So what do we do now? Advice for tea-partyers
The recent election results in Virginia and New Jersey – representing in part a strong repudiation of the threats to freedom over the past year – have energized many pro-liberty activists. It is imperative that we keep the pressure on.
But we can be sure the other side will try to trick us into damaging statements in order to discredit us, or lure us into time-wasting strategies. So here are a few things to remember:
* Let’s keep our eye on the ball. The ultimate goal of most in the pro-freedom and “Tea Party” movements is to restore constitutional limits to the federal government. Our Constitution – not any peripheral or personal causes – is what we are working for.
* Swarm, swarm, swarm. The focus for the short-term has to be to continue to “swarm” our elected representatives, get in their faces, and tell them over and over that more deficit spending or tax increases are simply unacceptable. So also is any major expansion of government control, particularly a takeover of heath care.
* Restoring limits on the feds. The focus long-term has to be one or more constitutional amendments to put the federal government’s house back in order and protect future generations from the kinds of assaults on our freedom we have faced over the last year. When a system breaks down, sometimes you have to patch up to set it right — just as our fathers and grandfathers adopted the 22nd Amendment to re-establish the two-term presidential tradition that Franklin Roosevelt had disregarded. That’s our situation now.
* 2010 elections. The focus medium-term is now the 2010 elections – not just for Congress, but particularly on the state level. This is because constitutional amendments to curb Congress’s powers are probably not going to come from Congress. The states will have to use the Constitution’s state-proposal procedure.
* Don’t let the bad guys marginalize you. Talk of actions such as secession suggest that we are the ones willing to destroy our constitutional system – when in fact the opposition has that dubious distinction.
* Work smart. The other side has a lot of people who work full-time in politics or who work for the government, which sometimes amounts to nearly the same thing. That’s in addition to Soros money. So we have to carefully husband our resources – devote your time and energy only to things that make sense in view of our goals.
* Don’t waste your time on impossible causes. Here are a few causes that are certain time-wasters: (1) impeaching Obama (impossible while the Dems control Congress, even assuming there are grounds to do so), (2) recalling U.S. Senators or Congressmen before their terms are up (there is no recall procedure authorized by the Constitution or federal law), and (3) secession movements (which, besides conceding the Constitution to the other side, overlooks the fact that they have the nuclear weapons).
* Again, keep your eyes on the ball – restore the Constitution. That means letters to the editor, candidate identification, working in the political party of your choice, fundraising, keeping in touch with others in the pro-freedom movement, and educating yourself by reading websites like The Cauldron and listening to great commentators like Jon Caldara.
Rob Natelson is a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana, and runner-up in the 2000 “open primary” for Governor of Montana. His opinions are his own, and should not be attributed to any other person or institution.

Rob Natelson:
I enjoy and appreciate your commentary having read a good bit of it in different locales.
You may or may not (most likely the latter) be aware of the legal action filed Jan. 19, 2010 in NJ Federal Appeals Court entitled Kerchner et al v. Obama et al. Before you jump to the “progressive” conclusion that this action is for the purpose of impeaching Narack Obama let me tell you that it is not! It IS, however, for the purpose of bringing the action before SCOTUS on the first impression idea of the definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause; Article 2 Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution. The phrase has never been defined by that Court in our 233 year history.
And, yes, the action does ask the Judiciary to rule on whether or not the man currently holding the office has ever shown himself to be legally eligible since the Constitution uses one of the requisite conditions for the office that only a “… natural born Citizen … shall be eligible …”.
Whether he has shown he is eligible or not is a factual matter that can certainly be determined by factual issues during discovery and from there the judicial decision becomes a legal matter. So far the Kerchner et al case has not been heard on merit but has been shunted aside by various procedural dodges … the judicial fictions of “standing”, “justiciability”, etc.
Once the Appeals process runs its course (the defense has 30 days from Jan 19 to respond and the action continues from there) the case will definitely go to SCOTUS no matter the Appeals decision due to the first impression material involved.
I’m aware of your advice, of course, to not do “wheel spinning” on impossible efforts (such as impeachment) but this case is more properly asking the court to do its duty (in the words of C. J. Marshall in the 1821 Cohens v. Virginia) and not do (as Marashall described it) “… treason to the Constitution …” and to define the term “natural born Citizen” and to make a legal determination from the facts as to whether or not Mr. Obama is indeed eligible under the Constitution.
I’d ask you to please at least read the Initial Appeals Brief which can be reached from this site:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
at the thread entry dated Tuesday, January 19, 2010 (presently the fifth entry on the site) and I believe you will get quite a different perspective on at least THIS effort by plain citizens on an extremely important Constitutional matter. If Mr. Obama is ruled not a nbC by the court, I believe that the American populace will (despite the reticence of the mainstream media to discuss the matter now) not sit still for being lied to by not only Mr. Obama but by his various functionaries including the media.
I would enjoy knowing your “take” on the action at the very least – and, no matter, thanks for your time.
26 Jan 2010 at 11:49 am