to further its overarching regulatory goals.”

This description of the individual mandate is absolutely correct. If Congress can impose the individual mandate on America, it can force Americans to do anything, without any limits. Which is exactly what the Court concluded:

“Applying aggregation principles to an individual’s decision not to purchase a product would expand the substantial effects doctrine to one of unlimited scope. Given the economic reality of our national marketplace, any person’s decision not to purchase a good would, when aggregated, substantially affect interstate commerce in that good. From a doctrinal standpoint, we see no way to cabin the government’s theory only to decisions not to purchase health insurance. If a individual’s mere decision not to purchase insurance were subject to Wickard’s aggregation principle, we are unable to conceive of any product whose purchase Congress could not mandate under this line of argument.”

The problem with the 11th Circuit’s ruling is not their conclusion, it is how they got to their conclusion. The individual mandate is unconstitutional. But it isn’t unconstitutional for the reasons cited by the 11th Circuit. It is unconstitutional because Wickard left no limits on Congressional authority. The 11th Circuit was left with a job that it couldn’t do. It recognized that the individual mandate is FAR beyond the authority of Congress, yet it struggled to support this finding without admitting that Wickard itself is unconstitutional.

The 11th Circuit and the 6th Circuit opinions had several things in common: both Courts describe the individual mandate as unprecedented. Both struggled to identify how the individual mandate could be unconstitutional under the current commerce clause precedent. Both conclude that if the individual mandate is constitutional, then it is very difficult to identify any limit on Congressional authority. Both conclude that the difference between activity and inactivity is NOT a good limiting point because the government itself redefines “activity” as the decision to not participate in a market, leaving the activity/inactivity line meaningless. One Court ruled the individual mandate constitutional with one judge dissenting, the other ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional with one judge dissenting. Both Courts identify the same problem and both failed to identify the solution.

Overturning Wickard is the obvious solution. The Supreme Court should admit that it was wrong. Admit that Wickard was a politically motivated decision that insulted the clear meaning of the Constitution. Admit that Wickard led directly to exponential growth in Federal government, leaving us with a cancer that’s killing America. We must return Congress to its pre-1942 scope of authority. If either the 11th or 6th Circuits had suggested this simple solution, their opinions wouldn’t have been full of internal contradictions and unanswered questions. Even if they didn’t think that they had the authority to overturn Wickard themselves, BOTH Courts could have, and should have, raised this solution. Neither court did.

When history proves that precedent is flawed, it must be abandoned. Unfortunately, our courts and most attorneys have forgotten this. They habitually presume that precedent is correct and then they tinker endlessly with the appalling product of that flawed precedent. This is our slow road to hell. It leads to ever more complex rulings, attempting to explain differences that don’t exist and point to limitations that were never real. It’s time to admit that we’re on the wrong road. America became great because our Founding Fathers placed tight limitations on Federal authority. We’re going rapidly downhill because those limits were removed. We must go back to the fork in the road: 1942, Wickard v. Filburn. Once we turn down the right road we can begin to move forward again. We can begin to be great again.

As an attorney you learn a little about negotiations: ask for more than you plan to get, including an outrageous demand far beyond what you have a right to ask for. Your outrageous demand acts like a lightning rod. The other party in the negotiation immediately focuses on your outrageous demand, telling you all the reasons it’s excessive. Of course you already know all the reasons they point out, but now your other requests (what you really want) seem much more reasonable and may be forgotten all together. Plus, you never know, you might get the outrageous item as well.

That’s why Obamacare included the individual mandate. The individual mandate was Obama’s “Lighting Rod”. It was the outrageous overreach that they knew they’d probably never get to keep. I’m sure they’d like to keep it, and they hope to do so, but it was always intended to be their throw away. And it’s working.

All the other lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of Obamacare focus on the individual mandate. Only Liberty Legal Foundation’s Obamacare Class Action argues that ALL of Obamacare is unconstitutional. Yes, the individual mandate is outrageously unconstitutional. But it’s just the worst part of a big unconstitutional mess. Because all the other lawsuits focus on the individual mandate, the courts are also all focusing on the individual mandate.

You see, by creating such an outrageous part of Obamacare, the Obama Administration caused all the States and other litigants to give up their objections to the rest of Obamacare. It’s a brilliant tactic that has fooled most of America. Fortunately, all of you, the members of the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit, have avoided Obama’s trap. We’re keeping our eyes on the big picture. We will not be distracted by Obama’s slight of hand.

When Obamacare reaches the Supreme Court, Liberty Legal Foundation will be there to make sure that the most important argument is heard. Liberty Legal Foundation, representing all of you, will point out that the Supreme Court has the power to reverse its own precedent. It doesn’t have to follow old rulings like Wickard v. Filburn when such rulings have proven to destroy the clear meaning of the Constitution. We will be the only ones making this point.

Because they’re focused on the individual-mandate-lighting-rod, none of the other lawsuits against Obamacare argue that Wickard itself violates the Constitution. Because they’ve been distracted by the outrageous power grab, all the other lawsuits fail to challenge the biggest lie of Obamacare: That Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate healthcare AT ALL.

We have an opportunity to reverse 79 years of Congressional abuse of power. This abuse of power only became possible after the Supreme Court’s 1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn. Please continue to support Liberty Legal Foundation: we will be the only voice at the Supreme Court pointing at Wickard instead of the individual mandate.

“If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and we are obligated to revisit it… If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution. And it’s not what we say it is, it’s what it actually says, and I think we have to be humble enough to say we were wrong.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

P.S. Two weeks ago we reported to you that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. I’ve finished reading their 200 page ruling and the almost 100 page dissenting opinion. Next week I’ll give you a very brief summary of the ruling, tell you what’s good, and what’s bad. Most importantly I’ll explain why this latest ruling is just another example of America’s slow road to hell, and why Liberty Legal Foundation’s Obamacare Class Action must succeed if we’re going to turn down the right road.

Last week’s post commented on the Republican Presidential candidates’ knowledge of the Constitution. In that message I made the statement that the Constitution prevents an Obamacare-style individual mandate regardless of whether it’s implemented by the Federal government or a State government. Many of you responded with the same question: “What part of the U.S. Constitution prevents a State government from imposing an individual mandate?” This message is my response to that question:

The U.S. Constitution imposes upon the Federal government a duty to protect certain rights of individual citizens against intrusion by State government. This duty arises from at least two places in the Constitution: Article IV section 2, and the 14th Amendment.

Article IV section 2 states: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”

The 14th Amendment section 1 states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

These sections unquestionably do impose upon the Federal government a duty to protect individual citizens from State violations of certain rights. But, the question is: what rights are protected from State intrusion? That question has been debated since the Constitution was ratified. We fought a war over it, and the question is still being hotly debated. When it’s answered poorly States lose sovereignty, millions of babies are murdered, private property is stolen by States, and many other rights are violated. When it’s answered properly States are prevented from denying free speech, prevented from imprisoning individuals without a jury trial, prevented from disarming their citizens, and prevented from stealing private property.

Now, our specific question is this: does the Federal government have a duty to protect individual citizens from a State law requiring individuals to purchase health insurance? I believe that the U.S. Constitution imposes such a duty upon Federal government. I understand that many Constitutional scholars would disagree with this assessment, but they’re analysis is flawed.

I admit that the rights protected by the privileges and immunities clause and the 14th Amendment have been interpreted to prevent State actions only in limited and specific circumstances. I also admit that State imposition of an individual mandate arguably does not fall within the things that have been clearly defined as violating individual rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. However, the individual mandate presents a situation never seen before in America.

Never before has a State law imposed a penalty on individuals that do nothing. No criminal or civil law punishes individuals for not acting, unless they have a duty to act that arose from something that the individual did earlier. Taxes are also based upon activity: income, purchasing, using, owning, acquiring, etc.

Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s protection of “Liberty” have, so far, limited this right to preventing imprisonment without due process of law. However, the word “Liberty” doesn’t simply mean “not imprisoned.” If the drafters of the Amendment intended this limitation they could have simply said “not imprisoned.” They used the much broader word “Liberty” because they intended to have the Federal government actively prevent States from denying individual citizens “Liberty” without due process of law.

So, what is “Liberty?” Certainly the courts got part of it right. Imprisoning someone without due process certainly violates the 14th Amendment. But this is not ALL of what “Liberty” means. Liberty also means being free from government punishment for doing absolutely nothing. In theory the individual mandate can punish an individual that is born in the woods, has never spoken to another person, has never participated in any market, and wouldn’t know a hospital if it bit him.

You see, the government has created a fiction that all people MUST be part of their health care system, whether they choose to take part or not. The same liberals that support government-sanctioned murder of babies in the name of health care choice, have taken away all Americans’ freedom to choose to not participate in the health care system. Ironic, isn’t it? They’ve defined “Life” as not including a living individual with a unique genome. Now they’re trying to re-define “Liberty” as simply not being in prison.

“Liberty” includes the right to say “No.” It includes the right to NOT participate.

The phrase “without due process” doesn’t change this analysis. “Without due process” does not mean that a State can deny its citizens’ rights to life, liberty, or property by simply passing a law that denies these things. If that were the case, then the rights would have no meaning. The State could simply pass a law revoking any right.

Due process means that if a State does have a substantive right to deny life, liberty, or property, such denial must be based upon an act of the individual and the State must prove that the act happened. In other words, rights must be waived by individuals through their affirmative acts. Rights cannot be denied by the State absent some act of the individual.

In the criminal context, a state must prove that the citizen has violated some criminal law. It must do so without violating other rights protected by the Constitution. It must inform the individual of the charges, allow access to an attorney, not force the individual to testify against themselves, provide a jury trial, and not use evidence obtained in violation of other Constitutional rights. This is “due process of law.” In the civil context the State must provide notice of the acts of the individual that gave rise to the State’s right to end property rights. Usually a hearing is also required.

What all these circumstances have in common is an action by the individual, which leads to the substantive right of the State to deny an individual right. An act of the individual MUST proceed the State’s act that takes away that individual’s rights. Committing a crime, owning property, driving a car, running a business, are all common examples of actions that can lead to loss of rights if laws are violated in the process. Also, the loss of rights by the individual must have some relation to the unlawful action and must be in proportion to that action. If not, the State is again violating due process.

None of this is true for the individual mandate. A State-imposed individual mandate creates a law where the State can hunt down and punish a person born in the woods who has never interacted with anyone.

No State has the right to hunt down and punish an individual that has never done anything. The State has no right to require such an individual to act. If this is not true, then the word “Liberty” has no meaning. If this isn’t true, then we’re all in prison now, even if we can’t see the bars. 

The Iowa Presidential debate included excellent signs of progress, and some very frustrating misconceptions about the Constitution. I was amazed and pleased to hear questions about the 10^thAmendment and the role of government. Several times the debate moderators asked about the Constitution in relation to certain policy issues.

Folks, this is FABULOUS NEWS!! Never before in my lifetime has the Constitution been a significant part of a Presidential debate.The media and candidates are finally discussing the proper role of Federal government in the context of Constitutional limitations. I’m grateful for the efforts of the Tea Party movement, and people like you, for getting our so-called leaders to finally start asking the right questions.

Now for the frustrating part: The questions and answers last night revealed how far we have to go. I think we’ve gotten our proverbial ship turned in the right direction, but we’ve been off course for so long that it will take a while for us to get back to where we need to be. Several of the candidates discussed the 10^thAmendment, state sovereignty, and Constitutional limits on the Federal government. However, they’re answers often revealed gaps in their understanding of these issues.

Let me pick on two of my favorite people as examples: Michele Bachmann was asked if it mattered whether or not an individual mandate was implemented by the Federal or State government in relation to the 10^th Amendment. She answered “No” when actually it does matter. She could have used this question as an opportunity to show her Constitutional “chops”. She understands that government at any level can’t impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, however, her answer made it seem as if she didn’t understand the primary purpose of the 10^th Amendment (to limit Federal powers and defend State authority). A more informative answer would have been, “Yes it matters. The 10^thAmendment prevents the Federal government from implementing an individual mandate, it does not prevent States from doing so. However, other parts of the Constitution do protect individual Americans from such a mandate, even when it is a State attempting to force Americans to buy insurance.” Again, she may knows this, but she didn’t say it.

This may seem like picking nits, but it’s not. This is a VERY important point. Especially for a candidate like Bachmann. She’s running as a Constitutionalist. Her base voters are watching for signs that she can lead by example. Educating the American people about why and how the Constitution functions is a key job requirement.

Ron Paul answered essentially the same question next. He corrected Michele, by pointing out that States have the right under the Constitution to do “bad things.” He pointed out that the 10^th Amendment protects States from Federal intrusion into State matters. However, he forgot the important point that the Constitution still requires the Federal government to protect certain fundamental rights of individual Americans against violation by government, even when it’s State government committing the violation.Again, Dr. Paul may know this, but his answer didn’t reflect such knowledge. Again, this is a VERY important point.

I know that candidate debates are stressful and it’s easy to give less-than-perfect answers. I’ve been a Congressional candidate and I’ve participated in televised candidate debates. I’ve certainly given an occasional answer that could have been better. But I also know that when it came to my core values, my answers were always dead on. They flowed from truths held deeply.I believe Dr. Paul’s and Mrs. Bachmann’s answers reflect understandings of the Constitution that are better than most, but still need some work.

The good news is that both of these answers reflect a quantum leap forward in the respect for the Constitution in our national debates. The fact that these issues were discussed at all is a victory for America.However, several answers in the Iowa debate reflect how far we have to go. Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann are two of the most sincere followers of the Constitution we have in Washington. I believe that they both truly desire to restore our Constitutional Republic. Yet even they apparently have some serious gaps in their understanding of how the Constitution is supposed to work, or have a difficult time articulating that understanding.

These gaps will be corrected, as long as we elect individuals who genuinely desire to follow the Constitution. If given the chance to run the country, either Michele or Ron will apply Constitutional principles to government. In doing so, they will continue to refine their own understanding of the Constitution.

So, the question for us is this: which candidates genuinely want to follow the Constitution? This question focuses on the deepest motives of the candidates. If you know what motivates a person, you can accurately predict what they will do under any circumstances.Pick a candidate that is willing to sacrifice themselves to protect the Constitution and you will find a candidate that will restore America’s greatness. They may make mistakes, but regardless of occasional mistakes, such a candidate would make great strides in the right direction.

Before you decide who to support in the upcoming elections ask yourself: “Would this candidate lay down their life for the country?” “Would they take a bullet?” We must support the candidate that is motivated by a genuine desire to save America, and is willing to give anything to achieve that goal. This is the first qualification that our next President must have.If they are also able to speak eloquently and motivate others, that would be great too, but it’s not as important as their proper motive to lead. All other “qualifications” are secondary to proper, self-sacrificial motives.

Countless soldiers have laid down their lives, often dying terrifying deaths far from home, in order to defend America. America has no chance to survive if we can’t find one Presidential candidate that has the same attitude toward his or her duty the country.

Based on personal knowledge I’m convinced that both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann have the motives I’ve described here. I could be wrong. I don’t agree with either of them on every subject, and Michele has at least one vote that made me question her commitment to the Constitution. However, based upon what I know about her and Ron, I’m still convinced that their motives are pure.

I don’t know enough about all the other candidates to make the same judgment. I know MANY have proven that they are not motivated to restore the Constitution. Others may be. I simply don’t know yet. Whoever you decide to support, please consider their motives as the most important of qualifications.

This week’s deal to raise America’s debt ceiling is a prime example of why we must restore our Constitution by overturning Wickard v. Filburn. The Federal government is not Constitutionally authorized to do most of what it does. Our crushing national debt comes primarily from costs associated with doing things that the Federal government shouldn’t be doing in the first place.

Our Founding Fathers never envisioned a government capable of regulating every aspect of our lives. In fact, such a government was exactly the type of despotism that the Constitution was intended to prevent. We now have a Federal government that tells us we have to buy health insurance, what type of light bulb we can use and how much water we can use to flush our toilets. It tells us that our children MUST go to school, and then it tells us what they must learn, what they CAN’T learn, and how it must be taught. Does anyone truly believe that this is the type of government that our Founding Fathers fought to create?

Every law, regulation, and tax passed by Congress requires countless Federal employees to implement, monitor, and enforce. All this costs money. So, the deal we get from the Federal government is this: give us your money so we can take your freedom.

America now owes over $14.5 Trillion. That’s over $46,000 per American (including children), or more accurately, over $130,000 per tax-paying American. The Federal government’s revenue is just over $2.2 Trillion per year. It currently spends $3.6 Trillion per year. Those numbers are beyond normal human comprehension. So, let’s put them into perspective: The average American household has an income of about $50,000 per year. If that average household ran like the Federal government it would spend $87,833 per year, and would already have credit card balances of $310,741. Do you see the problem?

The debt ceiling deal is exactly like this hypothetical household running into its credit limit, but rather than bringing its spending below its income, it raises its credit limit. This has been Congress’ answer to the national debt every time it has reached its credit limit. Rather than addressing the problem, Congress simply raises the credit limit. We all know where that ends.

America’s credit limit has a ceiling that cannot be raised by Congress, and we are about to bash our heads into it. As I said, Federal revenue is about $2.2 Trillion per year. (That amount changes depending upon the economy, inflation, and tax rates, but history shows that tax revenues never exceed a certain percentage of its gross national product.) We currently owe $14.5 Trillion. That’s more than 6.6 times our annual revenue. If the Federal government stopped spending a dime, today, it would take more than six and a half years to pay off our debt, and that is assuming no interest. That is if we spent $0 on defense, $0 on infrastructure, $0 on social security, $0 on medicare, $0 on Federal employees and $0 on everything else, and paid no interest on our debt. Do you see the problem yet?

Now let’s talk about interest on the debt. Interest on the debt is what creates a credit limit that cannot be removed by legislation. In the near future the interest payments alone will exceed Federal revenue. Interest payments alone for this year will be $412 Billion. That’s just under 19% of the Fed gov’s revenue. The Congressional Budget Office says that in about 30 years interest on the national debt will equal 100% of the Federal revenue. THIS is our absolute credit limit.

At this point 100% of the money collected from Americans will be needed to pay interest on debt alone. No defense, infrastructure, social security, medicare, education, welfare, unemployment, federal employees, or anything else will be paid by the Federal government. This, of course means that the Federal government would no longer be able to collect its revenue, because the Federal government would no longer exist. The real collapse would happen much sooner than this. Once the Federal government is forced to spend 50% or 60% to pay interest on the debt, it will seriously lose its ability to run the country. This will also force it to borrow more money, accelerating the death spiral.

The CBO’s estimate assumes that Congress won’t raise spending (yeah, right) and that global interest rates will not increase. If either of these things happen, and they both will, then the absolute credit limit moves closer to the present. This is why the debt debate is not a political debate. It’s not really a debate at all. We are now dealing with hard economics that someday soon nobody will be able to deny.

All of this debt is a result of the Federal government doing things it isn’t Constitutionally authorized to do. If the Federal government was limited to its Constitutionally authorized activities, we would have no deficit and no debt.

If we succeed in overturning Wickard v. Filburn, Congress will be forced to stay out of most issues designated for State or individual control. If we succeed, Federal revenue will once again exceed its spending and we can make real headway towards paying down our debt.

We must return our Federal government to its pre-1942 mission. Without such a return to the Constitution, our country is doomed. We can do that with one victory: a Supreme Court ruling overturning Wickard v. Filburn.

That is why Liberty Legal Foundation is fighting the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit. That is why we need your continued support.

Lying is routine for the Obama White House as we’ve seen with the recent debt debate. Many of you believe that Obama lied about his citizenship, and that he is not Constitutionally qualified to serve as President. I’m sure there are also a few of you that think Obama’s citizenship doesn’t matter. Regardless of what you think about the “birther” issue, one thing we can be certain of is that the Obama White House lies.

Earlier this year Liberty Legal Foundation served the White House with some court documents in the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit. These documents were served by certified mail with a return receipt. Normally when certified mail is delivered the recipient signs and dates the return receipt with the postal carrier acting as witness. The return receipt is then returned to the sender of the legal document as proof of service.

Everything is different when dealing with the White House. Unlike certified mail delivery to any other American,  return receipts to the President are date stamped by White House staff. The postal carrier is not a witness, so he or she can’t ensure that the correct date is placed on the return receipt.

When Liberty Legal Foundation received its return receipt from the White House on April 11th, it was date stamped by the White House as delivered on May 7th. You read that correctly, a return receipt in our possession on April 11th was date stamped by the White house as delivered a full four weeks AFTER Liberty Legal got the receipt. Unless the President has invented a time machine that he hasn’t told anyone about, the date on this return receipt was impossible. I’ve never received a letter from the future before. I was pretty amazed.

You don’t have to take our word for it. The information age we live in has many wonders. One of which is real-time tracking of mail deliveries by the U.S. Post Office. Once we received our letter from the future we got on-line at the Post Office web site and tracked our certified mail package. According to the U.S. Post Office the White House actually received our certified mail on April 4th.

Giving the White House staff the benefit of the doubt, their date stamp could have been a simple mistake. However, it wasn’t off by exactly a month. It wasn’t off by a single day. Either of these could easily happen by mistake. Other errors could be explained by a believable mistake. But how does a date stamp get “accidentally” set wrong for both the month and the day? Such a mistake is very unlikely.

What makes it even more improbable that it was a mistake was that the Justice department did exactly the same thing, but with different dates. The Justice department received the OCA documents on 4/1/2011 yet the return receipt was date stamped 5/5/2011.

You may be thinking that stamping the wrong date on a return receipt is trivial. Well, it is and it isn’t. It’s true that the world didn’t come to an end. However, the trustworthiness of the U.S. Postal System was damaged. This IS important. The U.S. Postal System is presumed by American courts to be very reliable and even more trustworthy. When a certified mail return receipt is dated and postmarked, it is almost impossible to convince a U.S. court that the date is wrong. This is because of the presumed incorruptibility of the U.S. Postal system.

The Post Office’s reputation has been earned through VERY strict Federal laws with VERY harsh penalties, actively enforced. What do you think will happen to this hard-earned reputation when the leadership of our country blatantly commits mail fraud, with no consequences?

The biggest reason this incident is not trivial is because it was perpetrated by the White House. This particular return receipt, it turns out, is not important. Had all the Defendants committed fraud by stamping the wrong date, they could have set our case back by another 6 weeks. However since most  Defendants did not alter the date, this will not determine any important issue in the OCA lawsuit.

But the fact that we have proof that the White House lied is very important. The fact that the White House is willing to place a fraudulent date on a U.S. Post Office document related to a Federal lawsuit proves that the White House will lie about anything. Lying is routine for the Obama Administration. What else have they lied about?

He who is true in a little, is true in much; he who is false in small things, is false in great. Luke 16:10

Article II section 1 of the U.S. Constitution ends with this sentence:

“Before he [the President] enters on the execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Members of Congress take a similar oath of office.

The complaint filed in Liberty Legal Foundation’s lawsuit against Obamacare accuses President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid of violating their oaths of office. Rather than answer this accusation, they claimed immunity. Their motion to dismiss states:

“That Plaintiffs claim defendants Reid and Pelosi have violated the Constitution is of no significance; such a claim does not evade the Speech or Debate bar, as legislative immunity is absolute.”

They did not deny that they violated their oaths. They did not deny that their actions violate the Constitution. They simply claimed immunity.

Let me be clear, the President and members of Congress have the legal right to claim immunity. Legally they are not required to deny our accusations. However, they could have claimed immunity AND denied our accusations. They didn’t do that. They also have the right to waive their immunity and respond to the accusations. They didn’t do that. They simply claimed immunity.

Now, if you were publicly accused of violating the Constitution and violating an oath, how would you respond? If more than 30,000 Americans accused you of breaking your solemn word, would you hide behind immunity? If you had the right to claim immunity AND deny the accusation, would you deny the accusations or leave them unanswered?

OK, let’s change the question a little: If you were accused of violating an oath AND you were actually innocent of that accusation, would you leave the accusation unanswered? I think you see my point.

We at Liberty Legal Foundation are disappointed, but not surprised, that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid would rather hide behind immunity than respond to such serious accusations. The Obamacare Class Action lawsuit will continue regardless of whether the President, Pelosi, and Reid are personally immune. Our claim that Obamacare is unconstitutional forces the U.S. government to respond whether or not Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are personally liable for their actions. However, we are pointing out the actions of these individuals because it reflects how far out of control our Federal government and courts have become.

That the President and members of Congress are immune from accusations such as those in the OCA lawsuit, is a reflection on how far American courts have limited the purpose and power of our Constitution. Immunities granted to the President and members of Congress are directly responsible for the lack of respect our so-called leaders have for the Constitution. Such immunities should be rescinded. Once we have achieved our victory in the OCA lawsuit, Liberty Legal Foundation plans to return to the immunity issue and challenge the Supreme Court precedent that established these immunities.

For now, we wanted you to be aware that the President, Pelosi, and Reid apparently don’t care enough about their oaths or our Constitution to even deny our accusations.

We must press on against this disregard, arrogance and condescension and continue our fight to restore the intent of our Constitution. Thank you for being part of this battle.

Two weeks ago a Senior District Judge, sitting for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, explained what is wrong with Obamacare. He said:

“The ultimate issue in this case is this: Does the notion of federalism still have vitality? To approve the exercise of power would arm Congress with the authority to force individuals to do whatever it sees fit, as long as the regulation concerns an activity or decision that, when aggregated, can be said to have some loose, but-for type of economic connection, which nearly all human activity does. Such a power feels very much like the general police power that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States and the people. A structural shift of that magnitude can be accomplished legitimately only through constitutional amendment.“

This is exactly what we at Liberty Legal Foundation have been saying since we filed the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit. If Obamacare is Constitutional, then NOTHING is outside of the power of Congress. This clearly goes against the clear meaning of the Constitution.

Liberty Legal Foundation is excited that we are no longer a lone voice screaming in the wilderness. To have a sitting Federal Court judge write that Obamacare can only be legitimized through a constitutional amendment, proves that we can win our Obamacare Class Action lawsuit.

A month ago Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote,

“When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, individual liberty is at stake.”

This statement was made in a case that re-established the 10th Amendment as a limitation on Federal authority. It also re-established that all Americans have a right to challenge governmental violations of the 10th Amendment. Before last month many judges believed that only states could challenge a Federal government violation of the Tenth Amendment. In fact, before last month’s landmark decision many judges believed that the 10th Amendment had no enforceable meaning at all. That false believe has now been obliterated.

You may remember that the Obamacare Class Action asserts, among other things, that Obamacare violates the 10th Amendment.

It is incredibly encouraging to see Federal judges and the Supreme Court reacting to these issues in this way at this time. I believe we are headed for a perfect storm that will roll back bad Supreme Court precedent from the 1940s. In the 1940s the Supreme Court failed in its role to be an active check on the legislative and executive branches of government. All of the problems we are suffering though today had their start in the 1940’s Supreme Court’s failures. If we want to fix America, we must start by reviving our Supreme Court. The OCA is intentionally designed to give the current Supreme Court Justices an opportunity to re-assert the rule of law and Constitutional limitations on the Federal government. If they have the courage to do what their oaths demand, we can save our Constitutional Republic.

Thank you all for joining Liberty Legal Foundation in its fight to take back our Constitutional rights. Please continue to spread the word.