Unfortunately, the original Boston Tea Party was held a low tide. The perpetrators were forced to jump into the water and smash the tea crates to ensure that the tea was ruined.

Having said that, you have, Mr. Alexander, once again hit the nail on the head. We can only hope that the tide of leftist judges has been severely slowed or even stopped, given the new makeup of Congress.

Mark, The "Sons of Liberty" were Masons from the lodge in Boston. They had had their meeting in the lodge room over the Green Dragon Inn and afterwards were having a libation in the inn when they decided to dress as Indians and dump the tea in the Boston Harbor. Paul Revere, a member of the lodge, on a trip to report to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, visited the Masonic Lodge in Trenton. Upon relating the story of the Boston Tea Party, the Masons in Trenton decided it was only proper that there was also a tea party there. They dumped the tea in the local harbor into the Delaware River.

Today's Tea Party movement is reminiscent of the disgust with government that was harbored by the members of the Boston Masonic Lodge. While most don't know or care who the "Sons of Liberty" were or where they originated, what is important is that the "Spirit of Liberty" is still to be found in most Americans.

Keep up the good work Mark and keep the Spirit alive.

Wonder how they ever mandated Social Security?

If the Federal Government can require every citizen to purchase a mandated item then for National Security it is time to Mandate every adult aged 18 and over to purchase a hand gun, be required to have extensive training in the usage of the weapon and if they fail to do so then a heavy fine and / or prison time. The nation would then be safe from occupation by foreign governments. It could also go a long way towards ending robberies , burglaries etc I dont think that the dems would support this but maybe the new Congress would? Either that or give up the mandate idea all together.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

I am under NO obligation to give up my rights/powers as a citizen regardless of what congress or the courts say. The Constitution was written in English, as were the Federalis Papers, so that I don't have to be told what my rights and powers as a citizen are. ...and I will not go quietly into the night.....or anywhere else.

Thank you, Mr. Alexander, for a very thoughtful and well written article. I appreciate the time and effort you extend from week to week keeping us informed and updated. I'm always in prayer for our nation. The Bible says that He (God) raises kings up and takes them down. Perhaps we are seeing the very beginnings of the "down" part of this verse. Through Christ we can do all things. we must not forget that God always works with a small number of people and accomplishes the impossible. I'm so glad I'm among that "small" number!

Do you all think King George III would have allowed an election to free the colonies from his tyrannical rule?

Do you really think that the push to tyrannical rule by our elected pukes and the unconstitutional legislation that has been enacted over the last 100 years will be allowed to be reversed by an election or two in this country?

The current Tea Party movement is about two years old; we declared our independence three years after the Boston Tea Party of 1773.

How long do you think a free population will be idle while their liberty is being stolen?

There comes a time when the threat of the brute force of government will no longer restrain those who love liberty.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 84: "I go further, and affirm that bills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. ... For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Hamilton's concerns were both prescient and well founded. The "despotic branch" has, through successive generations of extra-constitutional rulings, treated our Constitution, and especially its Bill of Rights, as, in Jefferson's words, "a mere thing of wax which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

Permit me to disagree with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Alexander. In Mr. Hamilton's time King George had trampled our unwritten and inalienable rights and in our time the liberals/leftists have trampled our in alienable rights though written. They need to be not only written into our Constitution but penalties need to be attached for those who would abbrogate or usurp those rights.

Good article. I wish you had mentioned Marberry v Marshall, the ruling that set in motion the despotic court.

Right on Mark! A Constitution does not make sense legally unless laws and the government and others must "support and defend" the meaning of that Constituion. You are at a key point in the history of defending that Constitution in that you have established this site and apparently the intent to establish stronger the "rule of law" rather than the freedom to enact any law regardless of whether the Constitution permits that new law.

As I earlier mentioned to you, Louise Leigh was also important in establishing Constitution Day as it was she who vigorously lobbied Congress and others in her efforts to establish that day and continued yearly to seek broadcasting of the reading of the Preamble on radio or TV by a national politician. She finally convinced Senator Robert Byrd to introduce the law establishing Constitution Day. (Louise Leigh passed away on Dec 6 2006. She would be in support of your efforts.)

However, it is now, when the Tea Party movement has had enough influence to greatly affect the November election as it did, that you must keep up your efforts and seek to expand to inform others of the need to support the principles needed.

I wish I could say that my much earlier participation in speech efforts influenced more as I partipated in oratory and extemporaneous school speech contests on the Constitution and debates on government and Constitutional efforts. However, it did have an effect on me, even if it did not seem to affect others much. I did benefit from an American Legion scholarship which they sponsored then regarding the Constitution. I believe they might still do that. Again, right on, Mark. Keep up the work!

Anyway, you have taken the torch and will probably pass it on to others in your efforts to support Constitutional principles. Rright on!

It is clear that Obama has absolute contempt for the Constitution. I hope the new congress has enough backbone to make Obama’s life intolerable to the point that he will not want to seek a second term. The Constitution is firmly establishing and will survive Obama’s disdain. Look forward to 2012 election. Merry Christmas.

S.J. Landaas: surely you must realize that Obama has two dominant characteristics - he is power hungry and is an over-the-top narcissist. Given that, there is no way he will not seek a second term no matter what Congress does or doesn't do between now and the election. It is up to true Patriots to send him back to the cesspool...er, Chicago...with his tail between his legs. He will not go quietly into the night or anywhere else, either.

Great article. As our government appears to be heading down the road to "Taxation without Representation", we can see a powerful new Tea Party on the horizon. We tried at the ballot box. That doesn't seem to be working as evidenced by the huge spending bills now being passed. It will take nothing short of a massive taxpayer rebellion to get their attention.

Dr G

Mark,

I can't thank you enough for your quote of the preamble to the Bill of Rights, which would be more properly named the "Bill of Protections". That essential preamble uses the words "declaratory and restrictive" to describe these amendments. In historical context, as well as in today's common meaning of these words, this preamble states very clearly that ANYTHING in the body of the Constitution that would conflict with these "declaratory" amendments would be "restricted" or void and unenforceable. There can be no other meaning!

Please use every opportunity to publish this preamble! I believe most citizens have never seen it and most judges simply ignore it.

Appreciate Mr. Alexander's essay today and all the comments, especially those of Mr.Chambers and Morning Glory. Too bad the despicable Abe Lincoln did not share President Washington's concept of States rights and the limits of federal power. What the States lost under Lincoln's rule has never been regained. A precedent was set and we are seeing it extended down to the present day and the accompanying loss of our liberties and freedoms.

Meanwhile, my grandchildren are being taught that he is one of our greatest presidents ever, and the Lincoln Myth contnues to be perpetuated. Having said that, I would love to see a requirement, which would certainly ensure "providing for the common defense," which Switzerland has, that every head of household own and be trained in the use of, a gun. Hardly any crime to speak of in that country.

mark: you need to dissect in detail what the slate editor, dahlia liftwick, said about the judge's decision. how can a judge take whole chunks out of the constitution. i suspect that the editor was not specific enough so that her remarks could b debated; those on the left usually like to make inflamatory remarks designed to cause shock without showing in exact detail support for their statements. they know most people will not require this. this is why we cannot believe what they say, and instead dismiss what they say out of hand. they are not interested in genuine debate; they just want impose their will without debate, as they did with the health care bill. now they are ramming thru repeal of dont ask dont tell.

these people do not like genuine debate.

It is with great interest that I read the ruling on the dictated universal purchase of health care. It leads me to think about other universal requirements for the good of the masses: Drivers licenses, hunting licenses, firearms licenses, building permits, on and on. While those I have listed are all enacted by the states and accepted in our society now, I wonder why all of them are not unconistutional. Can we ever rebuild the freedoms we have lost? I doubt it but we can sure work to keep the ones that remain.

Gary Chambers, take a look at the Militia Act of 1792, it is still on the books. The same Congress that ratified the Bill of Rights, passed it.

When are the various state governors and legislators going to tell the feds to go pound sand when they try to enforce an unconstitutional rule or law. Specifically the taking of state land.

If I may address a concern that seems to bob, iceberg-like, in the sea of thoughts and opinions:

Perhaps the people of this country have held their hands back from action because they are waiting for a clear and unmistakeable indication that such action—as is appropriate to war—is seen.

War is a time of final decisions and extreme actions — such that there is no recalling them. Mayhem, havoc, and death leave indelible scars and bodies dead to all but God. It is only human to want to avoid such irreversable ends until they are the only appropriate course of action left.

The taking of a life is not to be done lightly.

"A Great Week for Liberty"

Yes, and a good time to review the definition of human liberty:

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Thomas Jefferson

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

It follows from Thomas Jefferson that:

1. Wrongful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will with no limits, or within limits drawn around us by the inferior rights of others.

2. Tyranny (from the point of view of a tyrant) is the same as wrongful liberty.

3. Tyranny (from the point of view of a serf) is obstructed action according to the tyrant’s will within limits drawn around us by the superior rights of others.

A careful review of Thomas Jefferson's definition of human liberty, and the individual's sacred God-given right to liberty, is past due.

Mark Alexander said, "A Great Week for Liberty," - yeah, on the one hand. On the other hand, we're smacked down with a voted-on massive omnibus $Trillion spending bill with oodles of pork earmarks. What do you call THAT?

In addition, Obama is colluding with the CFR/SPP New World Order in quietly erasing the borders with Mexico and Canada according to the oral (without the signing of any internation agreement between George W. Bush, then-president Vicente Fox, and then-prime minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 at a trilateral summit meeting)! Want to read the true story of the goings-on without oversight from Congress and bonafide American citizens? Check it out, a phenomenal alert piece by Jerome Corsi at:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=240045

Ms. Cea Miks - Winthrop Harbor, Illinois

Gary, thank you for saying that. I see people everyday comparing these times to the beginning of the War of Independance, but they seem to have not been studying history. Yes, King George and the British government did many of the things to the American people that are happening now. However, these were not what prompted them into taking violent action. It was not until the British military took to violence before the American Patriot's "stood the line".

We are not at the point where violence is what is needed. Will that day ever come? I pray that it doesn't. I do not want war visited upon my children, or my soon to be born first grandbaby.

The first people to commit violence will be the ones that are wrong. And those will be the ones I stand against. I am still beholden to my Oath of Service to the Constitution, and will remain that way until I meet my Maker. It is my hope that I will have been judged to have been honorable, loving and kind.

So many people fantasizing about a shooting war to kick em out. Stop fantasizing about taking life, there is nothing glamorous about it, and should only be done because there is no other choice. Take this from someone that knows first hand.

I applaud your reference to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights; however, I believe you skipped over its most important phrase: ..."in order to prevent misconstruction and abuse of its powers..." which is the only place in the Constitution to address the issue of who has the power to be final arbiter of what constitutes misconstruction or abuse of constitutional powers. The answer, of course, lies in the final sentence of the Bill of Rights, known as the Tenth Amendment. That power belongs to the States and the people - not the Supreme Court.

Thus, as Thomas Jefferson stated in the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, the rightful remedy to unconstitutional federal actions/legislation is State Nullification. I believe, therefore, that each State can and should declare null and void (nullify) within that State's borders any federal law which it determines to be an unconstitutional intrusion on the State's or people's own powers.

Furthermore, rather than concede final arbiter authority/power to the federal government (Supreme Court) by suing the federal government over the constitutionality of its own federal law (a breach of the legal principle of "arms length"/"conflict of interest"), the States together should also create some formal "States' Constitutionality Authority" to make the final determination of constitutionality of a federal law. Such a body could also be used by the States to initiate a Constitutional Amendment without getting into the possible quagmire of a Constitutional Convention. Both of these functions would require a Constitutional Amendment, but I believe the time is right to start such an initiative.

Have you given this any thought?

Thank you, once again, for a most compelling writing! The DREAM Act, a euphimism for amnest, again,is a direct affront to the (North) American People.

The Amendment (14) that granted Negros, former slaves, citizenship does not in any way bestow citizenship to children brought here by trespssers from other Nations. The insert, "many of these children do not speak Spanish--" is beyond specious! Children? To age 35? The intent of those pushing this act is clear. Amnest! Again!

Children born to (legal) visitors do not become American citizens, nor do the children of Diplomats.

The invasion of this Republic by Mexico, et al, should not be accomodated. It should be repelled. Now!

I am not familiar with the contents of Slate to any great extent. I have better things to do with my time. I will occasionally see a link on a blog or Drudge report. However, I would be interested to see if Editor Lithwick has taken any pro-abortion, progressive tax, illegal immigration, global warming subsidy, or gun ban proponents to task for their "cut-and-paste" approach to Constitutionality.

James Madison and the other Federalist authors of the U.S. Constitution, naturally described it as a limitation on Federal power, but Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry had no such illusions.

On the floor of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 9, 1788, Henry warned: "A number of characters, of the greatest eminence in this country, object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state governments, and swallow the liberties of the people, without giving previous notice."

The full force of that consolidation is now brought to bear upon us, "the poor inhabitants of this country." It is distressing to see you quoting Patrick Henry out of context in support of the Federalist Constitution for he fought against its ratification tooth and nail.

It was heartening to see your quote of Isaiah 9:6 this Christmas season: "...unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder." Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution championed on this site snubs Christ and rejects His law of liberty at Article VI, Section 1: http://www.America-Betrayed-1787.com