Michael LeMieux – Is State Sovereignty Dead?

IS STATE SOVEREIGNTY DEAD?

By Michael LeMieux
April 2, 2010
http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael121.htm

We are hearing more and more these days of state sovereignty, Tenth Amendment
Resolutions, enumerated powers of Congress, and separation of powers; but what really do
those in Congress, who make federal law, really know and understand about this topic?

I think many of you know, and I have written in the past, that this nation was founded on the
principle of not amassing too much power in any one branch of the government. History of
the constitutional convention and ratifying speeches, on the other hand, show many examples
of states being the primary government entity when it came to the people.

In a 2008 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (RL30315 -

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30315.pdf) dated February 1 entitled “Federalism,
State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional
Power” answered many questions I have had concerning why the government does what it
does (assuming power it may not have) as well as reinforcing the fact that they know that
what they are doing is absolutely unconstitutional and have opted to take an extralegal
position to support passing their agenda.

In the opening paragraph of the summary they state a position, which is not presented in the
report, about exercising federal powers even when it is not constitutionally permissible. It
states:

“The report does not, however, address the larger policy issue of when it is
appropriate – as opposed to constitutionally permissible – to exercise federal
powers.”

A statement like this is exactly why we are in the trouble we are in, politically and legally, in
America today. The ONLY appropriate exercises of federal powers are those constitutionally
permissible otherwise they would be Unconstitutional. The mere admission that the federal
government would deem any action as appropriate that is not a federal power granted to
them within the Constitution is an admission that they do not deem the Constitution to be a
limiting document upon the federal government.

On page 4 of the CRS report we find the statement: “This ‘police power’ does not arise from
the Constitution, but is an inherent attribute of the states’ territorial sovereignty.” The idea
that the federal government would connect ANY power of the states to the federal
Constitution shows a total lack of understanding with exception to the powers delegated by
the states to the federal and police power of the states is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Now we find the CRS reaching the crux of the federal government’s powers and their
understanding of that power. Page 5, first paragraph, states: “The powers of the federal
government, while limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, have been interpreted

Page 1 of 6
Michael LeMieux – Is State Sovereignty Dead?

broadly, so as to create a large potential overlap with state authority.” By definition, and
admission of the writers of the CRS report, the powers were limited to only those enumerated.

Evidence of limited vice broadly interpreted powers is in the wording of Article 1, §1 that
states: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States.” Even in the grant of legislative power it is stated for ONLY the purposes granted
which means no others regardless of how you want to interpret it.

But where we went astray, in my opinion, was based on Chief Justice Marshalls opinion in
McCulloch V. Maryland (1819) in which he stated: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within
the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of
the Constitution, are constitutional.” From this point on many politicians have gleaned onto
Justice Marshall’s declaration that those things which are not prohibited and therefore
constitutional.

But what so many “legislators” and supporters alike fail to embrace is the very next statement
“but consists with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.” This brings us immediately
back to the only powers granted to the federal where ONLY those enumerated that is the
letter of the law and for the intent of chaining down the government with the constitution that
is the spirit in which the Constitution was written.

Remember from history the oppressions and abuses under King George that forced us away
from that government. Our founder wanted to ensure that the new central government would
not become large and overbearing and so they devised a limited government with predefined
powers and non else; and to secure that position they added the Tenth Amendment which
grated all other powers to the states or to the people. In order for them to assume any other
power for the central government they can only do so by usurpation.

But as history has shown as power grows the desire for more power also grows and any nexus
that can be made to support an expanse of power will be used even if that source is invalid.
This is evident in the federal government’s position in taxation and borrowing of money. The
CRS report makes the statement that “The purposes for which Congress may tax and spend
are very broad and are not limited by the scope of other enumerated powers under which
Congress many regulate.” This flies in the face of logic and the letter and spirit of the
Constitution. First of all – all spending (appropriations) comes from legislation in Congress
originating in the House. The Constitution states specifically “No Money shall be drawn from
the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” If the Congress cannot
legislate beyond the enumerated powers vested in the Constitution and appropriations are
derived by legislation then ALL appropriations must be in conformance with the enumerated
powers of Congress; all else is usurpation.

The next grant of power that the federal government has used to expand power beyond that
granted is the commerce clause. The CRS report states that “The Commerce Clause… is one of
the most far-reaching grants of power to Congress.” Obviously they did not read the
ratification speeches that clearly denoted a limited power to ensure equal movement of goods
throughout the states; where regulation of commerce was deemed to mean to make regular,
the basis of our free market system of trade.

Page 2 of 6
Michael LeMieux – Is State Sovereignty Dead?

However today the federal government uses the Commerce Clause to pass laws that impact
manufacturing, production, agriculture, and every other part of the economy usurping power
at every turn.

For most of us when we hear the word commerce we may think business, trade, economy,
manufacturing, or the entire system as a whole; but that would be inaccurate. Commerce
means literally “The exchange of goods and services, especially on a large scale involving
transportation between cities, states, and nations.” (Blacks Law Dictionary 7th Edition) As
you can see there is no mention of manufacturing so why do we have the federal government
telling us how we can and cannot build something? Commerce simply is bringing goods to
market; meaning once I produce the product I sell the federal government is to ensure that
neighboring states cannot stop me from traversing their states to transport my product to
market. To make commerce regular! For more on this topic please read my article on
Interstate Commerce (http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael117.htm) or in my
book (http://www.constitutiondenied.com/order.html).

The CRS report also discusses the assumed power of the federal government to purchase
land; they base it upon the clause in the constitution that states:

“The Congress shall have power… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
whatsoever… over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazine, Arsenals,
dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.” (Article IV, §3)

Notice how all items enumerated above are in support of the enumerated powers of
Congress? Federal buildings would fall into this category, perfectly acceptable, Forts and
Bases throughout the United States as part of our nation’s defense, perfectly acceptable, Post
Offices and post roads, perfectly acceptable. All things aligned with the enumerated powers
granted to Congress; but what about taking millions of acres of state land for purposes NOT
given to the federal government? Would that be acceptable?

Glenn Beck, for all his showmanship, does bring to light some very good facts; one such fact
was an alignment of natural resources of oil, oil shale, and natural gas that resides in massive
abundance within the western states and Alaska. Want to take a guess at what areas massive
land grabs of the federal government have taken place? You got it right on top of those
mineral deposits! However, when you read the legislation that steals the land from the people
of those states no mention of the resources below ground are made (deception) they are told
it is to preserve the natural beauty of the land. They place this land under the National Parks
service with armed Park Rangers who have police powers. And do you know which
enumerated power allows them to take land for no enumerated power? There is none; this is
theft of the citizens of the states where these “parks” are located. It is theft of the resources of
the people of those states and by extension theft of all the people of this nation.

The single greatest land owner in the nation is the federal government yet the enumerated
power in the Constitution only grants them a Capital (10 square miles), forts, magazines
(places for stuff that goes boom), arsenals (equipment that uses the stuff that goes boom),
dock-Yards (Navy stuff), and other useful buildings (post offices, federal buildings, and such)
that is it, they have not additional power to take any land.

Page 3 of 6
Michael LeMieux – Is State Sovereignty Dead?

Now proponents of the federal governments “eminent domain” power say that the federal
government has the right to take any property for public use based on the Fifth Amendment
which states

“…Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.”

Again this goes right back the ability to legislate is based upon enumerated powers – the
enumerated powers are not changed because Congress wants to legislate something not
enumerated. Can the federal government use emanate domain to place a Fort or a post office
at a specific site? Absolutely! Can the federal government use emanate domain to take land
for a military installation? Absolutely! Can the federal government use emanate domain to
take 1.5 million acres for wilderness preservation? Absolutely NOT! Why? Because the federal
government has not been granted that power under the Constitution and without that
enumerated, specific grant of power then the lawful use of that power is void and it is done
solely on the basis of power and not lawful right.

In light of the preceding information and the lack of historical evidence of states holding the
federal government to the bounds of the Constitution as well as the massive expansion of
usurped and unconstitutional power assumed by the federal government – is state
sovereignty dead? My answer would have to be a reserved no, but it appears to be
dormant, in a very long hibernating cycle.

So what can be done?

As we have seen, at least in our lifetime, changing of the guards in Washington DC has done
absolutely nothing to resolve the problem. In most instances the only difference between the
two major parties, at least on the big issues, is not where we are going but only bickering on
how to get there. In my opinion the only place this will be resolved will be within the states of
the Union; but for this to happen we need a small handful of states to grow a spine and
intestinal fortitude by standing up to the federal and say enough is enough.

This is called State Nullification – Each state has the power to stop the federal government in
its tracks but it will take effort and sacrifice. Each state must:

1. Declare that they will no longer accept federal funds or the requirements that come with
those funds to support unconstitutional programs.

2. That all lands owned by the federal government within the state that are not held for the
direct enumerated powers of the government (parks, monuments, etc) will revert back to the
states and the people.

3. All federal incorporation charters to and within the states are revoked and only state
charters will be recognized.

4. Federal direct taxation of labor (personal income tax) will cease and all withholding from
paychecks will cease and be deemed unlawful taking and infractions will be prosecuted under
state law.

Page 4 of 6
Michael LeMieux – Is State Sovereignty Dead?

5. Federal taxation must once again become apportioned, based on the census, for each state
based upon a count of citizens excluding illegal immigrants.

6. The state must refuse to provide tax funding for any unconstitutional federal bureaus,
organizations, and programs.

g. All federal laws that operate directly on the Citizens of the state that are not part of the
constitutional powers of the federal government will be found null and void.

8. Any federal agent that abuses the previous item will be immediately arrested and held in
violation of that law.

9. Any action by any federal authority within the boundaries of the state MUST be enacted
through the state authority with subject jurisdiction and any violation of this law is an arrest-
able offense.

10. And any other action that the state deems unconstitutional.

With the constant attack by this, and prior administrations, toward expansive government
and socialistic philosophies that endanger the very fabric of our society the time is at hand for
our states to make a stand. We as individuals do not stand a chance at stopping the tsunami
of Marxist big government that has invaded our shores but we do still have a chance to recoup
our freedoms through our states.

But we must act now by becoming engaged with our local communities, and our state
legislatures to move them to stand up to leviathan before it does become too late.

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US
Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence
disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group,
while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He
served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with
over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence
contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the

original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the
republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those
who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind
and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed
far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the
American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and

Page 5 of 6
Michael LeMieux – Is State Sovereignty Dead?

the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now
has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals
right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the
Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan,
Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia,
Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and
grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and
scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

###

Page 6 of 6