Free and Total Reign Over the States?

  • Share on Tumblr

by Andrew Nappi

The following is based off a speech given at the Citrus County, FL tea party on April 17, 2010

The 10th Amendment, also known as the “states rights” amendment says very simply, “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.” Very simple words…and these simple words mean just this: If it’s not in the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the US government is not empowered to legislate it.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that authorizes the New Deal, the Great Society, or nationalized health care or any other fiscal or civil dishonesty that is being perpetrated upon the people.

When the revisionist historians talk about the all-encompassing power of the United States, there should be two flags that go up immediately: First, we should remember that after the revolution, the states were as free and independent from each other as they were from the British. And those men that gave us that independence were not about to give it away to a government that would impose its will upon them in all matters. Second, at the first constitutional convention, there was a proposal called the Virginia Plan which would have given the federal government the power to veto the actions of state legislatures. It was soundly defeated. I ask you, does that sound like a historical basis to give the United States Government free and total reign over the states? Absolutely not!

Historically-speaking, all-encompassing power to the federal government has never been in our nation’s DNA.

Our opponents seek to assign hatred to our words. They seek to discredit our attempts to return the states to their proper check and balance position on federal power. But neither history nor current events legitimizes this. The truth is that the demand for state sovereignty was expressed emphatically in both northern and southern state conventions.

On February 6, 1788 Massachusetts, the 6th state to ratify the proposed constitution, was the first state to formally request amendments to the document. And their requests went in part, first “that it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid constitution are reserved to the several states to be by them exercised.”

Rhode Island insisted at its ratification convention that the United States shall “guarantee to each its sovereignty, freedom, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States.”

In Virginia, they demanded the “powers granted under the constitution being derived from the people of the United States be resumed by them whensoever these same powers shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them at their will.” [emphasis added]

That power remains with who? You, and at your will!

Have we become so comfortable with the illusion of freedom that we will ignore the intolerable act of 16,000 additional armed federal agents enforcing punishment on us for not buying health insurance? Will we rely on their systems, their courts and bureaucrats, to protect our rights?

Throughout its history, the Supreme Court has sided with its co-partners in the federal government more times than it has the states. Relying on the Supreme Court to be an impartial player in intergovernmental disputes is like relying on your ex’s Mother to be your mediator in your divorce settlement. The supreme court has been missing in action for generations – and congress and the executive are only too happy about this.

A better option is nullification. The correct term for nullification is actually state interposition. When the central government legislates outside of its enumerated powers, the state government is obliged to interpose, to place itself in between, its citizens and that unlawful legislation to protect the rights of those citizens.

reclaiming-american-revolutionThe concept was first thought of as the states’ right of self-defense. The idea of states’ rights and the defense of same are as old as our revolution and they are not the sole franchise of any one geographical region. The adherence to states rights and state sovereignty threatens no one except those enemies of individualism and liberty.

In writing the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson asserted that “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, voide and of no force.” They are illegitimate, and they should not be obeyed!

Andrew Nappi [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Florida Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

,

29 comments
anthony morrison
anthony morrison

I have been ridiculed more than once to take the only position that makes defeat statism - the cancellation and I think non-violent civil disobedience.You passive-aggressive, and I know that extreme amount of new recruits, means that several aspects of the foundational work to be more new recruits than ever!

Allan Hampton
Allan Hampton

When Americans quit arguing political issues, being led around by them, and start talking about "enforcing" the Constitution on government (Officials) then there is a chance to reestablish constitutional America and personal liberty. Otherwise the Republic and Liberty is gone forevermore.

What is the constitutional (1787 Constitution) purpose of government? To protect the People or the People's Rights? I find no such statement in the Constitution as power or obligation of government!

I read the 1787 Constitution to delegate the federal government certain and limited powers to protect the physical USA, settle squabbles between the States, and domestically very little else. The 1787 Constitution, by omission, forbids fedgov to infringe on the People's freedom/Rights. 1791 Bill of Rights reiterates (Amendment 5, 6, & 7) the People, as Jurors, are to protect themselves and neighbor from government infringing and or unjust legislation. Amendment 2 reiterates the people are to protect themselves, family, property, and neighbor from physical aggression (terrorism), foreign (Militia) or domestic (bear & keep arms).

Goofy Americans will vote to reelect criminal Incumbents, local, State, & federal.

Bruce
Bruce

Easy amendment fix; That any legislation deemed unconstitutional on appeal by 1/2 of the governors shall only be enacted upon approval by 2/3 of the governors.

B. Johnson
B. Johnson

Once upon a time, when state lawmakers actually understood their unique, Article V power to amend the Constitution, they knew that they could do the following. State lawmakers knew that they could "overturn" unpopular USSC decisions by ratifying an amendment to the Constitution, making it easier for "vision-impaired" activist justices to read the Constitution. To an extent, the 11th and 16th Amendments are examples of the states "overturning" USSC decisions.

So I don't know why, given their Article V powers, that the best response of state lawmakers when USSC decides against the states in cases which test the limits of Congress's powers, is to merely open their mouths in astonishment, letting the corrupt USSC let the corrupt Congress get away with usurping state powers. This has been going on since FDR trampled the Constitution.

And this is why Constitution-defending patriots need to replace incumbent, Constitution-impaired state lawmakers with pro-state sovereignty lawmakers in this year's midterm elections, as much as they need to replace the corrupt Democratic pirates now running DC with pro-state sovereignty lawmakers.

Once elected pro-state sovereignty lawmakers can use their legislative votes to destroy the phony powers of the Oval Office and Congress, including putting a stop to illegal federal taxes.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

You are right. It would be nice to be able to orchestrate a district-level campaign to get people into state office who would agree to push for a Con-Con.

Woffard
Woffard

We don't need a Con-Con as that would be very dangerous, we only need amendments to clarify things and to repeal a few others.

Len
Len

Easy amendment fix; That any legislation deemed unconstitutional on appeal by 1/2 of the governors shall only be enacted upon approval by 2/3 of the governors.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

But this still allows one-half, plus one, of the governors to agree that an unauthorized act is authorized. Back to the "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" scenario.

gjmerits
gjmerits

Keep up the great education guys. I know it feels like you are pushing against a wall sometimes. Here is my take on the current state of affairs: Civil Disobedience Part 1 - Why Current Strategies Are Failing - http://tinyurl.com/29dfp62. I have been ridiculed more than once for taking the only stance that will actually defeat Statism - that of nullification and, I also believe, non-violent passive-aggressive civil disobedience.

TextualistDude
TextualistDude

gjmerits

I have been ridiculed for speaking the truth, too. Ron Paul has been publicly laughed at. Anyone who dares to speak the truth is risking it. Here's what Schopenhauer said about that:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

gjmerits
gjmerits

Okay, I'm using that quote. I just have to use that quote.

karmajunkie
karmajunkie

Your claim as to the hiring of armed IRS agents is practically a complete fabrication:http://factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

Not saying it originated with the author, but this nuttery been bandied about by the right far too much.

ron
ron

Karma Junkie-you have given the idea that the extra IRS agents were not hired to check our taxes and our Health Insurance status-then what is the need to hire more-16,000. This is more than ever before! Lets hear what your fabrication is, because unless you have the exact order that went down for the hiring of 16,000 additional, then we can assume that this is also a Socialist's excuse to expand the government. Plus, one of the writers of the Stimulus
bill wrote concerning this expansion as being one of the steps to achieve a more Socialist regime-government.
Also, if you read Woody Allen's statement and Cheri Matthews' chime as well-one has very little doubt that not only is the idea of Socialism accepted but also-Fascism-Obama as a dictator per their words. Now, one of the things that always accompanies a Fascist form of government is hiring more agents in order to perform micro-management atrocities upon the freedoms of the people. You know, as well as I do, that an extreme amount of new hires-means, that more aspects of the basic job have be done-more new hires than ever before!

Bill_Freeto
Bill_Freeto

Karmajunkie: Out of an excellent 9:46 minute speech, you responded to one single sentence that had very little bearing on the thrust of the speech. Does that mean that you agree wholeheartedly with the bulk of Mr. Nappi's comments and the only fault you felt worthy of comment was an offhand potential hyperole? Or are you engaging in a variant of the straw-man tactic?

If you deny that there is ultimately a gun behind almost everything the government does, you are invited to test this thesis by not complying and resisting arrest.

So what do you think about the bulk of the speech?

TextualistDude
TextualistDude

Bill

I'll jump in again... Almost everything Mr. Nappi said was spot on and I STRONGLY support his efforts.

At the same time, if you overstate things, you give people such as Karmajunkie the chance to complain. Hopefully, everyone will learn to check their facts and keep it real so we don't get bogged down in this kind of discussion. This is especially true if you're speaking publicly or on TV, radio, etc.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

You're right. Some stories get a bit exaggerated. Nonetheless, the essence of the infraction is still there.

Thanks for the link. That was some good information. In short, it appears liens, levies and jail will not be imposed for violators. I suppose all that leaves is the penalty will be assessed and to the extent you would get a refund, the refund will be either diminished or eliminated, depending on the size of the penalty.

TextualistDude
TextualistDude

FWIW, I agree. I don't think it helps to spread claims like this unless someone has proof to back it up. I guess this claim is a reference to the IRS reporting requirement starting in 2014 about health insurance and the GOP's assessment that as many as 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the provisions of the new health care law that relate to reporting to the IRS. The gloss that these new employees would all be ARMED appears to be complete spin.

While I STRONGLY oppose the new health care law on Constitutional grounds, I just don't think it helps to spread this kind of hyperbole. In fact, it seriously detracts from the credibility of the speaker/author when it's revealed to be wildly inaccurate. You wonder, "What else is just make believe?"

I normally agree with Ron Paul but I recall he repeated this claim on TV recently and I think it seriously harms him unless he has some proof to back it up. I can't find any such proof. Many people would love to discredit him as a crackpot and this kind of crap helps their cause far more than it helps his cause.

LibertyDame
LibertyDame

IRS Agents are already armed. What makes you think many of the new 'herd' coming in won't be? By the way, factcheck.org is allied with Annenburg Center who had on its Board of Directors: Obama. I don't trust factcheck anymore. Try snopes.com for future searches; I haven't found or heard any political bias related to that site.

justmytruth
justmytruth

LibertyDame,
You can't trust snopes either. I know for a fact that this is a mom and pops run site. When a friend of mine tried to get them to change something they had listed, submitted evidence, they ignored him utterly. All information and "fact checking" should be done on your own using multiple sources to see if all agree. At the end of all that you will have to decide if the information is true or false.

@TdashPaine
@TdashPaine

I don't mean to pick on the Virginia but shouldn't all power to the federal government be derived from the states rather than the people of the states?

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

Actually the word "states" meant the people of the several states. This was commonly understood and accepted by the founders who referred to the people as the source of all power. In your wording, it would've been the states at the top of the food chain, then the people, then the federal government.

James Madison explained this much better than I could in his famous "Report of 1800"

TextualistDude
TextualistDude

The Report of 1800 was Madison's effort to oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts. Since it was written by one person AFTER the Constitution had been ratified and for the purpose of arguing against the A&SA, it's dangerous to read too much into it as an explication of the meaning of the US Constitution.

This is one example of the many problems you get into when you look to sources outside the Constitution to explain the Constitution. Further, this is why outside sources should not be referred to unless the wording of the Constitution is ambiguous. Finally, if outside sources are consulted to glean original intent of the ratifiers, it's less useful to look at sources that were written after ratification than sources that were written before.

The Virginia quote in the article above simply states the obvious fact that ALL governmental power ultimately derives from people. State and federal governments are fictions people create to carry out their purposes and governments do not exist in the real world. Only people exist in the real world and only people have 'rights' from which power can be derived.

People delegate (or surrender, possibly) some of their rights away in order to form social structures they find beneficial.

So, the Virginia wording is simply a recognition of the logical transitive property of math where:

A = B and B = C thus A = C

In this case:

People create States and States create Feds thus People create Feds

TextualistDude
TextualistDude

Agreed. If someone is arguing the latter (collective), I would strongly disagree.

However, the first step is just getting the average person to realize that PEOPLE have rights and create their governments - NOT the other way around.

Baby steps...

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

I would revise your final statement to:

"The People created the States-the States created the federal government- thus the People, acting as States and through States created the federal government."

The challenge, based on my experience, is to find a way to explain this in a way that eliminates the assertion that the people of all the States, in their collective capacity, created the federal government.

Teresa
Teresa

All citizens in every state should elect state legislators who will strongly support "Default Nullification".

Default Nullification - a state constitutional amendment that automatically voids and nullifies all UN-enumerated federal laws and regulations. "Enumerated" is strictly defined in Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. If said legislature does not adopt, approve, and fund the federal law or regulation, the issue remains null and void in that state.

TextualistDude
TextualistDude

Thanks for a great article! Very concise and helpful.

Our high standard of living has lulled most Americans into complacency about the very source of our prosperity - our freedom. Sadly, I suspect we won't take action to restore freedom until we enter a full blown crisis. It will probably be a financial crisis since money seems to be the only thing people truly think about today.

Freedom isn't possible, though, without personal responsibility and it appears most people would rather be virtual slaves to the feds than free to fail. Once the fed, itself, has failed, people may realize that freedom isn't free.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ron Paul. Ron Paul said: Free and Total Reign Over the States? http://bit.ly/dB1dO4 #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]

  2. [...] Free and Total Reign Over the States? [...]