Comments on: Line in the Stand: The State Sovereignty Movement http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/ Concordia res Parvae Crescunt Wed, 23 May 2012 21:26:04 +0000 hourly 1 By: Robert (Bear River, Wy) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-280638 Robert (Bear River, Wy) Mon, 07 Sep 2009 05:21:23 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-280638 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. 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.

]]> By: don't worry be happy http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-277469 don't worry be happy Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:54:52 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-277469 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. 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.

]]> By: Skrag http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-275517 Skrag Wed, 19 Aug 2009 03:32:47 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-275517 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. 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.

]]> By: FreedomForAChange http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-275321 FreedomForAChange Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:57:16 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-275321 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. 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.

]]> By: Tom Rankin http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-275292 Tom Rankin Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:19:15 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-275292 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.

]]> By: RBurnett http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-275217 RBurnett Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:49:19 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-275217 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. 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.

]]> By: FreedomForAChange http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-275125 FreedomForAChange Sun, 16 Aug 2009 17:20:50 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-275125 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. 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.

]]> By: RBurnett http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-275087 RBurnett Sun, 16 Aug 2009 08:00:37 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-275087 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-- 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–

]]> By: Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest August 16, 2009 http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-275047 Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest August 16, 2009 Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:45:25 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-275047 [...] Line in the Sand: The State Sovereignty Movement by Timothy Baldwin [...] [...] Line in the Sand: The State Sovereignty Movement by Timothy Baldwin [...]

]]> By: FreedomForAChange http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/08/11/line-in-the-stand-the-state-sovereignty-movement/comment-page-1/#comment-274986 FreedomForAChange Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:36:09 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=2737#comment-274986 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! 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!

]]>