Bryan Fischer
The Father of the Constitution on state resistance to federal tyranny
By Bryan Fischer
The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to the implementation of MussoliniCare. It is heavy-handed and repressive and is a worse form of oppression than any the Crown imposed on the Colonies in the 1770s.
It is a shocking thing almost beyond comprehension that our president intends to lock up his own citizens for refusing to cooperate with a wholly unconstitutional mandate which forces us at gunpoint to purchase a product as a condition of maintaining what remains of our liberty.
The Intolerable Acts were passed by the British Parliament on virtually the same day in 1774 the Democrats passed MussoliniCare in 2010. The passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 led directly to the convening of the Continental Congress which produced the Declaration of Independence and prompted Americans to defend their newly declared liberty with the force of arms.
The question immediately arises as to what remedies the states and the people within them possess to resist the tyranny imposed on us by the Intolerable Act of 2010.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, addressed this issue in Federalist paper #46. It was published on January 29, 1788, as part of the effort to persuade the people of the state of New York to adopt the proposed federal Constitution.
The citizens of the states, naturally, were concerned that the newly formed central government would exercise dictatorial powers against them. Madison believed that such usurpations of power could not in the end succeed for two reasons: the widespread disapproval of the states would make it impossible, and, as a last resort, the states would have sufficient force of arms (guaranteed to them through the Second Amendment) to compel the federal government to back down.
Madison observed that egregious overreaches on the part of the central government would be met with near universal disdain and concerted action, which ultimately could involve the wholly legitimate use of force if the central government did not willingly withdraw its oppressive diktats:
"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.
"The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?
"In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical.
"But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. " (Emphasis added)
With regard to "signals of general alarm" and "concerted" plans of resistance, 14 states have already filed lawsuits against the federal government to stop this "madness" (to use Madison's term), and many more are sure to follow.
And 39 states either have passed or are in the process of passing laws to protect their own citizens from being compelled to comply with the mandated purchase of insurance. That's about as "concerted" as things can get.
Indeed "one spirit" does indeed "animate and conduct the whole," and that spirit is the same spirit that energized our original battle for independence: the Spirit of liberty of which Paul spoke in 2 Corinthians 3:17. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is," he wrote, "there is liberty." This Bible verse, word for word, became one of the slogans on the lips of every son of liberty in 1776.
Madison elaborated at length on the likelihood of an armed confrontation, and asserted that the states not only had the right to use force to resist federal tyranny, but would in the end prevail:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
In the end, Madison, said, the militias spoken of in the Second Amendment, "being necessary to the security of a free State," could, as an absolute final resort, be the last line of constitutionally authorized defense against federal tyranny.
Let us fervently hope and pray that things do not come to this pass, and that our state officials will exercise their constitutional authority to protect their own citizens by flatly refusing to meekly submit to this gross abuse of power.
But let us also hope that the Father of the Constitution was right, that no free people will in the end submit to the tyranny of a repressive central government, and that they will, as a last resort, use all the morally and constitutionally justified means at their disposal to defend their inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Otherwise, we are serfs and not citizens.
© Bryan Fischer
March 27, 2010
The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to the implementation of MussoliniCare. It is heavy-handed and repressive and is a worse form of oppression than any the Crown imposed on the Colonies in the 1770s.
It is a shocking thing almost beyond comprehension that our president intends to lock up his own citizens for refusing to cooperate with a wholly unconstitutional mandate which forces us at gunpoint to purchase a product as a condition of maintaining what remains of our liberty.
The Intolerable Acts were passed by the British Parliament on virtually the same day in 1774 the Democrats passed MussoliniCare in 2010. The passage of the Intolerable Acts in 1774 led directly to the convening of the Continental Congress which produced the Declaration of Independence and prompted Americans to defend their newly declared liberty with the force of arms.
The question immediately arises as to what remedies the states and the people within them possess to resist the tyranny imposed on us by the Intolerable Act of 2010.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, addressed this issue in Federalist paper #46. It was published on January 29, 1788, as part of the effort to persuade the people of the state of New York to adopt the proposed federal Constitution.
The citizens of the states, naturally, were concerned that the newly formed central government would exercise dictatorial powers against them. Madison believed that such usurpations of power could not in the end succeed for two reasons: the widespread disapproval of the states would make it impossible, and, as a last resort, the states would have sufficient force of arms (guaranteed to them through the Second Amendment) to compel the federal government to back down.
Madison observed that egregious overreaches on the part of the central government would be met with near universal disdain and concerted action, which ultimately could involve the wholly legitimate use of force if the central government did not willingly withdraw its oppressive diktats:
"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.
"The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?
"In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical.
"But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. " (Emphasis added)
With regard to "signals of general alarm" and "concerted" plans of resistance, 14 states have already filed lawsuits against the federal government to stop this "madness" (to use Madison's term), and many more are sure to follow.
And 39 states either have passed or are in the process of passing laws to protect their own citizens from being compelled to comply with the mandated purchase of insurance. That's about as "concerted" as things can get.
Indeed "one spirit" does indeed "animate and conduct the whole," and that spirit is the same spirit that energized our original battle for independence: the Spirit of liberty of which Paul spoke in 2 Corinthians 3:17. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is," he wrote, "there is liberty." This Bible verse, word for word, became one of the slogans on the lips of every son of liberty in 1776.
Madison elaborated at length on the likelihood of an armed confrontation, and asserted that the states not only had the right to use force to resist federal tyranny, but would in the end prevail:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
In the end, Madison, said, the militias spoken of in the Second Amendment, "being necessary to the security of a free State," could, as an absolute final resort, be the last line of constitutionally authorized defense against federal tyranny.
Let us fervently hope and pray that things do not come to this pass, and that our state officials will exercise their constitutional authority to protect their own citizens by flatly refusing to meekly submit to this gross abuse of power.
But let us also hope that the Father of the Constitution was right, that no free people will in the end submit to the tyranny of a repressive central government, and that they will, as a last resort, use all the morally and constitutionally justified means at their disposal to defend their inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Otherwise, we are serfs and not citizens.
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
