Change. That was the rallying cry from the Obama campaign. Of course, it was mere rhetoric. Need proof? Consider this...

The Bush administration used every crisis, particularly 9/11, to change fundamentally some aspects of the federal government and its relationship to the citizens. Some examples: the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, warrantless wiretaps, DHS, torture of detainees, rendition.

From the Bush administration's actions, it is clear that they believed that a crisis should never be wasted, for times of crisis offer opportunities for change, usually from conditions of greater freedom and smaller government to less freedom and bigger government.

If you think the Obama administration represents "change" from this manner of operation, you're wrong.

From the New York Times, comes this quote from Rahm Emanuel, Obama's new Chief of Staff:

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”

A portent for the future? An ill-omen? Or just empty rhetoric? We'll have to wait and see, but one thing is certain:

In most things, the Obama administration represents a continuation of sorts.

The kind of change we really need, back to the Constitution, is not likely to be part of the new President's plan.

The attitudes of presidents past toward the Constitution is examined by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

In an October 29 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal online, Napolitano shares his thoughts on the almost continuous expansion of power in all three branches of government from John Adams to the present president.

The Framers of the Constitution, he said, would not likely recognize the present form of government that has evolved over time. Citing several examples of the expansion of presidential power via the criminalization of political speech, suspension of habeas corpus, compelled support for war, warrantless wiretapping, etc., he rightly calls such expansion unconstitutional, diametrically opposed, as it is, to the wording in that document.

Even the air we breath, our drinking water, the gallons of water that flush our toilets, driving speeds, and words we speak out loud are regulated through congressional legislation. FDR authorized an unconstitutional central planning program within the field of agriculture and in doing so laid claim that the Constitution was “quaint,” and in essence outdated.

But Napolitano points out that there is no power delegated to the federal government to enter or control the marketplace. He notes that when government does enter the marketplace, it will indeed “favor itself over its competition.”

Explaining that states cannot interfere with private contracts, as in the case of mortgages, that no government can take away property -- real estate and stock shares are private property -- without due and just compensation, and government cannot release one from an obligation to pay one’s debts, as in the case of failing companies, he goes on to say that these are risks one assumes freely, and that have consequences in a real and free market.

On the recent bailout he says:

The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles. It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare. It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers? It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market. It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars) and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).

Read More

Add Comment (0)

updates:

Chuck Baldwin points out the partisan hypocrisy of calling for selective enforcement of the Constitution.

JBS Commentary: Lawsuits are misdirected efforts.

The New American commentary: The Constitution is worth defending

Background on the issue

It is difficult to weigh in on the issue of the "natural born" citizenship status of Barack Obama without sounding like a GOP partisan or a sore loser supporter of Hillary Clinton.

We do however want to make people aware of the Constitutional crisis that would ensue if, after November 4th, it was determined that president-elect Obama was found short of meeting the strict application of "natural-born" citizenship status. In such a case, we would be presented with a situation far more serious than in the contested 2000 election.

The time is now to resist the efforts to have state and local governments offer up their police services for federalization.

"California is going to Washington, D.C., to ask for $7 billion to cover its budget shortfall. Otherwise it won't be able to pay for its teachers, cops, firemen, and other essential services." -- Business Week

(10-30-08 Update:  New York and New Jersey Governors add their voices to call for federal assistance.)

With our nation's credit crisis deepening, it was inevitable that state and local governments accustomed to living on borrowed money would be caught up in the debt trap. Right behind the Wall Street bankers and captains of industry, get ready to see a long line of governors and mayors queuing up in Washington, D.C., to get their fair share of bailouts.

We have a problem though. 

If it so desired, a federal government that foots the bill for cops and fireman could only be a goose step or two away from heading down the road towards a police state.

Ask yourself, and your state and local officials this question: "If cops and firemen are so essential, why aren't they the first in line to be paid with local revenues?" Even beleaguered California has an income stream that can cover almost 80% of its current state budget. Why not pay for cops and firemen from the 80% of money California does have? If reasonable budget cuts can't be made at the state level, what California should be doing is demanding Washington, D.C., cut a $7 billion dollar bailout check to cover some of the billions of un-funded federal mandates dumped on California's state and local governments.

This is not how the endgame is being played out though. Just as the fed is moving its operating tsars into positions at the companies it bails out, look for the similar federal control strings to be attached to plans designed to keep paychecks flowing to local police and fire departments. While these bailouts (read: takeovers) are being hammered out, those who value their freedom and local independence need to be speaking out. We need to demand that our state and local elected officials not use the excuse of financial distress as a means towards de-facto federalization of our police forces — just as our banks are rapidly being federalized.

There are plenty of other local programs that can be cut before handing over funding of police and firemen to the federal government. 

If you value state and local control of the security apparatus in your community, start working with your city, county, and state officials now to avoid them putting your police officers and fireman on the federal payroll. Remind everyone, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." 

Endnote:  As much as we might like to value education, except perhaps for the case of providing pre-prison conditioning in many high schools, teachers in government schools are not supplying an "essential" service. If California is short money to keep their schools open, they can do what other businesses would do with limited funds: cut hours or days of operation. One of our goals should be to convince enough Americans that it would be better to convert school sports programs over to all volunteer and donor based operations than to beg the federal government to pick up the tab for local police departments.