include_once("common_lab_header.php");
Excerpt for Liberation Day: Our Nation Empowered by the Constitution by , available in its entirety at Smashwords

LIBERATION DAY
Our Nation Empowered by the Constitution

by
Eric Martin

Smashwords Edition

Published on Smashwords by:
The Liberation Day Movement
www.liberationday.com

Liberation Day
Our Nation Empowered by the Constitution
Copyright 2017 by Eric Martin

Cover design by Sherwin Soy

Scripture quotations taken from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB)
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995
by The Lockman Foundation
Used by permission. www.Lockman.org

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal use only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author’s work.

Dedicated to God.

“Commit your works to the Lord and your plans will be established.”
Proverbs 16:3

CONTENTS

FROM THE HEART

OUR PRESENT CRISIS

WHAT WENT WRONG, WHO’S TO BLAME, AND HOW WE CAN FIX IT

ON DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, AND THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM

THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

THE LIBERATION DAY PLAN: 23 EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION IN THE UNITED STATES

Immediately Dissolving Portions of the United States Department of the Treasury

Immediately Dissolving Portions of the United States Department of Defense

Immediately Dissolving Portions of the United States Department of Justice

Immediately Dissolving Portions of the United States Department of the Interior

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Agriculture

Immediately Dissolving Portions of the United States Department of Commerce

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Labor and Moving Portions of it to Other Parts of the Government

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Health and Human Services

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Transportation

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Energy

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Education

Immediately Dissolving the United States Department of Homeland Security

Immediately Closing All Offices of Trade Officers or Moving Them Under the Authority of an Ambassador

Immediately Leaving the United Nations and a Declaration by the United States that It Gives No Authority for Any Law or Resolution that has Passed or ever will Pass in the United Nations

Immediately Dissolving the Central Intelligence Agency

Immediately Dissolving the Environmental Protection Agency

Immediately Dissolving the Small Business Administration

Dissolving 128 Federal Entities

Reducing the Functions of Eight Entities that are Partially Unconstitutional

A CALL TO ARMS

MORE EXECUTIVE ORDERS REGARDING ITEMS THAT ARE NOT FORMAL FEDERAL ENTITIES

Immediately Auditing and Dissolving the Federal Reserve

Immediately Ending All Effects of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision and Putting All Laws, Regulations, and Opinions Regarding the Murder of Human Embryos, Unborn Babies, and Born Babies in the Hands of the People and Their States

Immediately Ending All Undeclared War and Immediately Dissolving All Foreign Military Bases

CONCLUSION

ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

ENDNOTES

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Chapter 1
FROM THE HEART

“I just want to read a quote that I find very interesting by Frédéric Bastiat, an economist from the eighteen hundreds, it goes, ‘The state is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.’ It seems to me that throughout our history the time when we were most prosperous was the time when we did not outsource our desires and wants to the government but rather pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps and did it ourselves. I’m wondering which candidate will get out of our lives.”

Josh Rae spoke those words during the primary season of 2012. They fired me up. I was angry; I was livid at the government and the way it messed up my life and everyone else’s lives. Josh spoke those words at an event where the Republican and Democratic candidates for U.S. Congress had to listen to community members and the issues they thought were important. I was one of seven Republican contenders. At the end, we had the opportunity to respond to the audience in about two minutes. Here’s a little of what I said, mainly responding to the statement by Josh Rae, “It is so true; we as politicians, we need to get out of your lives. Who cares about us!? We don’t matter! You matter!” If only every politician understood those words, or ever even pondered them.

Josh wanted to get his comment in last because he knew the final comment was the most remembered, and he did get it in last, and it worked. When I spoke into the microphone for the first time, at least one person in the audience jerked their head up. I was speaking so loudly because I desired liberty so much for the people of our nation and myself.

I still desire liberty. I desire more freedom—freedom for myself and freedom for others. I wrote this book to help relieve that burden if only a little bit. The goal of this book is to free our nation, but we will need more than a book to free us.

It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
―Samuel Adams

That is what we need. I hope each of you will join me in being the minority that is fighting for freedom. In the Revolutionary War, there were 3% of the people fighting for freedom, 10% actively supporting it, and 20% on the side of freedom.1 We don’t need a bigger minority than what they had.

A lot of this book is detail-oriented and gets into every single entity within the federal government, but right now, I want to forget the details and speak from the heart.

The Constitution breaching federal government disgusts me, and the politicians not following the U.S. Constitution offend me. To swear or affirm that they will uphold the Constitution, with many of them not even seriously reading it, is a disturbing reality of the morality of our leaders today. It’s as if people have utterly forgotten or ignored what it means to follow through on their word.

It saddens me when I think about the things that I have to live with today because of our federal government which has stomped, battered, and torn up our Constitution:

• Over 54 million unborn babies have been murdered freely because of a court case that was butchered by the Supreme Court.

• We have had numerous undeclared wars where hundreds of thousands of our men and women were killed or wounded; our opponents in those wars have had hundreds of thousands of more people who have died, not to mention those who were injured, and we’re still in undeclared war.

• I have to pay income taxes, in part to pay for hundreds of thousands of pages of unconstitutional laws and regulations, and trillions of dollars of unconstitutional “transfers” of my money.

• I’m forced to testify against myself by signing my income tax return.

• The Federal Reserve makes our incomes worth very little because they pump inflation through the system that almost exclusively benefits the mega-rich, the military-industrial complex, the banks, other nations, and whoever they choose to bail out.

• Businesses in our nation have to contend with a crushing load of regulations and taxes.

• I can’t start a business without considering whether I comply with all of the federal regulations and taxes.

• Farmers have to deal with all of the regulations imposed on them.

• Health insurers and health providers in the United States have to endure a higher number and more restrictive regulations than providers in any other nation in the history of mankind; we pay the price through slower care and higher costs.

• Pharmaceutical companies are in bed with the federal government and force millions and even billions of dollars’ worth of testing for drugs that should only be tested according to private sector or state regulations.

• Schools in our nation have to consider what the federal government might say while educating our children; public schools need to comply with an ugly assortment of requirements; and many kids don’t want to eat school lunches because Michelle Obama got involved in making them “healthy”: Her ‘Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act’ may have caused over one million kids to stop eating school lunches.2

• The citizens of our nation live in fear of constant surveillance because through the Patriot Act, the NSA is carefully watching any or all of us.

• Special interest groups, billionaire bankers, and corporate elites have a virtual stranglehold on Washington and politicians ignore the interests of the people and pass unconstitutional laws written by these entities.

• Issues like gay marriage, gun rights, abortion, drugs, sex, porn, and discrimination by private individuals or firms are being considered at the federal level even though they are clearly meant to stay in the hands of the people and the states: why would we illegalize drugs at the federal level when we don’t even illegalize most murders at the federal level?

This list could go on. I hope I’ve highlighted some key areas that resonate with you. One of the most significant issues I have with all of these unconstitutional intrusions of the federal government is that legislators have a law. It’s the supreme law of the land called the U.S. Constitution. How can these legislators expect us to follow the rules that they (or their special interests and career regulators) write when they are not following their law, the U.S. Constitution?

This book is a call to arms. But the arms aren’t guns and weapons; the arms are our minds. I’m asking you to consider the words in this book carefully. Are these federal entities constitutional? Are they needed? Are they fair? Are they useful? Are they good?

Liberation Day presents twenty-three executive orders that bring the United States on the path towards the original intent of the Constitution in a single day. It dissolves or significantly downsizes over 250 federal entities, including a handful of entire Departments. We need to use our minds to come together and fight for this plan collectively, or better yet, we should fight for the goal of this plan. The goal of this plan is the restoration of the Constitution in this nation.

If you have any questions about the Constitution or the original meaning that the Founding Fathers’ had in mind when they wrote it, please check out “On the U.S. Constitution.” It’s the appendix near the back of the book. The Constitution is our nation’s supreme-law document that informs us that the goals of the executive orders in this book must be achieved to bring a return to legal, constitutional government in our nation. The appendix shows the legal authority a president has to get rid of over 250 federal entities in a single day through twenty-three executive orders.

The executive orders empower the people and their States to live freely and prosper. Our nation is founded on the principle that our state governments and our federal government have no power in and of themselves, but instead, their power flows from the people. By putting power back into the hands of the people, our nation is more powerful. The people are our nation, not the government. The government is merely a product of the people.

Liberation Day also frees the people to obey the government, because it’s easier to obey someone who’s governing you when the people doing the governing are just. There will be justice when legislators and the rest of the federal government start following their law.

The problems in the list above greatly distress me, and the Liberation Day plan entirely or partially solves most of those issues in a single day. I have many hopes in life, but my greatest hope for our nation is that it starts following the Constitution. Following it means that hundreds of entities would cease to exist, and the respective areas in which they function would be dealt with by the people, and if the people so desire, by their states. Dual regulation by the state and the federal government will cease to exist in hundreds of areas. I might be wrong, but my theory is that I will have a great peace when those problems I listed aren’t plaguing my life.

I strive for justice, and Liberation Day will give us a big chunk of it because through it, the Constitution will start being followed. I believe following the Constitution is a part of justice because, in the Bible, Paul writes, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.” When it comes to issues of government, the highest legal authority for legislators, lawyers, and executives in this nation to follow is the Constitution of the United States.

That restoration will bring us real freedom. Real freedom means prosperity, but it also means many specific things that, alone, seem small, but together they are enormous. It includes the sovereignty of the states and the people to do as they please regarding guns, unborn babies (though I’m personally 100% pro-life), planes, trains, automobiles, homes, the decision to fight in a war or not, and almost every part of life. The Constitution is not a list of things the government can’t do. Those who think they understand the Constitution don’t realize that this is perhaps the most misunderstood concept about the Constitution. The truth is, the Constitution is a list of the few things that the federal government can do. It is an exclusive list. In 99.9% of cases this means: if something is not listed as a power of the federal government in the Constitution, the federal government is legally banned from carrying out that power.

You may say, “What about the Bill of Rights? That’s in the Constitution, and it contains prohibitions.” You would be right. The Bill of Rights is a set of prohibitions on the federal government, but those prohibitions are merely unnecessary reiterations of the prohibitions on the federal government that are already built into the Constitution. Some of the founders wanted the Bill of Rights to be used as a learning tool highlighting the importance of specific freedoms. Others were afraid that, in time, people would forget that the Constitution is a list of powers, not a list of prohibitions. The latter group was correct. Now, we must fix this problem of misunderstanding with our minds. We must understand what the Constitution truly means and tell our children and the people we can influence about it too.

The Founding Fathers would demand nothing less than for us to follow the original intent of the Constitution. If we have faith in the God of the Bible, He requires nothing less than for us to be perfect, as Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, “...be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” I can think of no better, politically feasible thing to do to get our government closer to perfect than to start following the supreme law of the land in our nation. You and I must make this happen: our country depends on it. Without the Constitution, the immoral and unjust things around us will keep happening, and worse things will happen. With the Constitution restored, we will help to create peace and security for ourselves and future generations. For liberty!

Chapter 2
OUR PRESENT CRISIS

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
―President Ronald Reagan

The year is 2017. Our federal government is sitting under $19.97 trillion of debt.3 That’s more debt than the economic output of the entire United States in 2016. The debt surpassed GDP in 2011 for the first time since 1947, just after World War II.4

In 15 years, from 2000 to 2015, the federal debt went from $5.7 trillion5 to $18.2 trillion. That’s a compound annual growth rate of 8.06%. If our debt increases at that rate for the next 15 years, we’ll be $64 trillion in debt in 2032.

That growth of debt is not sustainable, and the markets may not let us get to that level of debt, at least not without massive inflation. That inflation could massively erode the cash in our bank accounts and the bonds in our retirement accounts.

We have a choice. We are at a pivotal point in our nation, perhaps the pivotal point. We can keep on our current path, or we can choose a better path.

The chart below shows the government debt to gross domestic product (or GDP, a nation’s economic output in one year) ratio for a few major countries so that you can see where we stand.

These are ratios from December 2015.6 Once we get into that 200 to 300% zone, we’ll be in trouble. But right now, we are near the point of no return. The time to reduce our debt is now, or we may have to suffer the consequences of a default on our debt, or a virtual default through hyperinflation.

This 104.17% ratio for the federal debt of the United States does not factor in any state or local debt. Those debts are an additional drag on our ability to pay the federal debt. State and local debt can be thought of as car loans and credit card debt, but there’s also the mortgage, which is the federal debt.

If our economy grows even close to the 3.22% that it averaged from 1947-2016, then with 2.5% growth from 2016 until 2032,7 we’ll go from a GDP of $18.56 trillion in 2016 to a GDP of $27.55 trillion in 2032. Imagine having $64 trillion of national debt with a $27.5 trillion economy. That’s a debt to GDP ratio of 232.7%. All I’ve done to calculate that 232.7% is divide the $64 trillion in debt we will have with a similar growth-rate of debt, then divided it by the output we will have in that year when estimating 2.5% yearly growth, and then multiplied by one hundred. Our debt to GDP ratio will have eclipsed Italy, Japan, and Greece’s recent ratios.

To look at this another way, let’s compare our debt to a typical American household. The current income of the federal government, the taxes it collects in a year, is $3.3 trillion. Its debt stands at $19.97 trillion.8 The median household income in the United States in 2011 was $50,054.9 For reference, the average household debt that year was $70,000.10

If the $50,054 a year household had the same level of debt as the federal government in 2017, it would be a debt of $300,324. Remember, this is like the “mortgage,” and it doesn’t count the state and local government’s “auto” and “credit card” debts.

In 2032, just 15 years from this book’s writing, if the government’s revenue grows at 2.5% a year, and its debt grows as it did from 2000 to 2015, the federal government will bring in about $4.8 trillion a year, and its debt will have increased to $64 trillion. That’s like our median family getting a pay raise and earning about $72,500 a year, but having a $962,538 mortgage. Now, imagine earning $72,500 a year, but having a $962,538 mortgage. At a 30-year 3.92% fixed rate, that’s $54,612 per year in mortgage payments. That’s where our government is headed by 2032. I don’t want that to happen; I don’t even think the markets would let that happen. The markets won’t let it happen because they won’t buy bonds if they doubt they will be paid back, or if they think the bonds will lose real value because of inflation. The markets would require an extremely high interest rate to be willing to buy that bond.

We have to take a stand. We have to say no to just one more penny being added to the federal debt. This book advocates for a radical departure from the way things have been done over the past one hundred years. Our only choice if we want to remain solvent is a radical departure. It’s radical in practice, but in theory, it’s not radical because it’s no change at all. It’s simply going back to the meaning of the words of the Constitution when the founders wrote them. It’s going back to the meaning of the words when the writers of the amendments wrote them. The time is now to save our nation. But how did we get where we are, and how can we claw our way back out? This book answers those questions.

...The truth will set you free.”
―Jesus, John 8:32

How to Read this Book

This book is meant to be read in order; however, any of the chapters and sections in this book can be read alone, and if you ever feel like a section is something you’re already familiar with, feel free to skip it: you shouldn’t have too much trouble picking up somewhere else.

Chapter 3
WHAT WENT WRONG, WHO’S TO BLAME, AND HOW WE CAN FIX IT

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
―Thomas Paine11

We’ve come to the point where the only entity above the law in our country is the government itself, and the special interests that control it. The federal government thinks it’s above the law because it routinely and increasingly ignores its own law, which it must abide by: The Constitution of the United States of America.

That’s all the Constitution is: a simple working document that describes everything which “constitutes” the federal government. It’s a working document because anytime it is found to be inadequate to serve our nation, it can be amended. It is the Supreme Law over the rest of the federal government, so the federal government is disobeying the law because it is doing things not contained in the Constitution.

Where Did We Go Wrong?

We’ve missed the forest for the trees. We’ve been worrying about whether to raise the debt ceiling, and we need to be focused on lowering the debt ceiling. We’re worried about trimming a few trees, and the whole forest is burning down. We need to chop down all the trees around us to save ourselves from being consumed by the fire. This isn’t a matter of how much we need to decrease a department’s budget (which almost never happens anyway); rather, this is a matter of how many departments we need to completely eradicate.

Total 2015 Federal Spending

Here are the forest and the trees for your reference. Most of these categories of spending are entirely or almost entirely unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

12

Who’s to Blame?

It seems that The Times of London once posed a similar question, “What’s wrong with the world today?” The story goes that G.K. Chesterton responded as follows:

Dear Sir,

I am.

Yours, G.K. Chesterton.13

That sums it up nicely.

I am to blame for the problems of our federal government, and the problems of my state’s (Pennsylvania) government, for that matter. I have not been diligent enough in vetting candidates; prior to 2012, I did not vote in every one of the elections; I have not made sure that people running for state office would uphold the state or federal Constitution; I have not done a good enough job of making sure that federal candidates would uphold the Constitution; I haven’t run for office much; I have not pressured current officeholders to follow the Constitution; I have not told enough people about the need for a return to the Constitution; and I have caused our nation to be in this terrible state of affairs.

In 2012, I ran for U.S. Congress in the Republican primaries. I got fifth out of seven contenders. It wasn’t until I ran for Congress that I realized the significance of voting, even for the lesser positions. Since then, I’ve voted in every general, primary, and special election, as far as I know.

I don’t know if there could be a better education for me about the importance of voting than my run for Congress. I learned that everyone running for office is a flawed human, but we can impact which human gets into office with our vote.

It would not have put him in office, but the person just behind me in the race lost to me by just nine votes. I got a total of 2,159 votes, and he got 2,150 votes. That means that if just five votes that went for me instead went to him, he would have beaten me. That proved to me that every vote counts, and your vote counts.

People would tell me that politics is nasty. All I can say is what I saw: everyone I ran with on the Republican side was quite friendly toward one another, even though people threw a few normal jabs during forums or debates. We did not have too many meet-ups with the two Democrats who were running during events, but they seemed okay at least some of the time.

Running showed me that since we are all flawed, we need to do our best to elect the best person for the job, and also to run more when there’s an opportunity when we might be the best person for the job. We need to elect the person who is best able to follow the Constitution, both federal and state if applicable. I still struggle with these things and can do a better job of them. Perhaps we all can.

I’m to blame for the present crisis, but I also see the problem a little more clearly now: because of that, I am working harder to fix it. I want more people to run for office because it may be the best way to understand the flaws of humans in politics and also to understand the enormity of the problem.

Even if you run and don’t win, you can change the conversation and hopefully get candidates and the public to think in a new way. I believe I did that in 2012. I ran on a Constitution platform, saying at one venue “the Constitution is the solution.” I still believe that it is the solution or at least the best possible first step that I know of, and it will get us about 95% of the way to “perfect” federal government compared to where we are now. I brought up the Constitution so much throughout the campaign that other candidates started talking about it. I think it had quite an impact, and I hope it had an impact on my current congressman, Scott Perry, who eventually got into office out of that field of seven Republicans.

I am the problem, and I am working now to reverse that. I will never be perfect, and the problem is immense, but I must do something because the alternative is that my children and grandchildren, if I am blessed with them, will look at me or think of me one day and say, “Why didn’t you do something? Surely you could have done something?”

How does Government Work in the United States?

Of the 195 countries in the world, only about 25 use a federal system of government.14 Federalism is where there are multiple levels of government with power. The United States has two layers: The state layer with 50 states, and the federal layer with one federal government governing alongside all of the states. A local government within a state, such as a county or a city or a township, doesn’t typically have direct power, but rather, it has indirect power. Its indirect power is given to it by the state government of the state where it is located.

At the founding of the United States, power flowed from the people to create the state governments, and later it flowed from the state governments to create the central, federal government. In each case, we have a government created by “We the People.” “We the People” wasn’t a new concept when it was put into the Preamble of the Constitution. “We the People” was a concept that ran deep in the minds of Americans because we had recently thrown off the British and we wanted to rule ourselves instead of having British rule.

Our federalist system means that the states hold the keys to all governmental power in our nation, and the people hold the keys to the state governments. The states ceded some of their governmental power over to the federal government with a document that lists specific powers in which the states agreed that the federal government could have a role.

The people who wrote the Constitution would be very confused if they had a look at our government today. It would make no sense to them that we have 50 departments of agriculture, one in each state that governs and regulates agriculture in each state, as well as one Department of Agriculture at the federal level governing and regulating agriculture in every state. We have two sets of regulations for agriculture in every state. That would make no sense to our founding fathers, and it should make no sense to us. The Constitution never ceded any power over agriculture to the federal government, so the states are justified in having departments of agriculture, and the federal government is unjust in having one. The central government usurped power, went against the boundaries created in the Constitution, and has done something illegal. Everything the federal government has done related to agriculture is null and void if the law is being properly interpreted.

It’s not that we couldn’t have a federal Department of Agriculture, it’s just that a simple amendment to the Constitution would first be required in order to make it legal. That’s the beauty of the Constitution: it’s 100% flexible. There are hundreds of examples of areas where the federal government has usurped power from the states against the Constitution. A government that follows federalism needs to have roles for each level of government that are actually followed, so what we have now would more accurately be called “double government,” not federalism. A large portion of this book aims to get rid of double government and restore federalism.

50 Engines of Innovation

When the state governments are free to do as they wish, without the federal government holding them back and strangling them with mandates and extra layers of regulation, the states can shine. Each of the 50 states become a little engine of legislative, executive, and (perhaps) judicial innovation.

Each state can get rid of laws and regulations, or create them as they see fit. When these changes work well, other states can jump on board; when they fail, other states can steer clear.

Right now, the federal government and the states each have their own departments or agencies for education. When the federal government mandates anything, the states’ hands are then tied in that area and they can’t innovate in that area. The founders of our nation did not intend this. Federal involvement in education and most other areas that they are involved in is unconstitutional. The founders’ intent was for the states to be able to innovate freely in every area except for the few enumerated powers that are given over from the states to the federal government through the Constitution.

The legally binding rules for the federal government within the Constitution create a great “barrier to entry” that prohibits the federal government to get involved in the affairs of the states. There is nowhere where the federal government may enter into state affairs except for the areas that the few constitutionally enumerated powers allow. The enumerated powers are like doors through the barrier of entry that allow access into specific rooms (areas of power) within the states. Those few doors have been unlocked by the states through the Constitution, and all other doors remain locked. Only a ratified constitutional amendment could unlock another door.

The doors that the federal government has unconstitutionally pried open need to again be closed, locked, and sealed. The people, the federal government, and the states need to do everything in their power to accomplish this. We will then return to a fully functioning federation of states that are 50 engines of innovation, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in this country, or probably even the world, for well over 100 years.

How this Book Can Fix Our Government

A government above the law must be stopped, and I believe it can be stopped. This book is a plan to be used by the office of the president of the United States to bring our federal government to constitutional governance in just one day. It’s not perfect, but it is the starting point which I believe all presidential candidates should start with, tweak if needed, and then carry out. The movement for liberty started at our nation’s founding, and it has seen a resurgence since Ron Paul’s second presidential campaign, which he announced in 2007. We must continue the fight for liberty and bring back our constitutional republic. Freedom is good, so let’s fight for it.

This book is called Liberation Day because we need to be liberated from a government that is no longer following the Constitution of the United States of America; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. There must be no compromise on every issue contained in the Constitution. There are many, many areas that are constitutional where compromise is totally permitted. For example, “duties, imports, and excises” are certain types of taxes found in the Constitution: Individuals in Congress can, constitutionally speaking, compromise at any time on these taxes because there is no constitutional requirement for them to make an oath that they will raise, lower, eliminate, or create these taxes. There is, however, a requirement that members of Congress swear or affirm to uphold the Constitution. So, on any issue, there can be compromise except for constitutional issues.

Other examples of potential compromise are the rights of the people and the states. These are huge areas where people and entities can act freely in almost every area. Acting freely can be an act of compromising on something.

A person can compromise on his or her values as he or she sees fit. There’s not a universally agreed upon the supreme law that people must follow when it comes to values. This is unlike legislators, justices, and presidents, they all have a supreme law which they have agreed to uphold, the Constitution.

The states can compromise as they desire, similar to individuals, as long as they are in line with the United States Constitution and their own state’s constitution. Here’s an alcohol-related state compromise: Let’s say alcohol is heavily regulated in your state. You’re a state legislator, and you believe alcohol should be outlawed by the government. You notice that people are bringing in alcohol from other states. People are even moving out of your state because of the strict alcohol regulations that are in place at the state level. Even though you think illegalizing alcohol is the ideal, you may vote to reduce alcohol regulations anyway. So, you want alcohol illegal, but you vote to make it more legal. How could this be? This could be a compromise to your own convictions but done for the wellbeing of your state. As long as this compromise does not go against your state constitution or the US Constitution, it’s okay in that it’s legal.

But if the federal Constitution says that drugs cannot be made illegal by the federal government within state borders, then there can be no compromise on that issue. This means that federal legislators cannot make drugs illegal within states because that would be a compromise on the Constitution. That would be an unconstitutional law. It is illegal for a congressperson to vote “yes” to a law like that, but unfortunately, we’ve come to a point where almost everyone is turning a blind eye to these illegal votes. It’s not good.

I’m pushing so hard on this topic of compromise because I want you to know that I believe in compromise, and I believe that government cannot function without it. The Constitution would not have been completed without major compromise on the issues of slavery and the voting power of the states. Slave states wanted slavery to be left unchanged, while some northern states thought the immorality of slavery was becoming more evident. Large states wanted more representation in Congress than smaller states. In both cases, there were compromises in the Constitution.

In the slavery example, slavery was originally constitutionally allowed by the states because, in the 1700s, there were states with legal slavery. The Constitution wouldn’t have been ratified if slavery was banned because so many states had slavery. It wasn’t until 1865 that the Constitution was amended with the Thirteenth Amendment to forbid slavery. Of course, now that the Constitution has abolished slavery, it must remain that way unless the Constitution is amended again to allow slavery. In the 1700s, we needed compromise on slavery, and now we don’t because the Constitution has been changed.

Compromise on the Constitution itself, and, now that it has been properly ratified, is tantamount to the end of the rule of law in our land; we are no longer being ruled by the supreme law in our country. Without the rule of law, there can only be one thing remaining, and that thing is tyranny in one form or another. We have tyranny in our nation. We must start abiding by the Constitution to start ridding ourselves of that tyranny.

I can support compromise on many issues. But the Constitution is a very different animal. We, supposedly, live in a constitutional republic. In order for this to be true, our government needs to actually follow the Constitution, which it’s not doing. The beauty of a constitutional republic is not only that we get the benefits of elected representation but also that our government is limited by the Constitution.

Would anyone really want an unlimited republic? I hope you know what that means. It means we would have elected officials who could do whatever they felt like with no limits. Even though they’re barely abiding by the limits in the Constitution, do you know what we’d have with no constitution? I’m not sure, but perhaps we would have evolved into a dictatorship, or at the very least, special interests would have put a stranglehold on Congress even more than they do now. Congress would bow to every request for competition to be squashed, the power of Congress would be even more entrenched, and perhaps our government would have created an empire out of the entire world, rather than being satisfied with merely near-endless wars and an unjust police state.

I write this book believing that compromises throughout our nation’s history have been a large part of what have messed up our nation, but they may have been necessary at the time. I also believe that if we stop compromising on our nation’s supreme legal document, the Constitution, many of our government’s problems will be solved.

Liberation Day seeks to bring our nation’s government back to constitutional governance in just one day. It seeks to make it so that we no longer need any compromise on the Constitution and that we are following it faithfully and based on its original intent when written.

Government and politics are all about compromise; however, we cannot have any compromise on our Constitution because it is the supreme law of the land. By compromising our Constitution, we get an illegal government, and we’ve had many legislators and presidents at a federal level who have supported illegal measures insofar as they have not upheld the Constitution. It is illegal for federal officials to not uphold the Constitution because every federal legislator, judge, and president is required to swear or affirm to uphold the Constitution as a requirement of their service.

According to Article II of the Constitution, here is what presidents must do:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

If there’s any question about whether states can nullify unconstitutional federal law, it is answered in the last paragraph of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Nullification is the power of a state to ignore and not uphold any unconstitutional federal law. The text above from the Constitution shows us the implication that the Founders wanted state Legislators, Governors, and Judges, as well as all of those people at the federal level, including the President, to be bound to support the Constitution.

This means that nullifying a law that is unconstitutional is perfectly constitutional for any branch of government and even any executive or judicial officer in government. In fact, following the Constitution is a duty and obligation for these people, both in the state and the federal governments.

The founders felt it was so important that the Constitution be followed, and federal tyranny stopped, that they constitutionally commanded people in the state and the federal governments to support the Constitution. This powerful deference to the Constitution by the founders is almost impossible to overemphasize.

The first question that any congressperson, judge, or president should ask when they see any law or action of government is, “Where is this authorized in the Constitution?” If it is not authorized, they are bound to do everything in their power to stop that law or action in its tracks.

When they ask, “Where is this authorized?” we know that our leaders need to follow the original intent of the Constitution, not only because the founders made it clear that they wanted it interpreted that way, but also because original intent is implied in the Constitution. If the founders wanted the words of the Constitution to change in meaning over time depending on who is reading it or when it is read, they would not have written it because it would have no concrete meaning. Also, if the meaning of the Constitution could change on its own without a change of the written words, the founders wouldn’t have put a simple system for amending it into the Constitution itself.

I need to more carefully make sure that federal and state officials who I vote for more carefully stick to the Constitution and what it actually intends. As Ron Paul has alluded to, the power of our representatives to do anything in government flows from the people. We need to cut off the power of anyone not following the Constitution.

We need government to no longer be measured for greatness according to what it does, but it needs to be measured for greatness according to what it doesn’t do, and for the restraint it maintains. I believe this restraint is what many of the founders wanted as well, and it’s the beauty they got to see in the early federal government.

“When taxes are too high,
people go hungry.
When the government is too intrusive,
people lose their spirit.

Act for the people’s benefit.
Trust them; leave them alone.”
Tao Te Ching by Lao-tzu15

The Purposes of this Book

This book has three simple purposes: (1) to explain why we need to bring our government back in line with the United States Constitution, (2) to explain how constitutional government will fix many of our nation’s current problems, and (3) to detail a specific action plan that our President can use to bring us back to constitutional government in just one day.

A return to the Constitution is something that Democrats, Republicans, and other parties can get behind because it means a return to the rule of law, and it allows the people and the States to live according to their own wills. On average, Democrats should be able to live more according to their ideals, and Republicans more according to their ideals.

Nullification has not Fixed Our Problems Yet

Many people argue that nullification is a solution to the problem of our power-hungry federal government. I agree that nullification, or a state not upholding any federal law which is unconstitutional, is good; however, I am not focusing on this method of returning to the Constitution because it has already been detailed by many people, and it still leaves problematic issues such as those caused by the federal income tax.

The income tax may fund many things, both constitutional and unconstitutional, so how does the state nullify some proportion of the income tax and then ask the federal government to spend it where it sees the spending as proper and constitutional? I think issues like these are nearly impossible to deal with in practice, and I think the federal government would be inclined to collect as much income tax as possible and then spend it wherever it felt like, regardless of what any state has nullified.

There Is Hope in the Executive Branch

I also wrote this book because it presents another possible solution to the federal government’s usurpation of powers that were never granted to it: an executive branch that uses its power to “not execute laws,” in particular, unconstitutional laws, in order to return us to the Constitution.

I hope most of our federal representatives wake up to the Constitution (since most of them seem to be asleep), but since they continually disregard the Constitution, I feel electing the right president would be a great chance to take back our country for liberty.

I hope this book and its methods can be used in conjunction with nullification and any other strategy or tactic that can bring back our liberty. As far as I can tell, nothing has worked very well to strip the federal government of its power, at least over the past 100 years or so. So, I would like to offer another tool to use, and I would suggest that we use every legal tool available to bring back the Constitution, including using nullification, electing presidents who will nominate a judiciary that interprets the Constitution according to its original intent, voting people into the legislature who are committed to strictly following the Constitution, and demanding a president who is committed to using his or her power to execute or not execute laws, as part of his or her executive power, in order to uphold the Constitution.

The executive orders in this book are an outpouring of executive power. This executive power includes the president’s ability to no longer enforce decades, layers, and volumes of laws, minutia, and regulations that have been forced upon us against the will of our people, against the will of our founding document and, consequently, against the supreme law of the land.

Morally Speaking, the Constitution Must be Followed

Most religions and moral systems expect honesty from the people who swear or affirm the Constitution. It’s not only Jews or Christians who believe that there is a moral problem when our legislators, judges, and presidents don’t uphold the Constitution; it’s almost everyone. Our leaders need to follow the Constitution because they have sworn or affirmed to do so, and that makes it the right thing to do.

Article VI is where it says that all legislators, executives, and judges must agree that they are bound to uphold or support the Constitution. Even people in similar positions at the state level must agree to support the federal Constitution. Here’s part of Article VI: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

If people don’t uphold what they have sworn to uphold, doesn’t that make them immoral? Perhaps our federal government is falling apart because its members aren’t following through on their moral obligation. Is that what John Adams was talking about in 1798 when he said the following?

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
―John Adams16

The Fortress of Liberty

I am so excited by the many movements of liberty sweeping our nation. These movements are helped along by individual people – the books, blogs, and articles they’ve written; the offices they’ve won; the podcasts, videos, and speeches they’ve made; and the organizations they’ve started. All of these things are building on top of each other, like stones building a great Fortress of Liberty.

In many ways, I feel that Ron Paul has, in recent times, done the most to bring Liberty to the masses. Perhaps I am biased because Ron Paul is the one who most influenced my thinking towards liberty. It’s almost as if Ron Paul is a vanguard or rallying cry for the many groups whose ends are Liberty.

I want to give a shout out to a few of those groups who are doing a great job and are helping to lead our nation towards a more prosperous future. There is the Tenth Amendment Center, which has a big thrust for states to nullify any unconstitutional federal law; there’s the Tea Party movement, which harkens back to people who dressed up as American Indians and destroyed tea because of their disdain for taxes from a government where they had no representation in parliament; there’s the Constitution Party, which is all for the Constitution but also has a focus on God and the Bible; there’s the Libertarian Party with a strong disdain for almost all government; there’s the Mises Institute, which is about Austrian Economics and ending the Federal Reserve; there’s The Future of Freedom Foundation, which educates people about liberty; there’s Infowars by Alex Jones, which is exposing corrupt organizations, such as the Bilderberg Group; and of course, there are the organizations that Ron Paul started, including the Campaign for Liberty, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and the Ron Paul Liberty Report. I hope that this book is one more strengthening stone laid on top of this nation’s strong foundation of liberty.

Is the Constitution Dead?

Early on in my writing of this book, one of my good friends made a great Devil’s Advocate argument against it. He said I needed to address the people who would say that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, and that if we were to interpret it the way the founders would have interpreted it 200 years ago, we wouldn’t have a properly functioning government. Or it wouldn’t be a realistically sized government.

They would say that the Constitution needs to be interpreted differently because times have changed, the world has changed, and the federal government needs to do a lot more now because the world is a much more complicated place. Industry, in general, has really grown from a very small portion of the economy to a huge portion of it; the service sector has grown to make up a huge section of the economy; when the Constitution was first written, we had a very agrarian society: most people were farmers.

“Times have changed” is a good point against the goal of this book, which is to get us back to the way the founders envisioned our country through the Constitution. However, the remedy to this argument is three-fold. The first two parts of the remedy have to do with the 10th Amendment: anything that we think the government should be doing, we should look to (1) the people (both as individuals and through their organizations) and (2) the states to take care of, rather than the federal government.

For instance, absolutely every state already has an agricultural department of some sort,17 so there’s no need for there to be two layers of law and regulation for agriculture. Isn’t it obvious that the people and representatives of the state of Kansas know how to regulate their agriculture better than legislatures and bureaucrats in Washington, a small proportion of which are even from Kansas?

The states and the people are more than capable of taking care of most of these issues. Here’s a short list of some of the issues people and states are more than capable of dealing with: education, transportation, health, housing, poverty, and the environment.

The people take care of issues, such as poverty and housing, head on with such organizations as Feeding America, which tackles poverty, and Habitat for Humanity, which tackles housing. In many of these instances, the people could take over any role that the state and federal governments have played, but the key is to allow the states to do whatever they want in these areas: The federal government cannot interfere. There can be no question on this because it’s written directly in the Constitution’s 10th Amendment: “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 word “reserved” means that no other entity, especially not the federal government, can have any of those powers.

The day I understood that the Constitution was not a list of things that the federal government can’t do, but rather, a very short list of the only things the federal government can do, my understanding of the government changed profoundly. It makes it very simple for any of us to look at any officer in government, or at any law, and determine if what its actions are constitutional. If not, that officer or law needs to be thrown out.

Here’s simple explanation of the Constitution:

The Constitution is a very short list of the things the federal government can do, as well as a very short list of the things that state governments can’t do.

I don’t know if I can find anything in the Constitution that can’t fit into one of those two categories. The Constitution excludes almost every power from the federal government and permits almost every power for the state governments. The Constitution section of this book goes into the details of what the federal government can do and what the state governments can’t do according to the Constitution.

The reason that we need to allow the states to deal with housing or any other issue is because that’s what the Constitution calls for. Also, in general, we virtually never want the federal government limiting the states regarding what they can do. This is because if the federal government is limiting the states, then they are limiting the people, and then, the federal government might start to try to directly impose limitations on the people after being emboldened by successfully limiting the states. Stripping states of power is really just one step away from striping individuals of power.

If a state wants to choose, through their Constitution or otherwise, that they will not in any way be involved with agriculture, housing, et cetera, this is up to them, and it’s perfectly acceptable. I just don’t want the federal government telling states what they can and can’t do, except for the very few cases where the Constitution allows for this kind of interference. The section on the Constitution goes in-depth on the few things that the federal government has the power to do, and the few limits that the Constitution imposes on state governments.

The third and final counter to the argument that states: “We can’t go back to the Constitution and its original meaning because the world is much more complicated now that we’re in the 21st century” is that the Constitution (3) can be amended. This means that the Constitution can be changed. We can update the Constitution and tweak it so that it fits our 21st-century world. There are a few cases where it makes sense for the federal government to have more power than what the Founders gave to it, and that may be one of the reasons that the founders made the Constitution amendable.

What about Consistency and Efficiency?

Can’t the federal government create laws across the entire nation so that all fifty states have the same “rules to follow” and each doesn’t have to spend money legislating and regulating various areas? Of course it can, and it does. For example, the Constitution provides for uniform laws of bankruptcy throughout the states. Congress didn’t take too long to do this, passing the first bankruptcy law in 1800.18

About eight years ago, I had a coworker who wanted gay rights or gay marriage to be the norm across the United States. I explained to him that a federal law would be unconstitutional. He may have been angry at the Constitution. At the time, gay marriage was legal in a few states. I explained to him that that’s the beauty of the Constitution—leaving most laws at the state level. If he wanted, he could go to another state to get married. If Congress could legislate on gay marriage, they might do it, and at the time it would have probably meant that gay marriage would be illegal in all fifty states.

I marvel at the genius of states’ rights. If you don’t like the laws in your state, you can move to another state where things are more in your favor. If something should be done at a federal level, the Constitution can be amended, instead of illegally passing laws or declaring Supreme Court rulings that go against the Constitution.

As far as efficiency goes, you’ll see throughout this book that most states, as well as the federal government, have agencies for almost everything, such as education, agriculture, and healthcare. That’s not efficient because it means double government and double regulation. The federal government needs to get out of these areas. It’s duplication that has not gone away even though the federal government has unconstitutionally stepped on states’ rights. There is a federal Department of Agriculture and 50 state departments of agriculture.

If we want the “economies of scale” that a single governmental body could provide for an area, the Constitution must first be amended. We tried that with the prohibition of alcohol in 1920. The amendment didn’t go well, so we repealed it with another amendment in 1933. Alcohol has (largely) been in the hands of the states ever since. History shows that less is better when it comes to the federal government.


Continue reading this ebook at Smashwords.
Purchase this book or download sample versions for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-31 show above.)