Two weeks ago, I wrote a column addressing how our current out-of-control leadership in Washington is attempting to pass laws they have no constitutional authority to enact.

After it was published, I received a host of emails from people that could be lumped into three main categories.  The first group included those who said that the Constitution is outdated, and therefore irrelevant in conversations about modern American politics.  Addressing the breathtaking ignorance and danger of such a proposition would take up the rest of this column and about 50 more.  Suffice it to say that the frail paper under glass in Washington is all that stands between we the people and submission to tyrants.

The second group of responses went something like this: "I think you're right...I had never thought about that."  With as reassuring as it is to get positive feedback, in this case that kind of response only reemphasized my initial concern: our power hungry leadership knows the people are unaware of our foundational document and use that knowledge as an excuse to run roughshod over the carefully enumerated limits to their power.

But the largest reaction I received was from concerned citizens who, like me, have been complacent for far too long in demanding that our leaders stick to the Constitution.  Citizens who, like me, excused unconstitutional behavior of the President - so long as it was a president from our political party.  Citizens who, like me, might have been uncomfortable with the silent encroachment of those in power into our daily lives, but who accepted it because we "trusted" the ones who were facilitating it.

But greater than the sense of guilt that comes from realizing you have failed your solemn duty to defend principle above power must be the sense of resolve to never let it happen again.  That is the way of patriots, and that is where I think a growing majority of Americans are finding themselves.  As a result, they are wondering where to turn and are asking what to do to restore Constitutional government.  The answer is closer than they think.

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison authored the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in response to the very type of federal government overreach that we are experiencing today.  In those resolutions, these giants of American government tell us exactly where we as concerned citizens should be turning when Congress exceeds their constitutional authority - our state.

"The several States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution...they constituted a general government for special purposes - delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self government."

As columnist Daniel Baker explains, what that means is that the States are co-partners in owning the Constitution, and collectively "hired" Congress, the President and Supreme Court to manage it.  Like the owners of any business, if those they have hired to run it are abusing their duties and responsibilities - or assuming authority they have not been rightfully given - the owners (States) have the power to take corrective action.

This flies in the face of what has become conventional wisdom.  We have wrongfully accepted the notion that since Article VI of the Constitution gives the national government "supremacy" over the states if the two have conflicting laws, that must mean whatever the national government wants to do, the states must accept it.  Wrong.  The supremacy clause ONLY applies to those areas where the states have given the national government the authority to legislate.

But in areas where the national government has no constitutional authority to act (healthcare, education, etc.), the founders were clear: "where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."  That's right - the states must exert their authority and refuse to enact within their borders any national legislation that is beyond the national government's constitutional bounds.

And if the national government objects to the nullification of their laws, the Constitution gives them no recourse.  As Jefferson wrote, "[the States] alone...[are] parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress not being a party, but merely a creature of the compact, and subject...to the final judgment of...[the States]."

Barack Obama made clear in his State of the Union Address that he has no desire to alter course and is calling on Democrats to double down on enacting legislation they have no authority to enact.  Yes, that means it is our solemn duty to toss them from office at the first opportunity.  But even more importantly, our immediate answer should be to elect state officials with the spine to flex their muscles and exert their rightful check on the abuses of the national government.

In Federalist Paper #63, the Father of the Constitution James Madison wrote, "The cool and deliberate sense of the community ought...and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers."

Last week, the voters in Massachusetts did James Madison proud.

For a full year, the people of this country have been subject to the largest attempted federal power grab since the New Deal.  They have seen their votes for hope and change misread as votes for more bureaucracy and government control.  They have seen their fortunes depleted, their businesses burdened, their dollars devalued and their grandchildren spent into insurmountable debt.  While the people have recognized that their country is broke, they have been forced to watch their rulers quadruple the deficit, vote multiple times to increase the already crushing national debt, and promise massive new spending projects like healthcare for every American, cap and trade legislation, and a second "stimulus" all to be financed with money we don't have.

In response, the people - of every political affiliation, including no affiliation at all - began to organize.  They began to shout at town hall meetings, protest at Tea Parties, and bombard their lawmakers with pink slips, petitions, and phone calls.  But the ruling class, in their typical arrogant fashion, ignored and disparaged those voices.  The town halls were "staged," the Tea Parties were "astroturfed," and the petitions were nothing more than tricks from the "right-wing Republican cabal."  There was no groundswell.  There was no true opposition.  There was no tidal wave of discontent.

How fitting that it was Massachusetts - site of the original Tea Party rebellion against out-of-control government - that shattered this haughty and condescending attitude.  Had it been anywhere else, our leaders might have been so brash as to try to find some plausible excuse or explanation as to why it happened.  But not Massachusetts.  As Victor Davis Hanson put it, "Dream up a gargantuan backlash against Barack Obama's left-wing gospel, and you still could not invent the notion of a relatively unknown, conservative Scott Brown knocking off an Obama-endorsed, liberal, female attorney in liberal Massachusetts - in a race to fill the seat once held by Ted Kennedy."

The message was unmistakable: the people want their country back.

But there is a danger that we must be vigilant and guard against.  Politicians crave power and will do virtually anything they can to hang on to it.  Up until last week, many of them believed that they were in more danger of losing their power by angering their party leadership than angering the people.  Scott Brown's victory obliterated that belief.  And consequently, Washington is beginning to crawl with chameleons doing their best to jump on the bandwagon and swim with the rising tide of liberty-minded Americans.

Take Indiana Senator Evan Bayh for example.  While most wrongly assume that Bayh is a moderate, the New York Times reported that he was most responsible for rallying the Senate Democrats to push through their version of ObamaCare.  Roll Call, the newspaper on Capitol Hill, reported that Bayh, "gave a rousing speech, arguing that Democrats could not afford to let the reform effort collapse in the face of Republican attacks."  It also credited Bayh with having, "crystallize(d) the situation for Democrats."  In other words, it was Evan Bayh who demanded that Senators ignore the wishes of the people and cram through this unpopular and unconstitutional legislation.

But amazingly, just one day after Massachusetts, Evan Bayh decided to take his second face out for a spin.  He told ABC News that Democrats had pushed their agenda too far to the left.  "It's why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren't buying our message," he said.  Right, Senator...and it's a message that you helped author and whole-heartedly endorsed.  You cast your lot, and now you can deal with the consequences, sir.

Bayh later added, "They just don't believe the answers we are currently proposing are solving their problems."  If there was any confusion about where Evan Bayh really stands, that clears it up perfectly.  What Bayh and his ilk don't seem to get is that we don't want them to solve our problems.  We merely want them to get out of the way and let us solve our problems for ourselves.  Oh, and if they could stop manufacturing more problems for us, that would be nice too.

The Massachusetts election has sent shockwaves throughout Washington, and it's going to result in a lot of political posturing by incumbents who can't and shouldn't be trusted.  Unless we want to go through all this again, we'd be well advised to clean house...and Senate...ensuring that every last lawmaker who has arrogantly sought to strip us of our freedom despite our wishes find new work.

And when we do, somewhere James Madison will be smiling.

America, we've got a real problem.  No, this isn't a superficial recitation of all my objections to the Obama administration.  It isn't a reminder of the existential threat we face from radical Islam.  And it's not the increasingly devastating loss of our moral bearings as a people that I'm talking about.  The problem we face is the shocking unfamiliarity that average citizens have about how our government is supposed to work.

The current healthcare debate is a perfect example.  While both sides state their case as to why the legislation is needed or not, we completely ignore what should have been the very first question.  We debate the merits of the bribes, sweetheart deals for unions, the public option, Medicare cuts, and the inevitable debt explosion that will result from government involvement in healthcare, but we don't even think about addressing the only question that - until it is answered - should truly matter: does Congress have the constitutional authority to deal with this issue?

Here we are, decades into the debate, and a year into the actual formulation of such a plan, and the folks who are navigating this bill through Congress have yet to answer that fundamental question. 

When asked where the Constitution gave Congress the authority to enact the type of legislation they are attempting, New Jersey Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg responded by saying, "I am not going to answer that," as he walked away.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just scoffed at the question repeating, "Are you serious?  Are you serious?"

Yes, Ms. Pelosi, we are serious.  And the fact that you don't find significant this question of whether Congress is acting beyond its constitutionally mandated bounds speaks volumes about your leadership and fitness for office.

And those Congressmen who actually do try to answer the question are perhaps even more concerning.  When asked if he could say where Congress was getting their authority to enact a healthcare mandate, North Dakota Democrat Senator Kent Conrad responded, "No," but then took a stab at it anyway: "I assume it's in the Commerce clause."

It's not.  But that's not even the most astounding part of his answer.  Here is a man who swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and yet he is supporting a piece of federal legislation that he just assumes is constitutionally acceptable?  This should be the first hurdle any piece of legislation should pass before even considering its merits.

Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said she thought Congress had the authority because the Constitution, "charges Congress with the health and well-being of the people."  The fact that the words "health" and "well-being" are not found anywhere in the document doesn't seem to faze her. 

But Lincoln is not alone.  The "general welfare" argument has apparently become the standard line Democrats are now giving around the country when asked this question.  But if we are going to accept such a bloated interpretation of the general welfare clause, we should all know where it will lead.  How long until we see the "Congressional Broccoli Act," requiring every American citizen to purchase $50 worth of the green weed every week?  How could such an infringement on our economic liberty be defended you ask?  Well, eating broccoli is clearly in our best interest, and thus undoubtedly serves the general welfare of the people.  Therefore Congress should mandate it whether you want it or not.  It's for your own good.

Is this just a silly exaggeration?  Not if you listen to California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein.  She was asked by CNSNews.com, "If there's a health-insurance mandate, is there a limit to that authority?  Is there something that can't be mandated (like broccoli)?"  Her response says it all: "My own view is that there is not."

The truth is that these lawmakers are certainly aware of the fact that the Constitution of the United States does not give the national government any authority to enact the type of bill they are currently manufacturing.  But sadly, they are also aware of the fact that the people of the United States don't know any better.  And even worse, many Americans who do know it is unconstitutional are willing to look the other way because they want to support the leaders of their Party.

When he emerged from the long, arduous proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "Well Doctor, what have we got?"  Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."  So long as we allow ignorance and loyalty to political parties to supersede our allegiance to the Constitution, we are proving that we cannot.

It's an interesting dichotomy.  As the vicious ideology of fundamentalist Islam continues to spark daily acts of violence and terror that maim and murder innocent people, the political left in this country is quick to dismiss it all as "isolated extremists" who are "acting alone."  They warn us against jumping to the conclusion that people motivated by the same beliefs and teachings might be motivated by the same beliefs and teachings.  In dealing with those whose sole objective is to kill us, the left urges calm, restraint, and a non-judgmental attitude.

But let a public figure open their mouth and embrace the two most intimidating words imaginable - Jesus Christ - and those same "tolerant" and "open-minded" liberals will lose all control of their bodily functions.

The most recent example of their hysterical response to public demonstrations of the Christian faith came when former Fox News anchor Brit Hume appeared as a guest on Fox News Sunday.  While discussing the continuing saga of Tiger Woods' moral failings, Hume was asked his opinion of the golfer's professional and personal future.  He responded: "The extent to which he can recover, seems to me, depends on his faith.  He's said to be a Buddhist.  I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.  So my message to Tiger would be, ?Tiger, turn your faith to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Frankly, that is the pretty standard, obvious position any Christian would logically take to the issue.  And, if Hume truly believes that Jesus is the only way to the Father, it is also the only loving and compassionate response he could have possibly given.  But judging by the reaction of liberal commentators across the board, you would have thought Hume had tried to light his underwear on fire and detonate hidden explosives near the Woods' home.

MSNBC's resident drama queen Keith Olbermann likened Hume's evangelistic outreach to that of Muslim jihadists.  Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Jay Bookman condemned Hume for his "pompous judgment" of a person's faith. 

Pompous judgment?  If Bookman knew anything about Hume's faith, he would know that it was forged in the fire of a great personal trauma (the suicide of his son) that puts Hume in a sympathetic position to understand the grief and pain Tiger Woods is undoubtedly experiencing.  Hume's remarks were nothing more than a sinner who had found the grace and peace of Christ himself extending that promise to another.

But that just isn't acceptable to the secular humanist crowd.  Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales suggested Hume doesn't have the authority to make such a statement about faith, "unless one believes that every Christian by mandate must proselytize."  Well, yeah, Tom.they must.  It's called the Great Commission.  And this demonstrates the real problem.

I contend that what really bothers liberals about these public expressions of Christianity is the direct result of their fundamental misunderstanding of the faith itself.  They read it as they read all other world religions: a set of traditions, customs and practices with a religious text that defines the rules of play.  And since that is all that it is, it should be properly quarantined and isolated to the "religious part" of life.

Take the remarks made by MSNBC's David Shuster (their sometimes-anchor who desperately seeks to be the next Olbermann) on the Hume situation.  He bizarrely suggested that Hume denigrated Christianity by daring to bring it up on a Sunday talk show.

"This isn't church, this isn't some sort of holy setting, this is a political talk show.  Doesn't that minimize the significance of Christianity, when you bring a discussion of Christianity into a conversation about politics?" he asked.

This is a perfect depiction of what I'm talking about.  Shuster sees it as demeaning the faith to allow it to escape its carefully defined parameters.  But anyone who understands Christianity knows it cannot be limited or segregated to particular parts of a person's being.  It is a total surrender and a complete worldview change.  It alters not just your actions and words, but your very thinking.  It is a recognition of the sovereignty of Christ, and therefore an acknowledgement that all things - political, social, cultural included - come under His final authority.