Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Dr. Donald W. Livingston, GeorgiaFirst.org
For the first time in 144 years State interposition (Madison) and State nullification and secession (Jefferson) have entered public discourse as remedies to usurpations by the central government of rights reserved to the sovereign people of the States by the Constitution. Since Americans are not in the habit of exercising these policy options, it is worthwhile to ask just what State legislators and governors can do to protect their citizens from usurpations by the central government.
First, they can begin by passing resolutions (as a number have done), declaring in no uncertain terms that all powers not delegated to the central government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved by them; and that the States themselves have the authority to judge what is reserved and what is delegated–Supreme Court case law notwithstanding.
To deny this is to say that the central government can define the limits of its own power which flatly contradicts the Constitution’s language of State delegated and reserved powers.
Second, the States can insist that an office be set up in Congress to receive and respond to these resolutions. Resolutions are words. They cost little to produce, but words have power. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume observed, political authority is based primarily on opinion not force. It is not merely iron bars that confine you to prison, it is also the guard’s opinion not to let you out. If you could change his mind, the bars could not restrain you.
A continuous flood of resolutions from the States about the constitutionality of this or that issue (and widely publicized), would serve to educate the public (and their rulers) about constitutional limits and alter the mind-set of politics in a decentralist direction.
Further, State legislators and governors should revive, where appropriate, the Jeffersonian discourse of State interposition, nullification, and secession as policy options. To deny this is to say that an American State is not a genuine political society at all, but a mere aggregate of individuals under control of a central government that alone can define the limits of its powers.
To hear such discourse in public speech can strengthen civic virtue and revive the long slumbering disposition of self-government that has been suppressed by a century of runaway centralization.
Lincoln understood the power of words, and advanced the cause of centralization by refusing to describe the States as sovereign political societies. He described them as mere counties authorized by central authority. He asked incredulously: “What is this particular sacredness of a State? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in number of people, wherein is that State any better than a county?â€
Lincoln was not describing the federative America that Jefferson and Madison founded, but an imagined and wished for centralized, unitary American state. It is time that the Lincolnian inversion of political discourse be inverted.
Third, In addition to changing the terms of discourse, State legislators and governors should engage in 10th amendment acts of recovering usurped authority. The least controversial of these acts would be simply to not accept federal money for projects that are judged unconstitutional, such as federal involvement in education. Refuse the money, and begin restoring state and local control over education or whatever the issue might be.
Fourth, in order to restore usurped constitutional authority, a State must be prepared, at some point, to resist federal intrusion. There is a long history of States doing just that. Georgia nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm vs. Georgia (1793); New England States nullified fugitive slave laws; and earlier New England townships nullified Jefferson’s embargo and the war of 1812 declared under Madison’s administration. Jefferson said “he felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships.†Wisconsin was nullifying what it declared to be usurpations by the Supreme Court into the 1850s. There was a time when the States kept the central government under control.
Can this be done today? Before it is attempted a clarification is necessary. We must understand that any such constitutional challenge is a political one based on the States’ sovereign authority and not a matter justiciable by the courts. Genuine federalism in America can be recovered only by political action in the name of the State’s own authority and not by Supreme Court legalism.
Indeed, legalism only affirms that the Court has the final say over what powers the States have. When States interposed to block the Supreme Court’s orders to desegregate public schools in the South on the ground that such orders were unconstitutional, the move failed but only because racial segregation was not a popular issue.
Many scholars then and now thought that Brown v. Board of Education was bad constitutional law, i.e., that the court had abandoned its proper role of policing the Constitution in favor of social engineering. Most, however, approved of the engineering, and paid little regard to the constitutional cost.
But the process can be reversed. States can recover usurped authority by carefully choosing the right issue, at the right time, in the right circumstances, and for the right reasons. Such an act, of course, would require considerable political prudence and skill, and should not be attempted without a reasonable chance of support from public opinion. In such an act of lawful and constitutional resistance, the State would be answerable only to her other sister states. The action might spark a constitutional amendment as happened when Georgia nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) that an individual could sue a state in federal court without the State’s permission.
The States agreed with Georgia’s nullification and promptly passed the 11th amendment that prohibited such suits. That is how American federalism was supposed to work. The three branches of the central government would check each other, but it would be up to the sovereign States to keep the central government itself in check. The Constitution was to be enforced through political action of the States not by the legalism of nine unelected Supreme Court justices.
Another outcome might be a political settlement that would allow a State, or a number of States, to opt out of a class of federal acts judged to be unconstitutional or fundamentally repugnant. Other federal systems allow this possibility. For instance, the Canadian Constitution has institutionalized federal nullification. Any Province can nullify acts of the central government in the area of civil rights within its own borders, even though other Provinces may enforce the act in theirs.
The States can also try to restrict unconstitutional acts of the central government through amending the Constitution, but that is virtually impossible. Two thirds of both Houses of Congress are required to pass an amendment which must then be ratified by three quarters of the States.
Since 1790, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress. Only 30 have passed the Congressional gate-keepers, and 27 have been ratified. The other path is that two thirds of the States can compel Congress to call a constitutional convention–a very high bar to meet. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to limit the central government’s power by constitutional amendment. It is worth noting that the framers of the Confederate Constitution sought to overcome this barrier to self-government in Article 1, Section 1 which enacted that if only three States concurred on a constitutional amendment, Congress would have to call a constitutional convention. And only two thirds of the States would be needed to ratify the amendment.
To all of this it is often said that State interposition, nullification, and secession were eliminated as policy options by the Civil War. Brute force, however, cannot settle moral and constitutional questions. Lincoln’s claim that the Union is older than the States; that it created the States; that a State is merely an administrative unit (like a county in a unitary state), are historical and moral claims that must stand on their own. They cannot be settled by superior firepower but only by reasons that persuade.
The problems of limiting central power in a federal system of State delegated and reserved powers, which brought forth the doctrines of State interposition, nullification, and secession as remedies, are as topical today as they were when first broached in the 1790s.
Or it will be said that, even so, too much water has gone over the dam. Institutions of the central government are so entrenched, so entangled with powerful interests, and this system has gone on for so long that people have lost any sense of civic virtue on the State and local level.
It is certainly true that the central government has intruded into nearly every aspect of life, and disentanglement will not occur overnight. But centralization in America is not as intense and debilitating as it was in the former Soviet Union, from which, nevertheless, 15 States recovered civic virtue and seceded. Moreover, the current State sovereignty movement suggests that State and local civic virtue are not dead in America. But as mentioned above, a shift in the decentralist direction will require a long course of political re-education.
And the sort of education required is not academic but practical–one exemplified in the conduct and civic virtue of State legislators and governors who take to heart Madison’s admonition in the Virginia Resolutions (1798) that State governments not only have the constitutional right of “interposition†to protect their citizens against usurpations by the central government but the “duty†to do so.
Finally, there is the objection that the primacy of State political action over Supreme Court legalism could work when there were fewer States, but now that there are 50 States interposition and nullification have become impractical. But If true that means the Union has simply grown too large for the purposes of self-government; in which case the obvious response is that it should be divided through secession into smaller political units that make self-government viable.
Consider how dull our notion of self-government has become. Congress has capped the number of representatives in the House at 435, a majority of which is only 218 representatives. A majority in the Senate is 51. A majority of both Houses is a mere 269 people. This small number, with concurrence of the President, rules over 300 million people. But worse. Congress has long ago alienated much of its legislative responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branch. Its main interest is in distributing its vast revenue (which now is nearly 3 trillion dollars) to its clients.
The President and the Supreme Court are the dominant rulers. The Executive office makes war, and its bureaucracy makes laws. The Supreme Court, with only 9 unelected judges, has become the most important social policy making body in the Union, and makes claim to be the final authority on interpreting the Constitution. Never in history have so many been ruled by so few.
As the American empire grows in population and as the ratchet of centralization tightens with each turn, talk of self-government becomes increasingly meaningless. The ratio of representatives to population in the House of Representatives today is one representative for every 690,000 people–a vacuous ratio for representation. When the population reaches 435 million, there will be one “representative†for every million persons.
What to do? Expand the size of the House? No; it is about the right size for a legislative body. The only remedy is territorial division of the Union through secession into a number of different and independent political units.
Such a division can spring only from political action by the States, each acting in its sovereign capacity. And what form the new order might take (whether a number of federal unions, a number of independent states, whether these will be large or small states like Singapore, etc.) can only be determined by political action of the States themselves.
The central government of the United States (that is, 9 unelected judges, a congressional majority of only 269, and 1 CEO) cannot manage the bloated and unwieldy empire that a century of ritualistic centralization has produced; nor will it ever relinquish power.
George Kennan thought that a discourse on how to divide the Union was bound to develop out of pressure generated by the sheer oversized character of the regime. It is too early to say that the current State sovereignty movement is the beginning of that discourse, but it might well be the beginning of the beginning.
Dr. Donald Livingston, professor at Emory University in Atlanta, has been called the preeminent political philosopher of our day in Georgia.  Read more on Nullification, Interposition and Secession on Ray McBerry’s 2010 campaign site, GeorgiaFirst.org
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Jim Lorenz’s posting said to “Best find a way to ENFORCE the 10th today†and linked to a video entitled “Swine Flu, Martial law, and RFID Bracelets. Oh my!â€. I initially wondered why he would bring this to the Decentralization for Freedom constitutional forum but after viewing it and some of the associated videos, it became clear that a huge insidious mistrust of big government is emerging from within the general population. If this type of governmental problem continues to grow, our state governments may indeed be the only recourse for citizens seeking trusted answers and direction. A new and interesting twist for the 10th amendment.
The TV Series “The X-Files†posed a somewhat similar situation where FBI agent Mulder, not knowing who to trust, seeks the truth on his own with the help of his associates. When there is social distrust, conspiracy theories can abound and even the best-intentioned plans can appear most evil. Our Constitution by definition demands our leaders to be of impeccable character and of the highest morality. If this is lost or betrayed, either real or imagined, mistrust ensues and government congruence with the people becomes fractured just as we are seeing today.
The video also indicated that Oklahoma had passed a law requiring all of its citizens to be vaccinated. I checked and could not find where this had been done. Oklahoma has been a strong supporter of the 10th Amendment so I find it a bit disturbing that an action resulting in certain death for some citizens (the vaccine itself will be responsible for a few deaths) would be undertaken by their legislators on a non-emergency basis.
Check here: http://www.ok.gov/health/index.html
Our system may take some time to right itself, but I have faith that it will because the next group to run for office will know that this is a problem and bring the solution to the people. Until then, those seeking truth and direction about the vaccines will have to use their own logic and follow their gut feelings but only after talking with real Doctors and state representatives about all these concerns. Also consider that local authorities “empowered†to carry out any sinister deed so ordered are people just like us and would have their own reservations. The challenge presented is simple: If I don’t take the vaccine and the epidemic is real I could die or wind up in a detention center. –or- If I do take the vaccine and it is in someway tainted, I could also die. Thus, the perfect conspiracy theory…
As Mulder says: “Trust No 1†-and- “The truth is out there.â€
There is a trifle bit more that can be done other than just voting. Our founders foresaw that a powerful federal government could arise and vested strong powers to the various states, of which, a few are still left. We may be only at the beginning of the beginning in our efforts to decentralize for freedom but you can bank that brows are getting higher and higher on our state legislators and governors. They do hear what we are saying and see what is going on.
So let me jump ahead from our beginning a bit and offer this one simple example of what is possible. If only two-thirds of the state legislatures can find agreement then a constitutional convention can be called. Assuming one is called, I would submit amending the constitution by adding the following proposed amendment:
28th Amendment
Section 1. The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
You should also note that proposed amendments become part of the Constitution instantly when ratified by three-fourths (38) of the States and they do not need the President’s signature or approval of Congress.
Check out the process at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
John Adams: “Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.â€
We may not be able to easily fix this problem and restore our Republic this time. Too many bills have been passed, poor court decisions rendered, and a general political mindset that has been forced on Americans. Start with the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2). This was, in matters concerning state sovereignty, effectively overridden by the wording in the 10th Amendment. The Federal government apparently denies this and continues to assert supremacy. This is the number one issue for this web site and must be clarified before states can truly move forward. It doesn't stop here. In the battle of Amendments the 14th Amendment comes along and pounds state sovereignty even more but the worst is yet to come. The 17th Amendment basically blows away our Republic and creates a system of "Representative Democracy" thereby eliminating true state representation in congress. (The House was supposed to represent the people while the Senate was originally to represent State Governments.) Couple all this with a Supreme Court decision (Wickard v. Filburn) against a farmer, Roscoe Filburn, who just wanted to keep some of the wheat he grew to make his own bread and the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) becomes a monster that allows the Federal Government to do just about anything including telling you what color underwear to wear if they so wish.
So, we have a massive problem. The only way I can see to fix this is to get a group of properly minded constitutional experts together to hash out exactly what has transpired and come up with a comprehensive list of corrections. That may be the easy part, many long term and improperly motivated seated congressmen will always like it the way they have it and resist any change, so that's where the voters come in. I believe real Americans including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, will rise to vote for leaders standing on a platform that demonstrates our constitutional problems and offers valid and sane solutions to get us back on track so we can just get on with it. If we don't do something like this we may just stand to loose it all. Maybe not from this administration but what if all or just some of their radical adventures backfire, what next. Consider that “the Russian Revolution in 1917 was triggered by a combination of economic breakdown, war weariness, and discontent with the autocratic system of government, and it first brought a coalition of liberals and moderate socialists to power, but their failed policies led to seizure of power by the Communist Bolsheviks - Marxist (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP)) on October 25", which is now known by the Russians as the October Revolution. Sound familiar, is that possible here? You decide!
Here's a few wiki references for you to review and ponder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia
The fear that the U.S. Constitution could be rewritten if a Constitutional convention for the worse as a means to insure that even the federal courts understand that it is a limited Not unlimited grant of power are valid, but their also pointless. If we got to that point where Interposition and nullification were ineffective at cornering the federal government into its Constitutional place, and assuming we had the number necessary to call such a convention.
Then the risk that such a convention could rewrite the constitution for the worse is somewhat mute because without such a chance there would simply be no constitution in effect by nature of the document being rendered a grant of unlimited powers by the federal government which ignores its limitations.
Truth be said at that point the only alterative to Convention is Secession, which I contend is even more risky, and less desirable, due not only to the threat of civil war, but the consequence of losing the natural State Government checking factor of Federalism.
The point of article V Convention option is to provide the states with a means to bypass a potentially corrupt and/or non-responsive congress. Congress’s roll in the matter is not conditional upon actually holding a convention, merely organizational. Should they fail to perform that duty then he state should specify the time and place the convention is to be held in their call and send a copy of that call to every state legislator for every state to count up for themselves. When all states have reserved 38, we will know, when and where to send their delegation.
In any case as indicated nether of theses options should be on the agenda yet, first we need to try threats, then we need to try legal battles give the court a chance to do its job, then we need to bring back the old constitutional practice of interposition and nullification. Then and only then, if all of those options fail, should we start to talk about risking convention or secession.
Allan,
The Constitution is and always has been an illusion. There is so much evidence. If the Constitution is "health and hardy as ever" then why was the patriot act made into law, with no debate? Why was the government able to take over GM? Why was TARP allowed to proceed? Why have we participated in (or more accurately, INSTIGATED) more illegal wars than anyone can even count? Why is "National Health Care" even a debate?
Have you ever read the Constitution? I doubt it. If you had, you would never have posted such twaddle.
If the Constitution was in fact "Healthy as ever", none of these things would have even been allowed to cross the floor of the House.
Your post illustrates another grave issue in this country: Ignorance. I don't blame you, I blame public education, another parasitic institution that needs to be abolished.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.†–JFK
Please be aware that to enforce the 10th A., the false 17th must be repudiated or repealed:
5/31/1913
William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, continues the anti-Constitutional Revolution of 1913, by declaring the proposed 17th amendment (popular election of United States Senators) has received the required ratification by three-fourths of the State legislatures. Although unanimous ratification is required on amendments affecting State suffrage in the Senate, as per Article V. This fraud ends the most important feature of federalism—the State’s check on the United States government—by concentrating unwarranted power in the Federal government in the District of Columbia.
9 Fed. Pap. par. 16; 45 Fed. Pap. pars. 7, 9; 52 Fed. Pap. par. 10; 59 Fed. Pap. pars. 6, 8-9; 62 Fed. Pap. pars. 4, 6, Cooke, 50, 55-56, 308, 311-13, 353, 357-59, 415, 416-16. Winston Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, four volumes, (New York: Dorset Press, 1956-58), 3:255. Irving S. and Nell Kull, eds., A Short Chronology of American History, 1492-1950, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1952), 214. Forrest McDonald, Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Economic Origins of the Constitution, (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1985), 100, 277. [updated 6/20/2000]
(From www.USchronology.com)
Thanks, I learn a lot from this and all the other articles on this site.
This article seems to have one major non-sequiter.
I thought the conclusion would be, “so let’s work together, we, the sovereign people over both State and national government, to return power to ourselves, by the agency of our States, and restore our usurpated rightsâ€.
Instead, the article concludes we need to secede into different and independent political units [a.k.a. different countries?]
Wouldn’t each post-devolution, newly-empowered State be just exactly the independent political units we need in the first place? Those States are already set up. Why call for a breakup into new countries?
There is some missing argumentation here.
Also, in my mind, if we manage to cut back central government’s power to focus on its enumerated, generally external objects, I’m not convinced representation dilution would be as serious a problem as it is now – all the controversial stuff will be worked out in each State, where it should be, where greater self-government is possible.
I’m open to new ideas, but I’m not convinced breakup is the answer.
Remember GW’s Farewell address, where he warned breakup would mean being easily picked off piecemeal by enemies? “ … indignantly frown upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.â€
There’s some good, useful argumentation in here, but I’m not yet on board with the breakup idea. Don't see the point, if we just put States back in the place where they duly belong.
On another note, I hope state representatives are paying attention to articles like these, because revived State power is the urgent vehicle we need now to stop this out-of-control centralization of power.
The right and liberty to secede and to decentralize should be extended to all individuals and minorities which desire it for themselves, all their volunteers, not only against federal but also against State and local governments, comprehensively, against all territorial governments. The secessionists should thereby gain personal law righs and liberties or full exterritorial autonomy, as far as all their own affairs are concerned. See e.g. www.panarchy.org & www.panarchism.info on www.butterbach.net
To All:
I just ran across this great article by Brion McClanahan on LRC. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/mcclanahan5.1.1.html
Very interesting concept on how to make a stronger push for 10th amendment rights. Nothing will be painless, but this could get it over with soon.
After reading this article, you might agree that we should personally thank all who voted for Obama!
This might be the philosophical equivalent of ripping the band-aid off quick, as opposed to pulling it off slow.
Dave
Jim Lorenz’s posting said to “Best find a way to ENFORCE the 10th today” and linked to a video entitled “Swine Flu, Martial law, and RFID Bracelets. Oh my!”. I initially wondered why he would bring this to the Decentralization for Freedom constitutional forum but after viewing it and some of the associated videos, it became clear that a huge insidious mistrust of big government is emerging from within the general population. If this type of governmental problem continues to grow, our state governments may indeed be the only recourse for citizens seeking trusted answers and direction. A new and interesting twist for the 10th amendment.
The TV Series “The X-Files” posed a somewhat similar situation where FBI agent Mulder, not knowing who to trust, seeks the truth on his own with the help of his associates. When there is social distrust, conspiracy theories can abound and even the best-intentioned plans can appear most evil. Our Constitution by definition demands our leaders to be of impeccable character and of the highest morality. If this is lost or betrayed, either real or imagined, mistrust ensues and government congruence with the people becomes fractured just as we are seeing today.
The video also indicated that Oklahoma had passed a law requiring all of its citizens to be vaccinated. I checked and could not find where this had been done. Oklahoma has been a strong supporter of the 10th Amendment so I find it a bit disturbing that an action resulting in certain death for some citizens (the vaccine itself will be responsible for a few deaths) would be undertaken by their legislators on a non-emergency basis.
Check here: http://www.ok.gov/health/index.html
Our system may take some time to right itself, but I have faith that it will because the next group to run for office will know that this is a problem and bring the solution to the people. Until then, those seeking truth and direction about the vaccines will have to use their own logic and follow their gut feelings but only after talking with real Doctors and state representatives about all these concerns. Also consider that local authorities “empowered” to carry out any sinister deed so ordered are people just like us and would have their own reservations. The challenge presented is simple: If I don’t take the vaccine and the epidemic is real I could die or wind up in a detention center. –or- If I do take the vaccine and it is in someway tainted, I could also die. Thus, the perfect conspiracy theory…
As Mulder says: “Trust No 1” -and- “The truth is out there.”
"However, what would happen by ending the fed? I suggest leave it alone but force Congress to take control away from its foreign owners."
Congress has no clue who it's foreign owners are. The FED writes it's own foreign policy in all monetary matters abroad. This is one of the base allegations prompting the pending audit legislation, and RP's book. Like I said, by ending the FED, you take away the power to play the smoke and mirrors game that keeps us chasing our tails.
We could argue this until the rivers run dry, but wouldn't you agree with me that the masses for the most part are still somewhat in a dumbed down stupor for obvious reasons not necessarily of their making (at least consciously)? I only contend that we need to excite our would-be allies to get them to start taking action. The best way I know to do that, is to mention money. Moreover, how these thieves have debased it in 97 years.
Feeding the sleeping masses too much technical law jargon, "we gotta do this" stuff is great, as long as you have the numbers. How do you get the numbers? Give the masses the goods on the self-created institution that has been stealing their wealth for over 4 generations! Once passion takes hold, there's no more need to drill. Critical mass is reached rather quickly when folks find out they're being robbed.
Again, you are spot on with your methodology, but without exponential growth at this point in the game, I believe we're doomed. If we could just roll back government control back to the level it was at in '99, with the level of awareness we have now, How effective would the tenth amendment movement be now, almost 11 years later? It would be huge.
Exposing the FED in all it's glory, I think could produce that kind of support for enforcing the law, and without support for the law, it always dies.
Anyway, we're on the same page, or at least close...I do hope you pick up the book, if nothing else, it's valuable factual information, based on what I know about the FED, and what I've read (1st chapter, book's still coming,) and this thoughtful review by Charles Scaliger
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/1860-a-review-of-end-the-fed-by-ron-paul
Rock on Y'all....
Dave
I watched this entire video and find it plausible for the desperate USG to organize a pandemic to teach us who's in charge here. Best find a way to ENFORCE the 10th today.
"Your heart will stop on this one. God I hope it's not true."
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheVideoPatriot {May have to copy & paste.}
Has the ring of truth. Please verify for yourself and circulate.
Dave,
Thanks for your explanation and I agree but argue the "ifs" are wishful thinking and no power/force at all. We can argue forever over what "should" be done (gov should do) and accomplish nothing. I prefer to argue what "we" can do lawfully/legally with impunity.
It is clear to me what government should do; honor the Oath of Office and it is clear to me what we should/can do if they don't honor their Oath. We, the people, can't legislate or force legislators/Congress to make a law. Nor can we amend the Constitution so in essence we can't ask or demand Congressmen do anything but honor the Oath. It will require legislation, as you suggested, from Congress to end, or do anything about, the FED.
The FED is simply one of many political issues fed to the people to argue and fight over - the people have no power/force to resolve any political but one, the Oath of Office. However, what would happen by ending the fed? I suggest leave it alone but force Congress to take control away from its foreign owners.
I contend government is force and only counter force can control it. Congress (persons) will not honor the Oath of Office until forced to do so. Congressman's greatest fear is not being reelected and only we can elect, or not elect, them.
Respectfully, and best wishes;
Allan
Jim....
Thanks for that. I have to respect Allan for his tenacity and passion for his belief that legislation can fix the problem, but as you point out, our movement is severely crippled by complacency.
I think the best way to effect a "wake up call" is not to inundate people with laws and resolutions, amendments etc. at that level, but to help them to realize what these parasites have done to their money!
That should certainly create the passion to learn more, and create the kind of activism needed to actually be able to use the law to start shaving off the layers of dirt we have accumulated over the years. There's a lot going on now, but it's spread out over too many issues.
I think if it were more focused, add to that Ron Paul's movement, will start a tidal wave of contention that will be unstoppable.
Snake killin' always has to start with the head.
Then, it's time to get behind Allan big time.
Best regards,
Dave
Icky,
Don't give up on Allan. He is correct in promoting "power/force" but that would rely on being able to tap a large "sleeping majority" which may not exist this time around because they have all been either hoodwinked or sedated into maintaining their restful state. Remember, we did loose the last election after all.
Like Allan, I have not read Ron's book but I did watch his short video on YouTube which now has me excited about reading it. Ron has started something of a movement.
Here's the link, I think you will like it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdRA04iIFtI
P.S. If you have time, watch some of the other related video clips.
Allan...
It just dawned on me that I may have misrepresented my position. In my zeal to point out the importance of ending the economically destructive Federal reserve, I neglected to also acknowledge that indeed, your constitutional arguments are not only extremely valid, but are the necessary next step.
My point really, was that while your arguments are valid on a level playing field, we won't have those conditions until the money machine stops running.
The first step is obviously to secure a complete audit. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen, but at last count HR 1207 had 284 co-sponsors. If it can be established beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegations against it are true (let me know if I need to list) then the next step is to use public opinion to pressure congress to dissolve the institution. Mind you, RP's book hasn't actually hit the deck yet, but it's on it's way. I've seen the first chapter online, but the book should arrive any day.
This just seems like the logical place to start. If there is but one thin shred of control left to the people of America, this is it.
All I'm just saying, is don't get the cart before the horse. Once the money machine stops, it will be harder for the powers to fight allegations of constitutional abuse, since the behind the scenes payola (one of the fore mentioned allegations), among other nefarious forms of political manipulation would not be possible. The issue of rights would not be quite the uphill battle it is now.
I think we need to spend time learning as much about the FED as we can, and increase general awareness on the subject. not enough people understand the fraud that is fractional reserve banking. If they did, they probably wouldn't use it, hence the secrecy that surrounds the whole banking industry.
Once we slay that dragon, the whole basket of unjust federal persecution and exploitation of the individual states could be called to task, eg: every one of your arguments.
My biggest fear is that we become so divided on these issues, that we dissipate our strength bickering over whether to chop the head off the snake, or start hacking at his tail..
Anyway, for what it's worth...
Regards,
Dave
LMAO....whatever you say chief.
D
Dave,
The book is irrelevant to my political position, so I am not interested in reading it.
You see, I know you have no answer that the People can do to cut off the money because there is none the People can do, you are blowing smoke.
Allan
Allan...
Read the book smart ass.
Dave
Cut off the money is a brilliant idea, did you think up that idea all by yourself?
Tell me "how" you plan to, or think "we, the People can" cut off the money?
Allan
Allan.....
You keep harping on "the power of the people", citing article, sections, clauses, blah, blah blah, ad nauseum....
I wish you a lot of luck with that. I think our pinheaded legislators have made it abundantly clear that THEY DON'T CARE.
You talk about those who "can't read with comprehesion", or "can't grasp the obvious". Here's the very simple concept that you fail to grasp:
Unless we cut off the money supply to these parasites, (END THE FED) there ARE no options, or power that can be exercised by the people. The "power elite" call the shots, because they control the money. They must just hop from foot to foot, clapping their hands and giggling with glee when they read your posts.
You speak as if you believe that the "constitution" will stop a .223 round.
Good luck with that.
Dave
Dave
Old Jim,
Seems many people have difficulty reading with comprehension. My political position is not what "options" the "People" have, or even necessarily Rights, but "power/force".
That is "Constitutional" power/force available to use against government "Officials".
To my knowledge there is no other constitutional power/force the People have to use against government Officials then the ballot box.
Do you know of any other "constitutional" power/force than the ballot box the People have to use against, or to control, government Officials?
Allan
There is a trifle bit more that can be done other than just voting. Our founders foresaw that a powerful federal government could arise and vested strong powers to the various states, of which, a few are still left. We may be only at the beginning of the beginning in our efforts to decentralize for freedom but you can bank that brows are getting higher and higher on our state legislators and governors. They do hear what we are saying and see what is going on.
So let me jump ahead from our beginning a bit and offer this one simple example of what is possible. If only two-thirds of the state legislatures can find agreement then a constitutional convention can be called. Assuming one is called, I would submit amending the constitution by adding the following proposed amendment:
28th Amendment
Section 1. The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
You should also note that proposed amendments become part of the Constitution instantly when ratified by three-fourths (38) of the States and they do not need the President’s signature or approval of Congress.
Check out the process at:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
John Adams: “Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Evidently it is too simple for people to comprehend;
Article I, Section 1, Clause 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
Article I, Section 2, Clause 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;
Only Congress can legislate and the People cannot legislate, the People hire Congressmen every two years, the House controls, or can control, fed money, the people control "who" is in the House of Representatives.
If you don't like the federal money scheme/scam/fraud the only thing you can "forcibly" do about it is vote to not reelect your Congressman. Arguing politics and things you can't do in the political arena is a sure loser.
Allan
Jim....
I think you are spot on. I too would like to believe that this is just a crack-pot theory, but as you point out, there is little to support that contention.
Allan is correct in his basic understanding of the constitution as it relates to the law, but is unwilling to admit that it has been relatively ineffective as a tool for controlling government, for precisely the reasons you cite: Control of the money supply, which allows you to control every aspect of government as well. Precedent was set for this early in the 19th century, but carved in stone after 1913.
The only way we can ever hope to regain control of this runaway train is to end the FED and return to commodity based free market money, which by default will remove the coal from the burner.
The problems we face are so very complex, most cannot grasp the intricacies (by design), and indeed cannot fathom how this one simple act (ending the FED) can unravel the rest of the coat of deceit.
For more insight into this idea, I highly recommend Ron Paul's new book, END THE FED.
Dave
Allan,
Lets re-rig our minds and play this one with a pat hand. For example, the first thing you do when you get in the game is to make sure your bank is considerably larger than any of the other players. You could allocate yourself, say, $787 billion in stimulus money under marginal pretenses and then hang on to 75% of that amount as the crisis dissipates. What could you do with $590 billion if it is still in play during a mid-term election campaign? And, would some still be available two years after that for more campaign boosting? What is $590 billion divided by your 435 number? See my point?
I hope I am wrong on this but, the way I see it, the only thing that would prove me wrong would be for remaining stimulus to be immediately returned to taxpayer credit.
Our economy is powerful and is slowly healing. We simply need, and have needed, new long term jobs to replace the ones being lost off-shore and that means lifting the pressures on small to medium businesses generated by labor unions, high health care expenses, and a lack of needed tax cuts / incentives. Note that this type of pressure can be artificially controlled to increase an overall "crisis" level or to reduce it as needed by the players. So, if you need more funding to replenish your game bank you ramp up the pressure, generate a new crisis, grab the funds, and then move the slider back out of the crisis window.
Where's the Constitution in all this? I still believe our state governments are our best protectors given the situation.
Here's a link of interest that outlines stimulus spending:
http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/06/03/how-much-of-the-stimulus-money-has-already-been-spent/
Old Jim,
Are you sure you understood what I said? I mentioned "constitutional power/force" of the People over government Officials.
Whether the People use that power properly, or at all, has nothing to do with what I wrote.
I have no doubt of so-called voter fraud but I see no way fraud can elect all 435 (nor even a majority) Members of the House of Congress every two years since 1787.
My opinion is the ballot box for electing Congressmen is not rigged but Voter's mind is rigged.
Allan
Allan,
I used to think like you that our votes would be counted but in light of the fact that Acorn and associates will receive well over a billion of our tax dollars, I am not so sure anymore. If our state governments don't shake out this "pat hand" the feds believe they have established over us, we are going to be very disappointed with the outcomes of the next few elections. Radical incumbents will only become more entrenched, more experienced, and nearly impossible to eliminate. Article I Section 2 is still there but you need to realize that the game rules have changed.
Monoprise,
I am happy you see the light - the only constitutional power/force the People have over government Officials is the ballot box. That power/force is plainly stated in Article I, Section 2, of the 1787 Constitution. That's my political argument and it is set in concrete.
Allan
Allan Hampton I completely agree with your sentiment, in that the people are the final enforcers as is in effect, but I still maintain that it is, as demonstrated by history, regrettably unrealistic to expect such of the people, although I fully agree it is badly needed.
As you probably know the problem the people work, have lives, and other concerns which for the vast majority of them take far more seriously even to the exclusion of voting sometimes. To expect this mob to behave as Constitutional enforcers is naively hopeful to say the least.
None the less since it is our only option we must find away to get them better informed and more vigilant. I would also assert that our system was not designed to entirely rely on the active participation and vigilance of the people, but rather its own internal system of competing government power interest was meant to help contain the tyrannical imposes of politicians.
A example of this internal competition being the State Governments power interest competing with the federal Governments power interest prior to the 17th amendment.
To answer your question I would not wish to write a new constitution, I do not believe I possess the wisdom to best what already exist.
Moonprise,
Bear in mind the power/force of the People to control government Officials "written" in the 1787 Constitution (Article I, Section 2) is not mine but is the Founders idea and the great experiment in the People's freedom.
It certainly looks hopeless that the people will ever control government by enforcing the Oath of Office but never the less the ballot box remains forever the only "Constitutional" power/force the People have over government Officials. If Americans use any other method to control government then they have torn up and completely destroyed the Constitution. Since 1787 the Constitution is the "ruler" of USA governments (Oath of Office) but only if and when the People enforce it.
For myself I have no better ideas for a government of a country of a free people than that written in the Constitution. I think the People's role as the "only" Employer can't be made any better for freedom - the People are the only entity that can use the ballot box to hire Lawmakers (Congressmen every two years).
There are a great many political ideas floating around about what government should do and not many ideas on how to force government to do them. The People are arguing and fighting over political issues when the People have no power/force to solve any political issue, except the Oath of Office. Political issues are of only two categories; either government's business or not government's business - the Constitution tells government what is its business and what isn't its business/job/function/purpose.
Keep the People arguing/fighting over political issues and they will forget about the oath of Office.
In starting over with a new Constitution what power/force do you recommend the People have over government Officials?
Allan
Allan Hampton I don't think the USA Citizenry was ever going to reliably vote to defend the rights of the political minority. I think our founders knew that in their rejecting of a democracy. While ultimately it is important for them to believe in the concept of a republic and defend it with votes where possible, to expect that of them clearly is not entirely realistic.
I think perhaps the Constitutional system was made to force the political leaders resenting their will to follow laws which limited their authority and thus capability to bring tyranny over the political minority by the will of the political majority.
I think that system was broken over time, as they found ways to get around it. I think it is that system which we must restore or "reset" every now and then. When we are informed as to the important of a republic.
To put things into perspective, I think an overreliance on the competent, virtues and wisdom of future generations with regard to protecting the rights of the political minority with the proper limitation of government power, is the source of the break down, and while I do not believe we here has the wisdom to correct it.
I believe we can and should reset the system to buy us anther 100 to 200 years of freedom. I think that goal is simple enough and tested enough to be carried out.
In general however you are correct there is no way a people can remain free and keep a free republican constitutional system of government if and when they become corrupt and debouched of their republican values. But I see no way we can, or rather should attempt to prevent future generations from doing that indefinitely.
We can buy time nothing more.
We cannot forget the final sentence of the Tenth; "The powers not delegated...are reserved...to the people." The Tenth is a cascading ladder of responsibilityfrom the weakest (the United states) to the strongest (the people). We cannot shrug off the notion that when the federal and state governments fail us it is left to the people to act, extra-legally if necessary.
Well, okay, I'm just as guilty as anyone who complains that we all agree on what is wrong (pretty much) but no one has much to say about how to make change happen. So, here's a half-baked idea you can chew on: Set up a State Nullification American Party with chapters in each state with the avowed purpose of getting state legislators to sign a binding pledge to act to nullify the unconstitutional edicts emanating from Wash DC. This steals an idea from Grover Norquist and his no new tax pledge. We could build upon the grass roots efforts already in place at this site and others. It seems to me that nullification is the hammer we can use to beat the 10th Amendment back into the shape intended.( If this has legs, we could then establish a PAC to funnel monies to those who sign the pledge, but I guess I'm getting ahead of myself.)
Manny, if you haven't done so yet, you'll definitely want to sign up for our newsletter - we've got an announcement coming in the near future that is somewhat similar to what you're proposing.
Click here to get the newsletter
I.B.Dave,
Thanks for your words. Of course, it's all slow, but NOTHING HAPPENS since all we do is talk. And, I don't think "voting ALL the bastards out" is in any way related to "armed rebellion." Never a good idea. Also, I don't see how the likes of Kokesh, Paul, Paul, DeMint and others will ever make a difference so long as they remain subservient to a political party. They are all pulling down $175K per year and keeping their jobs election after election is their #1 concern. They also have the best health care in the world paid for by the taxpayers, a great gym, a fantastic restaurant to eat at, and numerous other perks. What they are doing now helps them keep these great jobs, but accomplishes NOTHING just as we accomplish nothing.
To paraphrase Steve McQueen in "The Sand Pebbles" .... DO SUMPTHIN'! We'll see if all this very good "talk" can morph into real action at the ballot box as the next elections approach.
Thank again.
The greatest and most famous, or infamous, enemy of USA Freedom is the USA Citizenry. The USA Citizenry has failed and continues to fail to preserve the Freedom won by the blood of the Founders and freely given to the Founders Progeny.
Eric WhoRU accuses, or blames, the Constitution and Founders for government unconstitutionality (huh), otherwise Eric is a fairly rational fellow - he knows what is going on and how to confront unconstitutionality in the "Courts". Eric has better ideas on the Federal Reserve and paper money than the usual hype. I urge everyone to listen to Eric's latest broadcast here;
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=27767&cmd=tc
Scroll down to 08/31/2009 09:00 PM EDT in left column.
Allan - ahampton@suddenlink.net
We may not be able to easily fix this problem and restore our Republic this time. Too many bills have been passed, poor court decisions rendered, and a general political mindset that has been forced on Americans. Start with the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2). This was, in matters concerning state sovereignty, effectively overridden by the wording in the 10th Amendment. The Federal government apparently denies this and continues to assert supremacy. This is the number one issue for this web site and must be clarified before states can truly move forward. It doesn't stop here. In the battle of Amendments the 14th Amendment comes along and pounds state sovereignty even more but the worst is yet to come. The 17th Amendment basically blows away our Republic and creates a system of "Representative Democracy" thereby eliminating true state representation in congress. (The House was supposed to represent the people while the Senate was originally to represent State Governments.) Couple all this with a Supreme Court decision (Wickard v. Filburn) against a farmer, Roscoe Filburn, who just wanted to keep some of the wheat he grew to make his own bread and the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) becomes a monster that allows the Federal Government to do just about anything including telling you what color underwear to wear if they so wish.
So, we have a massive problem. The only way I can see to fix this is to get a group of properly minded constitutional experts together to hash out exactly what has transpired and come up with a comprehensive list of corrections. That may be the easy part, many long term and improperly motivated seated congressmen will always like it the way they have it and resist any change, so that's where the voters come in. I believe real Americans including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, will rise to vote for leaders standing on a platform that demonstrates our constitutional problems and offers valid and sane solutions to get us back on track so we can just get on with it. If we don't do something like this we may just stand to loose it all. Maybe not from this administration but what if all or just some of their radical adventures backfire, what next. Consider that “the Russian Revolution in 1917 was triggered by a combination of economic breakdown, war weariness, and discontent with the autocratic system of government, and it first brought a coalition of liberals and moderate socialists to power, but their failed policies led to seizure of power by the Communist Bolsheviks - Marxist (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP)) on October 25", which is now known by the Russians as the October Revolution. Sound familiar, is that possible here? You decide!
Here's a few wiki references for you to review and ponder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia
The fear that the U.S. Constitution could be rewritten if a Constitutional convention for the worse as a means to insure that even the federal courts understand that it is a limited Not unlimited grant of power are valid, but their also pointless. If we got to that point where Interposition and nullification were ineffective at cornering the federal government into its Constitutional place, and assuming we had the number necessary to call such a convention.
Then the risk that such a convention could rewrite the constitution for the worse is somewhat mute because without such a chance there would simply be no constitution in effect by nature of the document being rendered a grant of unlimited powers by the federal government which ignores its limitations.
Truth be said at that point the only alterative to Convention is Secession, which I contend is even more risky, and less desirable, due not only to the threat of civil war, but the consequence of losing the natural State Government checking factor of Federalism.
The point of article V Convention option is to provide the states with a means to bypass a potentially corrupt and/or non-responsive congress. Congress’s roll in the matter is not conditional upon actually holding a convention, merely organizational. Should they fail to perform that duty then he state should specify the time and place the convention is to be held in their call and send a copy of that call to every state legislator for every state to count up for themselves. When all states have reserved 38, we will know, when and where to send their delegation.
In any case as indicated nether of theses options should be on the agenda yet, first we need to try threats, then we need to try legal battles give the court a chance to do its job, then we need to bring back the old constitutional practice of interposition and nullification. Then and only then, if all of those options fail, should we start to talk about risking convention or secession.
Spencer...
You are right on. I have actually outlined some actions that can be taken by individuals in some recent posts, but these things take time to have any effect. Moreover, the central bank has to go, but again, your suggestion is the only way that is going to happen....and that takes time. Meanwhile we will have to knuckle down and ride it out. If we are earnest about doing this "peacefully" (the term is relative) then this is all we have.
The problem I'm beginning to see here, is that most people, though Ernest and sincere, are hoping for a "magic bullet". There is none. Only plain old mortal ones. Peaceful change takes time, period. I think too many want an IMMEDIATE fix, and it doesn't exist. We have given these parasites too much power over our lives. As Franklin noted
: "Those who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security, deserve neither, and will lose both."
That's pretty much where I believe we're at, at this particular moment in time.
To speed things up this early in our "awakening", is to suggest armed revolution, and I oppose that on moral grounds....ie: violence is only justified as self defense. I would only support armed resistance, not armed aggression, and even then only if there was something to resist. Until Martial law is declared, I see no reason to "gas the fire" so to speak, and I still have mixed feelings about the gun carrying protesters. I agree they have the right, and pose no threat, but it does freak people out, and that's why I prefer concealed carry and am very conscious of "gun etiquette".
But I digress....
No worries mate, these things actually are happening, Adam Kokesh in New Mexico, Rand Paul in Kentucky, Ron Paul in Texas, Jim DeMint in South Carolina, and many others that don't immediately come to mind.
Meanwhile, it never hurts to exchange ideas. The more it's talked about by rational people, the more people will be educated, and when public opinion for liberty and individual sovereignty is strong enough, things will change in a positive direction.
Dave
Manny...
I share your frustration, and I also agree that ALL peaceful means need to be employed before we resort to the unthinkable, but one has to accept that although the latter is certainly a LAST resort (it will be self defense at that point) it is always a possible outcome.
If you go back a couple of posts, I did offer some immediate action that could, and is being taken by many. These things I believe will have an effect, but the most important thing is still the FED. You can never do enough to starve leviathan unless you can cut off the food supply.
BTW, I also appreciate a sense of humor. That is the tie that thinking people use to connect when discussing opposing points of view, not that we are that much opposed really, and I do respect yours. I would love to be wrong, but I think history has shown that legislation alone is not going to have any positive effect.
Please go back to the previous post I described, and let me know if those suggestions answer any of you questions.
Best regards,
Dave
The only way to make ANY changes in the current governments is by filling Congress and Legislatures with THE PEOPLE. People such as those, IMO, who write on this site (not me, too old). The House of Representatives is where the solution lies, and until that body is totally changed NOTHING will change! All opinions on this site are basically in agreement. But, what is any one of you (us) going to do to institute real change?
We can do something, but what is it? Just talk back and forth?
Dave, Great, you have a sense of humor, sadly missing in most earnest types. The football analogy, like all analogies, is deficient in meaning, but what I was attempting to say, however clumsy my words may be, is that ideas no matter how pure do not change much without follow on action to implement. No one I know, and particularly not a timid type like I, is advocating anything other than peaceful means to recapture the freedom and liberty we have squandered, and, yes, it is we who are to blame. There must be some action that can be taken, or else we are just wasting our time recounting the same issues ad nauseam, and that is not what we should be about. I will keep asking and looking, perhaps, there is an Andrew Jackson type out there somewhere.
Manny....
LOL...how so?
Dave, First down. No way. You fumbled on the one yard line.
"BTW arguing what government is doing, political issues, are a sure loser. Political issues are like carrots dangling in front of the donkey to keep the donkey pulling the wagon. Government corruption is the wagon and the people are the donkey."
That much is certainly true. As for the comprehension part, right back at ya pal. You have still not answered my question about self rule. That happened in this country only up until the constitution was ratified. From then on, the "federal" government has done nothing but restrict our rights, and stolen our wealth. That would not be possible under "self rule". Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, but it's still a tyranny, just as the "lesser of two evils" is still evil.
The intent of the constitution to protect our rights and property, and that is clearly outlined in the "declaration of independence", and that's why Jefferson wrote it. He knew that the constitution was fraught with possibilities for government to do exactly as it is doing now. I suggest you read it.
That is all we have left, since so many have taken it upon themselves to interpret the constitution in so many different ways. I agree with you that the "people" are not required to enforce unlawful acts on themselves. This is also a widely known procedure called "Nullification", and it is certainly an option.
In addition, I consider these options also to be viable:
1. Quit asking the government to do anything for you, do it yourself or
pay someone who will do it voluntarily. The lies and deceit by
government you bought into are not the responsibility of those citizens
around you.
2. While trying to work within the system is ultimately futile if ending
the system is your goal, in the meantime while the edifice continues to
crumble around us, support only those political activities which reduce
the size, power and scope of the system itself, such as reduction of all
taxes, reduction in the amount of government services, reduction in the
numbers of government employees, ass kissers, suck-ups and hangers-on.
3. Demand complete privacy for any and all acts of private
enterprise/property and complete exposure of all acts of government
including any acts involving "public/private partnerships:, ie, fascist
engagement.
4. Coercion, whether in the form of theft, murder, kidnapping, or fraud,
shall always be criminal whether committed by individuals or individuals
acting on behalf of any group, specifically including government.
Doublespeak not allowed.
5. Demand that no actions voluntarily entered into by consenting adults
shall be deemed criminal and any government employee or elected official
found to be in violation of 4 above shall suffer the death penalty.
Again these measures will have only limited effect without removing the government's power to create money by decree (fiat), and will not ultimately rectify any social maladies. If fact, unless we take that one crucial step, the masses are doomed to subservience under the fascist socialist state.
Dave
Icky,
You cannot read with comprehension. I said, in other words, the Constitution created a government that could not make any (legal/lawful/constitutional) demands (legislatively) of the people and if it did the people had the power to override any such demands but had that power of protection from government (legislative) abuse only in the venue of the ballot and jury boxes.
I am not arguing what government is doing (it is doing all those things you mentioned, which are unconstitutional/criminal), I am arguing government acts against the People are unconstitutional/criminal and the People are not required to enforce any unconstitutional/criminal act of government on themselves.
If government cannot legally/lawfully/constitutionally force any demands on the People then how can any other entity force a demand on anyone one else? No one can legally/lawfully/constitutionally, without due process of law, force anyone else to do anything, so what better definition of freedom do you have?
"equitable way to protect the rights and property of Americans" does not mean "Representative Government" is obligated to protect rights or property of the People. Were do you read the above quotes, certainly not in the Constitution. Representatives are hired, constitutionally, to honor the Constitution's Oath of Office and nothing else outside what that oath dictates. The Constitution does not delegate the federal government any authority or power to protect the people or their Rights.
If you believe government is obligated by the Constitution to protect the People's Rights and Property quote that part of the Constitution?
BTW arguing what government is doing, political issues, are a sure loser. Political issues are like carrots dangling in front of the donkey to keep the donkey pulling the wagon. Government corruption is the wagon and the people are the donkey.
Allan
Allan...
The FED will end when people understand the fraudulent nature of banking. If people understood fractional reserve banking, they would not trust their fortunes to such parasitic organizations, hence their close guarded secrecy.
Secondly, what you describe is no where even close to self rule. What you describe is widely known as "Representative Government". At the time it was instituted in 1787, it was thought by some (not all) that this would be a fair and equitable way to protect the rights and property of Americans. It has however failed the test miserably, partly due to too much power being given to congress in the first place.
Do you have the power to override government edict on your person? You do not. If you try it, you face either fines, or incarceration, even for victimless crimes such as zoning violations, drug possession, any "license" suspension, burning you trash etc.
This is not self rule my friend, it is a mild form of fascism, which has been constantly ramped up over the last several decades on an unsuspecting, indoctrinated populace. "Voting the bums out" no longer works, because to even be considered by either of the two principal parties, you mush subscribe to their doctrines. Elections in this country are almost as much of a joke these days (especially with the introduction of electronic voting) as elections in any third worls puppet regime.
You vote with you feet, and with your dollars. The latter is only possible through the ownership of precious metals or other valuable commodities, (in our fiat economy).
Dave
Icky,
OK, I support HR 1207, now when does the fed end?
"Americans have had self rule since 1787"
Answer - because a government was created "WITHOUT" any power or jurisdiction over the People living in the USA. The People had the power to hire and fire Lawmakers (ballot box) and the People had the power to nullify (Jury Box) anything government did "Repugnant" to the Constitution and "Dispense" justice to fellow Americans accused by government of committing a crime. AND Americans STILL have that POWER.
Allan
Allan, again...
END THE FED..END THE FED...END THE FED...END THE FED.
Support HR 1207. This is only the first step, but I believe that further discussion of "solutions" would be meaningless without it. It is the root of the problem.
It will create a few years of hardships, after which a new robust economy would emerge. These hardships will not be avoided by Keynesianism, in fact they will be exacerbated, and last longer. These are facts based on US history.
All other political activism is for naught, if we don't cut the head off the snake. The bankers run the country, not the president. He is the mouth piece for the NWO. Ending the FED will take away the state's ability to debase your money through counterfeiting, their ability to wage unthinkable wars, and their ability to manipulate the markets.
Money is their power. The thought of "we need the voter's support" has been replaced by "we just need to print more money". As long as they can do that, they control all markets, and all (sanctioned by the monopoly) armed forces.
That is why I believe that there is no political solution. You cannot stop murderers and thieves with a piece of parchment. Any political system instituted in place of another, will always be subject to corruption, and therefore unacceptable.
I still haven't read where you describe how you justify your assertion that "Americans have had self rule since 1787" (because you can't) but that is the only way out.
Once we eliminate this government, we should never institute another.
Dave
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] for Freedom Posted on August 28, 2009 by Bill Miller This Article on the Tenth Amendment Center is by the most esteemed scholar on secession today – Dr. Donald Livingston. A continuous [...]
[...] Decentralization for Freedom by Donald W. Livingstone [...]
[...] assert the sovereignty of their citizens and of the state and actively resist Federal tyranny via Nullification and Interposition and even economic secession (which will be the topic of a future post). There are many gutsy [...]
[...] an article, “Decentralization for Freedomâ€, by Prof. Livingston, he raises some issues that are increasingly troubling to a growing number of [...]
[...] sides. I hated the state even in the womb. See the heroic secessionist Donald Livingston on “Decentralizing for Freedom” on the Tenth Amendment Center website. Writes Livingston: To all of this it is often said [...]
[...] both sides. I hated the state even in the womb. See the heroic secessionist Donald Livingston on "Decentralizing for Freedom" on the Tenth Amendment Center website. Writes Livingston: To all of this it is often said that [...]
[...] an article, “Decentralization for Freedomâ€, by Prof. Livingston, he raises some issues that are increasingly troubling to a growing [...]
[...] an article, “Decentralization for Freedomâ€, by Prof. Livingston, he raises some issues that are increasingly troubling to a growing number [...]
[...] an article, “Decentralization for Freedomâ€, by Prof. Livingston, he raises some issues that are increasingly troubling to a growing number of [...]