"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." - Jay Gould

Those remarkable words were uttered by Jay Gould, a Gilded Age financier who thought cornering the gold market (and causing a financial panic) was a good idea. Judging from the events in Wisconsin and the Republican anti-union fervor spreading across the nation, very little has changed. In America, wealth, as opposed to blood generally dictates the upper class (those with a shovel) and the lower  class (those who dig).  Wealth also entails power. More wealth entails more power. Therefore, to gain more wealth, generally, one must gain more power. The Koch Brothers know this. They also know the best way to gain power is to eliminate the opposition. Accordingly, Ronald Reagan was half right. To the Koch Brothers, government is the problem. However, to the average American, government is in fact us, trying to take care of us. So, if we take into consideration there are more of "us" than "them" how do "them" eliminate the will of the vast majority of us, thereby removing "government" from the equation? The answer is actually quite obvious. In Jay Gould's day, you hired one half of the working class to kill the other half. Today, there is no need for direct violence. Jay could for instance, co-opt a few Supreme Court justices into allowing "corporations" (slightly larger versions of "them") into allowing the virtually unrestricted ability to, at a minimum,  influence the outcome of even the smallest of elections in the farthest corners of our nation. Or, in the Governors race for Wisconsin. But why would "them" want to influence something as seemingly unrelated to future political and socio-economical dominance as the Wisconsin Governor's race? Well, if you still have to ask that question, you haven't been reading the news lately. Short version, union's (slightly larger versions of "us") also spend money to influence elections. And this, "them" cannot tolerate.  And if Scott Walker wants to stay in office, be it the Governor's mansion, or Pennsylvania Avenue, he'll dig for a living, albeit with a slightly fancier shovel.

WHY THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES STILL MATTER

One of the most outwardly frustrating aspects of our legal system is the seeming incongruity between what in many instances appear to be clear and straight-forward social mandates and the shall we say "narrow" interpretations of those mandates the US Supreme Court is wont to issue that if not deny the application of social justice, at least allow for in many instances the continuation of behavior often directly in conflict with the very words of the U.S. Constitution itself. How is this so? For instance, why is racism still allowed to not only exist, but as of recently, flourish? Rather than blame this phenomenon on the "unconstitutional" acts of an ignorant and unruly minority, is it possible that racial discrimination still has a legitimate legal basis to exist? It would seem so.

In 1865, The Thirteenth Amendment was adopted into the U.S. Constitution.

Under Section 1, there would appear to be a clear and unambiguous mandate, namely the end of slavery.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

And so slavery, as a legally permissible, entrenched institution, soon to be referred to as "badges and incidents of slavery" ceased to exist. But legally sanctioned racism continued against the newly freed slaves. And so the legacy of the Thirteenth Amendment would appear to be that while persons of race were no longer allowed to be enslaved, there was no actual prohibition against discriminating against them. However, even if this view were adopted (hint: it was) how could racial discrimination continue to flourish against what were clearly citizens of the United States?

In 1868, The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted into the United States.

Under Section 1, there would appear to be a clear and unambiguous mandate, namely ending State discrimination against any citizen of the United States.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And with the Fifth Amendment already prohibiting the Federal Government from unconstitutional deprivations without due process, it would appear that all citizens would receive at a minimum, equal protection under the law. But legally sanctioned racial discrimination continued.

This despite the enactment by Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which reads in pertinent part that regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, everyone was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations". But history tells us this did not happen. Racial discrimination continued. How? It wasn't until 1883 that we got our first glimpse into how racial discrimination was legally allowed and how it continues today.

The Civil Rights Cases 109 U.S. 3 (1883) was a US Supreme Court decision based upon a number of consolidated cases involving racial discrimination in direct violation of, if nothing else, the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Individual incidents involved persons of color being refused service at a hotel dining room in Topeka Kansas, an opera house in New York City and access to a car set aside for ladies on a train.

In that case, the Court, led by Chief Justice Morrison Waite and authored by Joseph P. Bradley decided that for legal purposes, (a) The Thirteenth Amendment prohibited persons from owning slaves, but did not extend to banning discriminatory behavior, the so called "badges and incidents" of slavery; (b) The Fourteenth Amendment did not extend to private citizens and organizations (only to the States themselves) and consequently; (c) The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional because it applied to private citizens and organizations.

Interestingly, I think it more than fair to say that this is the position Rand Paul has as recently as 2010 (last week to be exact) advocated as a basis for overturning the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In dissent, Justice John M. Harlan eloquently described the effete effect of the majority's decision:

"My brethren say that when a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficient legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen, or a man, are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected. It is, I submit, scarcely just to say that the colored race has been the special favorite of the laws. What the nation, through Congress, has sought to accomplish in reference to that race is, what had already been done in every state in the Union for the white race, to secure and protect rights belonging to them as freemen and citizens; nothing more. The one underlying purpose of congressional legislation has been to enable the black race to take the rank of mere citizens. The difficulty has been to compel a recognition of their legal right to take that rank, and to secure the enjoyment of privileges belonging, under the law, to them as a component part of the people for whose welfare and happiness government is ordained."

And as Justice Harlan prognosticated, newly freed slaves became second class citizens and racism continued.

The next opportunity to re-invent racism as somehow if not socially acceptable, at least legally so, came in the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896).

The case involved the constitutionality of Louisiana's 1890 Separate Car Act. The act allowed for railroads to offer separate "white" and "colored" cars long as they were "equal."

On June 7, 1892, the light-skinned Homer Plessy bought a ticket and boarded the whites only car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Once aboard, he announced that as he was in fact 1/8th black he was classified under then existing Louisiana law as "colored" and required to sit in the colored only car.  Plessy refused to leave and as planned, he was arrested and jailed. As a railroad is a "common-carrier," the Constitutional issue for the US Court to decide was whether under the Fourteenth Amendment such segregation was an unreasonable use of state power.

In short, the result was that as the Court could not discern any difference in quality between the two cars with Justice Brown writing for the Court,

"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

In what has proved to be arguably the most prophetic dissent in the history of the US Supreme Court, Justice Harlan wrote

"The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race."

And so, while the Court's ruling in some odd way may have been true in the limited context of two railroad cars, the impact was that virtually all racial segregation was not only constitutional, it was in fact protected by Federal Law. And in an effort to prevent other test cases of its ruling, the Plessy Court went on to analogize its decision regarding transportation to also apply to among other things, education, another hot-button segregation issue. And so "Separate but Equal" became the law of the land along with all the attending, constitutionally blessed, Jim Crow laws, until 1954 when the very issue referred to by Plessy, segregation in the classroom resurfaced.

In the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) the Warren Court tackled the issue of whether "separate" really was "equal."

The actual facts are quite simple. 13 parents (Oliver L. Brown was the named plaintiff) who lived and worked in Topeka, Kansas merely wanted to enroll their children in the school nearest to where they lived. Unfortunately, the nearest schools were subject to segregation and the children were by law, not allowed to attend. Basing their claim on the separate but equal clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the plaintiffs argued that as applied to public education as evidenced by the 90 years of inequality since Plessy, separate education facilities were because education was provided by the States, as a matter of law, inherently unequal and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In what can fairly be classified as an unusual direction, the Court agreed and at page 495, expressly overruled Plessy.

"The 'separate but equal' doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537  has no place in the field of public education." 


And the death knell for school segregation, and ostensibly racial discrimination was sounded. 

Progress came slowly. For example, Topeka  still needed to litigate Brown II and Brown III, cases that delayed the School District from actually attaining "unified" (as opposed to segregated) status until 1994. In another notable attempt to keep schools segregated, On June 11, 1963  then Alabama Governor George Wallace staged the "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" in an effort to prevent two black students from enrolling at the University of Alabama. But society marched forward.


On May 22, 1964, then president Lyndon B. Johnson outlined his plans for a series of domestic programs designed to eliminate poverty and racial injustice. These programs were later referred to collectively during the speech and later as the "Great Society." By building upon initiatives started by John F. Kennedy as part of his "New Frontier" initiative, LBJ undertook the greatest change in domestic politics and government agenda since Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal.  Within two years of his assuming the presidency, LBJ signed into law four civil rights acts including The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that forbade job discrimination and the segregation of public accommodations.   

How could LBJ accomplish this? Was the Court's decision in Brown enough precedent to accomplish an entire ban on segregation of public accommodations? The answer is no. However, LBJ did have the advantage of presiding in a more modern era, an era of government that saw the rise in power and scope of the Commerce Clause.    

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".


In the years since it's enactment, the phrase "and among the several States" had grown from regulating waterways and tariffs between States Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824) to how much wheat a farmer could grow in his own backyard to feed his chickens Wickard v. Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942) because of the effect on interstate-commerce.

In 1964, constitutionality of  the Civil Rights act of 1964 was not determined under the Fourteenth Amendment, but by the following: By relying on its enumerated power under the Commerce Clause, could Congress forbid the segregation of public accommodations as an act of regulating commerce among the States?

It did not take long for the Warren Court to decide this issue in the affirmative. In Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 US 241 (1964), a case involving the right of a Motel owner/private citizen to restrict access of his rooms to patrons of color, the Court found that based upon the powers granted Congress under Commerce Clause, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was within Congress' power to enact, and Constitutional. It is also worth noting that the Court extended it's decsion to include restaurants (in particular Ollie's Barbecue) in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 US 294 (1964).  But is that the end of the story?

After nearly 60 years of an unbroken string of US Supreme Court decisions allowing for the expansion of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the conservative leaning "New Federalism" ideology of Chief Justice William Rehnquist found it necessary to curtail the reach and scope of the Commerce Clause.

In United States v.  Lopez,  514 US 549 (1995) the Rehnquist Court overturned the conviction of a 12th Grade student for carrying a concealed handgun into a school in violation of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(1)(A). The Gun-Free School Zones Act made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a school zone.  The majority explained that the prevention of crime is not related to any commercial enterprise and thus could not be found to as an individual act, or in the aggregate, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Accordingly, at least when it comes to banning the possession of handguns at schools, Congress had exceeded its power to regulate under the commerce clause.

Thus the erosion of the power of the Commerce Clause, the basis of Congress' power to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964 began and continues

In United States v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000) the Court invalidated § 40302 of the Violence Against Women's Act.The Act sought to impose civil penalties for the commission of a gender-based violent crime.

As in Lopez, it could not be argued that State regulation alone would be ineffective to protect the aggregate impacts of local violence. The Court explained that in both Lopez and Morrison "the noneconomic, criminal nature of the conduct at issue was central to our decision." Furthermore, the Court pointed out that in neither case was there an " 'express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach (to those instances that) have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.' " Id. at 1751. In both cases, Congress criminalized activity that was not commercial in nature without including a jurisdictional element establishing the necessary connection between the criminalized activity and Interstate Commerce.

Logically following, it does not seem unthinkable that the States could also be viewed as having adequate resources to regulate discrimination. Thus making civil rights legislation beyond the power of the Commerce Clause and hence Congress? Think not? Then read below.

In addition to citing similar concerns to the lack of a commercial enterprise as in Lopez, the Morrison Court, noting that unlike Lopez, Morrison contained an element of disparate treatment based on gender discrimination, and felt compelled to revisit the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the the Civil Rights Cases, the very case that invalidated the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

'Shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, we decided two cases interpreting the Amendment’s provisions, United States v. Harris, 106 US 629 (1883), and the Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883). In Harris, the Court considered a challenge to §2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. That section sought to punish “private persons” for “conspiring to deprive any one of the equal protection of the laws enacted by the State.”  And;  "In so doing, we reemphasized our statement from Virginia v. Rives 100 US 313, 318 (1880), that “ ‘these provisions of the fourteenth amendment have reference to State action exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals.’ ”  

After discussing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Morrison Court then applied the effect of the 1875 Civil Rights Cases in the year 2000. 

    "We reached a similar conclusion in the Civil Rights Cases. In those consolidated cases, we held that the public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which applied to purely private conduct, were beyond the scope of the §5 enforcement power. 109 U.S., at 11 (“Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [Fourteenth] [A]mendment”)." (citations omitted)

And;

“The fourteenth amendment prohibits a state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. It simply furnishes an additional guaranty against any encroachment by the States upon the fundamental rights which belong to every citizen as a member of society”

Therefore, the logic can only follow that sans the Civil Rights Act of 1964, every private citizen has, in fact, a constitutional right to discriminate under the Fourteenth Amendment, without government interference against anyone and for any reason.

Starting to sound like a familiar argument?

In conclusion, if Congress' power to regulate through the Commerce Clause continues to weaken, particularly as applied to States Rights issues, and if in fact a more conservative Congress regains power, and as is a possibility of all laws, repeals the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an impermissible encroachment upon States Rights, what are we left with? Indeed, the prevailing law regarding discrimination by private citizens will be the holding in the Civil Rights Cases from 1875.

You still think Rand Paul has no constitutional basis for his views?

POST NOTE:

In 1952 then law clerk William Rehnquist wrote a memo called "A Random Thought On the Segregation Cases."  The memo was authored during the period of the Courts deliberations that led to its landmark decision in Brown reads in part

"I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleges, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist continued to state, "To the argument...that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional rights, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional right of the minority are."

Still?

AMERICAN REVOLUTION? CIVIL WAR? NAH...THE TEA PARTY IS MOST CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

Although many comparisons of the Tea Party have been made to the American Revolution and to the Civil War, both seem to be at best cursory and self-serving. The Tea Party itself routinely comparing itself to the Spirit of 1776 and the patriotism that implies, and by, well, everyone else, to the Civil War Era (roughly 1860-1865) and all of the negativity that era implies. But, if one looks closely at history, I would posit that the Tea Party in fact seems to most resemble the followers of our 7th President, Andrew Jackson, and the mood of the country most aligned with the Presidential Election of 1828 in which "Old Hickory" the original populist, defeated the patrician candidate of the aristocracy, John Quincy Adams.  Although he won the popular vote, Jackson was defeated by Adams in 1824 by a vote in the House of Representatives, possibly due to a behind doors deal between Adams and House leader Henry Clay (both of whom apparently detested Jackson) in what Jackson himself labeled the "corrupt bargain." Undaunted, Jackson and his followers geared up for the election of 1828 and in fact with the help of New York power broker Martin Van Buren, won the presidency. Jackson's political base was comprised mostly in the South (he was from North or South Carolina, depending on your source) and due to Van Buren's influence, working class Northerners. And so, Jackson, self educated, and of humble origins, was the first non-aristocratic president elected in what to this day is still considered one, if not the dirtiest presidential campaign this country has ever witnessed.  Jackson's followers called themselves the Democratic Republican Party. A name they later shortened to the Democratic Party. It was during this time that the Democratic Party adopted the mule as its symbol. In an effort to ridicule Jackson,  Adams' Party, the National Republican Party, compared Jackson (and presumably his humble roots) to the (or so they imagined) lowly mule. However, to the average working class farmer, a mule was a good, hard worker and stood for dependability. And so, in an odd twist of fate, Jackson adopted the mule as his party's mascot. Was Jackson a racist? Yes. He was and he would have been the first to say so. Was he hot tempered and prone to during his lifetime incredible acts of cruelty and violence? Yes he was. Did he betray the Indians in Florida who in fact, helped him defeat the Spanish? Yes, he did. And yet, this is the person who the average American, in 1828 wanted as their president. Why? Well, the short answer is because he was perceived as the person who most closely represented their values and, unlike Adams, who was born into the aristocracy,  understood the needs of the common man. Meaning then as now, most of us. And so Andrew Jackson, flaws and all, took the reigns of power in Washington and forever changed the face of the presidency and of course, this nation. Starting to sound familiar? I hope so. Now, if the Tea Party can find its Jackson, they'll party like it's 1828.

HIT IT WITH A STICK ANNOUNCES THE BREAKING OPEN OF ITS FIRST INAGURAL PINATA - SARAH PALIN

And so here we go...one more whack and...Hey! It's empty. Aww... 

 

Special thanks to Meghan Keys at PinataExperts for having the insight to create a Sarah Palin Pinata

OBAMA SHOOTS, HE SCORES!

With the announcement that his administration will open up the Atlantic coast for drilling, Obama made one of the classiest political "head-fakes" in recent memory.  No legitimate oil company is going to drill off the eastern sea-coast of America anytime soon, if at all. Drilling off the eastern coast of America is prohibitively expensive and as long as there is no monetary reward for shaking the foreign (read cheap) oil habit, big oil never being particularly patriotic in nature (if at all), will leave the eastern seaboard alone for many, many years to come. And without a big oil spill to complain about, all but the greenest of the green environmentalists will move onto well, green pastures. So what is the point (as in talking) of all this? I would suggest it is in fact the democrats gearing up for 2010 and beyond. Let me put it this way. The republican war cry of "Drill baby drill"? One more talking point gone. Repealing health care was DOA and the party of morality and family values? Sanford and Ensign, nailed that one. Barakistan is going well, so no Dems soft on terror to campaign on. And so piece by piece, sound-bite by sound-bite, the Republican Party begins to recede in the distance just in time for the midterm elections. And he only had to give up one coast...smart cookie that Obama. However, by destroying the Republican Party he's going to leave a political void that will only help empower the Tea Party and one of these days they are going to figure out how to shed the dead weight at the top and use the internet to deliver their grassroots message (sound familiar?) And when it's Tea Party 2.0, watch out America, it's a whole new ballgame.

FAIRFAX COUNTY RESOLVES - JULY 18, 1774

At a general Meeting of the Freeholders and Inhabitants of the County of Fairfax on Monday the 18th day of July 1774, at the Court House, George Washington Esquire Chairman, and Robert Harrison Gent. Clerk of the said Meeting —
1. Resolved that this Colony and Dominion of Virginia can not be considered as a conquered Country; and if it was, that the present Inhabitants are the Descendants not of the Conquered, but of the Conquerors.
That the same was not setled at the national Expence of England, but at the private Expence of the Adventurers, our Ancestors, by solemn Compact with, and under the Auspices and Protection of the British Crown; upon which we are in every Respect as dependant, as the People of Great Britain, and in the same Manner subject to all his Majesty's just, legal, and constitutional Prerogatives. That our Ancestors, when they left their native Land, and setled in America, brought with them (even if the same had not been confirmed by Charters) the Civil-Constitution and Form of Government of the Country they came from; and were by the Laws of Nature and Nations, entitiled to all it's Privileges, Immunities and Advantages; which have descended to us their Posterity, and ought of Right to be as fully enjoyed, as if we had still continued within the Realm of England.
2. Resolved that the most important and valuable Part of the British Constitution, upon which it's very Existence depends, is the fundamental Principle of the People's being governed by no Laws, to which they have not given their Consent, by Representatives freely chosen by themselves; who are affected by the Laws they enact equally with their Constituents; to whom they are accountable, and whose Burthens they share; in which consists the Safety and Happiness of the Community: for if this Part of the Constitution was taken away, or materially altered, the Government must degenerate either into an absolute and despotic Monarchy, or a tyrannical Aristocracy, and the Freedom of the People be annihilated.
3. Resolved therefore, as the Inhabitants of the american Colonies are not, and from their Situation can not be represented in the British Parliament, that the legislative Power here can of Right be exercised only by (our) own Provincial Assemblys or Parliaments, subject to the Assent or Negative of the British Crown, to be declared within some proper limited Time. But as it was thought just and reasonable that the People of Great Britain shou'd reap Advantages from these Colonies adequate to the Protection they afforded them, the British Parliament have claimed and exercised the Power of regulating our Trade and Commerce, so as to restrain our importing from foreign Countrys, such Articles as they cou'd furnish us with, of their own Growth or Manufacture, or exporting to foreign Countrys such Articles and Portions of our Produce, as Great Britain stood in Need of, for her own Consumption or Manufactures. Such a Power directed with Wisdom and Moderation, seems necessary for the general Good of that great Body-politic of which we are a Part; altho' in some Degree repugnant to the Principles of the Constitution. Under this Idea our Ancestors submitted to it: the Experience of more than a Century, during the government of his Majesty's Royal Predecessors, hath proved it's Utility, and the reciprocal Benefits flowing from it produced mutual uninterrupted Harmony and Good-Will, between the Inhabitants of Great Britain and her Colonies; who during that long Period, always considered themselves as one and the same People: and tho' such a Power is capable of Abuse, and in some Instances hath been stretched beyond the original Design and Institution. Yet to avoid Strife and Contention with our fellow-Subjects, and strongly impressed with the Experience of mutual Benefits, we always Chearfully acquiesced in it, while the entire Regulation of our internal Policy, and giving and granting our own Money were preserved to our own provincial Legislatures.
4. Resolved that it is the Duty of these Colonies, on all Emergencies, to contribute, in Proportion to their Abilities, Situation and Circumstances, to the necessary Charge of supporting and defending the British Empire, of which they are Part; that while we are treated upon an equal Footing with our fellow Subjects, the Motives of Self-Interest and Preservation will be a sufficient Obligation; as was evident thro' the Course of the last War; and that no Argument can be fairly applyed to the British Parliament's taxing us, upon a Presumption that we shou'd refuse a just and reasonable Contribution, but will equally operate in Justification of the Executive-Power taxing the People of England, upon a Supposition of their Representatives refusing to grant the necessary Supplies.
5. Resolved that the Claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament, of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the People of these Colonies, and to extort from us our Money with out our Consent, is not only diametrically contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which we are dependant upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the Privileges of a free People, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a State of Freedom and Happiness to Slavery and Misery.
6. Resolved that Taxation and Representation are in their Nature inseperable; that the Right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own Money is the only effectual Security to a free People, against the Incroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield the One, they must quickly fall a Prey to the other.
7. Resolved that the Powers over the People of America now claimed by the British House of Commons, in whose Election we have no Share, on whose Determinations we can have no Influence, whose Information mush be always defective and often false, who in many Instances may have a seperate, and in some an opposite Interest to ours, and who are removed from those Impressions of tenderness and compassion arising from personal intercourse and Connections, which soften the Rigours of the most despotic Governments, must if continued, establish the most grievous and intollerable Species of Tyranny and Oppression, that ever was inflicted upon Mankind.
8. Resolved that it is our greatest Wish and Inclination, as well as Interest, to continue our Connection with, and Dependance upon the British Government; but tho' we are it's Subjects, we will use every Means which Heaven hath given us to prevent our becoming it's Slaves.
9. Resolved that there is a premeditated Design and System, formed and pursued by the British Ministry, to introduce an arbitrary Government into his Majesty's American Dominions; to which End they are artfully prejudicing our Sovereign, and inflaming the Minds of our fellow-Subjects in Great Britain, by propagating the most malevolent Falsehoods; particularly that there is an Intention in the American Colonies to set up for independant States; endeavouring at the same Time, by various Acts of Violence and Oppression, by sudden and repeated Dissolutions of our Assemblies, whenever they presume to examine the Illegality of ministerial Mandates, or deliberate on the violated Rights of their Constituents, and by breaking in upon the American Charters, to reduce us to a State of Desperation, and dissolve the original Compacts by which our Ancestors bound themselves and their Posterity to remain dependant upon the British Crown: which Measures, unless effectually counteracted, will end in the Ruin both of Great Britain and her Colonies.
10. Resolved that the several Acts of Parliament for raising a Revenue upon the People of America without their Consent, the creating new and dangerous Jurisdictions here, the taking away our Trials by Jurys, the ordering Persons upon Criminal Accusations, to be tried in another Country than that in which the Fact is charged to have been committed, the Act inflicting ministerial Vengeance upon the Town of Boston, and the two Bills lately brought into Parliament for abrogating the Charter of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and for the Protection and Encouragement of Murderers in the said Province, are Part of the above mentioned iniquitous System. That the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston are now suffering in the common Cause of all British America, and are justly entitled to it's Support and Assistance; and therefore that a Subscription ought imediatly to be opened, and proper Persons appointed, in every County of this Colony to purchase Provisions, and consign them to some Gentleman of Character in Boston, to be distributed among the poorer Sort of People there.
11. Resolved that we will cordially join with our Friends and Brethren of this and the other Colonies, in such Measures as shall be judged most effectual for procuring Redress of our Grievances, and that upon obtaining such Redress if the Destruction of the Tea at Boston be regarded as an Invasion of private Property, we shall be willing to contribute towards paying the East India Company the Value: but as we consider the said Company as the Tools and Instrument of Oppression in the Hands of Government and the Cause of our present Distress, it is the Opinion of this Meeting that the People of these Colonies shou'd forbear all further Dealings with them, by refusing to purchase their Merchandize, until that Peace Safety and Good-order, which they have disturbed, be perfectly restored. And that all Tea now in this Colony, or which shall be imported into it shiped before the first Day of September next, shou'd be deposited in some Store-house to be appointed by the respective Committees of each County, until a sufficient Sum of Money be raised by Subscription to reimburse the Owners the Value, and then to be publickly burn'd and destroyed; and if the same is not paid for and destroyed as aforesaid, that it remain in the Custody of the said Committees, at the Risque of the Owners, until the Act of Parliament imposing a Duty upon Tea for raising a Revenue in America be repealed; and imediatly afterwards be delivered unto the several Proprietors thereof, their Agents or Attorneys.
12. Resolved that Nothing will so much contribute to defeat the pernicious Designs of the common Enemies of Great Britain and her Colonies as a firm Union of the latter; who ought to regard every Act of Violence or Oppression inflicted upon any one of them, as aimed at all; and to effect this desireable Purpose, that a Congress shou'd be appointed, to consist of Deputies from all the Colonies, to concert a general and uniform Plan for the Defence and Preservation of our common Rights, and continueing the Connection and Dependance of the said Colonies upon Great Britain under a just, lenient, permanent, and constitutional Form of Government.
13. Resolved that our most sincere and cordial Thanks be given to the Patrons and Friends of Liberty in Great Britain, for their spirited and patriotick Conduct in Support of our constitutional Rights and Privledges, and their generous Efforts to prevent the present Distress and Calamity of America.
14. Resolved that every little jarring Interest and Dispute, which has ever happened between these Colonies, shou'd be buried in eternal Oblivion; that all Manner of Luxury and Extravagance ought imediatly to be laid aside, as totally inconsistent with the threatening and gloomy Prospect before us; that it is the indispensable Duty of all the Gentlemen and Men of Fortune to set Examples of Temperance, Fortitude, Frugality and Industry; and give every Encouragement in their Power, particulary by Subscriptions and Premiums, to the Improvement of Arts and Manufactures in America; that great Care and Attention shou'd be had to the Cultivation of Flax, Cotton, and other Materials for Manufactures; and we recommend it to such of the Inhabitants who have large Stocks of Sheep, to sell to their Neighbors at a moderate Price, as the most certain Means of speedily increasing our Breed of Sheep, and Quantity of Wool.
15. Resolved that until American Grievances be redressed, by Restoration of our just Rights and Privileges, no Goods or Merchandize whatsoever ought to be imported into this Colony, which shall be shiped from Great Britain or Ireland after the first Day of September next, except Linnens not exceeding fifteen Pence [per] yard, (German Oznabrigs) coarse woolen Cloth, not exceeding two Shillings sterling [per] Yard, Nails Wire, and Wire-Cards, Needles & Pins, Paper, Salt Petre, and Medicines; which [three Articles only] may be imported until the first Day of September, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six; and if any Goods or Merchandize, othe[r] than those hereby excepted, shou'd be ship'd from Great Britain, {or Ireland} after the time aforesaid, to this Colony, that the same, immediately upon their Arrival, shou'd either be sent back again, by the Owners their Agents or Attorn[ey]s, or stored and deposited in some Ware-house, to be appointed by the Committee for each respective County, and there kept, at the Risque and Charge of the Owners, to be delivered to them, when a free Importation of Goods hither shall again take Place. And that the Merchants and Venders of Goods and Merchandize within this Colony ought not to take Advantage of our present Distress b[u]t continue to sell the Goods and Merchandize which they now have, or which may be shiped to them before the first Day of September next, at the same Rates and Prices they have been accustomed to do, within one Year last past; and if any Person shall sell such Goods on any other Terms than above expressed, that no Inhabitant of this Colony shou'd at any time, for ever thereafter, deal with him, his Agent, Factor, or Store keepers for any Commodity whatsoever.
16. Resolved that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that the Merchants and Venders of Goods and Merchandize within this Colony shou'd take an Oath, not to sell or dispose of any Goods or Merchandize whatsoever, which may be shiped from Great Britain {or Ireland} after the first Day of September next as afoes, except the (three) Articles before excepted, and that they will, upon Receipt of such prohibited Goods, either send the same back again by the first Opportunity, or deliver them to the Committees in the respective Countys, to be deposited in some Warehouse, at the Risque and Charge of the Owners, until they, their Agents or Factors be permitted to take them away by the said Committees: the Names of those who refuse to take such Oath to be advertized by the respective Committees in the Countys wherein they reside. And to the End that the Inhabitants of this Colony may know what Merchants, and Venders of Goods and Merchandize have taken such Oath, that the respective Committees shou'd grant a Certificate thereof to every such Person who shall take the same.
17. Resolved that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that during our present Difficulties and Distress, no Slaves ought to be imported into any of the British Colonies on this Continent; and we take this Opportunity of declaring our most earnest Wishes to see an entire Stop for ever put to such a wicked cruel and unnatural Trade.
18. Resolved that no kind of Lumber shou'd be exported from this Colony to the West Indies, until America be restored to her constitutional Rights and Liberties if the other Colonies will accede to a like Resolution; and that it be recommended to the general Congress to appoint as early a Day as possible for stopping such Export.
19. Resolved that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, if American Grievances be not redressed before the first Day of November one thousand seven hundred and seventy five, that all Exports of Produce from the several Colonies to Great Britain {or Ireland} shou'd cease; and to carry the said Resolution more effectually into Execution, that we will not plant or cultivate any Tobacco, after the Crop now growing; provided the same Measure shall be adopted by the other Colonies on this Continent, as well those who have heretofore made Tobacco, as those who have n[o]t. And it is our Opinion also, if the Congress of Deputies from the several Colonies shall adopt the Measure of Non-exportation to Great Britain, as the People will be thereby disabled from paying their Debts, that no Judgements shou'd be rendered by the Courts in the said Colonies for any Debt, after Information of the said Measure's being determined upon.
20. Resolved that it is the Opinion of this Meeting that a solemn Covenant and Association shou'd be entered into by the Inhabitants of all the Colonies upon Oath, that they will not, after the Times which shall be respectively agreed on at the general Congress, export any Manner of Lumber to the West Indies, nor any of their Produce to Great Britain {or Ireland}, or sell or dispose of the same to any Person who shall not have entered into the said Covenant and Association; and also that they will no import or receive any Goods or Merchandize which shall be ship'd from Great Britain {or Ireland} after the first Day of September next, other than the before enumerated Articles, nor buy or purchase any Goods, except as before excepted, of any Person whatsoever, who shall not have taken the Oath herein before recommended to be taken by the Merchants and Venders of Goods nor buy or purchase any Slaves hereafter imported into any Part of this Continent until a free Exportation and Importation be again resolved on by a Majority of the Representatives or Deputies of the Colonies. And that the respective Committees of the Countys, in each Colony so soon as the Covenant and Association becomes general, publish by Advertisements in their several Counties {and Gazettes of their Colonies}, a List of the Names of those (if any such there be) who will not accede thereto; that such Traitors to their Country may be publickly known and detested.
21. Resolved that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that this and the other associating Colonies shou'd break off all Trade, Intercourse, and Dealings, with that Colony Province or Town which shall decline or refuse to agree to the Plan which shall be adopted by the general Congress.
22. Resolved that shou'd the Town of Boston be forced to submit to the late cruel and oppressive Measures of Government, that we shall not hold the same to be binding upon us, but will, notwithstanding, religiously maintain, and inviolably adhere to such Measures as shall be concerted by the general Congress, for the preservation of our Lives, Liberties and Fortunes.
23. Resolved that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful Petition and Remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent Firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileg[es,] lamenting the fatal Necessity of being compelled to enter into Measur[es] disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow Subjects in Great Britain; declaring, in the strongest Terms, ou[r] Duty and Affection to his Majesty's Person, Family [an]d Government, and our Desire to continue our Dependance upon Great Bri[tai]n; and most humbly conjuring and besecching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful Subjects of America to a State of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one Appeal. And it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that after such Petition and Remonstrance shall have been presented to his Majesty, the same shou'd be printed in the public Papers, in all the principal Towns in Great Britain.
24. Resolved that George Washington Esquire, and George Broadwater Gent. lately elected our Representatives to serve in the general Assembly, be appointed to attend the Convention at Williamsburg on the first Day of August next, and present these Resolves, as the Sense of the People of this County, upon the Measures proper to be taken in the present alarming and dangerous Situation of America.

WHY THE TEA PARTY IS RIGHT

If you do not appreciate the Tea Party movement, it suggests you do not understand the predicament their rank and file currently find themselves in. They do not want a socialistic America. If you do not think the health care bill is a form of socialism, please review your political history. It is. What makes it palpable to most Americans is that we are not driven by ideology and do not care HOW we achieve our goals, just that we achieve them. For the record, I also think the health care bill (please don't call it a health insurance bill, that is pure nonsense) is a good thing because it will save lives, and to follow up on my earlier "logic" I am not terribly interested in HOW we save lives, just that we do. But, the tea party is driven by ideology, and thus, the means do  not always justify the ends. So, the Democratic party, from the Tea Party perspective CANNOT represent their interests (which by the way, from a historical perspective are not without precedent.) And so your average Tea Partier sees the Democratic view as when the GOVERNMENT is healthy, AMERICA is healthy. And that they cannot stomach (nor should they). But if not the Democrats, then who? NOT the Republican Party. I, you, we, them, take your pick, can all see that the Republican Party has been bought, sold and paid for over and over by BIG BUSINESS, to the degree that the Republican Party has actually, well, stopped denying it. You may think they are still playing this game, but in fact, they are not. I don't want to spend too much time belaboring this point, so let's just cut to the chase. What the Party is trying to sell is that when BUSINESS is healthy, AMERICA is healthy. And I suggest to you, the Tea Party cannot tolerate this perspective either. So who? Who will represent their interests? The INTERESTS of the INDIVIDUAL, the COMMON INDIVIDUAL? AKA, US.  Unless I am reading the tea leaves (no pun intended) incorrectly, it appears to me the Tea Party seems to believe that when the PEOPLE are healthy, AMERICA is healthy. And by healthy, I mean guaranteeing that EVERY individual American has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And so, I suggest to you, who in government represents that interest? If you say OBAMA, you are wrong. If you say the Republicans, you are wrong. Do you think the Founding Fathers would have approved of the bail out of the banking industry and take over of GM? They would not. And if you think the Founding Fathers would have approved of the rise of the Corporation as the dominant force it has become, you are quite mistaken. At a minimum, whether in the form of government, religion or I would argue business interests, the Founding Fathers who abhorred PATERNALISM in all forms and did their best to protect the INDIVIDUAL'S right to think and decide, whether right or wrong, FOR THEMSELVES. Last time I looked, the Tea Party is actually doing, for better or for worse, just that. So, you still think their movement is without merit? If so, I suggest you stop focusing on their supposed "leaders" and look at the movement itself. These folks are mad, and they have every right tot be. And, if you do not believe they have a right to voice their opinions and find their way through the politically repugnant landscape they find themselves in, well, you might check your "I know better" credentials at the door. They are not welcome there, or here.