Letter to the Govenor of Tennessee: Firearms Act

I got this letter from my friend Ron in Nashville that he sent to Governor Bredesen concerning the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act just recently passed by both houses. Remember as Ron said, the states created the Federal government, not vice versa. The 2nd amendment is directed at the Federal government and restricts them, not the citizens.  I thought the letter was very  good  and so did Steve. Ron said we could post it, so here it is. Thanks Ron.

Letter to the Govenor Bredesen of Tennessee Re: Firearms Act

Dear Govenor Bredesen,

Thank you for signing most of the bills to support and expand the right of the people for armed self-defense passed in this legislative session. All of them were in accordance with our rights  enumerated in Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution’s Declaration of Rights. According to the 9th Amendment, “the people” by their governments in the States, can expand upon and enumerate more rights than in the U.S. Bill of Rights; rights which are outside the “delegated powers” of the United States:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. –9th Amendment

I noticed that you allowed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act to pass into law without your signature. I thank you for not vetoing it. Some of your reported statements regarding this bill are as follows:
“This bill is not about firearms. It is about a fringe constitutional theory that I believe will be quickly dispensed with by the federal courts.”
“The Tennessee General Assembly lacks the Constitutional authority to limit the power and authority of federal government in this way…”

“…While I share the General Assembly’s commitment to federalism, this legislation contravenes our Constitution. I am allowing it to become law so that it can quickly be dealt with by the federal courts.”
If you rehearse civics history, the United States Government is a creation of the States. The U.S. Constitution is a legal document which grants “delegated powers” to  the Federal Government and also added, in the words of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, ”further restrictive and declarative clauses” in the first ten amendments. That is, “restrictive” of the Federal Government and “declarative” of the rights of the people.

First we have the “delegated powers” regarding the militia:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,AND FOR GOVERNING SUCH PART OF THEM AS MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; -–Article I, Section 8.15-16, U.S. Constitution (EMPHASIS MINE)
Then the 10th Amendment makes it clear that the Federal Government cannot operate beyond the specifically ”delegated powers”. In the case of firearms, the Federal Government only has delegated power to govern the part of the militia that it calls into its service and employs for the reasons specified in Clause 15 of Article I, Section 8.

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. –10th Amendment.
Finally the 2nd Amendment is “declarative” of the right of the people and totally restricts any Federal intervention regarding an armed citizenry by saying “shall not be infringed”. The explanatory sub-ordinate clause opening the sentence makes it clear, along with the 10th Amendment, that any other powers regarding the organized militia is retained by ” a free State”.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged. –2nd Amendment

According to an objective reading of the legal contract by which the States established the Federal Government with “delegated powers”, the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act is completely in accordance. Once again, thank you for allowing this important piece of legislation to pass into law which will hopefully provide an impetus, along with similar bills in other States, to return the U.S. government to its Constitutional constraints.
Sincerely, Ron
Nashville, Tn..

“It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights… Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power… Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson

Healthcare & Big Government: A Marriage Made In Hell

In his latest column, Ron Paul criticizes the government’s unscrupulous intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship and exposes the privacy implication of establishing mandatory electronic medical records collections. He also presents two bills he recently introduced in Congress. One of them allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federal electronic medical records systems, while the other stops the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance. — tmartin

HERE’S THE AUDIO VERSION OF THE ARTICLE BELOW: 4:16

Fight Government Encroachment into Healthcare!

by Ron Paul

With a faltering economy, and skyrocketing costs, healthcare continues to be a critical issue for all Americans. Unfortunately government encroachment into the doctor/patient relationship is poised to exacerbate our problems with healthcare.

RON PAUL ON REFORMING HEALTH CARE:

As an OB/GYN with over 30 years of experience in private practice, I understand that one of the foundations of quality healthcare is the patient’s confidence that all information shared with his or her healthcare provider will remain private. And yet, the Federal Government plans to undermine this trust with establishment of mandatory electronic medical records collections and “unique health identifier” numbers assigned to all Americans. Funding for this program was among the numerous provisions jammed into the stimulus bill rushed through Congress earlier this year.

Electronic medical records that are part of the federal system will only receive the protection granted by the federal “medical privacy rule.” This misnamed rule actually protects the ability of government officials and state-favored special interests to view private medical records without patient consent.

Aside from those concerns, the government’s ability to protect medical records is highly questionable. After all, we are all familiar with cases where third parties obtained access to electronic veteran, tax, and other records because of errors made by federal bureaucrats. We should also consider the abuse of IRS records by administrations of both parties. What would happen if unscrupulous politicians gained the power to access their political enemies’ electronic medical records?

For these reasons I have introduced the Protect Patients’ and Physicians’ Privacy Act, HR 2630, which allows patients and physicians to opt out of any federally mandated, created, or funded electronic medical records system. The bill also repeals sections of federal law establishing a “unique health identifier” and requires patient consent before any electronic medical records can be released to a 3rd party.

I have also introduced the Coercion is Not Health Care Act, HR 2629. This legislation forbids the federal government from forcing any American to purchase health insurance, or conditioning participation in any federal program on the purchase of health insurance. Forcing Americans to purchase government-approved health insurance is a back door approach to creating a government-controlled healthcare system. Congress would define what policies and coverage requirements satisfy their mandate. Does anyone then doubt that what conditions and treatments are covered would be determined by who has the most effective lobby? Or that Congress would be capable of writing a mandatory insurance policy that fits the unique needs of every individual in the United States?

With these conditions in place, I foresee the eventual imposition of price controls and limitations on what procedures and treatments that are covered. This will result in an increasing number of providers turning to “cash only” practices, making it difficult for those relying on the government-mandated insurance to find healthcare – the exact opposite of the desired result! Consider the increasing number of physicians who are already withdrawing from the Medicare program because of the low reimbursement and constant bureaucratic harassment from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Congress should put the American people back in charge of healthcare by expanding healthcare tax credits and deductions, increasing access to Health Savings Accounts, respecting privacy and the doctor/patient relationship. Further politicizing and bureaucratizing of healthcare will only increase costs and reduce quality, as demonstrated by most other countries with socialized medicine.

RonPaul.com