By Chuck Baldwin

Passage of the so-called “health care reform” bill in the House of Representatives this past Sunday, March 21 (I won’t even address the inferred unconstitutionality of Congress doing business on the Lord’s Day. See Article. I. Section. 7. Paragraph. 2.) drove yet another stake into the heart of America. For all intents and purposes, it is the health of the United States that is in dire need of healing. In fact, the US has been on extended life-support for decades. With its condition being rendered critical, and absent major surgery, its days are numbered. The passage of this bill only serves to further weaken an already frail Constitution. In fact, this one may prove to be the fatal blow. Lady Liberty may never recover.

Read the rest of this entry »

by David C. Hunnicutt

Having just viewed the latest “We The People” pep talk video to show up in my inbox, I felt the urge to opine. I wish not to offend anyone for their well meant deeds, no matter how ineffectual, but merely to present the truth as I see it.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Chuck Baldwin

All of us are now aware of the Texas man who yesterday flew his private plane into a 7-story Austin office building. Apparently, he intentionally crashed his plane into the building to target the IRS offices that were housed inside the facility.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Chuck Baldwin

Almost immediately after Adam’s fall, Lucifer and his minions collaborated with evil men to usurp God’s authority and sovereignty. And nowhere is God more sovereign than in the heart and conscience of man. In the spirit world, the First Commandment (”Thou shalt have no other gods before me”) is the battleground that is most fought over. The war for man’s heart and soul is never-ending.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

NewsWithViews.com

Anti-Secessionist Argument #1: To secede would cause damage to the other states given their “detrimental reliance” on the other states’ joining the union.

In Vieira’s first point, he refers to the secessionist’ position that the US Constitution is a “contract,” thereby giving the state a right to break the contract upon a breach. However, he qualifies this position to say, a contract is no contract where the parties to it can leave it at any time without cause. In other words, where there is no binding effect upon the parties to the agreement, then the agreement has no binding effect other than a “gentlemen’s agreement.” This renders the “agreement” to be something other than a contract and implicitly is some sort of legal absurdity.
Read the rest of this entry »

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

NewsWithViews.com

One of my most highly esteemed colleagues, Edwin Vieira, wrote a recent article entitled, “A Dissenting Opinion On ‘Secession’,” to which I feel compelled to respond, for a couple of reasons: (1) many people (including me) highly respect Vieira’s opinion and analysis, as he has proven himself to be an extremely intelligent person and favorable to the cause of freedom; and (2) the matter of freedom is too crucial not to be publicly debated. Truth being the ultimate objective, I claim the same liberty as Emer De Vattel in his renowned exposition, The Law of Nations: “My pen lies under no restraint, and I am incapable of prostituting it to flattery. I was born in a country of which liberty is the soul, the treasure, and the fundamental law.” Emer De Vattel, The Law of Nations, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2008), 20.
Read the rest of this entry »

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

NewsWithViews.com

Tenth Amendment: Actual or Pretense?

This leads me to the next point of discussion in Latimer’s article: the powers reserved to the states under the tenth amendment. Given Latimer’s constitutional construction method alone (i.e. “the [preamble] grants Congress power”), the tenth amendment is utterly worthless, having no effect whatsoever; specifically by the preamble stating that the constitution’s purpose was to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Given Latimer’s method of constitutional construction, if the federal government deemed that a state were not implementing laws best conducive to the “blessings of liberty,” the federal government could use its extremely broad powers to “secure the blessings of liberty” and could dictate to the states the laws it may or may not pass; despite the states’ expressly reserving all powers not granted to the federal government, which the Law of Nations acknowledges a sovereign state has the absolute right to do and defend. Of course, to Latimer and his like, elimination of the states would likely be a good thing, regardless of whether his interpretation of the constitution is ACTUALLY the meaning understood by the ratifiers in 1787.
Read the rest of this entry »

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

NewsWithViews.com

A Response to Richard Latimer

There is nothing new about the content of the article authored by Richard Latimer, entitled, A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry, posted on January 4, 2010. You can read the article for yourself, but Latimer attempts to “set straight” Rep. Jeffrey Perry’s method of constitutional construction concerning the general welfare clause and the tenth amendment of the US Constitution, as it relates to the federal government’s power of passing the national health care bill.
Read the rest of this entry »

by Timothy Baldwin

If the current version of the US Constitution, as construed and applied by the federal government (in every branch) over the past 220 years, were reduced to writing in the form of a new constitution (the original language and meaning of the US Constitution notwithstanding), would the people of the states, as they existed in 1787, ratify the constitution? I think you would have to be utterly void of understanding of the principles of a constitutional federal republic and void of the history of our country and forefathers to state that such a constitution would be ratified today. This does not even take into consideration whether the states today would ratify the constitution of 2010–though there would likely be several states that would choose to be bound to the tyrannical national system existing today, but most certainly not all would.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Chuck Baldwin

NewsWithViews.com

January is often referred to as “Generals Month” since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.
Read the rest of this entry »