Governments of such limited-power character as these Republics are to be distinguished from the type possessing sovereign power, unlimited or total power as mentioned above, such as Great Britain’s Representative Democracy, previously discussed. This clear and precise definition of the term “sovereign power” is different from, and preferable to, the more general and loose use of the word “sovereign” as meaning merely a government exercising the usual powers of self-government, and of declaring war and peace, without outside control. Under the American philosophy and system, the people alone possess political sovereignty and as the creators of their tools–the Federal and State governments–they do not permit any of these governments to possess the total powers of legal sovereignty. This political sovereignty of the people, moreover, is limited by the traditional American philosophy in favor of protection of The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights. As Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, one of The Framers, stated in his separate opinion in the 1793 Chisholm case, in discussing at length the concept of sovereignty in relation to the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, they bar from the American governmental scene every pretense of sovereign power governmentally (emphasis per original):

“To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established the Constitution. They might have announced themselves “SOVEREIGN” people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration.”

Here he referred to two entirely different things: legal sovereignty of government—entirely lacking in the limited-power government of the United States–and political sovereignty of the people. The legislative body (the General Court) of Massachusetts, in its Proclamation of January 23, 1776, also meant legal power (legal sovereignty) of government in contrast to political power (political sovereignty) of the people, in stating (and in effect defining “sovereign power”):

“It is a maxim that in every government, there must exist, somewhere, a supreme, sovereign, absolute, and uncontrolable power; but this power resides always in the body of the people; and it never was, or can be delegated to one man, or a few; the great Creator has never given to men a right to vest others with authority over them, unlimited either in duration or degree.”

To repeat, no government in the United States–least of all the limited-power, delegated-power, central government–possesses legal power of sovereignty: sovereign power.

The difference between the Federal government’s power and that of the government of each of the States is more easily understood in the light of the situation existing in 1787-1788 when the Constitution was being framed and ratified, in order to bring into existence the Federal government. At that time, the original thirteen States were already in existence. They ante-dated the creation of the Federal government by the Constitution, which supplanted the Articles of Confederation by consent of the people expressed through the State Ratifying Conventions. Under those Articles, there had been no central government with any power over the individual citizen or over the State governments. The Confederation was a mere treaty arrangement between the independent governments of the several States–by approval of their legislatures only and not by any direct authorization by the people of each State. The Confederation had no Executive Department and no Judicial Department–nothing but a legislative body, the Congress, which was completely powerless and could only request the States to provide money for it, or to do other things. The Confederation was, in truth, not a real government; and the State governments freely flouted with impunity the Articles of Confederation whenever this suited the pleasure of any of them. By 1787, the collapse of any pretense that the Confederation Congress possessed any governmental power, or authority, or any effectiveness governmentally, was complete.

Each of the State governments was, therefore, actually exercising without any check virtually full governmental power whenever, and to the extent that, it chose so to do by the time the proposed, new Constitution, as framed in 1787, was submitted to the States for ratification. By action of the State Ratifying Conventions in 1787-1788, the sovereign people of each ratifying State exercised their indubitably reserved right and power by completely ignoring the Confederation and consenting to the creation of the new government–granting to it only that comparatively small part of the State government’s powers which was specified in the Constitution as being so delegated. This is how the Federal government came into being as a delegated-power Republic possessed of only a few, limited powers as enumerated in the Constitution. All of the remaining powers of each State government and its people were reserved by them–as later expressly stated in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which merely confirmed the already-existing fact of this reservation, or retention, of power by them; subject only to the few limitations expressly specified in the Constitution as applying against the States. This is made clear beyond possibility of doubt by the writings of the leaders of that period, including especially various signers of the Constitution. The clearest and most comprehensive exposition is contained in The Federalist, particularly numbers 17, 32, 33 and 83 by Hamilton and numbers 39, 40, 41 and 45 by Madison. Before 1789, Americans were unified in spirit and philosophy but not as to governmental system.

The foregoing exposes the unsoundness of any claim that the central government possesses inherent powers amounting to sovereign power–or any power whatever other than, or in excess of the limits of, those enumerated in the Constitution, as amended, as being delegated to it expressly or related to such express powers by necessary implication. If such a claim were true, the Federal government would be a government not of definitely limited powers but of powers without definable limits. Nothing could be more antithetical to the truth, as proved by all pertinent historical records, notably The Federalist. Nothing could be more violative of the controlling intent of those who framed and adopted the Constitution in 1787-1788, in keeping with the principle of the Declaration of Independence–that government is permitted to possess only “just powers” (limited powers). Any use of the term “sovereign,” or “sovereignty,” in seeking to define the limited, delegated, power of the central government is unsound.

As the Supreme Court stated in 1936–for perhaps the thousandth time since 1789–(Butler case, at its page 63), each State possesses full governmental powers except such as the people, by the Constitution, either conferred on the Federal government, denied to the States, or reserved to themselves. This is true according to the original intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution and, therefore, of the people for whom they acted; and this intent is forever controlling, subject only to the people’s changing the Constitution, by amendment.

The Federal government thus started out with nothing like the full powers of one of the State governments, much less the unlimited power of a sovereign government. Under the Constitution, as amended, the Federal government still retains its original, strictly limited-power character–limited to the relatively few enumerated powers which have been delegated to it as discussed above. All of the amendments to the Constitution combined have not altered this fundamental of its character. On the contrary, each amendment which granted to this government any additional, specific and limited power only served to confirm its limited power character and the underlying principle of constitutionally limited government.

A main aspect of the federated system of republics, as contemplated by those who framed and adopted the Constitution, was the system of political checks by the States upon the central government–as explained, in part, by Madison in a 1787 letter to Jefferson (then in Paris), soon after the Framing Convention adjourned:

“In the American Constitution The general authority [of the central government] will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capac’y [capacity]. The former will be accountable to their constituents at moderate, the latter at short periods. The President also derives his appointment from the States, and is periodically accountable to them. This dependence of the General [central] on the local authorities, seems effectually to guard the latter against any dangerous encroachments of the former; whilst the latter, within their respective limits, will be continually sensible of the abridgement of their power, and be stimulated by ambition to resume the surrendered portion of it.”

By the words “the subordinate authorities” Madison meant the States–through the people and the government of each of the separate States. The original system provided that the Senators from each State would be chosen by its Legislature (changed by the 17th Amendment); while the system of Electors of each of the States choosing the President is provided for in Section 1 of Article II, as modified by the 12th Amendment.

“Vindiciamus”

Blessings,

I couldn’t agree more with everything you said. My whole purpose is to be prepared when the time comes. And the Texas Republicans aren’t the only ones doing it. I complain constantly about the ‘going-on’ in the Oklahoma legislature, though there have been some maked improvements of late.

Again, very well said, sir.

I can almost assure you that the only way of winning with the vote would lie in a very radical surge from the conservative voters during a more-than-likely non-Presidential election season.

The evils of the system, which we call voter “apathy,” is really not apathy at all. It is called “freeloading.” Freeloading is what socialism and control is all about. It benefits our legislators to have hoards of non-taxpayers enter the election process. It is this class of people that is all-too-happy to see legislators grow government.

If government could raise taxes, it would. The only reason it does not is because it limits its reach to “what it thinks it can get away with.”

There will be a point when it steps too far. We are seeing it, now. But still, it is a little too early to spawn real change.

As soon the time becomes ripe, you will no longer see factious conservatives. You will see them rally together like we have not seen in quite some time. It might not be in the name of the “GOP,” however.

For examples of the GOP in Texas (which you might consider to be more “right-minded”), go to the Texas legislature’s website and look at the link for voting results on the house floor. Just look at what they do during a typical day, and you will be rather disappointed.

I think they are well-intentioned, but they just cannot seem to keep themselves in check. As stated above, it is a basic evil of human nature.

“Repealing the 17th would be appropriate however why would congress, as it sits perched in the catbirds seat today, entertain its own power being reduced by its own act? The same for the executive and the courts. Why would they seek to undo what they have so deceptively created? It is not the nature of man to lessen his grip on anything he finds use for.”

Eric, we’re not arguing that any branch of the central government would take it upon itself to repeal the 17th amendment, or to otherwise diminish its acquired, extra-constitutional powers. I wrote in my initial comments to this article the following:

“But, yes, I agree with the author. We need to return to the State governments the federal principle of selecting Senators. I.e., repeal the 17th Amendment.”

Heavy on the “WE.”

Forget Congress, forget the Executive branch, and, yes, forget the federal courts. WE don’t need any of them to make changes or alterations to this government, because WE, not they, are the ultimate arbiters, as Thomas Jefferson said. And, of course, Article V., U.S. Constitution provides an alternative mode of amendment which essentially bypasses Congress.

Paper tigers? You mean empty promises. States whose legislatures have sucked the teat of the tax man will never nip at it. The redress of grievances had but two powers the people could employ against deaf legislators, the witholding of tax and the confiscation of property. Today you have no choice but to pay tax or the IRS, a federal police force which without warrant or due process will remove you from your property, forget removing your legislators property. Don’t even think of peacable assembling to accomplish the act. You will be arrested for trespass or demonstrating without a permit. Today we see citizens grand juries bring indictments but you won’t see anything else, there is nothing but extremes without a graduated course of pressure to cause your grievance to be heard.

Finally, the federal reserve has to be absorbed back into the peoples grasp and accounting. Money IS the root of all evil. It is the method of influence least visible yet most persuasive and we the people are the rightful owners and managers of it not a select invisible empire without allegiance or fear of even subpoena.

We have been weedled out of our protections over time by devious and even ignorant men. When criminals are held to account for their acts it is not a sentence that is imposed over great lengths of time it is imposed as quickly as the process to determine that penalty can be accomplished. What is holding up the remedy we clearly see as the returning to the principals of fair and prudent government? I submit it is the unfair and imprudent government itself refusing to capitulate. Any why would it do so voluntarily?

BTW: Anyone here about this article in the English edition of the Pravda?

They are laughing at us!

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

I definitely agree with you that the notion of a federation that can last forever is a flawed and illegitimate concept in its inception. Well said.

Even under the best of conditions where a great deal of societal cohesion exists (comparatively speaking), as spoken about in the Federalist Papers concerning the United States in its infancy, there still exist too many differences between us (differences that will invariably become more numerous and more profound across the span of years, due to a variety of circumstances and conditions) to seriously expect that any league between men in their political capacities can endure forever. In that sense, yes, the idea is a flawed concept.

We are not “one People” anymore. And the great likelihood — given liberal dominance in America — is that we will never again be “one People.”

The cornerstone of Americanism has always been self-government and independency (And by the way, by the term “self-government” I mean what the term signifies primarily — self-control, self-restraint.). Almost wholly due to the dominant influence of liberalism in America (which I believe could not have happened had the federal principle remained intact), we have taken on many millions of peoples and cultures that are more or less incompatible with our own. We call it diversity, and we celebrate its destructiveness as if it is something to be celebrated. Well, I guess so if self-destructiveness is an admirable quality.

Now, what has any of that to do with our discussion on federalism? Well, as I said, the federal principle, which was an integral part of the original constitution, has been eroded to the point that there is barely a remnant left. Liberalism — which is primarily a deceptive ideology — can only be kept at bay (or relegated to the far corners where it belongs) under some political arrangement which honors and encourages local self-government and independency in local matters. The idea is to allow half-witted (liberal) policies to be enacted at the local levels of government where ‘the (local) governed’ have a real stake in the outcome, and there is no great deliverer to bail them out every time they get themselves into hot water, in a manner of speaking.

But I think that when you boil it all down, any league between the States would be in some way, shape, or form, considered a “federation.” So, as long as the States exist as viable political entities (which implies that they retain some measure of independency and self-government), then I think that federalism must be a part of our governing system. I think we just have to be smart about it and admit to ourselves that no system of government is perfect or enduring in the sense that it can last forever; that no system of government is “self-perpetuating.” And that no generation has any paternal right or authority to decide for succeeding generations what shall be their form of government.

Any kind of league or agreement we enter into will take work on our parts and on the parts of future generations to maintain, IF future generations care to maintain it. But a dependent, non-self-governing People can never be their opposites. I tend to think that the main idea behind inclusion of the federal principle in the original constitution was to encourage local independency which would leave the central government free to do the business that it was designed to do.

Under a federal system, there will always remain the big 2 questions:

(1) Who has jurisdiction to act on the subject matter?
(2) To what extent can an aggrieved party exit the system?

These 2 issues are inherently problematic, and I do not see any way they can be avoided.

I would submit that the notion of a federation that can work forever is failed from its inception. It cannot.

I rather like the idea of maybe making an alliance, pact, or whatever you’d like to call it, which exists as long as a member wants it to.

Much like the old divorce laws, which relied heavily on contrived (“false”) admissions of fault just to be allowed to obtain a divorce, we are stuck in a conundrum of aguments about why there is some logical basis for the various positions taken in regards to our federal system. The fact is, there are no good answers to be found because the concept itself is flawed.

That is why, after many decades of goofing around in the divorce context, the legislatures finally came around to the idea that a “no fault” divorce should be available. On a similar note, the common law in regards to general partnerships is that a partnership is terminable at will by either of the partners, with or without cause.

I think the same could apply to governments. Why be “stuck” in a bad deal forever? Not that we should admit we are stuck, as there are many good reasons to claim we are not stuck and have certain “rights,” but it does get old and redundant making these pointless arguments.

Why should we have to prove anything about anyone? Why is ceding sovereignty so essential to freedom and self-determination? Why shouldn’t anyone who does not want to be a “friend” anymore be told he/she will continue to be forced to remain a friend? That is pure silliness.

I see no reason to commit to anything “forever.” Nothing is forever. It is nice to have friends and allies last forever, but the minute they betray, we should all have choices to place limits at our will on the extent to which we wish to remain friends or allies. And we should all be able to do this with or without cause.

Many people cease to be friends without having to prove they are right, or were done wrong. That’s the way friendship works. It is totally voluntary and subject to the will of either party – whether the foundation of a decision to becme, or continue to be, friends is “justified” or not.

The best of friendships last because of the complete, unilateral authority of either of the friends to end the friendship.

Forced friendships tend to be more corrupted by abuse and disatisfaction.

But there is a flip-side, or downside to my point. The minute the states are “free” of the other states, we could easily see the sort of international meddling and treaties and such that we experienced back in the days when much of America was divided among loyalties to the British, France, Spain, etc. European countries were quite ready to pick sides and assist its “allies,” so that we might prevail in disputes with our closer neighbors.

Then, we’d also have the whole “freeloader” problem, where some states freeload on the efforts of the others, the latter who believe a common interest is not being fairly contributed to by the so-called “freeloaders.”

It is not an easy topic.

So, maybe federalism should be preserved. I’d like to have further discussion along these lines as well.