The Sotomayor Scare

[Note from

Chuck Baldwin:
My son, Tim, writes today`s column. He is an attorney
who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland
School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former
prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney`s Office and
now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a
new book, published soon by Agrapha Publishing, entitled


FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.]

Yes, yes, we have all heard the remarks from those who
would call themselves conservative, libertarian or the
like concerning the nomination and now swearing-in of
Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court,
which took place on August 8, 2009.

Yes, yes, books have been written by those conservative
and libertarian editorialists and authors who have
explained to us that the United States Supreme Court (US
S CT) is "out of
control" and how we must elect
"conservative"
Presidents to appoint
"conservative"
judges.

Ironically, this infatuation with the federal
government, and specifically with the judicial branch of
the federal government, has actually (at least in part)
created the growing enslavement of the people of these
States United.

Certainly we should care about who sits on the US S CT
bench. However, the time has come in our Confederate
Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that
the power to govern ourselves justly and
constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the
several states of America–NOT in the hands of the
branches of federal government. What most people in
America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT
is the final arbiter in all matters concerning
government actions related to the US Constitution.

When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the US
Constitution and that reject the historical facts and
principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and
think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the
"liberal" judges with "conservative" judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not
only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual.
History now proves this. Additionally, this approach
proves that the vast majority of Americans have been
indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us
by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief
system.

Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not
grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the
Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the
Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the
States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal
actions. The US S CT can no more violate the
Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches
can.

What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an
oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has
the power to interpret it however the heck they want to?
Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and
unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this
unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that
states its purpose is
"to secure the
blessings of liberty"?

The framework of our Confederate Republic was clearly
understood by those who advocated its ratification,
namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay:
the writers of the Federalist Papers.

These are the men who some today would argue advocated
for a centralist government, reducing and eliminating
the power of the states to resist and arrest federal
usurpation of power. Obviously, these advocates of
centralism would not have you aware of what these
founders said on the subject, nor would they like to
admit that the US Constitution formed a league of
states, which was acceded to by each independent and
sovereign act of the states, and which secured the right
and duty of the states to actively guard against the
encroachments of the federal government they created for
the security of the blessings of liberty.

It
must first be admitted that the US Constitution never
gave to the US S CT the power to substitute their will
for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution.
This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in



Federalist Paper 78:

"It can be of no
weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a
repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the
constitutional intentions of the legislature . . . The
courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they
should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT,
the consequence would equally be the substitution of
their pleasure to that of the legislative body."

Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our
Confederate Republic, the US S CT MUST apply the
Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the
Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the
will of those who framed and acceded to the US
Constitution.

To
suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change
or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S
CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than
the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law
and the executive branch can carry out an
unconstitutional law.

Or
as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the
Constitution will
"equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that
of the legislative body." Neither is acceptable and
neither is constitutional.

One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever
the US S CT says goes. I should not even have to restate
this maxim, but in America, it has been held true that
any unconstitutional act is null and void. This applies
to the US S CT as well. Thus, the question becomes, what
can and what must the states do when all three branches
of the federal government ignore the Constitution and
trample over the intents of its foundational principles?
The authors of the Federalist Papers give us some
guidance on the subject.

In
Federalist Paper 16, Hamilton


explains in detail
the
states` right to actively resist federal tyranny and
usurpation of power. Listen to Hamilton:

"The plausibility of
this objection
[that
the states will at any time obstruct the execution of
federal laws]
will vanish the moment we advert to the essential
difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT
and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State
legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of
the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT
EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of
duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial
provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to
excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the
Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of
their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of
some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage."

"But if the execution
of the laws of the national government should not
require the intervention of the State legislatures, if
they were to pass into immediate operation upon the
citizens themselves, the particular governments could
not interrupt their progress without an open and violent
exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor
evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to
act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that
they had encroached on the national rights . . .
Attempts of this kind would not often be made with
levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made
without danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A
TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY."
(Emphasis added.)

Here, Hamilton clearly recognizes the states` ability to
actively intervene against the federal government
"in cases of a
tyrannical exercise of the federal authority."
Hamilton also expounds upon the natural protection that
the new system of the US Constitution provides, in that
states will not so easily and readily interfere with
federal action when such interference must be made
actively and openly against the federal government.

Certainly, where at least three-fourths (the percentage
needed to amend the Constitution) of the states disagree
with the State actively resisting the federal
government, that State will consider the risks and costs
to be too great to carry out and thus would not resist
actively; instead, that State would use its VOICE and
not its ARM to communicate its discontent.

However, as told by Hamilton,
"IN CASES OF A
TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY," the
states most certainly would use their ARM to arrest such
tyrannical actions.

Hamilton describes the use of this ARM of the States in
Federalist Paper 26:

"[T]he State legislatures, WHO WILL ALWAYS BE NOT ONLY VIGILANT BUT
SUSPICIOUS AND JEALOUS GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE
CITIZENS AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, will constantly have their attention awake
to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready
enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the
alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but,
if necessary, the ARM of their discontent . . . [T]he
people should resolve to recall all the powers they have
heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to
divide themselves into as many States as there are
counties, in order that they may be able to manage their
own concerns in person." (Emphasis added.)

Hamilton goes so far as to say, if the federal
government has usurped its powers and the people of the
states feel it necessary, the states should secede from
the union, dividing
"themselves into
as many states as there are counties, in order that they
may be able to manage their own concerns in person."

This is not I stating this: this is one of the most
well-known Founding Fathers in American history.
Hamilton further expounds upon this states` right and
duty to check federal usurpation of power in Federalist
Paper 28. He

says,

"Power being almost
always the rival of power, the general government will
at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the
state governments, and THESE [THE STATES] WILL HAVE THE
SAME DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. The
people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will
infallibly make it preponderate. IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE
INVADED BY EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE OTHER AS THE
INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS. How wise will it be in them by
cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an
advantage which can never be too highly prized!"
(Emphasis added.)

Very clearly, Hamilton sees the brilliance of our
Confederate Republic system of government, whereby the
states can check the federal government and that where
"rights are
invaded" by the federal government, the people
"can make use of
the [states] as the instrument of redress." Hamilton
continues in this discussion, saying:

"It may safely be
received as an axiom in our political system, that THE
STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL, IN ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES,
AFFORD COMPLETE SECURITY AGAINST INVASIONS OF THE PUBLIC
LIBERTY BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY. Projects of
usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to
escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of
the people at large. The legislatures will have better
means of information. They can discover the danger at a
distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power,
and the confidence of the people, THEY CAN AT ONCE ADOPT
A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which they can combine
all the resources of the community. They can readily
communicate with each other in the different States, and
UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR
COMMON LIBERTY."
(Emphasis added.)

Even as expressed by the centralists` hero, Alexander
Hamilton, the states were not left impotent regarding
federal tyranny and were not stuck with the fruitless
redress only through the US S CT. Hamilton clearly
suggests that the states have the sovereign and active
power to arrest the exercise of federal tyranny.

Again, the question here is not, does the federal
government have the power to act within its delegated
powers, for we all would concede that the federal
government has the power to do what we the people in the
several states delegated to the federal government. We
acknowledge, as Hamilton expresses in Federalist
Paper 27,
"the laws of the
Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects
of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the
land." Rather, the question is, what are the states
going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that
have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of
the federal government? The question is, what are the
states going to do when the federal government has
passed, upheld and executed laws that are not
"enumerated and
legitimate objects of its jurisdiction"? After all,
such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the
land and consequently, the people of the states and the
states themselves are not bound to them. (Of course,
this necessarily implies that we the people understand
the Constitution, the principles of our government and
the true character and nature of our government.)

Are the people of the states to sit back and let the
federal government trample over the rights, principles
and structure of our Confederate Republic? Is every
State to shirk its responsibilities and duties to
actively protect, preserve and defend the freedoms of
its sovereign (the people of the State) against federal
tyranny? Are the people of the states to live and be
governed in tyranny with the only hope that we will
hopefully elect a President who will hopefully appoint a
US S CT justice to the bench so that the Court can
hopefully hear a case on the direct issue so that the
Court will hopefully rule the correct way? Nonsense!

The time has come that the people of the several states
of America wake up to the truth of their history: they
are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US
S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the
federal government is not the source of our freedom; the
states have the duty to resist the encroachments of
federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the
Confederate Republic is restored.

To that end, we must not fear Sotamayor; rather, we
should insist that she fear the states—and obey the
Constitution!

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is the
pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola,
Florida. He hosts a

weekly radio show. His
website is

here.