Deeply Divided: How Conservatives will overcome the Establishment and reform our party, our state and our nation

By Senator Chris McDaniel

Much has been made about the present divide in the Republican Party.  Mississippi is no stranger to the controversy.  My U.S. Senate race against Thad Cochran in 2014 exposed deep divisions within the party, both state and national.

Incumbent U.S. Senator Thad Cochran had to rely upon thousands of liberal Democrats to win a Republican primary.  In so doing, his campaign resorted to dirty, underhanded, and sleazy tactics that have been well-documented.  Not only did his campaign play the “race card” while openly encouraging liberals to cross-over and participate to the GOP primary, he openly campaigned like a Democrat — pushing for more big government, massive federal subsidies, pork-barrel spending, and increased food stamp participation.  In what’s perhaps the most conservative state in the republic, he expressly repudiated the Republican platform for the state and country to see.

Though indefensible, it was a victory for the political class, lobbyists, DC insiders and corporate elites who see the federal government as little more than a banking institution for the big business special interest lobby.  They, along with assorted establishment groupies led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, celebrated their pyrrhic victory, justifying their actions by slandering conservatives as somehow radical, extreme or unelectable.

Betrayed again by the DC machine, conservative frustration with the party establishment reached a record high.  More than a year later, the anger is still very real.  Conservatives are convinced the GOP’s leadership has openly abandoned the party’s conservative foundation.

But to fully comprehend why this is happening, we have to understand the background story.  Central to the divide is how people, particularly the mainstream press, attempt to define the combatants.

Take my race, for instance.  I have been a Republican since 1984, and have never been a member of a TEA Party group.  Nevertheless, during my run for U.S. Senate in 2014, most attempted to improperly frame the ongoing GOP fight as TEA Party vs. The GOP Establishment.  But nothing could be further from the truth.

What we are seeing, instead, is an ongoing struggle between true conservatives and moderate insiders — who presently control the GOP establishment — within the party structure.

On one side of the debate stands the thoughts of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater (constitutional conservatives).  On other side of the “fracture” is the moderate idealism of Nelson Rockefeller and Mitt Romney (establishment insiders).

Constitutional conservatives seeks structural reform, smaller government, constitutional balance and the maximum in individual liberty consistent with social order.  The moderate establishment camp lauds the value of compromise, while fighting to preserve the status quo, so long as corporate welfare, favoritism to their donors and the growth of government suits their financial and personal needs.

Perhaps no one has expressed the divide as well as Redstate.com, an online news and opinion website for conservatives.  In describing a recent poll for the 2016 GOP nomination for President, it declared:  “Jeb Bush and John Kasich are tied. They are also fighting for the same demographic slice: moderate-to-liberal, high income voters. This is not surprising given their message of “hey, that status quo is working pretty good for me.”

Meanwhile, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Donald Trump are fighting to win the support of Ronald Reagan’s conservative coalition — a union of blue collar libertarians, economic, pro-defense, and social conservatives.  Interestingly, these are the very people who have abandoned the establishment because they no longer believe that Republicans adhere to conservative principles.

Put simply, one side distrusts government and policies of centralization; the other simply seeks to control the DC machine, even if it means sacrificing principles.  Conservatives claim liberty and Constitutional government as our combined end game; the other side desires power at any cost.

Although we’ve lived under the same tent for years, tension between the groups is rising, and some in the establishment camp have resorted to hostile tactics.  Both Cruz and Trump, for example, have recently been slandered.  And what was done in Mississippi last year was despicable.

Contrary to the attempts to brand conservatives, there is nothing radical or racist about our thoughts, ideals or policies.  Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were voices for our government philosophy, which is rooted in Jeffersonian liberty and the heritage of Western Civilization.  It represents a consensus of reason operating within tradition, and it recognizes its origin as the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

Instead of allowing the establishment to define us, please consider the true conscience of a Goldwater/Reagan conservative:

  • We believe that political solutions should be sensitive to the whole human being – mind, body and soul – conceding that the problems affecting society are the result of the complexity of human life and therefore cannot be quickly or efficiently rectified by government action, schemes of forced social improvement or similar one-size-fits-all approaches.
  • We value self-government, believing that local governments are preferred because they are closest to the people and, therefore, the most responsive.  Consistent with this idea, we believe states should retain all powers given to them by the Founders which ensures a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as “laboratories” for democracy — a system where policies are created and tested pursuant to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment.  This not only ensures social and fiscal experimentation, but also a balance of power between the central authority and the states, whereby individual liberty is preserved for future generations.
  • Refusing to ignore the spiritual side of individuals, we hope to maintain a high moral tone in society, insisting that truths exist and are necessary for people to responsibly self-govern their own affairs.  We trust in God, as He is our foundation.
  • Our philosophy is characterized by respect for inherited institutions, in which individuals develop character by voluntarily cooperating with others in local associations designed to further the common good without government interference.
  • Living within our means is a way of life for us, so we expect our government to do the same.  We request the courtesy to earn a living, but do not desire the government to provide for our necessities.  Work is always preferred to welfare.
  • Before we look for government to save us from every perceived crises, we would rather depend on ourselves, our families and friends.  Hero worship is not our norm, as we are not easily charmed by smooth-talking politicians desiring a cult of personality.
  • It has been said that governments only expand because they do not trust the independent, free judgments of the people. But we understand that any movement whose main promise is a relief from personal responsibility is immoral in its effect, however lofty its good intentions.
  • The acceptance of personal responsibility begins with the admission of a simple truth:  government is not our ultimate protector and cannot be all things to all people; liberty is the result of individuals learning to rule themselves.
  • We admire complexities, embracing blessed variations and stubborn particularities.  Unlike liberalism, it is not our desire to override the wills of people and reform them into one master plan.  The establishment seek to use the power of government to dominate others; we do not and would never.
  • Since independence is a cornerstone of our philosophy, we believe people and corporations should accept the consequences of their actions, although failure or unhappiness may be the eventual result.  Government bailouts offend our notions of justice and fairness.
  • The rule of law matters to us; words have meaning.  We consider the words and phrases of the Constitution to be sincere, and not subject to whimsical change by the dictates of a federal judge.  It has set down for all to see the fundamental American principle that there are certain rights held by every individual which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny.
  • We reject philosophies rooted in collectivism, particularly when coerced by the power of the state.  Consequently, we reject racism, sexism and other forms of identity politics.  We see men and women as individuals and judge them respectively.  We seek to empower the individual and his voluntary associations, not as collective groups, but as an American citizen entitled to dignity and respect.
  • We likewise reject any system where the wealthy and well-connected are allowed disproportionate access to our governments.  Each American citizen, regardless of wealth or power, should have an equal voice and right to petition the halls of power without the corrupting influences of political favoritism, cronyism and nepotism.

And yet, conservatives do not presume to have all the answers, because they are not ours to give.

The collective knowledge of humanity, driven along by complex experiences good and bad, are far better teachers than any one movement, person or government could ever be.  It was President Reagan who reminded us that his strength as  a “great communicator” was always rooted in his communication of great things that came from the heart of a remarkable republic – our collective experiences, wisdom, and beliefs in the principles that have guided us for more than two centuries.

Perhaps there is no better description of our camp than an unyielding desire simply to be left alone.  America’s greatness is derived from its free citizens, not the coercion of its government.

There is nothing radical about common sense, balanced budgets and the rule of law.

And if you wish to gain our support, be honest with us, then trust us to govern ourselves.

As we embark on an uncertain future, conservatives are confident in our principles and beliefs.  But we are tired of politicians and disgusted by the lies and perpetual inaction on the part of so-called Republicans.

After my race against Thad Cochran last year, it took time for me to process the betrayal — not simply to me, but to the Republican platform and conservative ideas to which I had professed by loyalty and dedication.  As part of my evaluation, the divide in our party became more apparent than ever before.

But also, my resolve was strengthened.

It became apparent that we conservatives are being targeted for marginalization by many within the party’s leadership.

Consequently, we must change our mindset by developing the spirit of reformers.

What does that mean?

Well, in 1902, William George Jordan published The Power of Truth.  In it, he wrote, “Anyone can plant radishes; it takes courage to plant acorns and wait for the oaks.  Learn to look not merely at the clouds, but through them to the sun shining behind them.  When things look darkest, grasp your weapon firmer and fight harder.  There is always more progress than you can perceive through your senses, and it is really only the outcome of the battle that counts.”

“And when it is all over and the victory is yours, and the smoke clears away, and the smell of the powder is dissipated, and you bury the relationships that died because they could not stand the strain, and you nurse back the wounded and faint-hearted who loyally stood by you, even when doubting, then the hard years of fighting will seem but a dream.  You will stand brave, heartened, strengthened by the struggle, re-created to a new, better, and stronger life by a noble battle, nobly waged, in a noble cause.  And the price will then seem to you  . . . nothing.”

Perhaps, instead of conservatives, we are now simply reformers, pilgrims in an unholy land.

In any event, make no mistake, reform is coming.

This is our party.  This is our republic.  And despite the establishment’s money and power, we will fight to regain our rightful place.

As it was last year, so it is today:  Now is the time.

Chris is a former federal law clerk, an attorney, conservative commentator and was a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in 2014.  He was lead counsel for the State of Mississippi in seeking to declare Obamacare unconstitutional.  He is presently a two-term Mississippi State Senator.  He resides with his family in Ellisville, Mississippi. Find him on Twitter: @SenatorMcDaniel and on Facebook. 

Comments

  1. I believe that Senator McDaniel either sincerely believes what he writes, in which case he has convinced himself of an inacurate narrative regarding the Republican Party, or that he knows better, but keeps repeating the narrative in the belief that a narrative repeated often enough becames reality for some, espcecially those who very much want to believe it, which is something like cynical manipulation.

    Mr. McDaniel, who rejects the claims of others to be victims, continues to see himself as a victim in the 2014 Primary. The Republican establishment in Washington and in Mississippi wronged him and denied him the nomination he deserved, because he is a true conservative who is committed to the principles of conservatism while they are modertates-progressives-liberals who are committed to nothing except their own power, favoritism to their friends, and financial rewards. He and his followers keep repeating this rather than simply admitting they were in a rough and tumble election (consider the things he and his supporters said about Sen. Cohcran for instance), that they got outsmarted and out maneuvered, and that they lost.

    This victimhoold on Sen. McDaniel’s part is in stark contrast to other Republicans who have lost nominations and/or elections, We think in particular of three he mentions – Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. They did not make their losses all about themselves. They did not continue to return to their losses and complain about their mistreatment. They did not make war on thier own Party. They vigorously advanced their ideas and engaged in debates with fellow Republicans. But they usually followed Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment. They were gentlemen; they were thick-skinned; and, while they had strong egos, they did not make politics all about themselves. They did not nurse their personal hurts, nor appeal to their supporters on the theme, “We were done wrong.”

    As is usually the case with winners, Reagan is claimed by virtually eveyone on the Republican side. People tend to make of Reagan what they want/need him to be. It seems to me that Senator McDaniel’s Reagan (as well as his Taft and Goldwater) is not the Reagan of history but the Reagan of hagiography. Reagan was willing to work with and within his own Party. He never tried to conduct a purge. He had strong principles, but he also was a poltical pragmatist. He worked with others in his own Party and he knew how to cut a deal with the other Party. He was an effective Governor and then President. Reagan had a temper but he was not perptually angry. Reagan was tough when he needed to be, but he was likeable. He advocated his views, but he did not see himself as the real and pure Republican while portraying his fellow Republicans who disagreed with him as not real Reoublicans who had betrayed the Republican ideals. All we need do is to read the record of what Reagan did in office and to observe the termperament of the man to see the the Reagan of history is not the Reagan of McDanielism. If Reagan were alilve today, I have little doubt that Sen. McDaneil would see Reagan as a selllout who got to Washington and did not deliever part of the benighted Repbublican establishment.

    Regarding Taft and Goldwater, one cannot imagine either going to the Senate floor and calling the Republican leader a liar. Yet this is exactly the sort of thing that Senator McDaniel finds heroic, principled, and exemplary in Sen. Cruz whom he supports for President. It is the sort of thing, indeed, that Sen. McDaniel has done and continues to do regarding the Republican leadership in the MS Senate.

    Now Senator McDaniel goes into the next legislative season knowing that he has alienated the leadership in the Senate and that he has no role now except as a critic. He will not work with others, and others are not gong to work with him.

    Can he take over the MS Republcan Party? Possible. But probably not If he did succeed, however, that would mean the realy betrayal of the founding principles of the modern MS Republican Party and of the Reagan visiion.

    • Dear Lord, I am so sick of reading about “thousands of liberal Democrats” that got Cochran elected. Stop whining. Move on. And once again Bill Smith, you make excellent points and are absolutely correct.

  2. Thank you Senator McDaniel. You are a modern day voice for me and Conservatism as a whole. This is so well done that I am looking forward to sharing it with everyone that will listen and are able to intellectually deduce the obvious. Though I can see some cannot or will not.

    • I am a conservative, please, please, do not ever say this guy is a voice for me. Thank you. (and yeah, yeah I know. I must not be a TRUE conservative)

  3. Well, some people definitely like the status quo: career politicians, 18 trillion dollars in debt, super rich super pacs designed for the elitist, good ole boy cronyism, lots of government subsidies,so called moderate (liberal leaning) negotiate our freedoms away republicans. Sorry folks, a lot of people have had their fill of these career politicians. Even Bill Smith should be able to recognize that all the career Republican presidential candidates are in single digits (regardless of the millions they have raised) by all polling that is being done and outside business individuals are leading the pack in this race. There is a reason for that. It is because people are sick and tired of these career politicians and there is a movement in this country to oust them from power. Good, let’s move forward and get rid of these leaches on the purse strings of the American Taxpayer. Oh, by the way, Senator McDaniel is a voice for me and many, many others.

    • Michael:

      Here are your establishment conservative candiates: Fiorina, Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Christie. Walker.

      Here are your insurgent conservative candidates: Cruz, Carson, Paul, Huckabee

      Here is your insurgent candidate: Trump

      I predict the nominee with come from the first list, who, by any historical standards, are traditional Republican conservatives, with the possible exception of Christie who might be classed part of the old Rockefeller wing of the Party. I think the most likely to win are Bush, Rubio, or Kasich. Fiorina is less likely though a very good bet for VP. Christie and Walker are probably out of it now. Any of those 6 could probably govern effectively which means they could get something done.

  4. The Heritage for America’s latest conservative voting scores list Thad at 36% and Bennie at 18%. What more needs to be said?

    • Ok and Thad is not going anywhere until his term is up (5 1/2 more years) or he passes away and neither is Bennie. So exactly what is your point? By the way, I saw Thad speak to the Senate AGAINST the Iran deal (you know the one Obama and Bennie are for) and he was great. Oh wait, that cannot be possible. According to you TRUE conservatives Thad is for whatever Obama is for and has not got the mental ability to speak to the Senate. Move on, people.

  5. Hey Chris:

    I too have been a Conservative Republican since I first stood in a very long line to vote as a college freshman for Richard Nixon in 1972. Recently, Charles Koch stated correctly the danger of a growing “Collectivism” in America. The following quotes reflect in pertinent part his underlying philosophy on the matter:

    “I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.”

    “A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. * * * The same should be true of any government that [r]espects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of [socialism, and it’s harsher cousins, fascism and communism] is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.”

    “More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. ‘The natural progress of things,’ Jefferson wrote, ‘is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.'”

    “Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. * * * Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.”

    Although Mr. Koch made his observations mainly in defense of his company business model against the “nattering nabobs of [liberal] negativism”, the same can certainly hold true with respect to the efforts of certain sectors of the Evangelical Protestant Faith Community and the Catholic Church. Over the years, the media has often referred to them as The Religious Right, The Moral Majority, Religious Conservatives, The Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and The Family Research Council, etc. with respect to their 35 year effort to impose their own personal brand of moral authority on everyone in their misbegotten efforts to transform America into a “most Christian” nation–a Christian Collective Community, as Charles Koch might say.

    Being a great actor, pitchman, and communicator, Reagan was very skilled in telling people what they wanted to hear in order to obtain their support. In this respect, in his bid to win the White House, and during his first term, Mr. Reagan made an unholy alliance by pandering to the country’s largest block of Collectivists–the so-called “Christian Right”. This “Christian Collectivist Community” believed (as it still does today) that the Great Leviathan–The State–should dictate to the people how we should live our lives based upon a narrow reading of the bible. Although its leaders have spoken over the years about liberty and freedom, their message has been contradicted by their work to create a National Christian Commonwealth. Unfortunately, in his bid for the Presidency, Mr. Reagan felt compelled to make an alliance with these Collectivists even though his prior works supported true principles of liberty. This caused him to unnecessarily pander to the CCC leaders. For instance, as the governor of California, he supported a woman’s fundamental and inalienable right of access to safe and affordable abortion health care services. As governor of California, he supported and signed into law the most progressive abortion rights bill in the country. And yet, as President, he would pander at CCC events about the evils of abortion. One of the main qualities of the GOP for its first 120 years was that until 1980, its philosophy had always been rooted in the “pragmatic”, and inclusive conservative principles of Lincoln, Coolidge, Taft, Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley. Even as the founder of modern “intellectual” conservatism, WFB promoted the “Buckley” Rule–nominate the most conservative candidates in the Republican Party primary who can also win in the general election. After the malaise of the Carter years, Americans were hungry for change–not so much in political philosophy (center right) and the role of government in their lives, but rather in the quality of leaders–especially at the White House. If I recall correctly, the Senate did convert to Republican control for a few years on the coat tails of Reagan’s 1980 victory, but lost it shortly thereafter due to the radicalism of the religionists and anti-abortion platform that quickly alienated the crucial support of voters who declared as Independents. Also, the House remained firmly within the control of the Democrats throughout Reagan’s. Therefore, in an effort to salvage some of his economic policies, Reagan had to agree to the largest series of tax increases in the modern era in order to pay for those efforts. In this respect, it was during the Reagan Administration that the federal deficit really began to grow at an alarming rate. Also, the federal bureaucracy, and the obligatory regulations began their exponential growth, notwithstanding his conservative rhetoric to the contrary. Finally, the only thing that probably saved him from being impeached by the House towards the end of his second term over the Iran-Contra scandal was the fact that his old friend, Speaker Tip O’Neill, realized that the Gipper was struggling with the onset of early Alzheimer’s disease and chose to forego causing Mr. Reagan personal embarrassment.

    Barry Goldwater on the other hand, (a secular Jew) remained an outspoken and uncompromising defender of individual liberty throughout his life. Whether it was supporting the limited role of the federal government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, promoting abortion health care rights, promoting the expansion of civil rights (except when he ran for President and voted aganst his conscience), or advocating opening up the military to gay service members, Senator Goldwater was truly The Conservative Conscience of America and the Republican Party. And yet, while a Senator, throughout his retirement, and up until the time of his death, he realized that the demagogic influence of the Religious Right and the CCC were perhaps the greatest threats to the future of individual liberty, the GOP and the conservative cause itself. He recognized that their undemocratic influence had infected the GOP so seriously, that towards the end of his career, Goldwater lamented to a colleague, words to the effect, that “now we have become the liberals” within the Republican Party. Up to his final days, the Senator cursed the leaders of the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition for the roles they played in hijacking the classical conservative principles of the Republican Party away from its pragmatic libertarian origins.

    To be sure, many of the points you have shared in the manifesto portion of your essay are consistent with the classical conservative principles of the Founding Fathers. Pursuant to Hobbs’ Natural Law theory, government indeed becomes the great Leviathan; and that as free men and women, we must be ever vigilant in controlling it–otherwise it will come to control us. However, as we all know, with the advent of the New Deal programs of the 1930s and through the many social programs brought on by LBJ’ Great Society, Americans made a conscious decision to forego some of our liberties and create a semi-socialist state. The majority decided that there is a legitimate role for government to provide for the needs of those people who are unable to provide for themselves. The cost to the country has been high in the loss of virtue and in the creation of a semi-socialist state. History shows that once the “entitlement bell” has been rung, that it can’t be unrung.

    Without question, religion influences culture, and culture influences the development of the law. However, as a secular democratic republic, Americans have never sought to be lorded over by anyone who seeks to impose his religious beliefs on others. It is certainly true that in America there exists a “bond [between] the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.” In this respect, the Founding Fathers also believed in the idea that America was special in part because of the Protestant idea of the teaching/instilling of “virtue” among the. people. They believed (I agree with them.) that “virtue” is a combination of community, honesty, industriousness, and to help instill these qualities, religiosity. It was this idea of teaching “virtue” that McGuffy used in his educational materials so effectively. He therefore used the Bible much as Franklin used his stories and his homespun proverbs to illustrate points and as teaching aides. Our Founding Fathers were committed to the principle that no particular religious sect’s beliefs or any specific theistic dogma should be imposed upon the people by the State. It is this understanding of what the Founders intended–a society of virtuous people living within the framework of “good moral order” based upon liberty who are not required to follow what others might consider to be Divine Law–that makes the American system so special and has spared us the constant strife of sectarian violence that has plagued humanity for thousands of years.

    You state correctly that “The rule of law matters to us; words have meaning. We consider the words and phrases of the Constitution to be sincere, and not subject to whimsical change by the dictates of a federal judge.” However, when it comes down to equal protection under the law, your writings and speeches betray this sentiment. For example, you have alleged that in reaching its decision in Obergefell, that the Supreme Court failed to adhere to the clear textual language of the Constitution. On the contrary, the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Therefore, in his majority decision for the Court, Justice Kennedy followed the Constitution to the letter. Rather, it is the religious demagogues who continue to keep good Christian folk all stirred up, based upon no good or legitimate constitutional reason. As you know, when someone is a member of a protected group, or of a suspect classification which has been historically discriminated against, or if a fundamental or inalienable right is involved where it is claimed that the right (like marriage) is being denied, then the government must demonstrate via “strict scrutiny” a “compelling state interest” that the needs of the state outweigh the needs/rights of the individual if the law, regulation, policy, practice, custom, or procedure is going to pass constitutional scrutiny. This is a very high standard, which the government, in only the most extreme cases is able to meet. Even if a fundamental right is not involved, the state’s purpose in promoting denial of equal protection must still have a “rational” basis. As you further know, ever since Brown v. Bd. of Education, the Supreme Court has been the main protector and defender of fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment for all individuals–often to protect individuals from the abuses of “state legislatures when the latter exercise their police powers” to the detriment of the fundamental rights of the minority. The judiciary is the only constitutional institution that, being aware of human nature/frailty, political reality, is equipped to protect everyone under the law, especially from the “tyranny of the majority”.

    In closing, I must say that I am amused by your assertion that “Hero worship is not our norm, as we are not easily charmed by sooth-talking desiring a cult of personality.” In the 40 years that I have resided in Mississippi, and probably going back to the days of Theodore Bilbo, I have never seen a Mississippi public official who has so captured the imagination, and at the same time, played to the fears of his followers–the McGOPs. I say this as a compliment to your skill to energize a crowd as an oral communicator, and in your ability to articulate your beliefs in particular. However, I respectfully suggest that you should use your considerable skills in properly informing and educating your McGOPers with the whole truth on the challenges facing conservatism today. Otherwise, your narrow minded and flawed rhetoric will only continue to cause division among us Conservatives in Mississippi. Contrary to many of your detractors, I am hopeful that with the benefit of experience will come wisdom, and that you will come to realize in the not so distant future that your current approach to governance is destructive to conservatism as well as to your own political viability.

  6. barleywheets says:

    When the People delegated power between the federal and State governments, the so-called “police powers” were delegated to the State governments to be exercised eclusively within their physical boundaries. (e.g. to the exclusion of any federal “police powers.”)
    In U.S. v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 11, the Court declared:
    “It cannot be denied that the power of the state to protect the lives, health and property of its citizens and to preserve good order and the public morals, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion, is a power originally and always belonging to the state, not surrendered to the general [federal] Government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive.”
    In French v. Davidson (1904) 143 Cal. 658, 77 Pac. 663, the Court determined that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Federal Constitution interferes with the power of the State to prescribe regulations to protect the health and “general welfare” of its people.

    Through the Constitution of the United States, the People did, however, find it prudent to delegate exceptional “police powers” to the federal government in a very limited number of specific places, and to the complete exclusion of the legislation of the States:
    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:
    “To exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings;
    The first provision of this Cluse referred to the establishment of the District of Columbia. The second provision established a limited number of federal “enclaves” or islands of exclusive federal jurisdiction within the outer boundaries of a State to be justified in their use for specific purposes. This was meant to have a very limited “swiss cheese” effect on the jurisdiction of the State. [Note: According to Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, an “enclave” is defined as a territorial or culturally distinct unit enclosed within foreign territory.]
    As stated in Chapter VI, pages 145-146 of the April, 1956, report (Part I) of the Interdepartmental Committee “Study Of Jurisdiction Over Federal Areas Within The States”:
    “Once an area has been brought under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Federal Government, in general only Federal civil laws, as well as Federal criminal laws, are applicable in such area, to the exclusion of State laws…
    “The subject is so fully discussed by Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court in Fort Leavenworth R.R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, that we need do no more than refer to that case and the cases cited in the opinion. It is of the highest public importance that the jurisdiction of the State should be resisted at the borders of those places where the power of exclusive legislation is vested in the congress by the Constitution….
    “The civil authority of a State is extinguished over privately owned areas and privately operated areas to the same extent as over federally owned and operated areas when such areas are placed under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States.”

    The provisions of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 are not to be confused with two other historical Constitutional issues regarding exclusive legislative jurisdiction as applies to lands only while in a territorial state:
    (1) The “Property” Clause – which applied only to the “western wastelands”- territories east of the Mississippi that were ceded to the federal government by the original States;
    “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.”
    (2) The “Treaty Making and War Powers” – upon which the ability to acquire new land outside the original boundaries of the United States was based. These were to be governed under the Rules of International Law while in a territorial, pre-State status. (This applied to Florida, Louisiana and the lands west of the Mississippi acquired through international treaty.)
    Both of these exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction arrangements were supposed to apply only to lands while in pre-statehood territorial status, and were not to survive statehood. Under the equal footing doctrine, new states were to be admitted on an equal footing with the original States. Ceded (“public”) lands within the new Eastern States were temporarily retained only in regard to proprietary ownership by the federal government, as a trustee until the lands could be disposed of into private hands and the States completed in their sovereignty. Although ownership of “wastelands” in the far West has been claimed by the federal government on the basis of terms and conditions imposed through Enabling Acts for statehood, the status of political jurisdiction over lands within a Western State’s borders is SUPPOSED to be on an equal footing with that of the Eastern States.
    The provisions of Article 6, Section 2, Clause 2
    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  7. barleywheets says:

    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
    When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.BOTH PARENTS must have been U.S. CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH in order for a Presidential hopeful to qualify as a “natural born citizen” under our U.S. Constitution!! Natural born” is VERY different from any other category of citizenship, i.e. “native born”, “naturalized”, or “citizen by statute”.
    Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
    http://www.quowarranto.info/
    • Neither “Obama, Cruz, Santorum, Romney
    • nor Rubio are legally eligible to be in the Presidential office”. I like, respect, and voted for my fellow Texan Ted Cruz to represent us in the U.S. Senate. He has been SPECTACULAR! Senator Cruz would make an AWESOME Attorney General, but he is not constitutionally eligible for the office of President………………

    RE: Cruz, Rubio,Romney and Jindal…

    BOTH PARENTS must have been U.S. CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HIS BIRTH in order for a Presidential hopeful to qualify as a “natural born citizen” under our U.S. Constitution. As popular as they are, Ted CRUZ, Marco RUBIO, Santorum, Romney
    o and Bobby JINDAL are NOT “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS” and are NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OR OCCUPY THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

    “Natural born” is VERY different from any other category of citizenship, i.e. “native born”, “naturalized”, or “citizen by statute”. At the time of Ted Cruz’ birth in Calgary, Canada, his American-citizen mother and Cuban-citizen father RESIDED there. He was born a resident of Canada with dual-American/Cuban citizenship until 2014. No one with dual citizenship at birth is eligible for the presidency. Cruz is neither a “natural born” nor a “native born” citizen of the United States but rather a “citizen by statute” as clarified here:
    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm

    As constitutional conservative Ted Cruz, himself stated at the May 2013 National Rifle Association convention in Houston:

    “The Constitution matters. ALL of the Constitution. It’s not pick and choose. It’s not take what part you like and get rid of the parts you don’t like. … Every word of the Constitution matters.”

    Upon his victorious election to the Senate in August 2012, Cruz proclaimed to his supporters, “We did it. Millions of Texans, millions of Americans are rising up to reclaim our country, defend liberty and RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION.”

    If Ted Cruz is the staunch Constitutionalist he claims to be, he would be doing voters of all parties an ENORMOUS DISSERVICE BY RUNNING for the U.S. Presidential office in 2016 and subjecting our nation to further “natural born citizen” confusion. Assuming their respective wives Heidi, Jeanette, and Supriya were themselves American citizens at the time they gave birth, then Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal can take great comfort in knowing that THEIR sons and daughters WILL be eligible to be President of the United States one day.

    A SAMPLE OF SIGNIFICANT LINKS AND REFERENCES FOLLOW:

    4/04/13 Article by Diane West:
    http://www.wnd.com/…/…

    http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/

    OBAMA INELIGIBILITY EVIDENCE DATABASE…
    https://docs.google.com/…/edit…

    Bobby Jindal…
    Amar and Raj Jindal were only here in the United States a few months prior to the birth of their son Pujib “Bobby” Jindal in June 1971 in Baton Rouge, LA. According to Mr. Jindal’s press secretary Kyle Plotkin, “both of his parents were permanent legal residents and not naturalized U.S. citizens at the time of his birth”. So, at the time of his birth, Bobby Jindal’s parents were NOT U.S. citizens; they were Punjab, India citizens enjoying U.S. residency.

    Marco Rubio…
    According to Marco Rubio’s press secretary Alex Burgos, Senator Marco Rubio’s parents “were permanent legal residents of the U.S.” at the time of his birth in 1971, NOT naturalized citizens of the U.S. Rubio’s parents did not become naturalized U.S. citizens until four years later.
    • “Natural Born” citizens
    • Below is part of the discussion of the Congress of 1866 which wrote and passed the 14th Amendment, and according to the intent of the framers of that Amendment, which is the “Law of the Land”, as democrats like to say, neither Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and even Mitt Romney, are not eligible to be President of the United States, according to the terms set forth in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution which requires a President to be a “natural born citizen”. The left will argue that the courts make the law, but as we all know, it is the legislatures that write laws, the courts affirm their Constitutionality, and the executive, executes those laws. The fathers of all four of the above, were not citizens of the United States at the time of the births of their sons, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, and never applied for U.S. citizenship. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and his father was still a Cuban citizen at the time of his birth, Marco Rubio’s father never applied for U.S. citizenship until 1997, and George Romney was born in Mexico, to parents who had relinquished their U.S. citizenship, and therefore George Romney was a Mexican citizen by birth and was never naturalized, which means that Mitt Romney is a Mexican citizen by birth. We cannot ignore the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment because Obama was elected, and now seek to elect another ineligible candidate to compensate. We must as Americans. elect only “natural born citizens” to be President. We cannot have a President with a dual allegiance! Obama has proven this detrimental to the welfare and propriety of the United States of America.
    o

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: