Table
of Contents
Part
I: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and Dual Federalism
Part
II: Positive Law vs. Non-Positive Law
Part
III: Additional Resources
Content
Part
I: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and Dual Federalism
It
would seem absurd, at first, to suggest that about half of the
federal laws do not apply to all Americans. But considering the text
of the Tenth Amendment, it should come as no surprise.
Amendment
X to the Constitution for the United States reads, “The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.”
Many
Democrats, and people on the left, will argue this is a “states'
rights” perspective - and that this perspective is outdated,
useless, and not favored by the current Democratic administration-
and use this line of reasoning to conclude that Congress and the
national government must reign supreme over nearly every issue. This
argument is incorrect, however, and the Tenth Amendment remains the
law.
Furthermore,
this is not
necessarily a “states' rights” perspective, or at least it is not
solely
a “states' rights” perspective. The Tenth Amendment guarantees
that powers are reserved to the states “or to the people”.
“States' righters” and populists both
benefit from the Tenth Amendment.
This
populist view is perfectly valid in and of itself, as well, since the
Ninth Amendment appears to suggest that our rights don't come from
the Constitution, and don't even come from the law. The Ninth
Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained
by the people.”
Basically,
the fact that not every right is listed in the Constitution, doesn't
necessarily mean that that right doesn't exist. Your rights are so
numerous that the Constitution couldn't possibly name all of them.
The
Ninth Amendment also suggests that the people's freedoms supersede
the
needs of our states, if
the people wish to refrain from making state-level statutes on all
possible policy issues. If our rights don't come from the
Constitution, nor from the law, then doesn't our right to thrive
necessitate that we have a trade or engage in some sort of work?
If
the state licenses every profession, then those of us who wish to
distance ourselves from the state, or boycott it, are reduced to
hunting, foraging, and fishing in order to survive. We can survive,
but not thrive, if every single profession is regulated by a
state-level professional regulation. That is why it is necessary to
nullify the states', and the federal governments', supposed
authorities to regulate our lives and the way we make a living.
This
is why it is necessary to discuss the Tenth Amendment. I'm not the
person who decided to start calling that “the states' rights
amendment”, and I wish that it had never been called that. Before
and during the Civil War, the State of Wisconsin, and other
abolitionists, cited the Tenth Amendment, Jeffersonian nullification,
and jury nullification, to oppose the enforcement of the Fugitive
Slave Act. The Tenth Amendment can be used as a tool of states to
enforce their order, and it can be used to free large numbers of
people from slavery and from control of the federal government at the
same time.
The
Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution specifically to prevent
the federal government's size and scope from expanding too much.
Critics of the amendment may argue that limiting the federal
government's power breeds corruption, but term limits are a form of
limitations upon government, and many opponents of the Tenth
Amendment agree with term limits.
Limited
government, and the Tenth Amendment, are useful, because they help
separate national affairs from state and local affairs, and separate
national affairs from the people's own business. At least that is
what the Tenth Amendment was intended to achieve.
The
concept of dual federalism is that, as it pertains to regulation, the
spheres of influence over certain policy topics are split between the
federal government and the states. The federal government's powers
are specifically enumerated in Articles I through III of the U.S.
Constitution – with Congress's powers listed in Article I – while
all those powers not mentioned therein, are reserved to the states or
to the people.
Ignorance
of the contents of Article I Section 8 – the "Enumerated Powers"; that is, the specifically
authorized powers of Congress – has led us to believe that Congress
has powers that it simply does not have. These include the supposed
powers to regulate the following policy topics at a national level:
-
health / Medicare & Medicaid
- energy
- the environment
(E.P.A.)
- retirement / Social Security
- welfare
- child
support
- federal income taxes
- housing and urban
development
- banking (aside from bankruptcies)
- immigration
(aside from establishing a uniform rule of naturalization)
-
building interstate highways
- building Post Offices
-
management of lands outside the District of Columbia
- protecting
patents whose durations are routinely increased
- the wages and
union negotiations of people not employed by the federal government
None
of these things are authorized by the Constitution, if you read
Clauses 1 through 17 of Article I Section 8 as what it is, a list of
all powers which have been specifically granted to Congress.
The
following list is a summary of the powers which Congress has:
-
the power to regulate the military
- the power to coin money and
regulate its value
- the power to establish post roads
- the
power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization
- the power
to lay and collect taxes (within certain limits) and borrow money
-
the power to regulate interstate commerce with foreign nations, among
the states, and with the tribes
- the power to establish
tribunals and courts
-
the power to protect patents for a limited time
-
the power to punish piracy and felonies committed on the high seas
-
authority over lands purchased by the government (mostly for reasons
essential to national defense)
This is not an exhaustive
list. Please see the original text of Article I Section 8 for the
full list of Congress's powers.
The
president and the Supreme Court also have their own powers which I
have not mentioned here.
When
the Tenth Amendment says all powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution are reserved to the states or the people,
it means that all powers not specifically mentioned in Article I
(Legislative Branch), Article II (Executive Branch) and Article III
(Judicial Branch) are just that: reserved
to the states or to the people.
This
means that the first list that you see above, is a list of policy
topics, and problems, which are supposed to be regulated, and solved,
by the people or their state governments; not the federal government.
Also, it means that the second list consists of what the federal
government is allowed to do and the states are not
allowed to do (except for the power to lay and collect taxes, which
both are allowed to do).
What
this all means is that, whenever the federal government is attempting
to enforce a law on health, environment, education, retirement,
welfare, etc.,
it
is actually breaking the law (the law I'm referring to, being, of
course, the Constitution, and specifically Amendment X). The federal
government is in violation of the Tenth Amendment – which is both a
law and a limitation upon the federal government's ability to create
law – whenever it tries to enforce acts of Congress which pertain
to that first list of policy topics.
But
the point of this article is not to focus primarily on the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments, nor on the delineation that is supposed to exist
between the national government and our state governments. I have
included this information only for its use as a review of the
background for the point of view that approximately half of federal
laws are not binding upon all Americans.
It
is necessary to review the Ninth and Tenth Amendment – and dual
federalism, and how they limit Congress and the rest of the national
government – to illuminate us as to why this radical view should be
acceptable in the first place.
It
is one thing to assert that the Ninth Amendment, the Tenth Amendment,
and dual federalism still hold meaning and value in today's society;
in 2021, nearly 250 years after the Constitution was ratified. But it
is another thing to prove
that these laws on health, environment, welfare, and retirement were
never constitutional, and never binding law upon all Americans, in
the first place.
But
we can prove that that is the case, through the study of the
difference between positive law and non-positive law; and then, by
understanding which sections of U.S. Code are positive law, and which
sections are non-positive law.
Part
II: Positive Law vs. Non-Positive Law
Positive
law is called positive law because it posits something. That is, it
takes a position that somebody is obligated to perform a positive
action. Positive law is law that obligates people to do something.
Positive
law is binding upon all Americans, and the set of sections of U.S.
Code which are positive law, include those which outline how the
military is supposed to behave, and how the flag is supposed to look,
and other things related to basic official duties of the government,
as a government.
Non-positive
law, on the other hand, is law which does not obligate
people to do anything, unless they are part of a certain class of
people. Unless you elect to engage in certain behaviors – such
as committing federal crimes like piracy or treason, or earning
income which is legally taxable by the federal government – then
the law in question does not apply to you.
If
you belong to a federally protected group of people, or a certain
class of people which is obviously under the national government's
regulatory purview and protection (such as the military, and all
federal workers), then sections of the U.S. Code which are
non-positive law, may apply to you.
The
reason why all American workers didn't get their wages increased to
$10.10 an hour, after President Obama appeared to call for that, is
because the federal government can't raise the wages of people it
doesn't employ, except for those employees whom are covered under the federal government's minimum wage law protections as outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (F.L.S.A.).
State governments decide whether state employees
get raises, and private entities decide whether their employees get
raises. Additionally, state governments are free to set their minimum wage rates higher or lower than the federal government's, and this is completely legal and constitutional.
A new federal minimum wage raise has been projected to affect only 0.2% of
non-tipped workers, which is less than 1 in 500 workers considering that tipped workers exist as well. So why, if far less than one
percent of American workers will be affected, are people jumping up and down at the thought that
they're going to get a raise?
Could it be because they're reading articles such as the one below? Author David Cooper claims that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 would "lift wages for 33 million workers". That is probably true; if the federal minimum wage were to apply to all American workers, which it doesn't. Mr. Cooper evidently made his projection based solely on mathematics and his own hopes, without allowing the issue of which workers the federal minimum wage pertains to, to enter into the equation.
http://www.epi.org/publication/minimum-wage-15-by-2025/
The Wikipedia entry for "Minimum wage in the United States" says, "Employers generally have to pay workers the highest minimum wage prescribed by federal, state or local laws." However, that sentence does not have its own source. Furthermore, not only are states free to set lower minimum wages than the federal government's minimum wage; two states are still doing it (Georgia and Wyoming). Additionally, five states have not even adopted a state minimum wage: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
This is happening because not all
American workers are subject to the wage protections to which the
federal minimum wage laws pertain. Only the lowest-paid federal workers, and the lowest paid workers covered under the F.L.S.A. will see their wages increase, if the federal minimum wage increases.
Read this table about minimum wage laws in the United States. Under "jurisdiction", next to "federal", you will see that it says "Fair Labor Standards Act". This is because only the workers covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act are the ones who are subject to the federal minimum wage law protections.
http://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/minimum-wage/tipped When Obama called for a $10.10 minimum wage, he was referring to the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which Tom Harkin proposed and co-sponsored in 2013. Harkin was the sole co-sponsor, so it's likely that Obama's support - and maybe even Harkin's as well - were intended solely as symbolic moves. The Minimum Wage Fairness Act never passed. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, the same as it has been since July 2009 (Obama's first year in office). Obama subsequently supported an increase of the federal wage to $9 per hour.
The Minimum Wage Fairness Act would have amended the 1938 F.L.S.A. if it had been passed and signed into law. The entry for the Minimum Wage Fairness Act on www.congress.gov is available at the following link:
http://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1737
The article "Who is Covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act?" is available at the following link: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter2-2.html#:~:text=Employers%20Who%20Are%20Covered,law%20covers%20nearly%20all%20workplaces.
In that article, author Barbara Kate Repa explains that there are two classes of workers, as it pertains to the F.L.S.A.: 1) workers whom are exempt from the F.L.S.A.; and 2) workers whom are not exempt from that law.
Repa writes, "The FLSA applies only to employers whose annual sales total $500,000 or more or who are engaged in interstate commerce. You might think that this would restrict the FLSA to covering only employees in large companies, but in reality, the law covers nearly all workplaces. This is because the courts have interpreted the term interstate commerce very broadly"
Repa's observation should come as no shock to anyone who has read my previous essays about the overly broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause (which I have written about the most in reference to national health insurance policy). Repa continues: "courts have ruled that companies that regularly use the U.S. mail to send or receive letters to and from other states are engaged in interstate commerce. Even the fact that employees use company telephones or computers to place or accept interstate business calls or take orders has subjected an employer to the FLSA."
Repa continues, "A few employers, including small farms--those that use relatively little outside paid labor--are explicitly exempt from the FLSA."
The preceding facts should establish the following: 1) some employees are explicitly exempt from the F.L.S.A., and hence, the federal minimum wage protections; and 2) there are some employees who are currently being covered by the F.L.S.A. and its wage protections, who wouldn't be subject to those protections if the interstate commerce clause were not interpreted in the overly broad way that it is now.
These facts affirm that it is only due to the misinterpretation of the Constitution that certain federal laws on domestic policies are thought, and are being held, to do things they are not explicitly authorized to do, and which they arguably never had the appropriately delegated authority to do in the first place.
The preceding facts should make it clear that the claims that the federal minimum wage law still applies in these seven states, hinge on two flawed notions: 1) that all workers are covered by the federal law which outlines the federal minimum wage; and 2) that the federal government can make its own minimum wage laws applicable upon workers only tangentially engaged in interstate commerce (and not even physically) in states which are exercising their Tenth Amendment recognized authority to set wages as they please.
The federal minimum wage law does not apply to all workers. Thinking that it does, lulls us into a false sense of security about our corrupt government. It only buys our corrupt government more credit, and a little more time to keep fooling around behind the scenes, before we realize it is not working in our interests.
The F.L.S.A. amended Section 29 of the U.S. Code, which pertains to "Labor". Section 29 is non-positive law. It only applies to certain groups of people, based on their industry, profession, location, or federally protected status. Just like the federal laws on hospitals (found in Section 24), environmental conservation (Section 16), agriculture (Section 7), education (Section 20), retirement (Section 42), and other titles of non-positive law which also "happen to be" topics that aren't specifically mentioned in Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Our
ignorance on the law has led us to assume that the federal government
has powers that it simply doesn't have. We have allowed the federal
government to promise to do things for us which it is incapable of
doing, and which it is literally illegal for the federal government
to do (because it's not explicitly authorized by the Constitution).
This
is happening because we don't understand the Constitution, and don't
read it anymore; and because most of us have never heard of positive
law and non-positive law.
Acts
of Congress are not automatically law just because they are passed by
both houses. The president needs to sign it into law, or else
Congress has to override the president with a supermajority.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has to refrain from declaring it
unconstitutional.
But
another step has to occur before that act of Congress can become part
of the positive law. It has to be enacted.
According
to us.code.house.gov, every title in the U.S. Code, which is in a
section of the code that is positive law, is a federal statute. Each
one of those titles has been enacted, as a whole, by Congress,
because, in a way, Congress regards it as complete. This is to say
that a statutory text which appears in a positive law title, is
regarded as having Congress's “authoritative imprimatur”(seal of
approval) with respect to the wording of the statute.
When
Congress enacts positive law titles, the original enactments are
repealed. One reason for this is that it is not necessary to include
things like enabling clauses in the actual set of applicable laws;
this would make the U.S. Code even longer than it already is.
It
is not the act of Congress which is being enforced; what is being
enforced is a federal statute based on the original act of
Congress that changed the law. Each new act of Congress which doesn't
create a new section of federal statutes in the U.S. Code,
must necessarily amend some certain previously existing
section of the code. This means that turning a section of the code
from non-positive law into positive law, is probably a very detailed
and time-consuming process.
It
has been said about the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, that it is a law
which it would take weeks and weeks to read, because you have to have
the entire U.S. Code in front of you in order to understand it. The
Patriot Act includes numerous references to very specific parts of
the code, and details the changes which are to be made to that code.
In
July 2018, legal blogger Sam Wice explained positive vs. non-positive
law for a blog called Notice
& Comment,
which is billed as “A blog from the Yale Journal on Regulation and
ABA [American Bar Association] Section of Administration Law &
Regulatory Practice.”. In his July 25th,
2018 article “When to Refer to the U.S. Code Versus the Underlying
Statute”, Sam Wice wrote, “This year, the Office of the Law
Revision Counsel has prepared for Congress a bill to enact Title 6 of
the U.S. Code as positive law.”
Well,
what is Title 6 of the U.S. Code? That happens to be the section on
“Domestic Security”! It seems clear, based on these facts, that
the Patriot Act was a massive reorganization of domestic security
laws, which paved the way for the transformation of Title 6 on
Domestic Security from non-positive law into positive law.
The
following 26 sections of U.S. Code are positive law:
-
Section 1. General Provisions
- Section 3. The President
-
Section 4. Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States
-
Section 5. Government Organization and Employees (incl. Federal
Advisory Committee Act)
- Section 9. Arbitration
- Section
11. Bankruptcy and Bankruptcy Rules
- Section 13. Census
-
Section 14. Coast Guard
- Section 17. Copyrights
- Section
18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure, incl. Unlawful Possession or
Receipt of Firearms
- Section 23. Highways
- Section 28.
Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
- Section 31. Money and
Finance
- Section 32. National Guard
- Section 35. Patents
-
Section 36. Patriotic and National Observances
- Section 37. Pay
and Allowances of the Uniformed Services
- Section 38. Veterans'
Benefits
- Section 39. Postal Service
- Section 40. Public
Buildings, Property, and Works
- Section 41. Public Contracts
-
Section 44. Public Printing and Documents
- Section 46.
Shipping
- Section 49. Transportation
- Section 51. National
and Commercial Space Programs
- Section 54. National Park Service
It
is plain to see, from a comparison between this list, and the first
list in this article (the list of powers specifically delegated to
Congress), that the positive law titles consist of powers
specifically authorized in Article I Section 8 (such as the various
military powers, the monetary powers, copyrights, bankruptcy) and in
the rest of the Constitution (such as the Census).
The
other topics mentioned, are there because they have been inferred as
Congress's powers based on the Necessary and Proper Clause (such as
the Postal Service section). Section 51 on National and Commercial
Space Programs is probably justified based on the defense-related
implications of the space program.
This
all seems to check out, with the exception of Highways and the
National Park Service. Section 23 on Highways is likely justified
based on the need to establish post roads, which arguably can be done
without actually building those roads. The National Park Service is
probably justified based on the need for the government to own lands
essential to national defense.
But
aside from those two exceptions, it's easy to see how the vast
majority of positive law titles derive from the set of powers
specifically mentioned in Article I Section 8.
It's
also easy to see how the non-positive
law
titles do not
derive
from Article I Section 8, when you compare the names of the sections
of non-positive titles of the U.S. Code against the first list in
this article. When you compare it to the second
list in this article - the list of policy topics which the federal
government is not authorized to regulate, but does anyway as it
pertains to certain classes of eligible people – it becomes
apparent what is going on here.
The
federal government is attempting to enforce laws that were never
authorized by the Constitution, and which the people don't
want badly enough
to bother enshrining it into the U.S. Code permanently (by either
turning it from non-positive law into positive law, or passing a
constitutional amendment which would authorize the Congress to have
exclusive jurisdiction over a policy topic which the states
previously had the authority to regulate).
The
following is a list of non-positive
titles in the U.S. Code:
-
Section 2. The Congress
- Section 6. Domestic Security
-
Section 7. Agriculture
- Section 8. Aliens and Nationality
-
Section 12. Banks and Banking
- Section 15. Commerce and Trade
-
Section 16. Conservation
- Section 19. Customs Duties
-
Section 20. Education
- Section 21. Food and Drugs
- Section
22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse
-
Section 24. Hospitals and Asylums
- Section 25. Indians
-
Section 26. Internal Revenue Code
- Section 27. Intoxicating
Liquors
- Section 29. Labor
- Section 30. Mineral Lands and
Mining
- Section 33. Navigation and Navigable Waters
-
Section 34. Crime Control and Law Enforcement
- Section 42. The
Public Health and Welfare (including Social Security, which includes child support
titles)
- Section 43. Public Lands
- Section 45.
Railroads
- Section 47. Telecommunications
- Section 48.
Territories and Insular Possessions
- Section 50. War and
National Defense
- Section 52. Voting and Elections
[Note:
There is not currently a Section 53 of the U.S. Code.]
Given
this list, it makes sense that non-positive laws only pertain to
certain classes of people. Section 25 on Indians only pertains to
Native Americans. Section 8 on Aliens and Nationality only pertains
to immigrants. Section 2 on The Congress only pertains to the U.S.
House and the U.S. Senate.
It's
easy to see how sections 7, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 34, 45,
47, and 48 could pertain solely to certain classes of people and
workers as well, and people in certain locations and industries. It's
likely that a lot of the New Deal -era legislation ended up in
Section 7 on Agriculture, Section 12 on Banks and Banking, Section 15
on Commerce and Trade.
In
all federal and state courts, positive law titles constitute legal
evidence of the law. Non-positive law titles, on the other hand, have
only “prima
facie”
evidence of existing. This is to say that the evidence only exists on
the face of the law. These laws exist in name, or on paper, only.
Prima facie
evidence is evidence which would be sufficient to prove a particular
proposition or fact, unless that evidence is rebutted.
According
to the U.S. Code website, “A non-positive law title of the Code is
prima facie
evidence of the statutes it contains”. This means that a
non-positive law title of the U.S. Code is not exactly permanent and
enacted law, but more accurately it is evidence
of a law.
On its face, it is evidence that a law has been passed; i.e.,
an
act of Congress. But acts of Congress are sometimes declared
unconstitutional. And just because an act of Congress hasn't been
declared unconstitutional yet,
that doesn't mean that it won't.
Non-positive
law titles are
the law,
but they are only the law until
it is proven otherwise. Again,
the Tenth Amendment is a law, but it is also a limitation upon the
federal government's ability to create new laws. Proving that certain
federal laws are unconstitutional, will prove that it was never legal
for those to exist in the first place. Once an unconstitutional law
is proven unconstitutional, it's
as if it never existed in the first place.
That's certainly how it feels when the Supreme Court declares a law
unconstitutional. The people simply stop observing the law, and it
ceases being enforced. Nobody has to suffer through that unpopular,
unconstitutional law any more.
The
American people have every right to demand that all federal laws
which are unconstitutional, be recognized as such by all courts from
now on. And the American people have a right to fight to
transformation of non-positive law into positive law, because that
means making more laws obligatory upon all Americans, and it risks
permanently expanding the size and scope of the national government.
They
have been passed by Congress, but they pertain to only a certain
group of people, such as those who are specifically protected, or
those who elect to be affiliated with the federal government for
purposes outside those listed in Articles I through III.
For
all other people, the federal law should not apply. Yet here we are,
still having income taxes levied against us, using currency that's
backed by neither gold nor silver, and allowing the federal
government to trample upon our states' authorities to regulate their
own domestic affairs.
In
effect, federal laws on health, retirement, education, welfare, etc.
are
encroaching upon the limited sovereignty which the states are
supposed to be exercising. The states are supposed to be sovereign in
those policy spheres, while the federal government is sovereign on
money, mail, military, and other things. The federal and state
governments are supposed to be “co-equal sovereigns”. Yet they
cannot be so, if the federal government is “stepping on the toes”
of the state governments, and making it impossible for states to
regulate their own domestic affairs without being pressured to accept
federal funds and federal laws.
These
laws should therefore be considered null and void. They should be
considered “waiting to be declared unconstitutional”. Not all
Americans are obligated to obey federal laws pertaining to policy
topics not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Here
are some more facts about what, specifically, it means, for something
to be a non-positive titles of the U.S. Code:
-
Non-positive law titles of the Code are compilations of statutes.
-
The Supreme Court may deem – or has deemed – provisions of
non-positive titles, to be inaccurate descriptions of the law (which
is why the original enactments are repealed
when non-positive law becomes positive law).
-
Non-positive law titles might not constitute legal evidence of the
law in all federal and state courts, but only in some courts. If a court
deems Congress's seal approval with respect to the wording of the
statute in question, to be either nonsensical, unenforceable, or not
authoritative, then that court should be able to declare that the
prima facie
evidence that the law exists, is not sufficient or important enough
that it should be considered a law. [Note: This is basically a
description of Jeffersonian nullification, the process by which a
state nullifies a federal law.]
-
A non-positive title of the U.S. Code is comprised of many federal
statutes, which have been enacted individually, and have been
compiled and organized into the title.
-
A non-positive title of the U.S. Code has not yet been enacted.
If
a non-positive title of the U.S. Code hasn't
been enacted yet,
then it is not the law yet. Courts are still free to deem it as
unconstitutional, and treat it as if it were not the law.
The
American people have every right to allow unconstitutional federal
laws to lapse into non-enforcement and desuetude
(i.e., obsolescence
and “unenforceability”). Non-enforcement of these laws is more
desirable then their continued enforcement, but repealing them is the
best outcome.
For
those federal laws which are clearly unconstitutional, and are
unquestionably still being enforced, whomever has standing to sue,
should file a lawsuit, and resist the continued application of laws
which vast swaths of the country have long considered to have never
been authorized in the first place.
Such
lawsuits must occur before
the federal government's defenders begin to argue that “these laws
don't need to be repealed, because they aren't being enforced
anymore, and therefore they don't affect us anymore”. That is not
good enough for us, and it is not good enough for our children to
turn the federal government into a mousetrap that snaps their neck in
two the moment their parents die.
We
must treat unenforced laws as if they could come back at any moment.
Just as we should remember that registration for the Selective
Service has not ended, and that therefore the military
draft
could come back at any time.
Part
III: Additional Resources
Please
see the following articles, which I wrote, to learn more about how I
believe that Article I Section 8 of the Constitution should be
interpreted, and other background information which will help explain
why I think many federal laws do not apply to all Americans:
-
"How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of
Congress" (February
2020)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to-easily-and-permanently-memorize.html
-
"What is Congress Allowed to Do and What is it Not Allowed to Do
(Without an Amendment)?" (January
2021)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html
-
“Letter to Political Science Professor David T. Canon on
Constitutional Law” (January
2021)
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/letter-to-political-science-professor.html
Please
read the U.S. Code, and articles about it and positive and
non-positive law, at the following links:
-
http://www.yalejreg.com/nc/when-to-refer-to-the-u-s-code-versus-the-underlying-statute/
-
uscode.house.gov
-
http://libguides.stonehill.edu
-
http://libguides.stonehill.edu/c.php?g=16657&p=92624
-
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/legislation.shtml
-
http://uscode.house.gov/codification/term_positive_law.htm#:~:text=The%20bill%20repeals%20existing%20laws,Code%20are%20compilations%20of%20statutes.
-
http://cmlawlibraryblog.classcaster.net/2017/07/05/what-is-positive-law-and-why-should-you-care/
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude
- Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wp-48d_jSb4
Written on January 31st and February 1st, 2021
Edited and expanded on February 1st, 2021
Published on February 1st, 2021
