You are on page 1of 4

Michael LeMieux – The Law, The Constitution, and Definitions

THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, AND DEFINITIONS

By Michael LeMieux
February 14, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

There are some in our society, and in government, that believe the Constitution is a living
document that must “change” with the times. Oh really? They would have us believe that
when someone writes a document for the establishment of a government that the documents
meaning would change just because time had passed. And who would be the deciding voice on
that change? And who would decide which passages are changeable and which were not?

The absurdity of this belief should be, at once, plain for all to see; for how can law be
established, and the Constitution is the gauge for all our law, if the basis for that law is
transient? It does not make sense except to those who do not understand their history or
constitutional interpretation and construction.

In law, once the legislature has defined a term that term cannot mean anything except that
which the writers have deemed it to mean.[1] For example, the word “employee” has a totally
different meaning within the IRS than is generally understood, and without knowing the
“legalese” you would have an erroneous understanding of the law as it applies to you.

Compare the following definitions for employee:

1. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977 Edition: “One employed by another usually for
wages or salary and in a position below the executive level.”
2. Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition: “A person who works in the service of another
person (the employer) under an express or implied contract of hire, under which the
employer has the right to control the details of work performance.”
3. IRS Tax code, title 26 USC, section 3401(c): “employee - For purposes of this chapter, the
term ''employee'' includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a
State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee'' also includes an
officer of a [federally owned or controlled] corporation.” (Emphasis added.)

Notice how closely the two dictionaries follow the “understood” or common meaning of the
word “employee”. But, as I have already said, in law the meaning can have a definition all its
own. In this case, the term has absolutely no resemblance to either of the dictionary terms. In
fact, the IRS’ own definition, and this is their only definition for employee, does not describe
the majority of workers within the United States. And by legal construction when you are
given a list to “include” the expansive definition beyond what is enumerated can only be those
within the general class of the list. In this case what class would you assume that to be? If you
said government or government employee you would be correct.

Page 1 of 4
Michael LeMieux – The Law, The Constitution, and Definitions

So when we view the Constitution we cannot give the words used the meanings that may be in
effect today but must use the meaning as defined, or if not defined, that was in common use
at the time of the writing of the document.

One example of a change from the original meaning of the Constitution is the phrase
“regulate commerce.” We see nearly every expansion of the federal governments power into
the states of the Union has been through what it has deemed as its regulation of commerce
among the states; or in the present vernacular “interstate commerce.”

It has been stated that that anything in business that crosses state lines is interstate
commerce and that would be true but those were not the words used in the Constitution nor
was that the meaning given to the term. The term used was “regulate commerce among the
several States.” But the federal government has brought the weight of government against
citizens across this nation, under this clause, when they did not sell an item at all stating that
it impacts interstate commerce.[2] They have even charged individuals for impacting
interstate commerce because having a concealed handgun in proximity of a school creates a
condition that does not allow children to learn and thus impacts interstate commerce. [3]

But what did those that wrote the Constitution state was the meaning of this term? In plain
terms it was to ensure a level playing field for commerce between the several states. They did
not want states applying tariffs to competing states which traversed their state to bring
product to market. In the words of Madison in the Federalist papers (No. 42), speaking of the
power to regulate commerce:

“…A very material object of this power was the relief of the States
which import and export through other States, from the improper
contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the
trade between State and State…ways would be found out to load the articles of
import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties
which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former.”

This clearly establishes that the federal’s role was that of making commerce regular or fair
across ALL the states.

But it seems the further we get away from the meaning of the founders the more perverted
government uses these powers to suppress the States and its citizens. In 1922 the Supreme
Court ruled [4] that the government’s actions through the interstate commerce and taxing
authorities was used to coerce behavior and was outside the bounds of the Constitution,
stating:

“...Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do,
hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of
subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted
with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to
enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and
enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. ...such…
would… break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of
Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.
(p38)”

Page 2 of 4
Michael LeMieux – The Law, The Constitution, and Definitions

Through taxation, interstate commerce regulation, and the myriad of unconstitutional


“departments” within the federal government, all under the auspices of interstate commerce,
are put in place to control and coerce the states and the people to comply with their wishes.
These are tactics seen every day in the inner cities in the days of organized crime. It seems the
tactics haven’t changed only the location from where they are administered.

Now moving even further away from the founders in 1942 the Supreme Court ruled [5] that
the commerce clause also extends to activities within a state which may “affect” interstate
commerce even when that activity is not deemed “commerce.” They went on to say that
Congress had the ability to regulate prices of commodities as well as the practices which
affected those prices. The logic here goes like this: If you or I have a garden in our back yard
which we grow for our own enjoyment and consumption; then we are affecting interstate
commerce because we are not purchasing vegetables from the local grocer who may purchase
from interstate suppliers thus impacting interstate commerce and therefore the federal
government can regulate that activity.

With this type of “circular logic” there is absolutely no area of our lives that cannot be tied to
interstate commerce and thus federal regulation and control. They are doing it each and every
day, unconstitutionally and thus illegally, but they carry the big stick of government and the
color of law [6] to enforce their will on the American people.

One of the main reasons for the continual erosion of our liberties has been the bastardization
of the meanings of the words and phrases of the Constitution. They have been twisted and
redefined to the point that they no longer resemble the true meaning of its authors and thus
have robbed all of us of our freedoms and liberties and have allowed the massive expansion if
a totalitarian regime we now see being implemented today. It is not being done by innocent
mistake but by power hungry men and women who will do anything to enforce their will on
the American people.

We the People must now force our states to remove themselves from under the control of the
federal government by refusing to accept federal funding and the demands to enforce federal
law within the borders of the state. They must pass state law or state constitutional
amendments that any unconstitutional federal law, regulation, or agency will carry no
jurisdiction within the state and any attempt by a federal agent within that unconstitutional
agency to enforce federal law will be arrested.

It is time to put the federal genie back in its bottle and start returning freedom and liberty to
where it belongs – to the states and the people.

Footnotes:

1, Rayonier, Inc. v. Polson, 400 F.2d 909 (9th cir. 1968)


2, Wickard V Filburn, 317 U.S. 111(1942)
3, United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
4, Bailey V. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922)
5, Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
6, Color of Law: law that supplants or replaces the established, or root law, by a controlling
government; to give the impression of legitimate authority.

Page 3 of 4
Michael LeMieux – The Law, The Constitution, and Definitions

Michael LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served in both the US
Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained in multiple intelligence
disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group,
while in the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He
served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.

Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically discharged with
over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently works as an intelligence
contractor to the US government.

Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the


original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the
republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those
who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind
and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed
far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the
American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and
the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now
has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals
right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the
Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan,
Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia,
Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.

Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and
grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and
scuba diving when he can find the time.

Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com

Page 4 of 4