by Ron Paul
This article was originally published on December 11, 2006
The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.
The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.
Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:
The president’s authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.
But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:
Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).
So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct– and bring to a conclusion– properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong.
No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.
It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq.
It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.
Ron Paul is a republican member of congress from Texas.
It's time for the red states to immediately form a coalition/council and begin controlling the future direction of the country. All it would take is 10-15 of the most conservative states to set up this coalition. Once established, that powerful group of elected officials would lock arms and begin to call the shots on just about everything, asserting their state powers of course. Time for talk is over.
But Tina – wouldn't you agree that most of our problems stem from too much centralization? That is, from too much control in the hands of just a few people? That's what the founders warned us against, and that's the cause of just about anything you have issues with in D.C. So calling on anew, small group, to "control the future direction of the country" is just replacing one group of dictators with another.
Now, you may actually LIKE the direction they take us, but you've enabled your opposition to doing the same.
Here at TAC, we believe the best solution is to decentralize – to recognize that a country as diverse as the US requires different solutions in different states. All that's needed, really, is good people like YOU to put up with nothing more than strict adherence to the US Constitution.
Hi Michael.
All individual states of our union have centralization. In fact, every organization, business, coalition, and group on the planet has both centralization and decentralization. Even TAC has these elements.
Too much decentralization (individuals acting entirely alone without coordination) is powerless, and too little decentralization is *so powerful* that it enables a few dictators to accomplish all aspects of their agenda and rule everything and everyone! The right balance is necessary if a people are to have both the power to act as a group and the power preserve individual liberty.
The founders did not warn us about having centralization in states, in coalitions, in businesses, or in patriot groups. Coordination and leadership are absolutely necessary to organize any people to action. I highly doubt you wish to "decentralize" TAC, for example. In fact, you're working hard to develop a leadership group and membership that has a common mission, goals, strategies, etc., — as is necessary for coordinated action. ("United we stand, divided we fall.")
So it is with the fight to restore state sovereignty. In order for this to happen, 10 to 15 of the most red states will need to coordinate their conservative assembly members together to stand up for state sovereignty. This bloc will be unable to be opposed by DC, and no federal mandate will be capable of being implemented against the will of that coalition of red states.
Tina, thanks for the reply. You do make some excellent points about the nature and structure of organizations – much of with I do agree with.
But, I do not agree that the path to constitutional government is wholly based on red or conservative states. Why? Because the Constitution is not solely a conservative ideology – it's simply about keeping the most difficult and most partisan issues out of the hands of the federal government.
In fact, the constitution authorizes states to do many things which are directly opposed to current conservative ideology – for example, it is entirely constitutional for states to legalize marijuana or other drugs, enact their own socialized health care plans, and the like.
I guess the real question – do you have any feedback or thoughts about the article here? The discussion was about foreign policy…I'd be interested to hear your take on it.
The path to reasserting states rights as a normative reality in the U.S. is entirely based upon conservative states taking action. Why? Because they are the only states that have the interest, will, and congressional majorities to do so.
States have to stand up for themselves and assert their sovereignty, and about 15 states at the present time would have the interest and ability to do so. And if they did so, and if they do it together via a Conservative State Alliance, nobody could stop them. Their alliance together would be impervious to all federal mandates and abuses of power.
As to "foreign policy," the red state alliance would be highly influential in that matter as well, for that alliance would be the most powerful decision-making entity in the U.S.A.
Tina, thanks again for your follow up. Regarding foreign policy – a constitutional foreign policy, that is. For example, under the Bush administration virtually the entire conservative movement advocating ripping the constitution to shreds. We've seen virtually the same from the left too.
that's what this article is talking about. The current policy, and the policy for the last 5 decades at least have been entirely opposite of what the founders advised.
So what you're saying to me is one of the following:
1) trust the very same people that have trashed the constitution to suddenly follow it, or
2) ignore the constitution on foreign policy and war to help a conservative movement get back in power.
Which is it?
As Thomas Jefferson advised:
"peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Can you give me more detail of what red states and groups you're talking about that are actively and loudly advocating a foreign policy of the founding fathers – a constitutional one as discussed in this article?
I don't know of many.
I agree about your America-first perspective, Michael.
I also have to consider that Jefferson wrote prior to the age of jetliners, the Internet, telecommunications, and other global technologies that make working with England or China as likely as Ohio working with neighbor Pennsylvania. So, I'm not sure a comprehensive isolationist approach is reasonable now or in the future.
I don't know of anyone today who has the will, power, or authority to enact the foreign policy view put forth in the article. I do believe, however, that a coalition of conservative red states would be able to forcefully advocate for this proper constitutional approach. If not them, who else has the influence or decision-making power to advocate for such a restoration?
Thanks for your honest reply, Tina!
If most conservative groups are not advocating for a constitutional foreign policy – and most are not – why should I give them my full support? I won’t.
I will, however, give them praise for the things they’re doing that ARE right – resistance to federal gun laws, opposition to federal health care (even though it was republicans who expanded medicare under bush), and the like.
But no, I’m just as uninterested in the establishment right as I am in the establishment left. They’re all tyrants in my book.
Michael says: If most conservative groups are not advocating for a constitutional foreign policy – and most are not – why should I give them my full support?
Tina: You shouldn't. But then again I ask: who has the decision-making authority and power to champion and implement the restoration you are suggesting? If not conservative state legislators, then who?
Michael: I will, however, give them praise for the things they're doing that ARE right – resistance to federal gun laws, opposition to federal health care and the like.
Tina: I know of a coalition of red states that would naturally and excitedly take up your federalism and other constitutional issues. Would you consider that "establishment right" to be tyrants, too? Or would you instead work alongside them to ensure the ideas of the TAC are established and enforced?
Interesting little debate going on here. I happen to agree with Michael on a philosophical level, but once I snap back to reality, Tina is right. The thing about it is:
(1) There will either be secession, or there will not be.
(2) Assuming there will not be secession, we will continue to have federal government.
(3) Assuming we continue to have federal government, someone has to be in charge of it.
(4) Therefore, the force in control needs to be educated to adhere more properly to the Constitution, and the force that does as directed needs to be empowered.
(5) Nullification is a good thing, but at no time in history has it amounted to the momentous change in direction this country needs. I don't want to downplay nullification, because, in reality, it is a predicate to secession or revolution (either of which might be necessities to a good, working restoration). But, nullification, by itself thus far has amounted to not having to carry a national ID card while we (in some states) light up a joint to relieve our sore ankles. This is progress, but a far, far cry from where we need to go. Success, based solely on nullification, would essentially bring this country to the brink of anarchy, because there is so much to undo.
Therefore, if we are not going to have secession, and a power group will remain, we need to carefully mold that power, empower it, and then restrain it. Isn't that basically how the Union was formed in the first place?
you forgot gun law nullification in Montana, and the state sovereignty movement coming to fruition does not have to mean anarchy. The states could simply pass laws to mimick the federal laws, then D.C repeals all unconstitutional mandates/laws, then the states could keep what they want, and repeal the rest. As for foreign policy, this could be remedied by simply passing a declaration of war, but that begs the question, against who are we waging war? The tax question could be solved by all states passing some kind of escrow law, where they collect the withholding from their citizens, and give to the federal government what it needs for proper federal functions.
Jeff says: There will either be secession, or there will not be.
Tina: The 8 to 12 states that are most likely to consider the very possibility of secession *should instead lock arms* and use their state power to block all federal overreaching, thus saving themselves and the Union.
Jeff says: Therefore, if we are not going to have secession, and a power group will remain, we need to carefully mold that power, empower it, and then restrain it.
Tina: Yes, indeed. You need only about 8 to 12 of the most conservative states to lock arms and win the battle for federalism, free enterprise, etc. We don't need a state here and there to secede—we need them to instead lock arms and LEAD. That's doable, and it's doable at the present time.
Our system of constitutional principals that had once, influenced, this federal Congress, has now been morphed dangerously itself into a system of automatic compliance, if the integrity of this republic is to survive, it must be brought to interpose itself before these self interested invaders.
The lions share of opposition must now come from ourselves, The People, with the help of their state representatives, we shall prevail.
Failure is not an option.
I appreciate each answer to the questions. The problem as I see it is the abandonment of the Christian view of the Trinity. The Apostle Paul makes it plain in Ephesians 1 that the Father, Son, and Spirit have different job descriptions. The Lord's prayer teaches that we are to build our institutions as we observe the government in Heaven ordered. The three branches of our government follow that pattern. The true answer it for the churches to begin to believe, teach, and follow the Bible. Then what color the state is will make less difference and the Pillar and Ground of the truth, the church, and Her Lord will again hold sway in these United State.
Dave
JMB – great comment. Glad you used the word "interpose" because that's just what Madison and Jefferson were looking to as a way to resist federal encroachment on our liberties. State governments must interpose, or stand between, us and the feds.
As far as foreign policy goes, that means they need to refused nationalization of their guard units for everything but what's authorized in the constitution itself.
This phenomenon makes a lot more sense when one accepts that money, rather than the voice of the people, is in the driver's seat in DC. There are many accounts of the influence that contractors such as Lockheed Martin have over members of congress; firms that stand to make billions from war instructing those that they control to support military action. If it were up to the people, as was intended by our founders, I suspect that we would have limited our military action to situations where a truly imminent threat existed.
It's time for the red states to immediately form a coalition/council and begin controlling the future direction of the country. All it would take is 10-15 of the most conservative states to set up this coalition. Once established, that powerful group of elected officials would lock arms and begin to call the shots on just about everything, asserting their state powers of course. Time for talk is over.
Hi,
Constitutional principles have been developed as a part of national legal orders. They were formulated in a historical situation where the nation-state created the framework for an isolated and sovereign legal order in which only the interests of the national community were taken into account.
It is hypocritical for democrats to question the war then vote for funding it every two months. The timetable is in their hands. They can cut off funding anytime they agree to. The inherent check on the war is the funding that must be approved every two months.
These long wars are very much the "military industrial complex". In more wholesome times, you go into a foreign area, defeat the evil, exact a peace treaty on your terms, and leave. If the peace treaty is violated, you go back. It was so simple. And, if the executive led you into a war unjustly, through lies, and a benefitting industry, special courts existed to try those officials, who lead unwisely, tarnish the nation's name, and lack the critical integrity leadership requires. For what potential crime needs more scrutiny that leading us to war unwisely, unjustly, and through lies and false apprehensions?
Why does congress let the executive set so much of the national agenda? A clue is why the congress doesn't stop funding the war. Congress doesn't stop funding the war because its members fear villification in the press. This indicates our press is too strong, or congress doesn't take the press on. If you measure a public figure by amount of face time with the public, the media is far more the public figure than federal officials.
In this sense, power lies with the media. They face the public far more than the president, and the president, far more than congress. By this system of power, that the executive simply dwarfs individual representatives and senators in power, means the media focus on power, the media focuses on people in power and power, without ever identifying their own nature of power, means the media crudely focuses on the executive, and not the representatives. A unified body of senators is needed to come out to the press and take on the executive.
The press is where the debate is rent, so the press is the cause for the form of the debate. How can true discussion by officials exist, when there is 24 hr issuance of press defining what is the most important thing. The press is the cause for the abdication of responsibility and charactor by congress.
Even more damming, consider this; There is the Kingdom of God. So there is a limited amount of human expression. A great deal of that amount and energy is taken up by the media and press—how much can be left over for rational dialogue by officials? How can the core truth of the kingdom of god which binds representatives of regions everywhere ever come up, when the media seems purportedly designed to obscure that truth?
Freedom of Press is the first right, yet that is so morally ambiguos when you consider our Press is not free at all, for if it were free, it would be beholden to truth and our constitution, and it is not. The corruption besetting our nation lies in the press and media.
Look how the the tenth amendment precludes mayors and local officials from community decision-making, since they are neither state nor people; and our founders intended for free assemblies to be where communities makes decisions with ayes and nays. This is important, but the media knows nothing of it, nor will cover the enforcement of this civil right.
The dominance of the press passes over congress for the president, in its simplicity. The soul of the press restricts what can come out of congress. If you want to take on the problems of this nation, take on the issues of the media and press; make them as much an issue as gays, muslims, minorities, law enforcement, hippies, catholics, the military. They hide behind themselves, whereas any controversial group is forced out into the open, and knows the issues they must address.
@Vic:
the 10th Amendment is technically what's referred to as a "rule of construction" Meaning, it defines how the entire constitution is supposed to be viewed and interpreted. What the 10th says – is that the federal government only has those powers which have been delegated to it in the constitution.
And nothing more.
It doesn't address state vs city, or mayors, or anything else – that's left for the people of each city and state to decide.
Just read the tenth amendment: "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."
Local officials are neither state nor people.
Think about it: we left the state of nature to communicate with each other about how our society should be iat a local level. When we give up that natural right to a few local officials we violate a great human right, which deserves its inclusion in our bill of rights here.
The tenth amendment completely limits the excercise of powers to the state or the people, and sets up a tensions between localities being ruled by the state, or by the people in free assembly.
I think it is fairly simple.
Thanks for the feedback, Vic. But, it's up to people and their agents in state government to determine how cities and towns are handled.
While you may BELIEVE that the 10th amendment works in such a way, that is an incorrect statement. Again, it's about ensuring that the federal government is limited to those powers delegated to it.
Put it this way – if the people of the city of Los Angeles create system where certain things are handled, that's an issue solely between the people of Los Angeles and the people of the rest of the state of California (possibly), depending on what's allowed to cities to deal with in that state's constitution alone.
But the federal government would have no say in the matter – at all – unless it was dealing with one of the powers enumerated in the constitution.
For example – if the Mayor of Los Angeles attempted to set up a national program to regulate commerce between the states, the feds should step in – because this is a power delegated to Congress alone.
But on the other hand, if the city of Los Angeles wanted to hold a referendum on putting in a new city park, the feds would have no say – because such a power is not enumerated in the constitution.
The only issue – would be whether under the California Constitution, cities are authorized to engage in this activity. Again, the only way the constitution gets involved is to keep the federal government out.
Can you respond to any of the following?
1)This is the first time you have seen this citation of the tenth amendment?
2)If my citation is true then there is something grossly wrong.
3)This gross wrong I cite is not only particularly the locus of community decision-making; but generally, in the law and rational of the tenth amendment not being apprehended by judiciary and lawyers, state and federal governments, media and people.
4) That Free Assembly is a form of community decision-making where all present make a decision with ayes and nays.
5) That local officials infringe upon free assembly as a form of local decision-making in violation of the first amendment?
6) That if no one else has apprehended this, you may not be able to.
Here are some additional items of education, if I am wrong please educate me.
7) In European constitutions, Free Assembly is protected but there is no tenth amendment reserving powers to the state or the people. There are still local officials making decisions infringing upon the existence and form of free assembly; but this does not seem to bother people, for whatever reason.
8) Local officials enact powers not given to the federal government, yet they are not the state or the people
9) Up to 1900 free assemblies made community decisions in many towns in NJ.
10) In some New England towns now, quorums of 236 are required for a community decision to be made. With ten signatures, a measure may be put up for vote.
11) This has effectively protected some areas of NJ from the blight of destruction of forests and farms.
12) The basic principal of John Locke was that we left the state of nature so as to live better. This is consistent with ensuring localities discuss and make decisions together with ayes and nays of those present. This is a natural form of local government.
13) Representative government makes sense at a state or federal level where representatives are needed to discuss issues common to various regions; but retard local polities where all can and should make decisions together.
14) The constitution and law is and is meant to be an accessible document, not hard to understand. Our debate should stem from the wording of the primary document, and not subsequent interpretations. If the federal government is limited to powers the constitution gave it, then everything else, from the right to build something, to education, is reserved for the state or the people.
15) The tension, that tests the propriety and wisdom of a state making a decision for a locality versus the propriety and wisdom of free assemblies making decisions is meant to be; and expresses a natural tension between a local area and a larger state.
16) State constitutions incorporating towns with local officials violate the 14th amendment’s guarantee of the privilege to be ruled by the state or the people in free assembly, and the immunity to being ruled locally by nobles, or warlords, or communist parties, (or churches, or the KKK, or that weird guy everyone likes.)
The federal government should not want or be allowed to have a say in as many concerns as possible. The federal government should want to be less, should want solutions to LA coming out of LA, solutions to California coming out of California. Solutions to problems areas have must come from within, not without. We see this in our inability to create a government in Iraq. And we saw this in the failed Eastern Bloc countries of Europe.
The problem with turning to the federal government to solve problems stems from Essay 8 in The Federalist Papers. Hamilton there says the main reason for a federal government is to keep the states from warring each other over disputed territories, which would occur, as in Europe, even more with the Indian territories, and thus our prosperity and polity would not be able to grow. (The second reason for a federal government was to have a
large navy to protect us from European powers.) This is a very outdated cause for a federal government, and has given us a federal government with a big stick, but little else; the attitude of authority, rather than one of solution.
Look at health care, say communities took care of their doctors, and doctors took care of their communities, it’s that simple, coupled with promotions and opportunities of excercise, as well as expanding the knowledge of healing to more people.
Look at illegal immigration, the spirit of towns and states handling this, makes towns and states more effective in handling this than the federal government.
The regulation of interstate commerce by congress is specific—but dealing with the economy per se different. Say NJ grows tomatoes, and PA makes cars, and there were a yearly swap–that trading pact would not be allowed by the constitution, and that holds back the economy.
A referendum is not all present; deciding things with ayes and nays among themselves, that is what free assembly is; that people don’t know that; nor the right to petition the government to redress grievance is the right to bring up an issue in court; or that congress is only required to meet one day a year, or how the 9th amendment streamlines a form for the retention of rights (ask me about the logical tautology of the ninth amendment—a right that is retained by the people will not be denied or disparaged, and one that is denied or disparaged signifies it is not retained); all this indicates, as James Madison said, that knowledge is power; and there is no further proof of this than the lack of this good knowledge has led to a lack of good power: Our knowledge is limited is to keep us from powerful knowledge.
Free Assembly can come about in ironic ways. Here is one simplified story.
Whether free assembly is a natural form for community, which I think it is, or wisely legislated; the point is it came about in ancient Italy when Hannibal was coming from one direction and the Romans from another; a town had to decide which army to support, and choosing the loser would certainly make life worse—the patriarchy that ran the town had to call free assemblies to make the decision because the stakes were too high, they simply could not take responsibility for the decision, or, too many people objected to the side the patriarchy chose, compellingly so. So free assemblies were called to attempt to make these decisions easier, out of necessity in war time. This story shows that history is often ruled by irony.
"Say NJ grows tomatoes, and PA makes cars, and there were a yearly swap–that trading pact would not be allowed by the constitution, and that holds back the economy."
wrong. Well, the federal government currently SAYS they can regulate anything they want. But the point is – "regulate" in the constitution means to ensure that the free flow of goods between states is regular, and states aren't throwing up barriers to trade with each other.
So if states made an interstate compact – which is acceptable, then NJ and PA could absolutely do what you suggest.
You've still got it upside down.
Now – do you have any feedback on this article itself? – Foreign policy was the discussion here – we have plenty of other articles that you can leave these comments on that are on-topic.
Cutting off funding for wars is the constitutional check limiting foreign policy congress fears to excercise.
Look, Michael, I am sorry to go off topic, and I firmly believe we’d be better off as 50 countries than one nation, that our federal government was meant to hold us together in perilous nascent times, but now holds us back, and the tenth amendment is intended to help this vision. (I firmly believe health care reform is better handled by the states and the people, and that we are missing the opportunity to see 50 resolutions regarding health implemented, which would allow then to observe which ones work and how.) In no way do I mean to detract from your endeavor of freeing us from federal tyranny; I am just more concerned with establishing free assemblies that free us from the tyranny of local officials. Both of us cite the tenth amendment.
"Say NJ grows tomatoes, and PA makes cars, and there were a yearly swap–that trading pact would not be allowed by the constitution, and that holds back the economy."
wrong. Well, the federal government currently SAYS they can regulate anything they want. But the point is – "regulate" in the constitution means to ensure that the free flow of goods between states is regular, and states aren't throwing up barriers to trade with each other.
So if states made an interstate compact – which is acceptable, then NJ and PA could absolutely do what you suggest.
You've still got it upside down.
Now – do you have any feedback on this article itself? – Foreign policy was the discussion here – we have plenty of other articles that you can leave these comments on that are on-topic.
That right "We the People"
Come people JOIN GOOOHIt is not there , but Tim Cox really has something on the move it really looks good.
In the News: – Houston’s KTRK Channel 13 had this to say on the 6 o’clock evening news (12/1)
WGN Midday News – Watch Tim's 12/16 interview on WGN
GOOOH Event Calendar – Information on upcoming events………………………
"If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams, 1776
http://goooh.com/Home.aspx
They do no do anything per se, but report what others do—-another distinguishing factor. They claim to be about truth, as no other profession does; and yet dualism, the meaning of free assembly, a focus away from power, is all quite obviously beyond their purview.
Take on the press, the press which controlls so much in its self-reverberations, in its choosing what is important—in its incessant public display–and you will see the compass of the constitution restored—because the press is not free at all—were it free, it would behave much differently, even respond to these charges.
17) That protecting localities from being ruled by the few is a legitimate concern of law-makers.
18) This is a civil rights issue. State Constitutions incorporating towns with local officials violate the bill of rights, analogous to state Jim Crow laws violating minority rights.
19) In some states like Kentucky, and NY, particular local decisions must be approved by the state, or be made by the state. In many other states, local officials make those decisions, and sometimes there are merely guidelines.
20) Cited so, the tenth amendment makes the United States Constitution a great document.
21) Insofar as the public is kept from this relevant knowledge, our press is not free.
22)The federal government is limited to the constitution anyway.
23) Google Vic Fedorov Youtube, for a 30 minute interview of me on the subject.
24) An issue for the NJ ethics committee is that if local officials can not consider this issue because they have a personal and financial interest in the issue, per ethics law in NJ, must not the state government be more accessible in this regard to compensate? And, do state officials have a personal interest of their prestige and perceived degree of competency in this issue? The ignorance of this citation exposes a flawed form of government. All power is inherently in the people (Article 2a in NJ) exists because state officials only administrate within the form of state government and are not empowered to change their form, even as it is exposed as flawed, by its violation of the tenth amendment and infringement of free assembly by its state constitution.
To respond to your points specifically:
The people of LA may deal with local issues, and if the state has a different view on the issue, that would have to play out in court and politically, demonstrating the state v people tension of the tenth amendment.
But if you can grant me one remark to your last rebuttal: I derive the federal government’s discourage of state trading pacts and true economic competition from Article 1, section 10.
“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.”
I construe, perhaps mistakenly, the prohibition on treaty, to include trade pacts. I construe the ban on Bills of Credit, which seem necessary should there be direct trade between states, as inhibiting such natural economic concourse. I see the prohibition of imposts as perhaps impeding the natural competition and character and sustainability that could arise
should trade pacts involve the passage of goods through certain states. And that these guidelines are controlled by congress, rather than the participants, direct us away from participants solving problems, and towards federal homogeneity. In general, the attacks on sovereignty herein, while preventing cruelty, or folly, by the states, have the spirit and effect, we may discern, of making states think less about their economic character and aligning such care with other states, and having established, a general economic nature that is neither truly competitive or wise or sustainable.
I have to ascribe the lack of specific known trade pacts between states, which would bolster each states economy and production, to the swaddling of states by our federal government and republican design, and the relinquishing of state control to local officials in incorporated towns. The federal government structurally fails to care for the unique individual needs of each state, and local officials fail to see the general goals and interests of the whole state.
Allowing the federal government to manufacture money, inhibits sustainable economies, and hinders state economic development.