It’s often said that America was once a free country, but that its freedom has been heavily damaged by a relentless growth in government. Some (like Aaron Russo in his documentary America: From Freedom to Fascism) date the decline from 1913, when the Federal Reserve was chartered and the Income Tax enacted; but I no longer think it began that late. The “Pristine State” advocates suppose that there was once in our history a kind of Eden from which we have fallen, and so that all we need now is somehow to get back there — to “constitutional rule.” There wasn’t, and we don’t. I think our troubles began no later than 1789.
The drafting was done in 1787, and the needed nine States had ratified it by June 21st, 1788, so the Constitution became supreme law on that day. Then on March 3rd 1789 Congress opened its doors and the following month George Washington presided. It’s very interesting to notice what the new Congress did, in its first session, from March through September of that year.
It committed six acts, before going home for the winter in September. See if any of them give you warm, fuzzy feelings; and in a moment I’ll focus on the sixth, because of its huge importance.
First came some administration; deciding on how oaths of office were to be taken. Not too much there to bother us.
Second was the “Hamilton Tariff,” under which revenue was to be raised. So the second-ever Act of the US Congress was to arrange for the confiscation of property. Sure, it was Constitutional — it was a set of tariffs, imposed on certain imports; some must have recalled that it was a tariff on tea that had sparked the Revolution in the first place, so may have wondered whether anything had changed except the geographic location of the thieves. The import duties favored Northern manufacturers by making foreign goods seem more expensive — it was protectionist — and hurt Southerners by making them pay more. From Day One, a division was being fashioned that led after seventy years to open warfare. So the first substantive thing Congress did was to start to set the scene for internal conflict.
Third came an establishment of “Foreign Affairs” — now the Department of State — by which the new government was to execute “policies” towards other nations. If the intention was to have a perfectly uniform policy towards all, that would not have been needed. By establishing one, it was clear there were to be some nations more favored, others less favored. That’s what a “foreign policy” means, and it is ultimately the cause of war and, in our own era, of the unconventional war called “terrorism”; for had there been no foreign policy favoring Israel (recall Biden’s call in March for “no space” between the policies of the US and Israel?) there would have been no 9/11, or if there had been one favoring Palestinians there would have been a “9/11” much sooner and much more devastating, executed by Mossad. So the third Act in the history of the new government was to set the scene for all future external conflict.
Fourth was an Act to set up a Department of War — now euphemized as “Defense” — and that was very logical. You play favorites with other nations, eventually you’ll need to fight some of them. Better get ready.
Fifth came the Department of the Treasury, to take in and account for the collection and spending of the money confiscated by Act Two. It is to this Department that today’s IRS belongs, so I need say no more.
So far, it’s not too hard to detect the beginnings of all the most loathsome attributes of any government: tax, distortion, discord and warfare. This is to what our well-meaning “Constitutionalist” friends want to get us back.
The sixth action of that first session bore fruit on September 24th, 1789 and was the “Judiciary Act” — and it’s notorious and breathtaking. Here’s why.
On its face, its purpose was just to flesh out Article Three, which said there was to be a Judicial Branch in the new government. It had to do with establishing Courts — Supreme, District, Circuit — and government Attorneys, General and less general. But as well as that administrative stuff, the 1789 Judiciary Act declared that the Supreme Court had the power to hear actions for “writs of mandamus” as one of original jurisdiction, and so not to be just a court of appeal. Congress was therefore purporting to grant to its sister Branch a power which Article Three never gave it.
Oops! Right off the bat, in its very first session, Congress therefore tried to do something it was not empowered to do (if you’ll allow for the moment that, contrary to Spooner, the Constitution actually empowered anyone to do anything). In so doing, Congress demonstrated its disdain for the fences placed around it by Articles Two and Five. Very clearly, government today acknowledges no limits on its power; the 1789 Judiciary Act made it plain that Congress never did acknowledge such limits, even in its very first session.
Was this arrogation of power deliberate, or inadvertent?
Either is possible if the Act is considered in isolation, but it wasn’t isolated. While the Constitution was being drafted, Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists had wanted to specify powers for the Judicial Branch, just as the charter did for the other two Branches, and in particular to grant it the power of “Judicial Review,” i.e., to say what is, and is not, valid law. He argued that that is what high courts normally do. However in Article Three no powers were granted to it at all, so as it’s fair to presume that it was not to have zero powers (otherwise, why set it up?) consequently Article Three left them wide open — for unlike the wording of Articles I and II there are no limits or prohibitions named, either. It was a blank check, whose detail could be filled in later.
If Hamilton had had his way and the Constitution as drafted had said something like “The Supreme Court shall have power to decide what is law and what is not law” the new government would have been plainly seen as a dictatorship, and in my humble opinion it would have not had a snowball’s chance of getting ratified; even as it was, that process was no sure thing. So that’s why they left it blank — while the Federalist majority intended all along that such a power should, indeed, be owned by the Judicial Branch so that the new government could (with a little delay, and with its cooperation) do anything it wanted to do, while operating under the pretense of being strictly limited.
So Congress’ 1789 attempt to endow the Supreme Court with a new power (to hear certain cases with original jurisdiction) was not accidental, but deliberate; that particular power wasn’t very important, but it was to test the waters, establish a precedent. If they could grant it one small power then, they could later grant it bigger ones, and so eventually equip it with absolute, law-determining power. Take an inch at once, so as to take a mile later on.
Regards,Jim DaviesLewRockwell.comWhiskey & Gunpowder
May 12, 2010
I found your article to be very interesting and I am going to share it with my friends.
Well said Jim!
“For not only every democracy, but certainly every republic, bears within itself the seeds of its own destruction.”
From the Granite State, a Yankee, odd David Souter did go to the Supreme Court.
And what seeds did he sew, what purpose did he hoe.
The light and the dark, to hell or with the Savior, where do we go from here.
How to mend the divide that may very well split us into five?
Just to live, survive and just maybe to thrive with no boot on the neck, how quaint.
Pingback: Cabañas en Sierra de los Padres – Frida Bar Arenas Verdes – San Patricio en Lecker (BQ2)
I really get bored reading long and generally ignorant diatribes about constitutional issues written by people who are completely unqualified to comment on such issues. Everyone is a constitutional scholar these days. We all got constitutional rights. A little knowledge is dangerous.
We have never had a truly free society? You have issues with the fine points of governance going back over 200 years? Good God, what a waste of time. If you go looking for perfection in any human endeavor on the scale of national governance I guarantee you will be frustrated and disappointed. Forget about the larger society and angels dancing on the heads of pins and just take the necessary steps to make yourself free, it is very easily done in this nation. My boot heels been a wandering quite a few years and no one to say no to me living how I please and prospering all the same.
BTW you really think 9/11 was a result of US favoring Israel? That’s pure nonsense, even Bin Laden never claimed that. His main rationalization was that US troops were stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. But his nutbag religion twists itself every which way dreaming up grievances against the US, much in the same way that you seem to be doing. This is not history, it’s just nonsense wrapped in a lot of rhetoric.
Pingback: Cabañas en Sierra de los Padres – Frida Bar Arenas Verdes – San Patricio en Lecker (BQ1)
As Benjamin Franklin once said (I paraphrase) “It does not take a majority in agreement to effect a revolution; just a very determined minority.”
I would guess about 2 times the number of jail cells in the country, unless the national guard starts shooting.
P.S. The import duty on tea in 1776 was sixpence in the pound. i.e. 2.5% . What a bunch of go-along-to-get-along american citizens have become in 200 years of soft living.
It wasnt the amount that people were paying for taxes tea it was that they were being taxed without representation.
Pingback: US senators send letter to Obama urging landmine ban | NHL focus
While it may never have been Eden or ideal, I would rather go back toward the constitution and its’ defining principles then keep moving toward oblivion. Improvements in technology account for most of the improvements in living, not some act passed by congress. What Dave says about making yourself free is very true. Form follows function, not the other way around.
My sentiment falls in with Dave and DA above. This ’911 Truth’ contention is pure tripe. However much our intelligence services anticipated some sort of high-threat event on the scale of the twin towers devastation (or worse), it defies logic to accept that it was any sort of intentional ‘false flag operation’ given its huge cost in the face of an already teetering ‘monetary’ quagmire. The Banksters of this world WANT to continue their paper scam, after all.
The reason that foreign policy helps or hinders particular countries is as clear as day … personal relationships are precicely the same as on the international scale! So it has been and ever shall!
Our favored ‘Austrian’ economics is built on the recognition of consistancy in ‘Human Action’, complete with incorporated accommodation and correction of its foibles, our politics should only be so grounded in reality!
The game is to strive toward ideals, understanding that it’s impossible to attain them in the main.
When investing in a private company, there are two kinds of investors: early-stage and later-stage. And while early-stage investors have more upside potential, they're also exposed to far more risk. Today, Matthew Milner explains how you can be a successful later-stage investor, and still make great gains, with much less risk. Read on...
In his recently released book, A Viennese Waltz Down Wall Street, Mark Skousen gives the Austrian School's take on what triggered the 2008 financial crisis - and why you should be wary of the artificial boom that's driving the recovery.
The Heartbleed bug is a massive security flaw that could put you and your personal information at risk. And while there are things you can do to limit the damage, you haven't yet seen the ramifications of this security disaster. The Internet in the post-Heartbleed world won't look like anything you've seen before. Mike Leahy explains...
As the U.S. "shale gale" nears its 10th birthday, it appears the America energy renaissance has outlived its critics. Still, it's natural to wonder whether all the big gains are behind us. Today, Matt Insley reveals the newest shale hotspot, and explains why there's still plenty of opportunity left in the U.S. energy boom. Read on...
The U.S., Russia, the EU and Ukraine all met in Geneva, where all sides agreed to halt all violence and provocations in Ukraine. But the news media are still taking an antagonistic stance toward Vladimir Putin and Russia. What gives? Today, Marc Faber explains the hypocrisy behind U.S. foreign policy... and the BS the news media are pushing about it...