Done

Florida League of the South News Letter September 2010

Florida League of the South News Letter
Volume 9, Number 9 September 2010

Promoting the "General" Welfare
It’s time to exercise the right of Nullification
As Florida and other states prepare to do battle in court against the federal government to “nullify” the provisions of the recently passed Congressional health care law, many learned legal scholars are predicting a federal victory. They contend that the government will prevail using the “general welfare” clause in the United States Constitution. A domestic policy chief for the White House arrogantly proclaimed, “Bring it on”. With the rights of the states on the line and the integrity of the Constitution in jeopardy, let’s take a look at the real implication of the oft-quoted general welfare clause.

Over the years the United States Supreme Court has picked the Constitution apart and has read into it that which doesn't exist. The Tenth Amendment has been relegated to the back burner because of the erroneous belief that federal law supercedes the laws of the States. That is true only in those matters that are reserved as a function of the federal government, such as federal appointments, certain crimes, treaties, and national defense, to name a few of the powers reserved to the federal government as specifically provided in the several articles of the document. Court after court has failed to see that the articles are related with no contradictions between them; that they can't stand alone; that provisions must not be taken out of context; and that they are dependent on each other to make a cohesive whole. In that regard it is like the Bible, which shows the wisdom and the intelligence of the founders.

The Ninth Amendment says: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people The truth is that government is limited and the Constitution speaks plainly that the listing of rights does not negate any that aren't listed and retained by the People. The government has no rights to be retained since the government has no rights and the Constitution sets the limits of power and authority.

Then the Tenth Amendment declares that: 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. The powers not delegated means that the United States, i.e. Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, and all the federal courts, don't have powers outside of those granted and can't claim them; then powers not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States or to the People. In other words, the People can have laws enacted through their States and they can do as they please in exercising God given rights as long as those laws and activities don't infringe on the constitutionally secured rights of others.

What can't be found in the Ninth and Tenth or anywhere else in the Constitution is any provision that gives power to any federal branch, Executive, Legislative, or Court, to change the laws of any State when such laws conform to the United States Constitution and the constitutions of the several States.

The relationship of the Federal, the States, and the People, exist in a cohesive whole with each one having certain delegated powers to enable the government to function at distinct levels without interfering with each other, with all of it done to secure and ensure that the rights of the People are held inviolate.

That brings us to the general welfare clause, which is a part of the cohesive whole being discussed. This clause is contained in the Preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Notice distinction is made between the phrases provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare with the words used. There are two definitions found in the Webster's 1828 dictionary that apply to "provide": (1) To procure beforehand; to get, collect or make ready for future use; to prepare. (2) To procure supplies or means of defense; or to take measures for counteracting or escaping an evil. In other words, the President and Congress are to do that which is necessary to defend the nation.

The second word is "promote" and again an appeal is made to the 1828 dictionary: (1) To forward; to advance; to contribute to the growth, enlargement or excellence of any thing valuable… as, to promote learning, knowledge, virtue or religion; to promote the interest of commerce or agriculture; to promote the arts; to promote civilization or refinement; to promote the propagation of the gospel; (2) To exalt; to elevate; to raise; to prefer in rank or honor.

The differences in the words were well understood by the founders and were used in a context that is part of the limits set forth in the document. That they are part of the whole and have specific application with regard to each section of the Constitution it is most important to understand the meanings and relationships.

The Constitution contains the formula, both in general terms and specific, for the type government that exists in the United States. Liberal courts and Congress have lifted the phrase "promote the general welfare" from its context to justify doing things the Constitution does not provide for or allow. They have interpreted promote as provide.

Look at what has happened by lifting the phrase from its context. All the social welfare programs from Social Security to food stamps are justified by the use of the liberal interpretation. Farm subsidies, grants, laws, rules, business regulation, the Department of Education, Environmental Protection Agency, etc. owe their existence to the wrongful misuse of the phrase. And it isn't general welfare since most of the laws are specifically aimed at certain narrowly defined groups. By changing the word and taking it out of context the paving of the road for socialism has become easier. That wasn't the intent of the founders that such should be done. The system that we were given was specifically designed to prevent socialism and other giveaway type governments.

Since the federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare, the next question is how does promote take place. The answer is given in the preamble in the following words: do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The method and means for promoting the general welfare is found in Article I that sets forth the requirements for office and elections for those offices. Then in Section 8 Congress is given the specifics for promoting the welfare in eighteen clauses; the first seventeen which spell out the limits of what the powers and duties are that Congress holds, with the eighteenth clause giving them the authority…To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Notice that the limit on government is accomplished by the phrase "vested by this Constitution".

It is ridiculous to assume and believe that the founders would go to the trouble of setting forth specific duties and the limits on the power of government after making a general statement that would give unlimited authority that would in effect negate the limit on the power as provided in the eighteen clauses. They didn't do that and those who claim they did don't understand the Constitution. That includes the Supreme Court and all other justices that so rule on promote the general welfare as being the open door for anything goes.

The general welfare is promoted through following the provisions of the Constitution that provide for elections, law making, the President's duties, and the jurisdiction of the various federal courts. The document doesn't give advantage to anyone or to any group over anyone or any other group. The provisions apply equally to all, so that each day, each week, each year, and the all the days, weeks, and years that follow will have the same rules for government as the founders gave in the beginning of our nation.

As can be seen there isn't anything in Section 8 that can be remotely construed as allowing the many welfare and other laws that don't conform to the Constitution's limits on government. Though clause 18 allows the laws that will carry out the previous 17, the laws must be limited to those 17 and the other sections of the Constitution that give Congress specific power and duties vested by the Constitution. Neither can Congress claim that promote the general welfare allows them to pass legislation that impinges on the power reserved to the States and the People protected by the 9th and 10th Amendments. For Congress to do so (pass legislation) is an abuse and usurpation of power that it isn't given by the Constitution, which they swear to uphold.

There is no statement anywhere in the Constitution that gives Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court any authority to change the document to suit their whim and fancy no matter how noble or worthy the idea might be. They must take it as whole in order to understand the nature of a constitutional republic form of government. If one thing can be said about the form of government the United States has, it is that it is fair for all since it treats all the same under the law, no matter their worth or social position. By so doing the phrase promote general welfare applies to all and isn't supposed to burden those who have more in order to take care of those who have less as found in the socialistic communistic type systems. That isn't to say that there aren't those that need help but the Constitution doesn't have any provision for such personal or social type help. It is only the perversion of the phrase that has placed the government in the business of social welfare and subsidy like that found in socialist countries and promoted by certain parties in the United States.

Promote is a long way from provide and the founders knew the difference. Promote is more like that of cheerleaders that extol the virtue of a team. In one respect, public office holders should be cheerleaders inspiring everyone to follow the Constitution for the general welfare of all citizens in all walks of life. That was the ideal of the founders and they gave the way for it to happen year after year through the specifics of the Constitution.

The phrase promote the general welfare has to be understood in the context of Section 8 which outlines the limited powers of Congress. However in clause 1 of Section 8 the following phrase is found: …provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; … That would appear to be a contradiction to the use of promote where found in the preamble. However, the understanding of it must be done in the context of the document rather than taking it out of its surroundings and attempting to prove that the actions of Congress are constitutional when they aren't, especially those acts regarding social welfare programs. If the parts of the Constitution are fragmented and taken as separate and distinct pieces having no relationship with each other, as courts are prone to do to arrive at some desired decisional outcome, then there does appear to be a conflict. But that is not the case in clause one when looked at in the context of its wording.

The phrase provide for the common defense refers to the collection of States coming to each others aid when one or more states is threatened by some force exterior to or interior to their safety and well being. Clause 15 says: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." When each of the states ratified the Constitution, they, by that ratification agreed to help each other when the common defense was necessary to suppress insurrection and repel invasions. The laws of the union are the federal laws made by Congress pursuant to the Constitution. In that regard, then, the common defense would be the issue with suppressing insurrections and repelling invasions having equal meaning for the sake of the common defense meaning.

Yet, that doesn't explain the apparent conflict between the preamble and Section 8, clause one. It doesn't have to because two different issues were in the minds of the founders. That is evident from the use of provide and promote in the preamble. In Section 8 clause one, the coordinating conjunction "and" is used to link the words common defense / general welfare. In the manner written, grammatically one equals the other. By looking at the context of clause 15 it is apparent that the founders considered the issue of providing for the common defense to be the same as providing for the general welfare. A strong common defense through the union of the States would and has provided for the general welfare of all the people in every state down through the years. No single person or group of persons has benefited any more than, or less than any other through application of Clause 15. All have benefited in equal manner.

A certain tension exists in the Constitution so that one part isn't greater than any other. The balance of powers isn't an equal balance since only one has legislative authority; the President is limited to certain specific duties; and the Supreme Court severely limited by the Constitution in types of cases it can hear with Congress having the power to limit the range of cases even more should they decide to do so. By looking at the intent of the founders concerning the powers of the branches; and the lack of provision for "providing" for the general welfare in specific ways to benefit specific people or groups of people (as in a socialist system) the tension can be seen that prevents one branch from overriding any one of the other two.

The welfare of the whole of the people was the consideration of the founders when they crafted the Constitution and the phrase under discussion proves it. Had they intended any other type of government or had intended that government provide specifically for the people through welfare programs, then they would have created a different form of governing system other than a constitutional republic. The truth is they repudiated all other forms of governance so it is pure folly to attempt to twist their beliefs to support the general welfare argument for government taking care of the masses through government programs, the type which the founders cast aside as not worthy of the people for many reasons namely for the sake of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The providing for the common defense doesn't impinge on anyone's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness (unless one is a member of the military and that is another issue entirely, not linked to the understanding of the founders), while providing for the general welfare outside of the context of the common defense and the meaning found in the Preamble, will deprive one group of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to satisfy the wants of the ones wanting government aide or relief for some problem. The terms then are perverted and the phrases are twisted to mean specific welfare, which the founders rejected in its entirety.

As early as the 1800's the federal government began usurping this welfare clause by taking tax money from the South and providing for the welfare of the North. This led to the severing of the ties of the southern States with the union and a new nation being formed. The founders of this new confederation of states wisely modified Section 1, clause 8 in their constitution as follows: ...but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

Is it time to return to the wisdom of our Southern ancestors? Or are we past the point of no return?

You be the judge.


The Deadliest Day in American History
One hundred forty eight years ago this month, two armies thrust north through western Maryland's rich farmlands and faced off in a battle so savage that its one-day death toll is unsurpassed in American history.

On Sept. 17, 1862, invading Confederate forces and Union pursuers collided in rolling sheets of fire at Antietam Creek, a shallow ribbon of water ambling through orchards and cornfields not far from the upper stretches of the Potomac River.

The battle near the dusty crossroads of Sharpsburg ended the first Confederate invasion of the North. It raised the stakes of the late War for America and the world. Despite horrendous losses nine years ago in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the one-day casualty toll at Antietam remains unequaled.

Historian James M. McPherson notes that the 6,300 to 6,500 Union and Confederate soldiers killed and mortally wounded at Antietam were more than twice the 3,044 fatalities, including the 19 hijackers, suffered in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Another 15,000 men wounded in the Battle of Antietam would recover, but many of them would never again walk on two legs or work with two arms," McPherson writes in "Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam, The Battle That Changed the Course of the Civil War", published by Oxford University Press.

The casualties at Antietam were four times greater than Americans killed or wounded at the Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944. They were also greater than the combined casualties of all of the nation's 19th century wars, excepting the War for Southern Independence itself.

The following Florida units were involved in the Confederate effort at Antietam: Florida 2nd Infantry Regiment, Florida 5th Infantry Regiment, Florida 8th Infantry Regiment.
Supreme Court Had it Right Then
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875)

"The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging 'the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone."


We Call Them Southrons
"But an opinion that it is possible for the present generation to seize and use the property of future generations has produced to both parties concerned, effects of the same complexion with the usual fruits of national errour. The present age is cajoled to tax and enslave itself, by the errour of believing that it taxes and enslaves future ages to enrich itself."

John Taylor of Caroline


Reliving Florida's Past
SEPTEMBER 6 1928 The Great Lake Okeechobee Hurricane struck Florida as a Category 4 storm, with winds pushing lake waters to a storm surge of more than 15 feet. The area surrounding the lake's south end, occupied primarily by migrant agricultural workers, flooded. The Red Cross's death toll count reached 1,836, but additional bodies and skeletons were discovered after the end of the Red Cross count. In response to this disaster, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built dikes around the lake to prevent a recurrence. Florida author Zora Neale Hurston recorded the impact on this hurricane on migrants in her novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God. .

SEPTEMBER 8 1565 Today is the anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine.
From the account of Pedro Menendez's expedition to Florida in 1565 by Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales, the chaplain to the expedition. "Satruday, the eight of September, the day of the Nativity of our Lady, the General disembarked with many banners displayed and many trumpets and other instruments of war, discharging much artillery. As I was on the Land since the day before, I took a cross and went out to receive them with the Psalm "Te Deum laudamaus," and the General came directly to the cross with all the rest that came with him, and kneeling on the knees on the earth they kissed the cross. There were a great number of Indians looking at these ceremonies and thus they did all they saw done. On this same day the General took possession of this land for His Majesty and all Captains swore him to be General of all this land."

SEPTEMBER 10 1964 Hurricane Dora swept across north Florida after coming ashore near St. Augustine. The storm's 125 mph winds produced a storm surge of 12-15 feet and, together, the elements did more than $250 million in damages [$1 billion in 1990 dollars]. This was the first hurricane to strike Florida north of Stuart since the Hurricane of 1880.

SEPTEMBER 20 1822 The City of St. Augustine was incorporated under the Territorial Laws of Florida.

SEPTEMBER 15 1949 Today's WJXT-TV in Jacksonville first signed on the air on this date under the call sign WMBR-TV

SEPTEMBER 23 1888 One hundred sixty-three yellow fever cases reported in the epidemic at Jacksonville. Before the epidemic is over, four hundred twenty-seven persons would die.


Statement of Purpose
The League of the South seeks to advance the cultural, social, economic and political well-being and independence of the Southern people by all honorable means.

For information on how you can help restore your freedom and responsible government, and learn the truth about the history of our country, its founders and its documents, contact the League of the South at the Freedom First Website

Get the facts they don't teach you in school.


Historical Quiz
Commenting on a strategic move contemplated by a U.S. President prior to a military conflict, a famous Secretary of State rebuked the strategy with these words: "Fraternity is the element of union, war the very element of disunion ". Who was the cabinet member who made this statement?

Email your answer to NEFLOS@net-host.net

The first correct answer will win a Florida State Flag, suitable for outdoor display of your patriotism.

Answer to last quiz:

Political division has existed in this land for over 220 years. Even our founding fathers in 1787 could not agree on the direction the hotly debated constitution for the young united States was headed. In fact, one famous patriot boldly predicted that this government wouldn't last 100 years if the constitution was passed as proposed.

After only 72 years his prophesy came true. Who was he?

Answer: The famous patriot who made that prediction was non other than Patrick Henry.

Many good answers were received, but no one had the correct answer


Deo Vindice Newsletter is published by the League of the South, Northeast Florida Chapter as a public service to the citizens of Florida's First Coast
You may contact us at P.O. Box 37338, Jacksonville, Florida 32236. Phone: 904-388-2253 Email: NEFLOS@net-host.net

Efforts of our Brothers down-under!

CLICK IMAGES TO ENLARGE



The William Kenyon Australisn Confederates Camp 2160 of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. has installed a bronze Southern Cross monument on the formerly unmarked gravesite of Warrant Officer and Paymaster Richard William Curtis; of the CSS Georgia. He is buried in Toowong Cemetery in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia parchment "Southern Patriots Certificate" and a Curtis Memorial Booklet from the SCV.


James Gray
Commander
Kenyon Australisn Confederates Camp 2160
Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.
Australia
www.scvau.com
www.acwv.info

Zachariah Charles Pearson, blockade runner

On Saturday 28th August I attended the Pearson Park carnival and tree planting ceremony in regards to Zachariah Charles Pearson, blockade runner owner and builder. This was a very good event and the following day the ECMOH presentation took place in the Old cemetery

The ECMOH presentaion took place at 11-00am with approx 70-80 of the descendants of Zachariah in attendence. after an Introduction and a short explaination of the war's causes, I mentioned the war's connection with Hull, and then Zachariah's participation in the war. The medal was handed over to his great grand-daughter, and a resolution composed by Jerry was read out and an explaination of how Jerry & Neville came up with the idea for the honour and then put it into practice

Today I was visited by Cambridge University student Greg Styger who visited me from Manchester. He interviewed me for about an hour and hopefully what was said will be of help to him with his dissitation. he has made arrangements to speak to SCV and SUVCW representatives in Kentucky. the NAACP and other African-American groups have either refused to meet him or not answered his multiple attempts to get a meeting arranged.


Yours

John

Click on Image to Enlarge

Texas Independence Rally

The Texas Nationalist Movement is planning a Texas Independence Rally
Saturday, September 18, 2010
1:00p-3:00p
Details

4 July Parade SCV

Liberty University Civil War Seminar March 26

This is an updated announcement with respect to the following additions to the list of presenters:

Mr. Robert Driver will speak on the 2nd Virginia Cavalry (which originated in Lynchburg, Virginia) during the last year of the war, especially its legendary breakout from the Union encirclement of Lee’s forces at Appomattox Court House.

Mr. Bill Frue will do a 1st person presentation on J. E. B. Stuart, the “Bold Cavalier.”

Mr. Steven Alexander will discuss George Custer’s exploits during the last year of the war.

Mr. Chuck Row, a direct descendent of Nathan Bedford Forrest, will talk about his grandmother’s recollections of the great general’s stories of the Civil War.

There will be a silent auction of Civil War prints, books, memorabilia, etc. to support the National Civil War Chaplains Museum on Friday night, March 26.

If you need more info about the speakers or the overall seminar, please call us at 434-592-4366.

Thank you.

Kenny Rowlette and Dr. Cline Hall,

2010 LU Civil Seminar Co-Chairs