Tuesday, December 17, 2024

CA MassResistance: Exposing Norwalk-La Mirada "Karens" Marie and Rudy Miranda

Rudy and Marie Miranda, the NLMUSD "Karens"

[Arthur Schaper's speech to the December 16, 2024 Norwalk-La Mirada School Board meeting]:

Today is a really exciting day for Norwalk La Mirada School District.

Congratulations to Espie Free and Becky Langenwalter.

It's also an exciting day for MassResistance.

Since the middle of 2023, I have been privileged to work with a number of wonderful parents in this community, men and women who did not want their children subjected to getting directions on obtaining abortions or sex change procedures from a so-called well-being center at one of the high schools.

What has been really exciting about working with the parents in this community is that they have stayed active despite a major victory last June, when we received word from the principal and then from other staff that the well-being Center was going to be shut down for good.

The work is not done however, because there are still obscene books in the school libraries, and there are LGBT clubs that have no business being available to kids, and there is still the aftermath of the COVID-19 lockdowns. There is also grave danger with the upcoming ethnic studies program, which seeks to divide rather than unite students. We should not allow that to happen.

There are also ongoing concerns about this upcoming superintendent Natasha Baker. Will she treat teachers and staff with respect? Will she listen to the needs of students and the concerns of parents? You need to keep a close on her and make sure that she has learned the lessons from her failures at Banning and Fresno Unified.

MassResistance parents are still committed to fighting the good fight and ensuring that the school district continues to put the needs of children and the rights of parents first and shows a commitment to getting rid of all of this woke DEI LGBT garbage in the school district once and for all.

Last of all, I am compelled to speak out against a hateful Karen named Marie Miranda and her shameful husband Rudy Miranda. These despicable people have routinely defamed parents in this community, calling them terrorists and extremists simply because they don't want perversion being pushed on their children.

Their kind of bigotry reminds me of the Nazi movement that sought to label, libel, and then eliminate people they disagreed with. The only difference between them and the Ku Klux Klan is that they don't have the dignity to put white shawls to hide their faces, and their anti-religious bigotry is so great that they wouldn’t burn crosses on people’s lawns.

Such adults who work with children, and then come to a school board meeting and call parents terrorists have no business being around children, and I think that the school district needs to take a stand on this kind of abuse.

The fact of the matter is that abusive Karens like Marie Miranda can't handle the fact that the parents voted. They voted to get rid of all of the woke nonsense, and they want a school board that will actually listen to them rather than listen to hateful partisans like the Mirandas. Last of all I would like everyone in the audience to raise your hand if you are a resident in the Norwalk La Mirada School District. For some reason, bigots like Marie and Rudy Miranda oppose democracy and here don't think you matter.

That’s the real extremism, and it needs to be opposed with our collective voices.

(Here's the video recording of my comments):

ICYMI: MassResistance on Fox News Denouncing "Drag Queen Story Hour" (2019)

June 2019 was a great time.

MassResistance was fighting for Robert Hoogland.

Our Texas chapter exposed the drag queen sex offenders at the Houston Library.

And I debated this issue with a pro-drag queen liberal "Christian" on Fox News:

“This is not diversity—this is perversity! Why do we advertise perverse lifestyles to our children? Why are adult homosexual men/entertainers going to libraries and dancing in front of children?!” @ArthurCSchaper @IngrahamAngle pic.twitter.com/92b4LBDQgY
— 🇺🇸California Condor🇺🇸 (@Condor_Law) June 14, 2019

I was the only one who had the courage to call out homosexuality and transgenderism as harmful behaviors. I refused to buy into the "gay conservative" lie.

And Laura Ingraham was so unhappy that I called out all this crap, that she canceled me live on air.

It's a real shame that many pro-family advocates do not have the broad opportunity to speak out against perversion with such direct necessity.

Monday, December 16, 2024

What Happens to Unclaimed Dead in LA County (December 14, 2024)

Laying to Rest LA County's Unclaimed Dead

This week we held our annual Burial of the Unclaimed Dead ceremony, where we laid to rest the 1,865 people who passed away in LA County in 2021 without anyone to claim their remains.

Every year, I make it a point to attend this ceremony. It is one of the more special things we do as a County—upholding our commitment since 1896 that everyone in LA County, no matter their means, is laid to rest with dignity. These people may have been strangers to us, but they are no less worthy of our recognition. May their souls now rest in peace.

TAC: Ignored History of the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights Ignored History

Forgotten Role of the 10th Amendment

The Bill of Rights was born from intense battles between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over delegated and reserved powers. This clash not only shaped its contested origins but also left its true purpose misunderstood to this day.

1. Initial Efforts Rejected

During the Philadelphia Convention on Sept. 12, 1787, George Mason proposed adding a declaration of rights to the Constitution, but his motion was overwhelmingly rejected. Only Massachusetts abstained from voting against it.

Just three days later, Edmund Randolph proposed a new approach: allow state conventions to submit amendments for consideration in another general convention.

"That amendments to the plan might be offered by the State Conventions, which should be submitted to and finally decided on by another general Convention."

Yet this motion was rejected unanimously, signaling the deep reluctance among the framers to entertain such changes.

After the Constitution was sent to the Confederation Congress, Anti-Federalists like Richard Henry Lee took up the fight for a Bill of Rights. Lee passionately argued for attaching amendments before sending the document to the states for ratification, saying, "To insist that it should go as it is without amendments is like presenting a hungry man 50 dishes and insisting he should eat all or none."

Despite Lee’s fervent efforts, the Constitution was sent to the states without any amendments.

2. The Federalist Argument

During the ratification debates, Federalists such as James Wilson, Tench Coxe, and Alexander Hamilton argued that listing specific rights could be redundant - or even dangerous - because it could imply that the government had powers beyond those explicitly granted.

Wilson’s State House Yard Speech emphasized that the federal government could only exercise powers expressly delegated to it, making a Bill of Rights "superfluous and absurd."

"Every thing which is not given, is reserved. This distinction being recognized, will furnish an answer to those who think the omission of a bill of rights, a defect in the proposed Constitution: for it would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges, of which we are not divested either by the intention or the act, that has brought that body into existence."

In other words, the federal government would only be authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it in the constitution. In that structure, why add a declaration, Wilson's argument suggested, that the government is not authorized to do what it's already not delegated a power to do in the first place?

Learn more about this essential history they don’t teach in government schools.

As Tench Coxe explained:

"The old federal Constitution contained many of the same things, which from error or disingenuousness are urged against the new one. Neither of them have a bill of rights, nor does either notice the liberty of the press, because they are already provided for by the State Constitutions; and relating only to personal rights, they could not be mentioned in a contract among sovereign states."

Coxe provided an example, by pointing out that "there is nothing in the new constitution to prevent a trial by jury."

In Federalist 84, Hamilton famously warned that listing rights could imply that any unlisted rights were unprotected, a dangerous precedent.

"I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted."

He continued, citing a lack of power over the freedom of the press as an example of something not delegated to the federal government in the constitution, and thus, unnecessary to include in a bill of rights.

"For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

Hamilton forcefully argued that under this structure of delegated and reserved powers, "the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights."

3. Anti-Federalist Rebuttals

However, Anti-Federalists weren't convinced, not even close.

In the weeks following the Philadelphia Convention, George Mason’s objections were widely circulated. His first and foremost concern was “There is no Declaration of Rights.”

A week after James Wilson’s speech dismissing the need for a Bill of Rights, the Federal Farmer published his fourth essay. In it, he directly challenged the Federalist claim that explicit protections were unnecessary under the Constitution's system of delegated and reserved powers.

“It is said, that when the people make a constitution, and delegate powers, that all powers not delegated by them to those who govern, is reserved in the people.”

After restating the Federalist argument, Federal Farmer drew attention to how this principle was already implemented under the Articles of Confederation, where Article II explicitly reserved rights and powers to the states. The new Constitution lacked such an express reservation, raising concerns that this safeguard was being deliberately abandoned.

“And that the people, in the present case, have reserved in themselves, and in there state governments, every right and power not expressly given by the federal constitution to those who shall administer the national government.”

Federal Farmer then argued that Wilson’s explanation of delegated and reserved powers was not an objective truth. Instead, politicians - then and now - tend to adopt whichever view best serves their political goals. This ambiguity makes explicit protections all the more necessary to prevent abuse.

“It is said, on the other hand, that the people, when they make a constitution, yield all power not expressly reserved to themselves. The truth is, in either case, it is mere matter of opinion, and men usually take either side of the argument, as will best answer their purposes.”

He then closed with the central warning: governments inevitably seek to expand their own power, especially in areas where the limits of authority are unclear. To counteract this tendency, Federal Farmer insisted that wise constitution-makers explicitly define how powers are delegated and reserved.

“But the general presumption being, that men who govern, will, in doubtful cases, construe laws and constitutions most favorably for increasing their own powers; all wise and prudent people, in forming constitutions, have drawn the line, and carefully described the powers parted with and the powers reserved.”

In the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry argued that this federalist view of delegated and reserved powers was novel - because it had always been the other way around.

"I repeat, that all nations have adopted this construction - That all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people, are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers; as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers. It is so in Great-Britain: For every possible right which is not reserved to the people by some express provision or compact, is within the King's prerogative."

For Patrick Henry and many other Anti-Federalists, this new kind of system - without an express declaration - dangerously left the reservation of rights and powers to implication:

"If you intend to reserve your unalienable rights, you must have the most express stipulation. For if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights. If the people do not think it necessary to reserve them, they will be supposed to be given up."

A stark example from the Articles of Confederation - which was adopted during the fight with Great Britain - emphasized his point: unless the Constitution included a reservation of rights and powers as had been done under the Articles, the federal government would be far more prone to abuse of power.

"How were the Congressional rights defined when the people of America united by a confederacy to defend their liberties and rights against the tyrannical attempts of Great-Britain? The States were not then contented with implied reservation. No, Mr. Chairman. It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the States respectively, which was not given up to the Government of the United States."

JOIN TAC, SUPPORT LIBERTY!

Let’s keep building the foundation! For as little as $2/month, help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not.

(they don’t!)

details here

Responding to the idea that a bill of rights was "superfluous" and unnecessary because the nature of the Constitution was one of delegated and reserved powers, Richard Henry Lee agreed, with an important caveat.

He noted that a bill of rights was "not necessary in the Confederation because it is expressly declared that no power should be exercised, but such as is expressly given."

Here, Lee was referencing Article II of the Articles of Confederation, the precursor to the 10th Amendment.

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Clear language about delegated and reserved powers so "no constructive power can be exercised," Lee noted, was the fundamental principle at hand. He said preventing such misconstruction of power "is the great use of a bill of rights."

In short, Richard Henry Lee took a position similar to that of Alexander Hamilton. As long as it was expressly declared that the powers delegated were the limit of powers that could be exercised, then the entire document - or just Article II of the Articles of Confederation - could function as a "bill of rights."

Thus, a full Bill of Rights wasn’t even needed under the Articles of Confederation because it was spelled out that what wasn’t delegated, was reserved.

The 10th

For much of the ratification process, Federalists insisted that the Constitution be approved or rejected in its entirety, vehemently rejecting any suggestions for amendments. This stance quickly changed when it became clear that Massachusetts would likely vote against ratification.

A loss there – Federalists understood – would send them reeling in states where it was expected to be a very close call at best – like New York and Virginia. In other words, the entire proposal was close to being doomed.

That was when Federalists made a deal with two powerful, but mostly silent, likely opponents - John Hancock and Samuel Adams: Support the Constitution if the ratification included a number of recommended amendments.

On Feb. 6, they did just that, and the very first recommended amendment was a precursor to the 10th Amendment.

“First. That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.”

This language was crucial in addressing Anti-Federalist fears that the Constitution would lead to unchecked federal power.

South Carolina quickly followed their lead with a similar recommended amendment

“This Convention doth also declare that no Section or paragraph of the said Constitution warrants a Construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the General Government of the Union.”

And on June 21, New Hampshire sealed the deal in favor of ratification by also including as their first recommended amendment the same precursor to the 10th Amendment from Massachusetts.

Virginia, and then New York both followed suit, also with precursors to the 10th prominently included in their lists of recommended amendments.

In the end, the debate over a bill of rights - and ratification itself - boiled down to an explicit line in the sand between delegated and reserved powers.

It’s no wonder that Thomas Jefferson, who repeatedly approved of “the plan of Massachusetts,” later called the 10th Amendment “the foundation of the Constitution.”

And it’s no wonder why government-run schools rarely teach these foundational principles and views - they’re a huge part of the system that has given us the biggest government in history.

But TAC has you covered - and nothing helps us reach and teach more and more people with this kind of essential historical information - more than the financial faith and support of our members. JOIN US TODAY!

Here’s the link, you know what to do: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members/

Brick-by-brick. Person-by-person. Building a strong foundation for liberty – whether the government happens to like it, or not.

(they definitely do not)

Sunday, December 15, 2024

Kenya MassResistance!

MassResistance helping Kenya Christians train young people across the country to resist the LGBT agenda

Swarm of foreign-funded LGBT activist groups descending on Kenya to recruit youth and change the culture

First 3-day course for 80 students to take place on Dec. 17-19 in Nairobi

December 15, 2024

The Kenya MassResistance group of Christians are determined to protect the youth from this agenda and are not at all intimidated.

MassResistance is helping Christians in Kenya fight the LGBT invasion of their country that’s targeting young children and teenagers. A dynamic Kenya MassResistance chapter has hit the ground running!

MassResistance has created a thorough three-day course for them on resisting the LGBT agenda in Kenya. Approximately 80 high school and college students in Nairobi will be taking the course this week, December 17-19. (See flyer below.) More trainings are planned across the country.

In February 2024, as we reported, MassResistance helped a pro-family group in Ghana set up anti-LGBT clubs in secondary schools there to counteract the LGBT insurgency. The Kenya project will reach even further!

On December 4, 2024, we were contacted by a prominent pastor in Nairobi. He is part of a group of pastors, schoolteachers, and others seeking our help. “Many poor youths are being lured into perversion with so much money (from foreign countries) and the promise of a good lifestyle,” he wrote. “As a pastor I seek your partnership to launch a campaign in the high schools, since much recruitment into LGBTQ takes place in high schools. My church is currently conducting some programs in the schools nearby, which makes it easy.”

The foreign LGBT invasion of Kenya

Homosexual behavior is illegal in Kenya according to the country’s constitution. But officials have been caving in to pressure.

In February 2023, the Kenya Supreme Court ruled that the National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (NGLHRC) must be allowed to officially register as a non-governmental organization (NGO). This ruling gave it legal recognition to openly engage in a range of activities and promotions in Kenya. That ruling shocked the country’s Christian community.

NGLHRC was founded by a group of pro-LGBT Kenyan lawyers to aggressively promote “equality and full inclusion” of LGBT “identities” and behaviors in Kenya. It engages mostly in strategic litigation, but also public advocacy, “training and civic education,” and other civic activism. According to the pastors we spoke with, it is funded by U.S.-based other Western organizations.

The vast foreign money coming into Kenya to implement the LGBTQ agenda and change the country’s culture is astounding, and similar to the situation in neighboring countries.

Foreign funders of LGBT groups in Kenya. The Kenya MassResistance people have identified the major foreign funders of the LGBT invasion of Kenya. Several of these (such as Advocates for Youth) are also directly active in the U.S.

(Note also that the U.S. Deptartment of State also actively promotes “LGBTQI rights” in Kenya by helping coordinate funding and other support going into the country.)

Over twenty new "official" LGBT groups. The Kenya Supreme Court ruling opened the door for a flood of at least twenty additional foreign-funded LGBT advocacy groups gain official NGO recognition to push their agenda in Kenya.

It's quite frightening. These pro-LGBT groups in Kenya are strategically organized and funded (with full-time staff) to target the Kenyan people and society from different directions. Here is a sample of what these groups do:

Target schools and sports organizations where youth congregate
Support (and litigate on behalf of) homosexual prostitution
Lobby public officials
Distribute condoms, lubricant, and other homosexual sex paraphernalia
Put on public “LGBT” events
Produce propaganda campaigns
Establish LGBT “safe zones”
One group even advertises “Offering training on how to have anal sex without pain”

Besides the groups described above, the Kenya MassResistance people have identified groups that indirectly promote the agenda using misleading "health" information and advocacy.

It’s particularly alarming, say the pastors, that these groups take advantage of the relative illiteracy in rural areas by pushing homosexual and gender ideology there (often using the infamous “gender unicorn”) to persuade and recruit children to accept those ideas and behaviors.

This vile graphic for proselytizing children has been translated into several languages and is used around the world by the LGBT movement.

Kenya MassResistance emerges to fight back

The pastors’ group was already energized about equipping youth to resist and push back against the foreign-funded flood of LGBT propaganda and activism invading their country. It has now become the nucleus of Kenya MassResistance. Besides pastors, the full group includes schoolteachers, a school headmaster, a school coach, mental health professionals, and others. They are well-connected throughout Nairobi and other parts of the country.

As noted above, the first training will be a three-day session being held in Nairobi on December 17-19. About 80 high school and college students will be attending. It will be taught by pastors and teachers from local high schools.

The flyer for the training has gone far!

MassResistance has created a detailed curriculum for this course. The topics include:

The Definition of Sex v. Gender Ideology
Common Myths/Arguments of the LGBT Agenda
Causes of Homosexuality/Transgenderism
Health Hazards of Homosexuality
LGBT Groups in Kenya
Kenya LGBT Tactics of Recruitment
Ways of Countering the LGBT Agenda
Strategies and Tactics for Resisting the Propaganda

There is a lot of excitement about this. Many parents have enthusiastically enrolled their children in the course. The word is getting around that the LGBT agenda is being confronted!

More across the country

The truth is a huge weapon – even against well-funded evil propaganda. Kenya MassResistance’s plan for 2025 is to hold more of these training sessions in Nairobi and other cities and villages across the country. And it won’t stop there, they say. The pastors also plan to regularly continue working with the students to reinforce the “spiritual nourishment” they need to continue the fight! There is a vigorous social media presence in the works, as well as additional in-person meetings to reinforce the effort.

And yes, becoming an official NGO in Kenya

The leaders are filing the paperwork to register Kenya MassResistance as an official NGO in Kenya. “We want to be right up front in this battle, not hiding,” they told us. It will also give them a great deal of latitude for public activism.

They say they have gotten a great response from the Christian community. “We’ll all be raising our voices in the streets,” they said.

Stay tuned: We will report again after the Dec. 17-19 training session!

Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!

Our successes depend on people like you.

Donate to MassResistance

Your support will make the difference!

Thursday, December 12, 2024

TAC: Repeal the Tenth Amendment -- And More

Repeal the 17th Amendment

Ignored Anti-Federalist Predictions and Warnings on the Senate

Repealing the 17th Amendment has become a rallying cry for those seeking to restore federalism. But the Anti-Federalists warned during the ratification debates that structural flaws in the Senate run much deeper than merely the method of election.

Corruption, careerism, and usurpations of power won’t disappear with repeal alone - not even close. The Anti-Federalists identified three fundamental issues that plagued the Senate, even under its original structure:

No Recall Power
In Office Too Long
Blending of Powers in the Senate

Together, these flaws created what the Anti-Federalists feared most - a breeding ground for corruption and consolidation of power - leading to a destruction of liberty.

No Recall Power

The Anti-Federalists strongly and repeatedly criticized the lack of a mechanism for recalling senators under the Constitution, arguing that this absence eliminated a key check on unaccountable power - a concern that remains critical today.

Under Article V of the Articles of Confederation, states reserved the power to recall and replace their delegates to congress at any time, for any reason.

“For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each state to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.”

This power was intentionally removed by the framers of the Constitution in Philadelphia because they generally felt that recall would keep each senator, as Alexander Hamilton described it, “in such a state of vassalage and dependence, that he never can possess that firmness which is necessary to the discharge of his great duty to the union.”

George Nicholas explained “The dread of being recalled would impair their independence and firmness.”

Anti-federalists like Patrick Henry disagreed, vehemently.

“At present you may appeal to the voice of the people, and send men to Congress positively instructed to obey your instructions. You can recall them if their system of policy be ruinous. But can you in this government recall your senators? Or can you instruct them? You cannot recall them. You may instruct them, and offer your opinions; but if they think them improper, they may disregard them.”

Learn more about this essential history they don’t teach in government schools.

George Mason made the case that with a Senate disconnected from the states, senators could easily ignore state interests, pursue their own agendas, or succumb to national-level influences, including foreign bribery or political factions.

“In the new Constitution, instead of being elected for one, they are chosen for six years. They cannot be recalled, in all that time, for any misconduct, and at the end of that long term may again be elected. What will be the operation of this? Is it not probable that those gentlemen, who will be elected senators, will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of our state?”

Mason continued, warning that in such a scenario, Senators would “exercise those machinations and contrivances which the many have always to fear from the few.”

In Massachusetts, Dr. Taylor followed up saying that without a recall power, once Senators are chosen “they are chosen forever.”

In Office Too Long

The six-year term for senators was a major Anti-Federalist concern, as they feared it would encourage careerism, entrenchment, and the rise of a permanent political class.

They called for rotation of six out of 12 years, or just shorter terms, or even a hard limit on time in office.

Col. William Jones of Massachusetts warned that “senators chosen for so long a time will forget their duty to their constituents.”

Melancton Smith of New York also raised concerns about senators becoming disconnected from the people, stating that without rotation or recall, “there is no doubt that the senators will hold their office perpetually; and in this situation, they must of necessity lose their dependence and attachment to the people,” and instead, they would in essence act as independent agents of federal power.

Mercy Otis Warren echoed these warnings, “A senate chosen for six years, will in most instances, be an appointment for life, as the influence of such a body over the minds of the people, will be coeval to the extensive powers with which they are vested, and they will not only forget, but be forgotten by their constituents.”

Too Much of a Mixture or Blending of powers

The Senate’s role as both a legislative and executive body deeply alarmed the Anti-Federalists. This blending of powers - approving treaties, confirming executive appointments, and legislating - was seen as a dangerous breach of the separation of powers, creating significant opportunities for corruption and abuse.

Anti-Federalists criticized the Senate’s intertwined functions with the executive branch - especially its ability to approve appointments and make treaties - arguing that this concentration of power created opportunities for unchecked influence and corruption.

They warned that placement of the Vice President as the president of the Senate, with the ability to cast tie-breaking votes, only compounded these concerns.

Additionally, they objected to the Senate’s role in trying impeachment cases. Since senators had the power to confirm appointments, critics warned that they would be unlikely to convict those they had helped appoint, rendering impeachment an ineffective check on power.

Patrick Henry went so far as to call impeachment “a sham.”

Pennsylvania Anti-Federalists expressed these fears clearly, stating:

“The senate is a constituent branch of the legislature, it has judicial power in judging on impeachments, and in this case unites in some measure the characters of judge and party, as all the principal officers are appointed by the president-general, with the concurrence of the senate and therefore they derive their offices in part from the senate.”

Centinel echoed this, warning that the Senate’s blending of legislative and executive powers “highly tends to corruption.” Centinel emphasized the foundational principle of separation of powers, "When the legislative and executive powers (says Montesquieu) are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty."

For the Anti-Federalists, these overlapping powers in the Senate were a clear threat to liberty.

JOIN TAC, SUPPORT LIBERTY!

Let’s keep building the foundation! For as little as $2/month, help us take a stand for the Constitution and liberty - whether the government likes it, or not.

(they don’t!)

details here

Lessons for Today

The Anti-Federalists repeatedly predicted dire consequences due to these structural issues in the Senate.

Luther Martin, a staunch opponent of centralized power, highlighted the lack of accountability for senators as a major concern. Comparing the structure of the new Constitution with his state’s practices, he observed:

“In this State it is provided by its constitution, that the representatives in Congress, shall be chosen annually, shall be paid by the State, and shall be subject to recall even within the year; so cautiously has our constitution guarded against an abuse of the trust reposed in our representatives in the federal government.”

He contrasted this with the Senate under the Constitution, where senators were far removed from state control:

“Whereas by the third and sixth sections of the first article of this new system, the senators are to be chosen for six years instead of being chosen annually; instead of being paid by their States who send them, they in conjunction with the other branch, are to pay themselves out of the treasury of the United States; and are not liable to be recalled during the period for which they are chosen.”

Martin’s concern was clear: the Senate’s structure severed the vital connection between senators and the states they were meant to represent. He warned of the dangers this independence could bring:

“Thus, Sir, for six years the senators are rendered totally and absolutely independent of their States, of whom they ought to be the representatives, without any bond or tie between them - During that time they may join in measures ruinous and destructive to their States, even such as should totally annihilate their State governments, and their States cannot recall them, nor exercise any controul over them.”

Martin feared that this independence would open the door to corruption, unaccountable governance, and policies destructive to federalism and liberty - issues that remain relevant as centralization continues to grow.

In the first century or so after ratification of the Constitution, Anti-Federalists appear to have been prophetic. Corruption was becoming rampant, power was centralizing, and senators were becoming less and less accountable to their states.

In the next century or so after ratification of the 17th Amendment, which changed the election of Senators in congress from a choice by state legislatures to the direct popular elections we have today, none of these issues have been resolved - in fact, they have only worsened.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a step toward decentralization and restoring federalism, but it is far from a complete solution. Addressing the deeper structural flaws identified by the Anti-Federalists and educating the public about these lessons is essential to preventing a repeat of the same mistakes.

It’s no wonder why government-run schools rarely teach these foundational principles and views - they’re a huge part of the system that has given us the biggest government in history.