February 14, 2010
There are some in our society, and in government, that believe the Constitution is a living document that must “change” with the times. Oh really? They would have us believe that when someone writes a document for the establishment of a government that the documents meaning would change just because time had passed. And who would be the deciding voice on that change? And who would decide which passages are changeable and which were not?
The absurdity of this belief should be, at once, plain for all to see; for how can law be established, and the Constitution is the gauge for all our law, if the basis for that law is transient? It does not make sense except to those who do not understand their history or constitutional interpretation and construction.
In law, once the legislature has defined a term that term cannot mean anything except that which the writers have deemed it to mean. For example, the word “employee” has a totally different meaning within the IRS than is generally understood, and without knowing the “legalese” you would have an erroneous understanding of the law as it applies to you.
Compare the following definitions for employee:
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 Edition: “One
employed by another usually for wages or salary and in a position below
the executive level.”
2. Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: “A person who works in the service of another person (the employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the employer has the right to control the details of work performance.”
3. IRS Tax code, title 26 USC, section 3401(c): “employee - For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an officer of a [federally owned or controlled] corporation.” (Emphasis added.)
Notice how closely the two dictionaries follow the “understood” or common meaning of the word “employee”. But, as I have already said, in law the meaning can have a definition all its own. In this case, the term has absolutely no resemblance to either of the dictionary terms. In fact, the IRS’ own definition, and this is their only definition for employee, does not describe the majority of workers within the United States. And by legal construction when you are given a list to “include” the expansive definition beyond what is enumerated can only be those within the general class of the list. In this case what class would you assume that to be? If you said government or government employee you would be correct.
So when we view the Constitution we cannot give the words used the meanings that may be in effect today but must use the meaning as defined, or if not defined, that was in common use at the time of the writing of the document.
One example of a change from the original meaning of the Constitution is the phrase “regulate commerce.” We see nearly every expansion of the federal governments power into the states of the Union has been through what it has deemed as its regulation of commerce among the states; or in the present vernacular “interstate commerce.”
It has been stated that that anything in business that crosses state lines is interstate commerce and that would be true but those were not the words used in the Constitution nor was that the meaning given to the term. The term used was “regulate commerce among the several States.” But the federal government has brought the weight of government against citizens across this nation, under this clause, when they did not sell an item at all stating that it impacts interstate commerce. They have even charged individuals for impacting interstate commerce because having a concealed handgun in proximity of a school creates a condition that does not allow children to learn and thus impacts interstate commerce. 
But what did those that wrote the Constitution state was the meaning of this term? In plain terms it was to ensure a level playing field for commerce between the several states. They did not want states applying tariffs to competing states which traversed their state to bring product to market. In the words of Madison in the Federalist papers (No. 42), speaking of the power to regulate commerce: “…A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.” This clearly establishes that the federal’s role was that of making commerce regular or fair across ALL the states.
But it seems the further we get away from the meaning of the founders the more perverted government uses these powers to suppress the States and its citizens. In 1922 the Supreme Court ruled  that the government’s actions through the interstate commerce and taxing authorities was used to coerce behavior and was outside the bounds of the Constitution, stating: “...Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. ...such…would…break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States. (p38)”
Through taxation, interstate commerce regulation, and the myriad of unconstitutional “departments” within the federal government, all under the auspices of interstate commerce, are put in place to control and coerce the states and the people to comply with their wishes. These are tactics seen every day in the inner cities in the days of organized crime. It seems the tactics haven’t changed only the location from where they are administered.
Now moving even further away from the founders in 1942 the Supreme Court ruled  that the commerce clause also extends to activities within a state which may “affect” interstate commerce even when that activity is not deemed “commerce.” They went on to say that Congress had the ability to regulate prices of commodities as well as the practices which affected those prices. The logic here goes like this: If you or I have a garden in our back yard which we grow for our own enjoyment and consumption; then we are affecting interstate commerce because we are not purchasing vegetables from the local grocer who may purchase from interstate suppliers thus impacting interstate commerce and therefore the federal government can regulate that activity.
With this type of “circular logic” there is absolutely no area of our lives that cannot be tied to interstate commerce and thus federal regulation and control. They are doing it each and every day, unconstitutionally and thus illegally, but they carry the big stick of government and the color of law  to enforce their will on the American people.
One of the main reasons for the continual erosion of our liberties has been the bastardization of the meanings of the words and phrases of the Constitution. They have been twisted and redefined to the point that they no longer resemble the true meaning of its authors and thus have robbed all of us of our freedoms and liberties and have allowed the massive expansion if a totalitarian regime we now see being implemented today. It is not being done by innocent mistake but by power hungry men and women who will do anything to enforce their will on the American people.
We the People must now force our states to remove themselves from under the control of the federal government by refusing to accept federal funding and the demands to enforce federal law within the borders of the state. They must pass state law or state constitutional amendments that any unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or agency will carry no jurisdiction within the state and any attempt by a federal agent within that unconstitutional agency to enforce federal law will be arrested.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
It is time to put the federal genie back in its bottle and start returning freedom and liberty to where it belongs – to the states and the people.
Rayonier, Inc. v. Polson, 400 F.2d 909 (9th cir. 1968)
2, Wickard V Filburn, 317 U.S. 111(1942)
3, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
4, Bailey V. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922)
5, Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
6, Color of Law: law that supplants or replaces the established, or root law, by a controlling government; to give the impression of legitimate authority.
� 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served
in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained
in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper.
He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard,
as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours
to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com