By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Patrick Henry, a designer of our Constitutional Republic, said, “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.” What history lessons about the design of our Republic can we learn from natural disasters?

As Americans we believe in helping each other in time of need, so the question is not should we help, but from where should disaster help come from? Looking at the design of our Republic, here are some hard observations.

Constitutionally there is no delegation of authority for the federal government to act as emergency funding services for the states. James Madison, father of the Constitution and fourth president, declared before congress in 1792:

“I, sir, have always conceived — I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived — it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, that those who ratified the Constitution conceived — that this is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers — but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”

Restrictions are Constitutionally enshrined

If the power is not expressly delegated through a specific Article, section, or clause in the Constitution, then the federal authority does not lawfully exist. The only way to change or expand federal power is through the amendment process described in the Constitution which through either process includes the creators of the Constitution, the States. No single branch of the creation can expand its own power by any other means. Remember:

Congress cannot expand its own or another branch’s delegated power by legislative act. Alexander Hamilton, a designer of our Constitution, wrote in Federalist #78: “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” The President has no authority to change the Constitution; he doesn’t have the authority to make laws of any sort. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article 1 section 1. Since any legislative act contrary to the Constitution is invalid, the president making legislative acts, is a clear violation of the Constitution and per se invalid. The Judiciary cannot expand federal power beyond the Constitution. James Madison addresses such a violation in 1800: “…dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution…”

If elected representatives in Washington, D.C. cannot identify the Article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal government to engage in emergency funding services to the states, then that authority very plainly does not legally exist.

Any reference to a congressional act, does not create that authority. If legislative act is the only authority, then as Hamilton so accurately announced, that legislative act is void and no law at all. Neither a Supreme Court opinion or series of opinions can be the basis for undelegated authority since the judiciary cannot exercise or sanction any authority that is not tied down to a specific power delegated through the Constitution. The existence of executive agencies designated to perform a function beyond the grant of the Constitution cannot provide legal justification for pretend authority.

Sadly, what we too often hear is that “We must have the federal government’s help; without it we cannot function.” According to William Pitt, the Younger, in 1783: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The purpose of the Constitution is to “preserve the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The plea of necessity over the limited nature of the Constitution is yet another unconstitutional argument. This cry of necessity is annulled because the terms of the Constitution binds the federal government to expressed powers only. If the people through their states want the federal government to have a new authority then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities.

If the people through their states want the federal government to have a new authority, then they must amend the document that enumerates its abilities. To put forth any or all of these extra-constitutional assertions as legal justification for powers that are not enumerated is to suggest that the Constitution is not the foundation for the rule of law in our Republic. In that case, then Congress, the President and the courts would have zero authority, because without the Constitution they have no basis to even exist.

So how should aid be handled?

If the federal government wasn’t stealing and extorting money and power from the people and their states to fund and operate all their unconstitutional federal agencies and programs throughout year, the states would have plenty of money to manage their own disasters.

Under a properly operating Constitutional Republic, our states would have a surplus beyond our modern comprehension and the states — in addition to the millions in private donations we see after major disasters — could individually provide relief as they see fit.

In fact, the designers of our Constitutional Republic speculated about unexpected burdens that one state may not be able to handle. Throughout the 85 published Federalist Papers, the authors of these papers repeatedly assert that the establishment of the union of the states would create a fiduciary relationship between the states. This “brotherhood” would create a feeling of friendship and duty amongst the States for economic and defensive support. They postulated that if there were such an unforeseen and unreasonable burden placed upon one state, the remaining states would voluntarily and individually administer aid as their citizens felt appropriate.

The designers of our Constitutional Republic never once asserted that the federal government would have the authority to engage in charity in any form. As a matter of fact, they spoke against the federal exercise of charity on multiple occasions.

James Madison proclaimed before Congress in 1792, that for the federal Congress to engage in public charity with tax dollars, “would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America.”

He repeated this truth in 1794, when he said most definitively: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

There is no reason and no authority for the feds to become involved with these kinds of domestic affairs. However, because America has been errantly trained for more than 150 years, that this is the purpose of the federal government. Most Americans do not even have an inclination that their cries for federal aid are transmuting the mutual brotherhood of the states into a “nanny-hood” of the federal government.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at www.KrisAnneHall.com