Line in the Stand: The State Sovereignty Movement

The state soverighty movement is the sleeping awaking giant that shall come forth to stop tyranny government/ Tyranny government should be tried for treason and conspiricy. The sleeping giant is the american people.

I was working in Wyoming in the early '90's and my forman was giving us a ride back to our hotel rooms. He had stopped at a beer store and bought a case of beer and passed us each a bottle of beer. We then pulled out back onto the highway and were driving along in his crew cab, not wearing seat belts plus we had open beer when a State Trooper pulled up along side us.

Our foreman did not drink and he was the driver but I panicked and started reaching for my seat belt and he just laughed. Although there were signs everywhere that said seat belts were mandatory he said that was a federal law and Wyoming didn't really care about Federal law so the Troopers won't bother us.

Being from Canada I was surprised and at the same time admired the attitude of Wyoming citizens. It made me realize just how much Canadians are willing to usurp freedom for a Federal handout.

People are finally beginning to question the versions of history they were taught and actually reading the founding documents and the philosophy associated with it. Viva La Revolution.

RBurnett,

Your true colors shine forth and your utter lack of knowledge concerning the purpose, character and nature of the US Constitution when you state: "The Articles, that declared the sovereign states, were altered to exclude that language, altered to deny that the states were so sovereign as to legally secede, nullify or interpose."

Anyone reading who thinks that the States gave up their sovereign power to do exactly what they are doing today and what they did in 1861 are completely deceived. Even the Federalist Paper writers admitted that the States had this right.

It is amazing how many Americans are deceived as to the true history of the country they claim to love.

Each State needs to write a Sovereignty Bill. A resolution has no teeth.

The following is how I would define Sovereignty for the State of Louisiana.
How would you define Sovereignty for your state? Let the Debate Began.

“A Politician’s Ear”

Project: Define a Sovereign State formed by a Sovereign People.

This is what our state politicians should be hearing from the people:

What is the meaning of Louisiana State Sovereignty?

The Sovereign people of Louisiana having created the Sovereign State of Louisiana call on our state legislators to enact the following legislation:

- Form an Alliance of Sovereignty between all 50 states.
Work within that Alliance to peaceably bind the Federal Government with the chains of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

- All Federal Monies (corporation taxes, license fees, income tax, etc.) payable to the Federal Government from the state of Louisiana shall be collected by the State of Louisiana for distribution to the Federal Government.

- All Federal Agencies and employees doing business in Louisiana shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana. This includes the Federal Courts located in Louisiana.

- All Federal Law Enforcement personnel shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana and must register with the Sheriffs Office of the Parish they are operating in. The Sheriffs office must approve all Federal enforcement actions prior to enforcement.

- All Federal employees will have mandatory classes on Constitutional Law and the Oath of Office in order to obtain their license.

- Louisiana State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all Federal Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the State of Louisiana.

- All Louisiana Senate and House Representatives in the US Congress shall return to Louisiana and report to the Louisiana State Legislature for further instructions.

The Federal Government is trying to suggest that the Sovereignty Resolutions passed by the states means Succession.
There is no Succession here.
There is control of the government.

Each State needs to write a Sovereignty Bill. A resolution has no teeth.

The following is how I would define Sovereignty for the State of Louisiana.
How would you define Sovereignty for your state? Let the Debate Began.

“A Politician’s Ear”

Project: Define a Sovereign State formed by a Sovereign People.

This is what our state politicians should be hearing from the people:

What is the meaning of Louisiana State Sovereignty?

The Sovereign people of Louisiana having created the Sovereign State of Louisiana call on our state legislators to enact the following legislation:

- Form an Alliance of Sovereignty between all 50 states.
Work within that Alliance to peaceably bind the Federal Government with the chains of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

- All Federal Monies (corporation taxes, license fees, income tax, etc.) payable to the Federal Government from the state of Louisiana shall be collected by the State of Louisiana for distribution to the Federal Government.

- All Federal Agencies and employees doing business in Louisiana shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana. This includes the Federal Courts located in Louisiana.

- All Federal Law Enforcement personnel shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana and must register with the Sheriffs Office of the Parish they are operating in. The Sheriffs office must approve all Federal enforcement actions prior to enforcement.

- All Federal employees will have mandatory classes on Constitutional Law and the Oath of Office in order to obtain their license.

- Louisiana State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all Federal Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the State of Louisiana.

- All Louisiana Senate and House Representatives in the US Congress shall return to Louisiana and report to the Louisiana State Legislature for further instructions.

The Federal Government is trying to suggest that the Sovereignty Resolutions passed by the states means Succession.
There is no Succession here.
There is control of the government.

FeedomForAChange:
Just exactly what do think was foing on with the Constitutional convention of 1787 and the ratification debates in the states? The Articles, that declared the sovereign states, were altered to exclude that language, altered to deny that the states were so sovereing as to legally seceed, nullify or interpose. And here's the rub: The United States in Congress Assembled, the "style" that named the Congress under the Articles(and there were no other branches, so that Congress was the central govt) with the sovereing States did not rein in the Federalists work of the convention, did not demand that the convention do only minor alterations and not major revisions. Indeed, the ratification of the Constitution marked a radical shift from the notion that the States were sovereing and that the States had "made" the central govt or that the States were the senior partners. Yes, the Federalist does argue that if the central govt tries to encroach, then it is up to the states and the peopl to check it--however, it was also argued that if the states tried to encroach or the people act foolishly, then the republican form and the central govt was there to check such passions(as much as possible)
Again, like Calhoun and a lot of others, you missed it: the US is neither a centralist unitary govt, and cannot be one because of the political things, those concrete relations of the Senate to its States and the Congress to the people of its States, nor it it composed of or begun as a compact of sovereing States who "gave" the Natl govt its authority, legitimacy and powers--the people did that. The States as such are not the legitimate centers of authority or power--it is the people, and this is the natural right spoken of in the Declaration, that of a people to alter or abolish--the American colonies broke from the UK as one people, not a the citizens of New York or Virginia. Indeed, the administration of the Continental army and the Congress was of a Union army, not of a Confederate army. Washington, Greene and the rest commanded parts of the Continental Army, not the Army of "Virginia" and "New York". When Franklin and the rest negotiated with France for aid, it was as a representative of the new United States, not as a representative of say, Conneticut or South Carolina. Now if this is "centralist", then you have made another artificail box to place these things in. The Continental Congress was riven by problems, the worst of these was its inability to raise resources for that continental army because the new States would not co-operate, a thing that G Washington noted for further reference a few years later.
But all of this is a guide to the present problem, which here is the artificial boxes that each side label sthe other--on the one side, the secessionsist are seditious, rebels, wanting to break up the Union--on the other, the centralists are tyrants trying to make more moves to have that unitary govt. Lost in the shuffle of these two artificial positions is the plain fact that the Constitutional setup, regardless of the debate over the enumerated powers, is a thing at once of, by and for the States(as I have described) and of, by and for the Union because the Senate and the House and the Presidency acting together make policy and law for the nation, to the limit that the States assmebled in Congress will allow.
Therefore, despite all of the bickering, the secesh movement is a chimera--the States and the people are still quite able to check the natl power.
Indeed, in two hundred years, nothing has changed in these perceptions-G Washington writing to A Hamilton noted two dozen things that he had read or heard, ranging from a conspiracy to make the nation a monarchy, a debt that could never be repaid, the reduction of the States to mere European style provinces, the entanglements in Europe, etc And this letter was written in 1792. And there was a threat of secession in that decade as well. Indeed, the political bickering and warfare was so intense as to provoke the Federalists to enact the Alien and Sedition acts, supported by G Washington and Adams, which acts make the Patriot act and all of the other Bush/Obama style actions seem mild. And these acts were done within a few years of the new Constitution's ratification, despite the Bill of Rights addition. But we are not there yet and never will. Indeed, we have come a long way forwards in many areas of liberty--women's rights, racial minority rights, reforms to the capitalist system(no more debtors prisons or indentured servitude), the many inventions and advancements that owed to the American entrepeneur under conditions of increased freedoms, increased avenues for the people to influence their govts(the direct election of Senators, as an example)--and yet we feel restricted because? Because some of us cannot have it our way, even though we were defeated by the more numerous others. And that's the core of it, as you note grudgingly--that the republic is a democratic republic where the people can, if the want to and if they have that notion long enough, repeal or alter anything. This is a legitimate fear--the Federalist Papers, as well as Plato, noted that the greatest of political evils in any popular govt is popular folly. The hope of the Federalists, of those who hold for a representative form, of Aristotle, was that the democratic assmebly be tempered now and then by a wise statesman, who is very rare. Or as G Washington put it to Lafayette, the whole system of the new Constitution would work if"there was any virtue left in the body of the people"
And virtue means self-control. I do not find that virtue in anything libertarian, of secession( as Madison noted in the National Gazette in 17982, as with any excess of Power, an excess of Liberty makes no one safe in thought word or deed) Secession breeds secession as does unification brings tryanny--the Constitutiona setup walks between thesae extremes.

RBurnett,

Well, if the people of the States accept the centralist' doctrine that no state has the sovereign power to arrest federal action outside of their granted authority and that no state has the power to protect and secure the sovereign powers that were granted to it alone by their body-politic, then all hope of freedom is gone. We will simply continue down the road of federal and even world tyranny as the power-brokers of the world institute and perpetuate world dominance and control.

However, such will NOT be the case for many people throughout many of the States. As Daniel Webster admitted even during the days of his later-recanted-centralist' position, all peoples of all societies have the natural power of revolution, dependent upon no government and no contract.

However, the fact remains that even the Federalist Paper writers admitted the States power and right to arrest federal tyranny and encroachment on all powers left to the states and people. Though there are those who believe that the union formed a national government for all purposes, internal and external, their position is utterly wrong and there are literally millions in America who will not go along with such a doctrine, and as long as the centralists continue to push and push, the resistance will grow and grow.

We can hypothesize and theorize all day long, but the people of the states will make this decision for themselves--the same people that make up and give power to the federal government. Without the states, the federal government has no power. With the states (or a selection of them), freedom can and will be perpetuated.

FreedomForAChange:
It is true that there are assertions and arguments claiming that the US is composed of sovereign States--but there are also assertions and arguments to the contrary. The problem for today regarding the issue of secession and sovereignity has very much to do with what the Framers and Founders maent by Union or States Rights. The problem is vexed because, as Madsion noted, we are a nation partly federal(confederal) and partly national. Is there a clear cut statement that the Sates may seceed legally or peaceably? No. it is argued and asserted that because of a staement in the Declarationa nad inferences from the Consitution and the language in the Articles that the US is a federation of sovereign states. Against this are the arguments and assertions that the US is a Union of the people, again from statments or phrases in the Declaration and inferences from the Constitution(such as the first three words of the Preamble, and what follows) The battle now is about which of these interpretations is the better, to include the third interpretation, that the US is neither all a compact of the states not all a Union of one people, but both at the same time. And if you missed it, there's the political dimension that makes the Constitution more than a parchment provision. The composition of the Congress, as i outlined before, has the State's power seated in the national government, protecting the States interests-those Senators are not elected by the people as a whole, but by the people of each State. There is therefore, a legal argument that the States have political and legal power under the Constitution that makes the Tenth Amendment superfluous. But it also indicates that the States have power that no Eurpoean province has--the States are not soveriegn nations under the Constitution,yet cannot be reduced to provinces--the Senators and House members will not permit this as their power and rule stems from the individual States. This makes the States seem more independent than they are. It makes for statments by some Senators and Congressmen to support State interests bordering on State soverrignity. The argument that the US is neither a fish of federalism nor a fowl of union is presented by Madison in his various writings--taken as a whole, to include not only the KY-VA resolutions, but also his letters against the South Carolina attempt at nullification, describe the vexed issue, that we are not all of one thing or the other. And this is where the current secession/state sovereignity movement wil founder, when it realises that the US is not a compact of States nor a Union like some European unitary government.
The issue may be put in the terms that Lincoiln first addressed it, when he stated that he had no right to invade the South or tamper with anything in the States, as long as their actions did not lead to rebellion. The Bill of Rights initially had nothing to do with the States at all, but served as a check on national government activities. The rub here is the amending process, by which a suoer majority of States can impose on the whole of the States any policy or law, regardless of the opinion of the minority States, and it was because of that threat, that eventuality, that the South quit. As it now stands currently, But we have now no such political comparison. There are movements in some States to seceed, but they hardly rise to the level of the secession conventions in the South before that war. The issues now do not rise to the level of the issues before that war, as I noted in the case of the South, its linkage of slavery, that property right, to secession in the South. We have had such similar threats of secession before--I recall the threat of it during the civil rights era of the 1960's when George Wallace waved the Stars and Bars to check integration and the national govt's use of force to push aside Wallace and his followers. There was also the same threats of secession during the Clinton adinistration, muted by the Republican revolution of 1994 and obscured by the Lewinsky scandal. And in the depression of FDR's day, there were attempts at outright revolution, though not of the States rights type, but of another type, against the capita;ist system by the then up and coming promise of socialism as practised in the USSR. And all of these attempts at secession failed.
Now we have a new hoopla about another secession or States rights movement--same hoopla with the same failure. When the news and opinion makers of the several States and even the national media have as regular fare(as they did in the North and South just before the breakup) stories and posts about state sovereignity, secession and the abuses by the national govt on its citizens, then your case for the imminent nature of that secession will be made--otherwise--Now what we have is again, the general feeling among some that the govt is not doing what it should, racked by scandals, a situation that has been with us since, well, Watergate at least, with short periods of same in our history, especially during the 1790's and the second quarter of the 19th century and also to some extent, the depression of the 1930s. In the end, the secesssion movement will rise or fall with the revival of the economy, the wars overseas, and the several policies of the Democrats regarding health care and the environment and whatever. If the economy does revivie, and the other things break for the Dems, then the secesh thing will go away--

RBurnett,

Without getting into the truth concerning our form of government and that the Federalists writers confirmed that the union was a Confederate Republic, NOT a national consolidation; without getting into the flaws of the "one people" argument made by Joseph Story during the early 1800's; without providing the ample proof that the US is a Confederacy of States, acceded to by the sovereigns of the States (the people), let me ask: what difference does anything regarding the "flaws" of our history have to do with the decisions we are making now for freedom in our country?! Are we not to learn from history so as NOT to make the same mistakes? Are you suggesting that because America has experienced the tug-of-war between centralists and federalists that the federalists should give up and not do anything? Surely you are not. But if you are, then I would venture to say that you are just a false-flag waving in the every-growing movement of freedom in this country. I would venture to say that in belief, you are truly a centralists, as you attempt to use the "slavery" issue during the 1800's as an attempt to taint the principles of Confederacy that our union was established on in 1787.

Would you say that the colonists' secession against Great Britain was also tainted by some great immoral and sinister motive?! Were not the colonies legally tied to the Crown in Great Britain prior to 1776? Is it not true that the States were NOT sovereign states before 1776? But in 1776, they became sovereign states. By what legal means can they disassociate themselves from the most powerful Monarch (at that time) that had sustained their defense for more than 150 years? Because it is the NATURAL RIGHT of every body-politic (and individual) to preserve itself against the threats of would-be tyrants and actual tyrants. This is self-preservation and freedom 101.

Your observation of the struggle between federalism and nationalism has no bearing to what the people of the states are doing today in their sovereign capacity under the 10th amendment or alternatively under the laws of Nature and Nature's God (as penned by Thomas Jefferson--the basis for secession from Great Britain in 1776).

Let's assume that the states have absolutely no legally-recognized power to resist the federal encroachments: is that not tyranny? Where individuals and body-politics have no "legally-recognized" power to self-govern and to effectuate revolutionary change against parent government that is doing anything but "securing the blessings of liberty", what good is that form of government anyway!! Even the centralists of yester-year admitted that all body-politics have the natural right of revolution (which simply means to change the power of government). If in fact the government and its agents argue and demand that the States have no right of revolutionary power and no sovereign right to arrest federal tyranny, then such a fact would only confirm the NEED for state sovereignty and revolution. As our own Declaration says, it is our duty to abolish or alter the form of government and institute such that will secure the blessings of liberties and rights granted to us by the God of nature. When you acknowledge that freedom does not come from government but from God, your conclusions must necessarily follow that we are not legally bound to live in slavery.

However, the fact remains that the states have the sovereign power to do what has been done, and more! In fact, your reference to South Carolina's nullification acts in the 1820's and 1830's shows that before 1861, America's society and government conceded the States' right to do so: not one court opinion was rendered to the negative and not one congressional act was passed and executed to the negative. Instead, Congress backed down from SC's nullification act and their readiness to defend constitutional government in their state. This shows that from 1787 to 1861 (almost 100 years!) the States operated in a union under Confederate principles--not nationalist principles. (I can't believe people are so brainwashed concerning this topic).

I do not have to speak for the multitudes of volumes of writings by men much more intelligent and learned than myself, which have proven the actual nature and character of our government and the sovereignty of the states. But even if you presume that such a position has not been proven, who are going to be those who, like our founders, made history and secured freedom for them and their posterity!

FreedomForAChange:

In case you missed it, there is no way out because of the intractable problems of human beings in any political or economic association, voluntary or involuntarty. Madison, at the end of the 19th or 51st Federalist described the American polity under the new Constitution as a "wholly popular government" and a mixture of confederal(or federal) features and national features--in a word, it is neither a federation of sovereign states nor a national government based upon rule by the people as a whole. Indeed, the ratification process of the Constituion is much debated--Madison asserted that the ratification conventions in the states were not ratification conventions of, by or for the States, but of, for and by the people, and the anti-Federalist opponenets argue your case that the United States is a compact of the States and not of a people--indeed, the Declaration speaks of both "a people" or "one People" and then "sovereign States". Madison in the letters written during the South Carolina nullification controversy noted that the U S was a complex of sovereignities, the people, the States, the Constitution and so forth.
This is one of the vexed issues that will be always with us as long as there are states and not European style provinces--and by the way, even if the 10th Amendment had not been included, the States would still have, as they do now, huge political power at the national government--the U S Senate is composed of representatives of, by and for the States(2 Senators from each State), the House has State delegations--there are no cross-State Congressmen, and the Electoral College is a State by State counting of the votes in the election of the President--there is no strictly popular vote as the Electoral College decides, not the sheer number of votes. And the political consequences are huge--the Court is a thing of the president and the State dominated Senate, as if foreign policy a thing of that Senate. One last note: the good old South, prior to its secession, appealed to the national govt, via its dominance in the Senate and through the many Southern born Presidents, as well as the Court, and got its way in many cases, until the inevitable happened, a Northern President and the erosion of the South's hold on the Congress. So, like the arrogant fools that they were(it is widely noted by historians that the Southern leadership of the 1850's and 1860's was simply not of the level of the Madisoans. Jeffersons or Washingtons), the picked up thier marbles, fired first, and tried to quit. There never was, and is not, a clear case that the States may seceed, nullify or interpose legally or peaceably--the Tenth Amendment itself, while it does say that powers not granted the natl govt are reserved to the States, doesn't necessarily mean that the power of secession, nullification or interposition is a reserved power, especially in the face of the Supremacy clause. And as with all such vexed issues, war is sometimes necessary as words cannot, nor votes, settle the matter--and as Napoleon said, while battles against the larger battalions can sometimes be won, hardly can wars. Besides which, the South wrapped its flag of secession around its most obscene part, that to obscure its link of secession to the defense of slavery--read any of the secession ordinanaces or the secession convention debates held in those months of 1861.

Excellent article, Mr. Baldwin! I especially liked your quotation from Daniel Webster. I had been unaware that he had changed from his Unionist position.
Unfortunately, Alabama's state sovereignty resolution died in the Democrat-controlled House Rules Committee. But we'll try again next year!
Godspeed,
John Eidsmoe, Colonel
Alabama State Defense Force

RBurnett,

While your skepticism may be somewhat justified, what is the point in saying that "there is no way out" because some of our forefathers made mistakes?! Does that mean we are automatically defeated? Were the Confederate States of America wrong in their stand for this Confederate Republic and to perpetuate their sovereignty under the supreme laws of the land? Were the Colonists wrong in defending liberty in America against their slave-holder--Great Britain?

Pointing out flaws of our past does not make the results of those flaws correct. If you in fact believe that our form of government as originally intended by our founders is the best form of government the world has ever seen, then I suggest you advocate the PRINCIPLES upon which it stands. However, if you do not, then I suggest you articulate the better form and the PRINCIPLES upon which it stands. May we the people of the states decide what is best for our own future.

Greetings Fellow Freedom and Liberty Lovers!

We will continue to be, and to recruit, ever increasing numbers of Students and Advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle.

We will continue to encourage, recommend, and even donate copies of Atlas Shrugged and Starving The Monkeys to those around us.

We will continue to show the perpetual perpetration of aggression, force, and fraud via the GUNverment by the hoards of bureaucrats, domestic enforcers, and foreign mercenaries.

We will continue to condemn the highway-robbery-called-taxation, steal-from-peter-to-garner-votes-from-paul, redistribution-at-threat-of-gunpoint/kidnap/political-imprisonment/murder, all of which the Mobocracy Looter Minions depend on for their seemingly endless gravy-train and crazy-train to destruction and eventual annihilation.

We will continue to ask the questions-that-must-not-be-asked, mainly "who and whom do they think will pay back this 'national debt' ha ha ha."

We will continue to show that the USSA Amerikan Titanic Empire is FATALLY gashed and slashed, doomed to sink to the cold, murky depths of someone's dusty, musty history book.

The best that we could ever hope for would be the peaceful and orderly secession of the several states from the national and international global-elite money-master gunverment goon kidnap and murder squads.

The John Galt Solution and Starving The Monkeys is the only solution! Stop funding and forging the chains and shackles that bind you and your children and your grandchildren and all those around you!

Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)

.

This attempt to go the route of secession, nullification and interposition, to also revive the Tenth Amendment, is well, late. Have you not heard that one of our earliest Presidents, who advocated the small, limited, agrarian and weak national government went ahead, with a Congress full of Framers and Founders, and in 1893, did the illegal Louisiana Purchase because, as Jefferson himself argued, it was necessary and that there was a law higher than the Constitution(see his letters to Breckenridge in 1803 and Calvin in 1810; you all will think that Bush or Obama wrote them) The Purchase doubled the size of the nation(and, according to the political theory of the day--which is stil valid--increased the national govt's power), the money paid out to Napoleon who used it to wage war on Europe(so much for not getting entangled in Europe's wars)and, well, there's more, but you all can research it. And I have seen the excuses, ranging from the nonsense about how Jefferson was only human, making a mistake(which he did not) to the nonsense that the Purchase was small by comparison to the present mess. But without the act of the Purchase, that seed, there could not now have grown the large weed that is strangling us. A return to the Constituion will avail nothing as the problems that vexed Jafferson, not to mention Madion(who wrote against South Carolina;s attempt to nullify or seceed in 1830), embedded in the Constituion will still be with us. One last note: Mdison, with Washington and Jefferson, noted that if the people have a passion for something, and they hold that passion long enough, then despite the republican form of govt(meant to slow down but not eliminate popular rule), the Constituion, laws, common sense or whatever, then they'd get that thing--I believe that Madison used the example of a switch from gold to paper money. The idea that somehow the people do not rule is rubbish for any popular govt, be it anything defined by Aristotle, the polity or the democracy, or the vonstituional democracy/republic of the US. Aristotle agrees with Madison on this important point--indeed, Thomas Aquinas(of whom the Baldwin's ought to read, despite that he is Catholic), noted in his commentary on Aristotle's Ethics that the law was instituted in part to rein in insolent youths who would not follow their parent's advice--and indeed, the march from the early supposedly moral and limited republic to today's was a series of generations who denied, to one extent or another, the teachings of their fathers. FDR did not pop up like Athena rising from her father's brow. Those who voted him in were of the greatest generation, or the older brothers and fathers of that generation. And you think to undo the work of two hundred years with a stroke? As one protester noted"Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicare and Social Security" an amazing statement which tells me that the revolution stops at the present status quo.

Hello Mr. Baldwin,
Many thank for this timely, refreshing and insightful paper. I truly appreciate your analysis on this multifaceted topic and the review of States' Rights past and future. Additionally, I'm better equipped to understand the significance of the current infringements by the Federal Government, Federal Reserve, etc. as it relates to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Timothy Baldwin, you really did your homework on this one. Keep up the good work.

Best Regards & God Bless,
LJ

Great comments guys. The very notion of Centralism in this federal republic is just insidious. States voluntarily entered into a compact or "union" to help increase their chances of warding off the British if they decided to attack (which they did) and reconquer us.

When you voluntarily join an organization, you have a right to get out of it, period. The only exception is a street gang on the west coast; most gangs clearly state that once you're a gang member, you cannot leave the gang EXCEPT THROUGH DEATH (not joking). Which means that if you try to leave the gang (secede) after joining, they will send someone out to kill you (!).

Is it just me, or does anyone else see some similarities between those street gangs' policies of permanent forced membership and the federal government's belief that States can't voluntarily leave the organization (union) which they voluntarily joined, even if the federal government violates the legally binding contract (Constitution)?

The federal government has truely turn into a fow total tyranny government. The united states is no longer a nation but a tyranny. socialism government. State soverighty and civil war 2 may come to now. War is about to come sooner than think of. Americans stand up and fight this so-called government.

The key bottom line here is it doesn't matter if the majority wants something from the federal government; it is not within the legitimate Constitutional rights of the Federal government as defined in the United States Constitution to impose that thing upon the people and their States. That’s the point of the Constitution to limit the extent and power of government in the interest of protecting the rights of the governed.

That is what we as free people and State must insist upon and should they (the Federal Government) find means to declare that such powers of theirs as ill-defined and thus unlimited then we the free people and States must find away to correct and stop them or there can and will be no Constitution and thus no liberty at all.

This is a matter of fundamental imperative for a free people and States under any Constitutional Government, a matter that must be placed above all others as it is the foundation upon which all matters of such government are depended on.

If our Constitution, and the natural and necessary rights and liberties of the people and their States are not secured, then no other matter of government can be held as of any consequence.

It won’t matter if were wealthy if we are not free to enjoy the fruits of our labor, it won’t matter if we are enslaved or abused by anther government/dictator if we are already to be enslaved/abused by our own.

A free Constitution of limited civil government is an essential prerequisite to all rights and liberties which we as free people require. If that system is threatened or has been abused then it must be righted first and foremost, before any other concern is addressed. Its maintenance and upkeep is the cornerstone of our free existence.

It is therefore our States as our agents most critical of duty in the interest of protecting our rights to go to bat for us on a continuous and unyielding basis, which we as busy individuals cannot. It is regrettable that they like us have long neglected that most essential of duties resulting in a government increasingly out of control and out of step with its Constitutional roll and limitations now threatening our most vital rights as well as the stability, freedom, and existences of our lives(economy).

The key bottom line here is it doesn't matter if the majority wants something from the federal government; it is not within the legitimate Constitutional rights of the Federal government as defined in the United States Constitution to impose that thing upon the people and their States. That’s the point of the Constitution to limit the extent and power of government in the interest of protecting the rights of the governed.

That is what we as free people and State must insist upon and should they (the Federal Government) find means to declare that such powers of theirs as ill-defined and thus unlimited then we the free people and States must find away to correct and stop them or there can and will be no Constitution and thus no liberty at all.

This is a matter of fundamental imperative for a free people and States under any Constitutional Government, a matter that must be placed above all others as it is the foundation upon which all matters of such government are depended on.

If our Constitution, and the natural and necessary rights and liberties of the people and their States are not secured, then no other matter of government can be held as of any consequence.

It won’t matter if were wealthy if we are not free to enjoy the fruits of our labor, it won’t matter if we are enslaved or abused by anther government/dictator if we are already to be enslaved/abused by our own.

A free Constitution of limited civil government is an essential prerequisite to all rights and liberties which we as free people require. If that system is threatened or has been abused then it must be righted first and foremost, before any other concern is addressed. Its maintenance and upkeep is the cornerstone of our free existence.

It is therefore our States as our agents most critical of duty in the interest of protecting our rights to go to bat for us on a continuous and unyielding basis, which we as busy individuals cannot. It is regrettable that they like us have long neglected that most essential of duties resulting in a government increasingly out of control and out of step with its Constitutional roll and limitations now threatening our most vital rights as well as the stability, freedom, and existences of our lives(economy).

Great article! I wish people would really wake up and take notice of how Washington is changing the face of this nation. And that it's not for the better.

Congratulations Chuck, it seems you have raised your son well!

After reading "PIG to our constitution", "Revolution - A Manifesto", "The Constitution in Exile", and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", I began to think of solution opportunities for our society and government.

I believe that the Constitution needs to undergo a re-ratification process. The document is not well written and there have been several loop-holes that have been used by Congress ("Welfare" and "Commerce" clauses), as well as the Supreme Court. Other aspects are simply out of date.

I also think that a re-ratification process be undertaken every 50 years. Between those events, the normal amendment process can be used. But this re-ratification process, I think re-grounds the power shifts and prevents the tyranny we now have.

The new constitution would be clearly worded in today's version of speech. Each enumerated power, would include written intent, as well as several examples of what it did not intend. As well, the States would elect their senators, not the general public. The senators are there to represent their states and nothing else. Finally, the state supreme courts could overturn a Supreme court ruling and also be empowered to review, accept the positions, deny the legality of the ruling, and to seek the agreement to retire (read fire) all judges in the Federal court system including those sitting on the Federal Supreme Court. This would address what I perceive to be insufficient checks & balances of power w/in the Federal system and between the federal government and the states.

And oh btw? I am not repugnant at the "thought" of the tyranny we now have, I am blisteringly angry at it, when I choose to think of it. There are some things not worth getting angry about - especially when the anger will have no fruitful effect...

Great article Tim. It's important people understand that by opting into the Union, they forever retain the right to opt out. This is especially important when one side of the agreement (federal govt) starts cherry picking the parts they will agree to now. As far as I'm concerned, and contract law agrees, if one side breaks a binding agreement by selectively enforcing parts of it, the entire agreement is nullified.

Another great comparison from our own history to show us the importance of these times.

It would be nice if the federal officials who swear to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States had actually read it.

Great article, Tim - glad you're out there writing about this. I hope it'll encourage more people to do the same...

I hope there's a lot of people drawing that line in the sand. It's going to take plenty of states doing some outright resistence to the federal government to make a difference.