By Brian Roberts
Article 2 in Series, Restoring Freedom: An Entrepreneur’s Perspective – click here for part 1
Washington is selling servitude.
- We watched as they destroyed the financial sector by forcing banks to give loans to people that could not afford them… then they stepped in to “save the day” by gaining direct control of our financial sector.
- We watched as they destroyed a once powerful automotive industry through excessive regulation and labor union control… then they stepped in to “save the day” by gaining direct control of our automotive industry.
- We listened as they verbally assaulted capitalism when government regulations were to blame.
- We watched as they asked the American people to fund a $1 trillion dollar stimulus bill, they yelled emergency as they slipped cash from our children’s pockets to their political allies.
- We watched, as they worked to destroy the rule of law by arbitrarily dictating revised terms to legal contracts and installing a Supreme Court justice that promotes social justice over rule-of-law.
- We know, they intend to control our children, it’s written in the GIVE Act.
- We know, they intend to control our resources, it’s written in the Cap and Trade Bill.
- We know, they intend control of our very lives, it’s written in the Health Care Bill.
- We know, they intend to control our votes, the 2010 census is now controlled by the white house and the ones registering voters are corrupt
- We watch and wait as they install unaccountable czars for dictating not representing
- We watch and wait as they increase “organizer” funding from millions to billions of our tax dollars. And we wonder how these groups will be used to steal our life, liberty and property from us.
The fifth sentence of the Declaration of Independence states, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Our product of freedom is competing with an illegal product. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to sell servitude. It’s that simple. The 10th amendment positions our competitor as an outlaw and recent actions in Washington reaffirm this claim. This brings us to our first point of strategic significance:
A movement based on the 10th amendment is undeniably lawful and moral.
Washington is selling servitude. On fundamental issues, we the people are no longer represented by our national politicians. Our political leaders do not respect the people. They do not bother to read bills that steal away our money and freedom, but then they support these bills aggressively. They set up final votes at midnight in hopes that we do not notice the theft. They pit us against one another by highlighting trivial, but polarizing issues. When the people scream for a solution that doesn’t fit their personal quest for power they shelve the debate instead of making changes that would benefit the people. Despite this disrespect, many national leaders stay in office forever and when real opportunities arise to fill seats with true freedom oriented candidates, the establishment candidates step up, promote and install new big government-types that are mirror images of themselves. It is about personal power not representation. Washington is selling servitude.
Now, thinking like an entrepreneur, Washington used to be a strong ally in our quest to sell individual freedom. Together, we sold freedom to the world and earned the honorable title of “The shining city on the hill”. However, they have now decided to sell servitude. Washington has become a lost distribution channel for our product. Yes, they still want to offer our product, but only so they can do a bait and switch routine and create more customers for servitude. If we continue with these dynamics then the market share for servitude will quickly dominate the market share for freedom. And further compounding our problem, the federal government is a strong distribution channel and finding other channels that can compete is a challenge. To solve this problem, we need a game-changer, something that will expand our more loyal distribution channels while limiting theirs.
The 10th amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This one sentence if effectively used to counter federal power can quickly shift power back to a more local level.
A movement based on the 10th amendment fundamentally changes the political landscape in favor of individual freedom.
Washington is selling servitude. Democrats are selling it outright as if servitude itself was a great product. Most Republicans are packaging it with just a dose of freedom so it goes down a little smoother. But when it comes to the fundamentals like smaller government and individual freedom neither party in Washington is representing us consistently. Both parties are using a horizontal marketing approach and this leaves “we the people” out. Let me explain.
In product marketing, you can position products for sale through a horizontal channel or a vertical channel. The national parties have broad horizontal platforms that work great when selling servitude because it allows them to pick and choose which “selling point” to highlight, which “product deficiencies” to hide and which controversial product features they can use to distract from the outright bugs in their product offering.
If you seek to bring a revolutionary product, such as freedom, to market then vertical marketing is key because it has the ability to capture a significant market share quickly and with minimal budget. The key to success is based on focus.
By focusing on a singular message our demands for more localized control of government will quickly be adopted in positions held by local politicians, followed by state politicians who are emboldened by a loud voice beating the same drum. Whether state politicians are driven to our message by greed or ideals the result is the same, a new ally with a legal precedent to counter federal abuse of power. This can happen in a dramatic way in the next election cycle.
A movement based on the 10th encourages a state government, accountable to the people locally, to challenge the federal government directly.
So how does this all tie together? Dual-power is the sharing of power between the federal government and the state government. This was a fundamental check on power that was envisioned by our founders and written into the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Over the last 100 years, through judicial decisions, constitutional amendment and by simply ignoring it, the 10th amendment has been watered down significantly. Much of this can be changed if the people demand these changes with clarity. If the message is not clear, the the federal government will appease the population with trinkets of freedom but maintain the power to sell more and more servitude.
The 10th goes right for the jugular of federal power, it changes the overall dynamics and it does this through a legal means. A movement based on the 10th clearly has large strategic value in and of itself. The 10th also delivers strong tactical value on how to bring freedom to market. Next…
- Take Action Today – Find a 10th Amendment Group in Your Area
- Which Side are you on: Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian, by Murray Rothbard
- Destroying the Constitution by Claiming Everything is Commerce
Brian Roberts is the President and a founder of an innovative software company in Texas. He has joined the tenth amendment movement as the meetup organizer of Texas Tenth Amendment Center. Follow Brian on Twitter, bcroberts_99.
Additional Reading:
August 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
If there’s any America haters in this country, it’s not we the people, it’s them the politicians!
August 5th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Another great article. The 10th is certainly the line in the sand – do you support limited government or what we have today….with almost no limits?
August 5th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Another great contribution from Brian Roberts…keep it comin Brian!
August 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
GREAT article. The entire first section of this article should be required reading for every American! It needs to be shouted from the roof tops so loudly that every last politician in DC has it ringing constantly in their ears! The very people who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution are dismantling it right before our eyes.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Wow! Brian …. who knew?! Who would have thought that this was going to get this involved.
That was a great article.
John Jay
August 5th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:45 am
These collectvists need to be removed/recalled/impeached under Art 2 and the 10th Amendment…NOW!! Time is running out for the American people.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:25 am
I’m afraid that this article is the CAUSE of the problem, not the solution.
Sovereignty does NOT come from the 10th Amendment, or anything else in the Constitution– state sovereignty is OLDER than the Constitution, going back to 1776. State sovereignty means that every state, is a sovereign NATION, just like any other sovereign nation– such as England, France, Italy etc: it is its OWN SUPREME RULER. The only difference between US states and foreign states, is that each US state simply has different voluntary agreements with each other, than with non-union states.
If we fail to claim full national sovereignty for each state, then we surrender it, and ACCEPT the federal government’s claim that the Union is “one nation,” and that it wields sovereign national authority over all the states. Then, the federal government can simply DENY that it’s stepping on any reserved powers under the 10th Amendment, and that’s the end of it.
On the contrary, “reserved powers” are not SOVEREIGN powers: they are simply those powers which the PEOPLE of each state didn’t delegate to the federal government– and thus, the people of each state can be the ONLY final judge as to which powers are delegated, and which are reserved. THEY are the ONLY sovereign power of their state; and thus they can even VIOLATE the Constitution if they like: this does not give the other states the right to use force agianst them, but only to declare that part of the Constitution void for both sides.
And of course, the people of a state can execercise their sovereign will in order secede from the Union entirely.
However this was suppressed in 1861-1865, and the federal government has buried the truth in order to claim national authority over the states where none exists.
But the LAW was never changed, and so it remains in force that each state is STILL a popularly sovereign nation unto itself, and is subject to no one but its people. The states are simply under foreign occupation since the war, and they must be liberated by the truth.
So articles which claim that that “sovereignty exists under the 10th Amendment,” only perpetuate the problem, by AGREEING with the federal claim that the USA is “one indivisibile nation–” and that the federal government is also the NATIONAL government. State s overeignty is either 100% supreme national sovereignty and control– or nothing.
August 6th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Another misconception is this idea of “dual sovereignty,” i.e. “Dual-power is the sharing of power between the federal government and the state government.”
Yes, but dual power is not dual SOVEREIGNTY. Sovereignty is the supreme and final authority in a state– and there can of course only be ONE supreme final authority. This power does not reside in any government, but in the PEOPLE of the state: i.e. each state is “popularly” sovereign, and can override any government– state or federal– by majority-vote. The states were founded in 1776 on the premise that governments derived their just powers through “consent of the governed–” and the people of the state, thus had the right to “alter or abolish” their government AT WILL, like ANY sovereign does.
The government is not the sovereign ruler– the PEOPLE are the soveriegn.
Likewise, this is NOT limited to election, which only choose some of the government’s STAFF; the people have COMPLETE sovereignty over the government– and thus can change whatever they want, WHENEVER they want.
Period.
Anything less than this, once again agrees with the federal government; if we consent to the federal government’s using force against our state, then we give up ALL control, since then it can militarily enforce ANY law it wants to.
That’s why the Constitution does NOT constain any provisions for using force against a state– and in fact, James Madison expressly PROHIBITED such a provision from being included during the Constitutional Convention– i.e. the people of each state did NOT consent to a federal dictatorship.
However once any state DOES consent to federal force against any state’s majority of People, in order to enforce federal laws, then they SURRENDER their sovereignty lock, stock and barrel; since then the genie is out of the bottle, and you can’t put it back in: i.e. it will use force wherever it wants to, and you can’t stop it.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Important to note, though, that power is different from sovereignty. Like Brian said – sovereignty is final authority. In the American system, sovereignty always rests with the people. Governments, state or federal, don’t have sovereignty, they only can exercise powers – the powers that the sovereigns delegate to them. And nothing more. Well, that’s how it’s supposed to be.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Dumbass. I find it unbelievable that in the 21st century, as supposedly enlightened human beings, people like Brian Roberts are still pandering rubbish that was discredited in the industrial revolution. Pathetic snake oil con-men.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Kudos to Mr. Candliss! What a pleasure it is to read such lucid and accurate description of the facts.
Unfortunately — in my opinion — there is no way to devolve authority back to We the People without bloodshed. I do not think that the elite who have created the bloated government we see today will ever be persuaded by reason, logic, or ethics, to give up their illegal powers. Remember: they are criminals and sociopaths. If they had either principles or conscience they would not have violated the Constitution so blatantly.
Am I supporting violence? No, not at all. Personally, I am too old and slow to storm the walls. Having said that, I still do not see any reasonable chance that criminals will ever change their ways based on polite requests. As I say, they are criminals and sociopaths. They will not hesitate to use any level of force or agression to keep their control, their power and their wealth.
I wish it were not so, and I continue to hope that I am wrong, but logic and history force me to this conclusion.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:44 am
David, for those of us who do not read minds, perhaps you can be a bit more detailed in your angst. Your post could signify support for anything from anarchy to collectivism.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:47 am
This article, which is excellent by the way, has given me an idea. How many of us use some kind of witty or humorous quote in our email signatures? I know I do and have for years. Now I’m going to use the 10th Amendment.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Mr. Roberts, unfortunately, parrots too much of the “conservative” line. The financial system did not implode because the government forced banks to lend money to poor people. That is but a symptom of the rot at the heart of the American financial system — the sainted fed! The same people that control the fed forced the IRS (the fed’s collection agency) on the people. They also effectively ended the States’ control of the federal government with the 17th amendment. Things don’t just happen.
The unions didn’t kill the auto industry. The management of those companies killed them. How you ask? They refused to put things like radial tires, rack and pinion steering, and all of the great engineering on American cars that was finally brought to the American people by the Europeans and the Japanese. The managements gave the “legacy benefits”, which they say killed the companies, so they could have higher profits (legacy benefits aren’t expensed until they’re given) and thus bigger bonuses. Management’s answer to competition was to out source. The unions consistently “gave back” to the companies. The union’s reward was to lose most of their contractually negotiated benefits, while the management guys got their golden parachutes. Let’s tell the whole story.
As per the killing of capitalism, it was killed by the financial elites that control the system. They never wanted competition!
The justice system in America, arguably what created our society, has been turned into a system that any banana republic would be proud. Lawyers and judges (the worst of the bunch — political lawyers) run the system to benefit themselves, first and foremost. Contracts are almost impossible to enforce, unless one has hundreds of thousands to spend. The “golden rule” prevails in American jurisprudence.
So, grow up! Look beyond the limbaugh/hannity pap. Poor people and unions didn’t cause the problem. If you believe that, then you’re plain stupid!
August 6th, 2009 at 8:15 am
I have to make a couple of corrections to the above feedbacks:
“In the American system, sovereignty always rests with the people.”
“Unfortunately — in my opinion — there is no way to devolve authority back to We the People without bloodshed.”
Again, “the People” only refers to the people– i.e. the popular majority–of the individual STATES– NOT to the population of the USA as a whole.
The US population, as a group, has NO power. NONE. ZERO. They have no popular vote, and thus cannot affect anything.
Meanwhile, the People of a STATE, are its ruling sovereigns– and hence are ALL-powerful, i.e. they can do ANYTHING they want: they can quit the Union, abolish their state government, you name it. ANYTHING.
Hence, the notion that the USA has “government by the people,” is an abtract metaphor which bears absolutely NO direct representative connection to actual individuals delegating their respective power and rights: and thus, government becomes DICTATORSHIP, since laws are DICTATED to the people with no recourse against them. Sure, you can write your congressman or vote against him– but you can’t get together with your fellow citizens and vote to change or nullify the law altogther.
Basically the government is king; and the people its law-abiding subjects who must do as they are told, i.e. “ours is not to reason why.”
However we CAN return sovereignty to the people of EACH STATE, by simply INFORMING everyone of the FACTS, i.e. that they ARE the ruling sovereigns of their state BY LAW, and can overturn ANY state or federal law by popular vote!
It only requires ONE state majority to petition the federal government of this fact; and Congress will be unable to refuse on any legal basis, since the People of each state NEVER CONSENTED TO SURRENDERING THEIR RESPECTIVE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES.
Then, the whole Civil War myth will be uncovered at last, and we can get back to the USA as the LAW defines it– and as the People of each state originally CONSENTED to it.
“Sovereignty” under the 10th Amendment, meanwhile, simply comes down to “the state gets whatever powers that the federal government doesn’t want—” because the fed can trump up claim to ANY power that it DOES want.
Sovereignty is absolute, by definition.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:23 am
P.S. Bob: You’re right about what killed the US economy, but you’re starting WAY too far in the future– try back around 1860, if not sooner.
Read Murray Rothbard’s “Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy” and you’ll see that he traces the entire collapse of the USA into a Leviathan Juggernaut, starting in this exact year.
(Strangely, however, he doesn’t chalk it up to the final suppression of state sovereignty– but Mr. Rothbard, like many libertarian writers, is an economist and not a political scientist, and so leaves out the underlying political causation)
August 6th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I don’t think Bob’s assessment is right at all.
If you have some money you earned, and it exceeds your living expenses, you can either invest it or have it taxed by the government. Now, look at inflation adjusted growth in federal per capita taxation and spending. I have it nicely presented for you since 1950.
http://www.sovereignstates.net/fedstats/fedspendinggrowth.htm
How can people expect investment to occur at the magnitude it did in our heyday when inflation-adjusted per capita taxation has practically quadrupled? And we wonder why plants are not being built anymore, workers are being displaced, and there is an ever-increasing demand for welfare.
If we reduce taxation and bring back investment, there will not be such a huge need for welfare.
Investment creates demand for labor. It’s that simple. Taxation has destroyed the capacity of a great many people to invest.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Unfortunately, given the great brainwashing of the American public, and the insidious bias of the mainstream media, in that the Civil War was a “great and glorious war that freed slaves and ended oppression, and kept the United States together,” will forever be a black mark against peaceful secession.
I’ve experienced it firsthand. Whenever I mention the subject to otherwise literate, thoughtful folks that secession is perhaps a state’s ultimate trump card to force some honesty from the beast that is the Federal Government, they look at me with horrified eyes – their brains are already making the association from “secession” -> “Civil War” -> “slaveowning South” -> “you support secession?” -> “you must therefore support slavery!”.
It’s a tough sell, even when I enlighten them to the fact that Lincoln was a raging racist, who thought that all black people were racially different and inferior, and ought to be re-populated back to Africa; that the South would have been forced by the Industrial Revolution to end the abhorrent practice of slavery anyway; that the notion of an “indivisible” Union is inherently anti-republican (that’s with a little ‘r’) and is in fact, collectivist, statist, and fascist; that the powers of the government only exist because we the people are either too afraid, too busy, or too brainwashed to think otherwise. Most of them don’t even know the difference between a democracy and a republic. Most of them only know of the first and second Amendments (the first, because journalists talk about incessantly, and the second, because journalists love to demonize it). Ask them about the 8th, or the 10th, and you get blank stares.
Perhaps it will take something like ObamaCare or the cap/trade bill to convince people what is really going on around them.
On the other hand, most still seem to care more about Michael Jackson and Jon and Kate. Which is sad, I suppose, but also proves Thomas Jefferson’s maxim: “People get the government they deserve.”
August 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Wasn’t that H.L. Mencken’s maxim?
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. “
By the way, you might be interested in my recent interview with Thomas J. DiLorenzo here on the Tenth Amendment Center podcast.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Brian says: ” Congress will be unable to refuse on any legal basis, since the People of each state NEVER CONSENTED TO SURRENDERING THEIR RESPECTIVE NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES.”
Absolutely true, they will be unable to refuse ON ANY LEGAL BASIS. If only Congress restricted themselves to legal actions! The whole reason why the US is in its current condition is because for generations Congress has followed less and less of the law. Anyone who both understands the Constitution and follows current events knows full well that Congress has refused to be bound by the law for a long, long time.
Brian, I agree with you 100% about individual sovereignty and the States’ role as free nations, but the problem – at least inasmuch as I see it — is that the Federal Government has completely and totally loosed itself from any Constitutional restraints. Any State that attempts to free itself from the Federal grip will most likely (and I hope I am wrong) face US soldiers in its streets.
Again, trying to get Congress (or the Executive branch) to obey the law is like warning a mugger that it is illegal to rob you. The law will not bind those who refuse to follow it. Perhaps the best chance we have of regaining freedom without violence is that the current economic crisis will become so bad that the Federal government will dissolve as did the USSR.
I know… what I say is grim, but it is better to know the worst and to prepare for it. No, I take that back. In our case, even financial ruin or blood is not the worst case. The worst case is that our children and grandchildren grow up as subjects, not citizens.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Very nice article Mr. Roberts. To those who disagree or to those who want to tweak his article to your own satisfaction understand one thing. No one in this world believes EXACTLY as you, Mr. Roberts, or I. The only hope for more control of our local issues is to push for more local control (by the states).
Will this solve all your issues or cause everyone to agree with your ideas? No, but it would allow you the opportunity to potentially live with less control by people hundreds of miles away and to influence your community. People in Florida don’t really care how people in California want to run their state. Californians feel the same way about Florida.
The problem is that the majority that wins a particular election attempts to jam their ideals down the throats of the other since we have such a centralized government.
How do you solve this? Allow for more state control so Californians can smoke all the weed they want and Floridians can provide as much protection for the gators as they wish. No reason for the rest of us to pay for either of those issues or dictate either of those issues to those respective communities.
So what did I get from the article? The more de-centralized the government becomes, the more responsive they are to the people. Example, large department store. If you go complain in a store about your service, what incentive is there for them to listen to you? Now if you take the same complaint to a mom and pop store who relies on your business to survive (and word of mouth), their ears are a lot more open.
One thing you can count on, this country is going to continue to grow. With that growth will come more division. With that division comes more jamming of the others ideas down your throat. United we stand, but that doesn’t mean we all have to walk like robots doing what every other state does. That’s not freedom. The more de-centralized, the more freedom we have.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Jason Calley:
“Absolutely true, they will be unable to refuse ON ANY LEGAL BASIS. If only Congress restricted themselves to legal actions! The whole reason why the US is in its current condition is because for generations Congress has followed less and less of the law. Anyone who both understands the Constitution and follows current events knows full well that Congress has refused to be bound by the law for a long, long time.”
But the difference is, that the people don’t KNOW it. They BELIEVE that secession was illegal, and that Lincoln “fought bravely to preserve the nation” etc. The FACTS have been buried and kept secret, for over 140 years.
If an entire state both asserts and proves its national sovereignty, and the facts are revealed in plain sight to the entire world and every nation in it, then the fed won’t be able to claim “national authority” anymore under trumped-up arguments backed by illegal force (ala Hitler and Hussein): the entire WORLD will be involved.
I’m not talking about asserting the feeble 10th Amendment, but international law and national sovereignty.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The Federal Government was founded as the agent of the compact between the states that is the U.S. Constitution. Therefore anything our States regain in rights we the people regain if not thou them (proportionally stronger vote) then directly as individuals (sole vote). To increase States rights at any level is inherently to increase individual power and rights.
We need the States to maintain constitutionalism, we need them because they are the only separate agent under our control with district power interest, strong enough to challenge the extent of federal power, and thus keep federal power restrained.
It is not common that we uses them as such, as historically(before 1913) they themselves kept a direct eye and constant check on the federal government utilizing the senate, which helped to prevent and create minor infraction from growing into major ones. But in the event they failed, the States and their people retained the ultimate in vital rights, the right to secede from the usurpers unjust control.
August 6th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“The Federal Government was founded as the agent of the compact between the states that is the U.S. Constitution.”
Yes, the AGENT– but the people of the individual states remained the PRINCIPAL, and hence can overrule the federal agency at any time.
I am not talking about “states” as state governments (i.e. “state’s rights”)– but the PEOPLE of the particular state, forming together a single sovereign nation, separate and distinct from any other state.
Otherwise, I really don’t know where you’re getting these odd claims, which appear to be pure nonsense; the basic fact of the matter, is that the principal (i.e. the people of a particular state) does not REQUIRE an agent in order to act against another agent: on the contrary, the sovereign principal delegates authority to an agent entirely at its behest– and can overrule the agent at any time.
As for “we the people,” this is a common lay misconception which needs no discussion, since no such sovereign body exists. The indididual states are peoples operating in their highest sovereign capacity, and as a result each state recognizes no superior.
August 6th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Back to the original article:
“Over the last 100 years, through judicial decisions, constitutional amendment and by simply ignoring it, the 10th amendment has been watered down significantly. Much of this can be changed if the people demand these changes with clarity.”
I have to say that this isn’t either a clear or productive solution; and likewise each state is STIL a popularly sovereign nation by law. The reason this was retained, is simply that a federally-interpreted Constitution is simply NO Constitution, as the federal majority cannot and will not limit itself.
In the words of the Hon. JLM Curry:
“Each State must have the right to interpret the agreement for itself unless it has clearly waived that right in favor of another power. That it has not been waived has been placed beyond refutation, for otherwise the powers of the government at Washington are universal and the enumerations and reservation are idle mockeries. And so a written constitution, however carefully guarded the grant and limitations, is no barrier against the usurpations of governments and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. Restrictions are contemptuously disregarded, or undermined by the gradual process of usurpation, until the instrument is of no more force, nor any more respected than an act of Congress. Constitutional scruples are hooted at, and suggested bar-tiers of want of authority are ridiculed as abstractions or the theories of political doctrinaires. The Federal judiciary, the Congress, the Executive, the Constitution, the Union, are but emanations of the sovereignty of the States, and the States are not bound by their wishes, necessities, action, except as they have agreed to be bound, and this agreement was made, not with the Union, the Federal government, their agent and creature, but with one another. “Vicious legislation must be remedied by the people who suffer from the effects of it and not by those who enjoy its benefits.” (Bryan.)
They made their compact as sovereign States, and as such they alone are to determine the nature and extent of that agreement and how far they were to be bound. Each State was grantor and grantee receiving precisely what it had granted. The Federal government was in no sense a party to the Constitution; it has no original powers and can exert only what the States surrendered to it, and these States, from the very nature and structure of the common government, are alone competent to decide, in the last resort, what powers they intended to confer upon their agent. The States were not so stupid as to confer upon their creature, the Union, the power to obliterate them, or reduce them to the relation of dependence which counties sustain to the State.”
And so, all 10th Amendment claims will likewise be “hooted at,” and your suggested “bar-tiers of want of 10th Amendment authority” will likewise be be “ridiculed as abstractions or the theories of political doctrinaires.”
In other words, the fed well simply say “you don’t UNDERSTAND the Constitution like we do; so just go away, shut up, and pay your taxes, peasant; you’re quaint, but better seen than heard. Don’t try to teach your betters; thank you for writing.”
August 6th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Brian McCandliss your response to my post confuses me:
“I am not talking about “states” as state governments (i.e. “state’s rights”)– but the PEOPLE of the particular state, forming together a single sovereign nation, separate and distinct from any other state.”
From this I could deduce a distinction describing the state government as the agent of the compact made between the people of a given State.
If this deduction in regard to what you said is correct then we are in agreement.
“Otherwise, I really don’t know where you’re getting these odd claims, which appear to be pure nonsense; the basic fact of the matter, is that the principal (i.e. the people of a particular state) does not REQUIRE an agent in order to act against another agent: on the contrary, the sovereign principal delegates authority to an agent entirely at its behest– and can overrule the agent at any time.”
This remark confuses me more, if we the people could overrule the agent, then why is it that we are so easily thrown in jail by the same? we the people are as you might have notest individually weak, if we were to appose such a government were it be by force of vote or by force arms we would have to organize ourselves into coordinated and sizable forces under a principle which you might call an agent and/or compact in order for us to work together. To this end n the interest of security we have already done this in the formation of our states, and our states have already done this in the interest of protecting themselves from greater foes in the form of our federation.
From this perspective there can be little distinction between the individual states and the people which formed and supposedly rule them, but as few could deny there is a distinction between the organization created and the people who create and empower it.
This distinction comes largely from a combination of the difference between the members of that group and the corruption which has enabled a small few of them to obtain and secure power long term.
“As for “we the people,” this is a common lay misconception which needs no discussion, since no such sovereign body exists. The individual States are peoples operating in their highest sovereign capacity, and as a result each state recognizes no superior.”
I’m afraid such a body does exist, or at least they once did, and it is known as the state government, and they are the agent of the constitutional contract the people of a given state made between each other for themselves and their posterity ceding a defined position of their individual sovereign authority to be ruled under the system therein defined. They can take back such rights by acts of secession/revolution. But doing so pragmatically requires the establishment of a new compact between them because individually they are too weak to overthrow the establish order.
This is why if we are to take back the rights wrongfully taken from us by the FEDERAL government in violation of its constitutional contract we will require the assistants of our State Governments, and even more so then that a collation between them.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Your points:
1. “This remark confuses me more, if we the people could overrule the agent, then why is it that we are so easily thrown in jail by the same?”
I’m talking about the majority, not the minority. As long the majority consents by silence and inaction, then the federal government’s actions against individuals in a state are taken as legal.
2. “I’m afraid such a body does exist, or at least they once did, and it is known as the state government, and they are the agent of the constitutional contract the people of a given state made between each other for themselves and their posterity ceding a defined position of their individual sovereign authority to be ruled under the system therein defined.”
I’m afraid this is incorrect. The Constitution was not ratified by state legislatures– as was the Articles of Confederation– but rather by conventions elected for this purpose by the popular will of each state.
Likewise, as I’ve stated before, any agent can be overruled at the behest of the delegating principal– which is the PEOPLE of the indvidual state.
As for “ceding a defined position of their sovereign authority,” this is simply an oxymoron which misdefines sovereignty as divisible, rather rthan absolute supreme ruling authority. Your entire position is nonsensical and incoherent.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
All these resolutions by the States are headless horsemen.
Until the States band together in a Majority and sue the Federal Government on 10th Amendment grounds there is ZERO chance of change.
The way to stop the Federal take over is 10th amendment lawsuits and new constitutional amendments.
I don’t think the governors and state legislatures have the grit to do that but only they can do it – we can only apply pressure and get pro-10th amendment legislators and govenors elected.
This is the non-violent path and is wholly constitutional – Once this movement has the clout like the NRA has (had?) on the 2nd Amendment momentum can be gained.
Get 5 million dues paying members and you got something.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Wait, so you’re talking about solving a problem of over-centralization with a movement that somehow needs to be centralized?
Constitutional Amendments? I don’t get that. The federal government doesn’t follow the constitution – or amendments – as it is today. What makes anyone think that new amendments will be followed long either?
I can answer that. They won’t.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I don’t think that a bigger, and better amendment will bail us out of this one, but if I had a bigger bucket, I’d bail myself out, from under this totalitarian federal government.
August 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
jharry3 that is an assertion already proven wrong by the fact that several states have already passed laws with the intention of challenging the federal government on such grounds. They have the grits the question is will the federal employees in black robes do their job or serve themselves and their masters with unlimited power.
There have also been numerous attempts to call constitutional convention all of them ending up with just 1 short.
Perhaps we should challenge the courts on that ground calming congress did not do its duty in formally calling one. Cause artificial 5 specific no specific issue, no expiration date therefore there could have been the required 38 calls by now.
August 10th, 2009 at 6:55 am
As I have said before,
States were never intended to be so alike as to not be able to distinguish one from another. The design was to allow for states to take on an individualistic nature. With laws pertaining to the individual needs and desires of the people. For instance, the south may pass laws that only allow for Christian schools, where the Extreme Northeast may pass laws that require french to be taught in schools.
States have morphed into a mass of federal laws that make it impossible to distinguish one from another. This is evident by the cookie cutter look of the nation.
For the people, examples of the lack of individualism can be seen from everything from the way roads are constructed, to the way we energize our cites. One state cannot be distinguished from another because virtually everything has federal guidelines.
September 5th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
An excellent post on a very informative site.
We are in an epic struggle by those whom wish to engineer the course of humans against the spirit of human nature.
In the quest for their grand designs over our destinies, for their own power, they have used lies and deceit to distract from and distort the truth.
They play God, but are very bad at it, leaving a disaster of every time.
Our reclamation of a representative government must be done as is stated here via strong local leadership, with only those with unshakable integrity allowed in these positions of trust.
I invite all who believe in this approach and the common cause of re instituting a representative government at all levels and with power concentrated locally to join us at TeaPartyNation.com