By Kristi Dunn

In Florida’s Republican Party, like many around the country, we are told that unity is always supporting the Republican Candidate who wins their primary race. When attending Republican Party functions, we are told that we are to “come together at election time” by the leaders of the party. It is rare, however, that these same party leaders do not see their candidate win in the primary. The win allows them, with immunity, to demand total support for the candidate that so many in the grassroots were working to defeat, which often leaves these workers in a state of utter confusion and wondering how they can be expected to so drastically change their support.

In the case of Governor Charlie Crist, many of the Republican Party leadership, who knew exactly what Charlie stood for, supported him and his decisions to the end. That end, of course, was when Charlie changed parties, and now Charlie is despised. He has become a talking point for Republicans in the 2010 state elections for what is wrong with Florida; however, many of those same Republicans supported and demanded that others support him before his party change. Did Charlie’s actions or beliefs change? Did Charlie suddenly morph into someone that aspired to beliefs that were not in line with the Republican Party? The Answer is no. Charlie did not change; rather, simply his affiliation with the Republican Party changed.

In Duval county we have a mayor that claims to be a Republican, yet has proposed tax increases the last two years. These increases were supported by the mostly Republican City Council, but were protested by many of the hardworking, grassroots people of Duval County. Meanwhile both years the Republican Party leadership declined to participate in the discussion, because to do so would have been to go against a fellow Republican. What issue pertains more to the Republican Party than low taxes? Yet, Republican leaders would rather remain silent, then true to principles.

At a time when so many within both parties are disenfranchised and ready for another option, perhaps demanding loyalty to a party is short sighted. It is because of these types of demands that so many organizations and groups have sprung up. From the Tea Parties and 912 groups to the Republican Liberty Caucus and Campaign for Liberty, these groups are now standing for what the Republican Party was always supposed to be: The Party that represented small, limited, Constitutional Government, less taxes, a strong national defense, and State and National Sovereignty.

Now is the time to examine the political system to determine if, perhaps, the idea of loyalty to an organization or party, that often asks the people to dismiss their personal convictions and standards and offer their blind loyalty to the title “Republican”, is somehow missing the big picture. Does supporting someone like Charlie Crist, only to have them prove that they have always stood for different principles, lend credibility to the Republican Party leadership?

Many serving on the executive committee take a loyalty oath to support the party. This oath has often been enforced with a stern hand. Meanwhile, who is enforcing the oath to the Constitution that our elected officials take? Should their failure to uphold their own oath to their constituents void any oath to unconditionally support them? They have forgotten that they serve the people, and their primary duty is to uphold the US Constitution. If we continue to blindly support them, forcing loyalty on those working to get them elected, we are creating an infrastructure that will collapse on itself.
To pretend that America’s problems started the day that Obama was sworn into office is to dismiss the damage that Republicans, such as John McCain and Olympia Snow, have been doing to the party for years. It was the Republican Party that supported them and enabled them to continue their harmful ways without accountability. The Party needs to figure out what it stands for and what it stands against so that the people working to get “Republicans” candidates elected in the fall will know exactly what these candidates stand for.

Organizations such as the Republican Liberty Caucus stand for accountability within the party at all levels and with every elected official. When officials fail to uphold their oath to the Constitution, or to support the principles that the stated Republican platforms claims to uphold, they deserve to be called out and in turn voted out.

If those in party leadership would unite under principles, they could harness the growing power of the Tea Parties, the RLC, the 912 groups, and thousands of disenfranchised voters.

Now is the time to decide if uniting under a title is more important than returning this country to its roots and seeing real change take place in our cities, counties, states, and Nation

By Chaumont

In the Madisonian republic that the citizens of the several states have managed to sustain, above all else, including such abstractions as “the common good” and “general welfare” for example, stands the rule of law.  It is with strict adherence to and equal application of a supreme law of the land that we are able to live, at worst, relatively free and, at best, with ultimate liberty and maximum personal responsibility.  As Madison explains in Federalist Paper #57, the same laws that apply to the citizens also apply to the representatives.  No man–not the executive, nor the legislative– is above the law.  It is with this understanding then that we must allow ourselves to be guided when making judgments and decisions on our elected officials.

We must learn to set aside our own “special interests” when seeking out the best candidates to rule us.  Citizens of the modern states excel at disdain for the organized interests of business, for example, who employ professional lobbyists, but fail to draw the parallels between their own intentions and the intentions of these organized groups.  Each citizen who makes a judgment of a candidate based upon any issue that is personal to them commits the same offense against the Republic that the professional lobbyist does.  The only difference is that the professionals often do so with more money than the common citizen.  But, in principle, there is no difference.  Each is trying to influence the system based on their own personal values and ambitions.  As secondary considerations, this practice is not so harmful; however the primary qualification for office in a constitutional republic is this:  Will the candidate respect the limits place on his power by the Constitution?  If no, then the candidate must not serve, no matter what a voter may like about the candidate’s views on other issues.

Contrary to what so many people believe, and what the lobbyists hired by the special interests practice daily, the elected representatives do not serve us.  They serve the Republic.  When representatives serve the people, then by consequence they will serve the majority at the expense of the minority, the rich at the expense of the poor, the influential at the expense of the commoner.  This is the evil which we see today where the elected are divorced from the electorate.  We must elect moral men who will bound themselves with the chains of the Constitution, vote for no legislation that is not authorized by the Constitution, and represent the interests of the whole of their constituency in the interest of maintaining the republic.

Much of my message here to you has been a nice way of saying the following:  Nobody cares what you think.  Your opinion does not and should not matter.  Your influence must be defended against by every liberty-loving citizen of the states.  It MUST be this way.  We have a rule of law and a system of government designed, as its primary function, to protect me from you .  My motivation for electing a representative to government is to make sure they will keep you from forcing your values upon me, to keep you from stealing my property, to prevent you from forcing my children to march off to foreign lands to slaughter innocent citizens of another geo-political union.  I know you’re my enemy when I see you supporting issues like the Fair Tax, which is a different disguise of theft of my fortune.  When you support aggressive and pre-emptive war, I know you are willing to kill my children to further your agenda against the enemies you’ve made for yourself.  When you support a ban on gay marriage, I know you are telling me that you own the definition of marriage and, at any time, you can further clarify that definition to exclude me.

I must find a moral man who recognizes the threat you pose to me and my liberty, and do everything I can to put him between you and me to provide protection.  THAT is what this republican form of government and our Constitution is designed to facilitate.  Only candidates who run on this platform are fit to serve our Republic.  Stop being selfish and become self-interested.  Cease looking for ways to participate in the power-grab which has become modern-day politics.  Find it in yourself to be brave enough to give up the tendency to use the power of government to force others to think like you, act like you, and vote like you.  Instead, choose liberty for all to do as they please so long as they do not rob another of life, liberty, or property!  Be loyal, not to a flag or another man or a government; rather be loyal to the principle of liberty that this country was founded on!

by James A. Hunter

The long arm of state law and your purchases in the produce aisle….

So who cares about tomatoes, you ask? I hope you will, but bear with me and follow along… I think you will.  Much is being made lately of the vast over reach of our federal government into what would be seemingly innocuous aspects of our daily lives but which have devastating effects on our economy, the free market and our day to day existence.  Whether it be the strong armed tactics of an ecologically oriented energy policy that pushes oil rigs out to mile deep waters to drill where disasters can’t be contained or to the punitive taxation of producers that drive jobs overseas and prop up the welfare state or even the overreaching measures that would force FREE peoples to purchase such consumer goods as health insurance or be subjected to fines and possible imprisonment, all such examples and there are many, are formulated under the guise of good intentions and advancement.    Likewise at a local level the examples are numerous whether it is the home owner who has to pull a building permit to simply repair an existing structure such as re-pouring the broken concrete of a driveway or putting new shingles on a roof of a home that has been there for 30 plus years or the debates of immanent domain that spring up periodically; in either case, a good case can be made that it is none of the governments business or that the government body that is supposed to protect its citizenry is in fact functioning as their persecutor.  Perhaps it might only be the fact that our local tax dollars are used in ways we don’t support or the cronyism that is prevalent in the sweetheart deals and contracts that are made with no bid.    My goal is not to rehash all of the draconian federal missteps that are now viewed in the light of the laws of unintended consequences nor lament at any great length about the pet peeves of a personal nature.   Rather, I seek to make the reader aware of such similar overreaches of state government as well as take away the point that your patriotic work to educate and make aware yourself and others of big government interloping extends beyond the sound bites of national press.  It is of equal importance to recognize it, and fight it, in your city and state as well.  The path to restorative healing in our nation starts at your driveway and extends through your city hall and your state capitol long before it settles inside the beltway of DC.  So, I’ve told you all of that to draw your attention to just one of thousands of what is surely to be considered inhibitive, inane and incomprehensibly burdensome intrusions by the great state of Florida.

Strange as it may seem, transporting uninspected tomatoes is a crime in the State of Florida.  Yes, it is a second degree misdemeanor as per Florida Statute 603.151.  So is transporting all manners of uninspected citrus and avocados.   Florida’s chief agricultural exports are, you guessed it, tomatoes, limes, grapefruit, oranges and avocados.  Because Florida owes so much of its existence to the hay day of its agricultural enterprise prior to the housing boom, long before it was known to be a retirement Mecca, way before its sunny beaches and theme parks made tourism its primary industry and despite its always robust fishing industry…. The agricultural footprint of the state caused it to create one of the most powerful agencies of any in the state, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS).  This department’s power resides in its ability to make sweeping Administrative Rules that are enforceable by state statute.

Who might seek to have such a law made, you ask? Well, in Florida we have a Citrus Committee and a Tomato Committee.  Who or what is that?  They are, at least in the realm of agricultural enterprise, fairly powerful consortiums that lobby our state legislators and the Division of Fruits and Vegetables within the DOACS for such rules and laws.

You ask, what could their interest possibly be in seeing such laws enacted? Well, according to the Tomato Committee website under the link for regulatory information, “These regulations are in place to assure that wherever you find a Florida tomato, you can be certain that it is of the highest quality.” (Found at:    http://floridatomatoes.org/index.html)     You might think this sounds logical.  I mean if something is so important to the economy of the state and the very reputation and image of the state hangs in the balance shouldn’t you want the products bearing the “Fresh From Florida” brand to be the premier, tastiest, best looking product you could find?  After all, the DOACS pumps millions every year in to marketing to include sponsorship of several race cars and even the whole race.  See here:  (http://www.florida-agriculture.com/racing/index_old.htm) or (http://www.automobilsport.com/grandam-daytona-continental-tire-200-race-results-fresh-from-florida—75498.html) or ( http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-07-24/news/RACECAR24_1_fresh-from-florida-florida-produce-florida-fruits )

So who cares, you ask? Well, you might and in fact, should.  You see these committees, consortiums…. Aw heck let’s just say it, CARTELS, Are comprised of the biggest growers in the state.  Their seemingly good intentions amount to little more than a vice grip on a small portion of an industry but which drives up prices at the store and impedes fair and free market competition.

How might it impede the free market and drive prices up? Well, to get a 25lb. box of tomatoes inspected it costs approximately 4 dollars a box in inspection fees that are paid directly to state inspectors.  That 4 dollar per box in fees might not sound like much until you are purchasing a tractor trailer load full at 1600 boxes and the state wants the 6400 dollars in extorted state taxes masquerading in the form of fees.  Making matters worse is the fact that small time growers who have a much smaller bottom line and 4 dollars a box cuts deeply into the already small profits they are able to show whereby scratching out a living.  An amount of less than 50lbs (2 boxes) is the only exemption and must be for personal use.

Who might enforce such rules you ask? Well, it is the law enforcement arm of the department.  The Office of Agricultural Law Enforcement is comprised of approximately 225 sworn law enforcement officers in uniform, administrative, managerial and investigative functions.  These officers are fully sworn to enforce all state laws but give primary focus to their “niche” as it pertains to Agriculture.  Now I don’t tell you this to besmirch any of the fine men or women that work for this agency as they do enforce many laws that have legitimate purpose and do protect the consumers of the state and the agricultural industry from invasive plant species and pests but in this one narrow aspect of their function they do serve as the henchmen for the Citrus and Tomato cartels which truly hurts the small growers, the free market and again every resident of this and every state in the cost of purchasing Florida tomatoes for their salads and burgers.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that this only applies to tomatoes that are grown in what is referred to as “Regulated and Production Zones” which encompass everything but the panhandle and therefore growers in the panhandle are not subjected to the fees.  Why? Because there is no way to enforce it except in these areas.  If you look at the top of the regulated area line on the map found here:  http://www.floridatomatoes.org/map.html and connect the dots on the map of Agricultural Inspection Stations shown here:  http://www.fl-aglaw.com/bus/bus_locations.html.  Can you see a correlation?

What happens to someone who is caught transporting uninspected tomatoes of regulated kind? I’m glad you asked.  They may be formally charged, carried to jail and immediately bonded out for not more than 500 dollars for a first offence and progressively steeper bonds for subsequent incidences.  What then? The driver of the load is then permitted to either donate the load if less than a full load so as to avoid being delinquent in the distribution deadlines for their remaining cargo or they may elect to return to an approved packing house to have their tomatoes inspected before they attempt to exit the state again.  Who approves packing houses and authorizes them to conduct such inspections? Well, the Tomato Committee, of course.

Now let me really blow your mind….

First, Thanks to NAFTA and CAFTA we are being inundated with Tomatoes from Mexico.  Mexican Tomatoes have no inspection fees, they are grown and sold at costs well below what it can be produced for domestically and when you add to that Tomatoes and Citrus fruit being shipped in from California and other areas the laws that were designed to supposedly protect the industry in this state are KILLING IT!!!    Why would anyone in their right mind pay even 5 dollars more money for their domestically grown, inspection fee included box of Florida Tomatoes let alone the 10 or 15 dollars a box more it may likely be over a box of Mexican Tomatoes that are already selling in some cases in excess of 2 dollars a pound?

Second, these regulations don’t pertain to Cherry Tomatoes, Roma Tomatoes, Ugly Tomatoes, and other varieties that are considered less than perfect in shape, size, or breed.  Why, you might ask again?  Well because ….. Well just because!!!!   But wait, there is a plan afoot.  There hadn’t been any previous regulation on those sorts of tomatoes but now just this last year it has been unveiled in what is being called Tomato – Good Agricultural Practices (T-GAP) now all tomatoes must be washed and certified as such at…. You guessed it, at “Approved Packing Houses”

Why do the tomatoes need to be washed, you ask? Well because somewhere, someone got salmonella poisoning and blamed it on a tomato.  I’ll wait for you to stop laughing… yes; they blamed it on a tomato.  Now if you don’t know why this is funny, it is because salmonella doesn’t grow inside a fruit.  It could be picked up on the surface along the way from other methods related to handling but if washed today it could still pick up a microbe tomorrow before it hits the supermarket shelf.   Making matters worse yet, now when tomatoes are transported in violation of T-GAP rules they can no longer be donated.  That’s right, because someone might get salmonella from it at the county jail or boys home who frequently received the donated produce in the past.  The  State of Florida is now destroying THOUSANDS OF POUNDS of perfectly good tomatoes every week and leaving them to rot in land fills while unwashed uninspected Mexican tomatoes are filling the shelves of Florida supermarkets and elsewhere.   If you’re not scratching your head yet you might want to see a doctor and ask them to undo the lobotomy you received.

Let me ask you a few questions for once.  WHO DOESN’T WASH THEIR FRUITS AND VEGITABLES BEFORE EATING THEM? If you don’t, I’m sorry but you deserve whatever you get and if it was due to the negligence of the restaurant’s salad bar preparation staff then your issue is with said restaurant.  OK, let me ask you another question.  WHY DON’T WE HAVE THE SAME RULES FOR CUCUMBERS, BEANS, SQUASH, ETC? That is an excellent question but one for which I have no answer and can offer only the following speculation in the form of a third question.  HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE FOR THE MENSA CANDIDATES IN TALLAHASSEE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THEY CAN EXTORT FEES FROM ALL GROWERS OF ALL PRODUCE PASSING ON TO ALL CONSUMERS THE FEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING US FROM SALMONELLA? Maybe the cretins who make up such arbitrary rules for us and industry should take an extended leave of absence.  Maybe we should all pay just a little more attention to what seemingly innocuous, silly or inane laws are being passed by our legislators and rules passed by government agency.

One last question from me to you.  HAVE YOU GIVEN ANY THOUGHT AS TO WHO IS RUNNING FOR COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE? If you had the opportunity, wouldn’t you love to hear anyone running for such expound on their thoughts about tomatoes in Florida?  Do you think anyone with the knowledge of the subject as laid out above would be able to keep a straight face while arguing for such an intrusive and arbitrary set of laws / rules?   I don’t think so.

Other links of interest:

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/fruits/Tomatoes.html

http://www.floridatomatoes.org/FoodSafety/TOMATO_QA_on_T-GAP_and_T-BMP11-8-06.pdf

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/fs/TomatoBestPractices.pdf

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulJacob/2007/01/21/the_liberated_tomato?page=full&comments=true

Personal Belief statement:

I believe that the Founders sought to protect religion from the entanglements of government, thereby ensuring that their own beliefs, as Christians, would never be subject to attack from the newly established government. They believed that they needed this protection so that their freedoms to worship God would not and could not be taken from them, by an over reaching government. Further, I believe that the Founders sought to protect their ability to express and discuss their thoughts and ideas freely, without concern that the government could penalize them for doing so.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution[i]

When the U.S Constitution was signed on Sept. 17, 1787, it did not contain the essential freedoms now outlined in the Bill of Rights, because many of the Framers viewed their inclusion as unnecessary. However, after vigorous debate, the Bill of Rights was adopted and went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791, when the state of Virginia ratified it, giving the bill the majority of ratifying states required to protect citizens from the power of the federal government.

The first freedoms guaranteed and protected in this historic document were articulated in the 45 words written by James Madison that we have come to know as the First Amendment. The First Amendment was written because at America’s inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms. Our blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition.

The First Amendment ensures that “if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.[ii]”

Freedom of Speech and of the Press: The First Amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas ,even if the ideas are unpopular.

The Founders sought to protect themselves from the infringement of Government on their conversations, thoughts, ideas and expression, as were under siege in England at the time.

Legally Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including non-verbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements). Under its provisions, the media — including television, radio and the Internet — is free to distribute a wide range of news, facts, opinions and pictures. The amendment protects not only the speaker, but also the person who receives the information. The right to read, hear, see and obtain different points of view is included as well.

Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition the Government: The First Amendment protects the freedom of assembly, which can mean physically gathering with a group of people to picket or protest; or associating with one another in groups for economic, political or religious purposes.

The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join a group they do not wish to join. A related right is the right to petition the government, including everything from signing a petition to filing a lawsuit.

Freedom of Religion: The First Amendment’s free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or Burkas. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.

This is perhaps the most debated issue in the First Amendment. Often we hear the phrase Separation of Church and State. This phrase does not appear in the Bill of Rights, or in the US Constitution. It first appeared in a letter from Thomas Jefferson:  “…I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State…”[iii]

Furthermore, James Madison wrote: “Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.[iv]”

Although, this term is in near universally used throughout North America, it can be confusing. The principle actually involves separation of religion, not just churches, from the government.

The founders seemed to have a specific view of this particular topic:

Thomas Jefferson said, “I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.” [v]

George Washington Stated, “Every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” [vi]

A confidant of many of the founders, Rev. Isaac Backus , who was the most prominent Baptist minister in New England, at the time, observed that when “church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischief that have ensued.”[vii]

However, to fully understand the intention of the Founders in writing the First Amendment, you must understand what their own religious backgrounds were. To say that they did not agree with each other is a gross understatement, as most of these men, while demonstrating character held to different lifestyles, beliefs, vales and occupations.

It is widely stated that America was founded on Judeo Christian Values. However, it is interesting to note that the founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution. And that the Faithful of their day, regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious. For example, George Washington was a nominal Anglican who rarely stayed for Communion.

John Adams was a Unitarian, which Trinitarians abhorred as heresy. Thomas Jefferson, denounced as an atheist, was actually a deist who detested organized religion and who produced an expurgated version of the New Testament with the miracles eliminated. Jefferson and James Madison, a nominal Episcopalian, were the architects of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. James Monroe was another Virginia Episcopalian. John Quincy Adams was another Massachusetts Unitarian.

So then, this shows that while these men were honorable and noble, they were also diverse and did not agree on their religion of choice. So then the question remains, did they establish the government in order to promote Christianity, or to protect each man’s ability to worship how and who they choose.
In the Congressional Records from June 7th through September 25th, 1789 the records show a dozen or so iterations which they, themselves, proposed, regarding the wording of the First Amendment.

• Original version proposed in the Senate on September 3rd, 1789: ”Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination.”
• Second version: ”Congress shall not make any law establishing any particular denomination.”
• Third version: ”Congress shall not make any law establishing any particular denomination in preference to others.”
• Final version, passed on that day: ”Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” agreed upon by the house and the senate. In their words, the word religion was interchangeable with the word denomination.[viii]

The Ultimate conclusion then, must be that, that the Founders wished to be able to choose how they believed, without interference from the government, in any way.

Because of this the stated “personal belief statement” is incorrect. The intentions of the Founders was not to spread Christianity, rather this amendment was to protect and safeguard their ability to worship in the best way they saw fit.

What do I believe today? June 2010

I believe that the intention of the first amendment was to protect all acts of free speech and worship. The founders did not impose religion or thoughts on others because they understood the tyranny this would lead to. The Founders never intended for the government to used as a means to further or promote any specific idea or thought. Rather, they believed that it was government’s role to protect these liberties from infringement of any kind.

---

[i] United States Constitution
[ii] Justine Robert Jackson West Virginia v. Barnette, 1943
[iii] Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1807
[iv] James Madison, Essay entitled, “Monopolies”, 1810
[v] Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Danbury Baptist Association, 1807
[vi] Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789
[vii] Rev Isaac Backus, Message delivered May 9, 1773
[viii] Congressional Records, 1789

By Chaumont

Only with a clear grasp of the meaning of enumerated powers can one begin to understand that the responsibilities and powers granted to the different branches of government are legal and anything outside the scope of those powers is illegal.  In the times of our founding fathers, standing armies were seen as a threat to liberty and were called to duty only for a specific purpose and for a specified time.  A specific mission was defined for which funds were appropriated, and no assumption was made that one individual could expand that mission or ignore the restrictions of the mission.  Listening to the mainstream media, Washington think-tanks, and beltway insiders, one might believe that a President is, at all times, in control of the military forces, military decisions, and has, at his sole discretion, the power to take the country to war with anyone at anytime.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  One must study the words carefully to insulate oneself from the propaganda machine that intends to change, usurp, and ignore the restrictions placed on government by the Constitution; further, one must read historical texts, such as the Federalist papers, to gain an understanding of original intent and of historical context which is so vital to properly draw one’s own conclusions.  In other words, read the documents, check your bias at the door, forget what you were told to believe in government schools, and think for yourself.

It is well founded in the words of the author of several of the Federalist Papers, those being long regarded as the detailed explanations behind the binding legal restrictions on governmental power in the Constitution, that the President is to be “Commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States.”  These exact words wound up as the actual text of the Constitution, and for these words to be penned by Alexander Hamilton, who history records as one of the stronger proponents of centralized government and of consolidation of executive power amongst the founding fathers, strongly suggests the tendency towards restricting the war-making powers of any one individual.  Quoting Hamilton from Federalist Paper #69:  “The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union.”  Possibly, Hamilton was addressing concerns that the executive branch was being given despotic military powers, of which he may have been seen as a leading proponent of, for he defends the powers granted to the President by comparing them to those of the King of Great Britain as well as the governor of New York.  Quoting Hamilton again:  “The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.”  It is clear that not even the hawkish champion of executive power, Alexander Hamilton, intended for the President to permanency of military command or to have war-making power that so many people believe he has today.

It is clear:  the President assumes his responsibility of Commander-in-chief ONLY upon being called into service by the legislature.  An army must be raised, given a set mission, a formal declaration of war drafted, and the operation funded for a specified period of time by Congress.  Only after Congress has met its responsibility does the President gain any war powers whatsoever.  Caution must be guarded not to be fooled into thinking that interpretations can be made that actually give the President wider more sweeping powers than that which is clearly spelled out in the Constitution, nor should the citizens be obligated to battle by illegal legislation that abdicates Congress’ responsibility such as has been done by the War Powers Act and several War resolutions made in the past 50 years, for example.