Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Ed Martin
EDITOR’S NOTE: Ed Martin, 2012 candidate for US Senate in Missouri, sent the following letter to the entire state legislature in an effort to enumerate the role of a US Senator in the state’s effort to assert sovereignty.
*******
Greetings and best wishes to you and the General Assembly as you continue its important work.
I write today with an offer: my offer to assist you and, more saliently, to protect the liberty of “We the people of Missouri.†It is obvious to me that a significant change has taken place in the relationship between the liberty of Missourians and our federal government – a change that is most unwelcome and not in the interest of Missourians or our nation. First, the federal government has far outgrown its intended boundaries. Our federal representatives are cobbling together an ever more intrusive and expensive labyrinth of regulations, laws and mandates by asserting authority never granted to them by the states. Second, our elected officials have, for too long, acquiesced to the federal overreach, either out of self-interest, disinterest, or misunderstanding. The elected officials charged with protecting the sovereignty of Missourians – namely our state elected officials as well as our United States Senators – have not been up to the task.
I believe the time has come to begin the long work to restore balance between the states and the federal government. Toward that end, I offer you my solemn pledge to fight for the liberty of “We the people of Missouri“ and to stop the over-reaching federal government in any way I can. I pledge to assist and advocate for you in your efforts as leaders of our Missouri General Assembly should I be elected as a United States Senator from Missouri in 2012.
Last week marked the first anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Most Americans now recognize this federal takeover of health care as an unwelcome intrusion and a dramatic overreach by the federal government. Our own state’s clear repudiation of Obamacare, along with the election results in November, ought to have meant the end of this scheme; however, repealing Obamacare seems as remote today as it seemed the day after passage.
I believe that this circumstance calls for a remedy found within the federalist structure of the United States, specifically the assertion of the sovereignty of the State of Missouri in defense of its citizens. I join those calling for Missouri’s elected officials – including our U.S. Senators – to stand between Missouri and the federal government to stop the intrusion of our liberties and interpose on our behalf.
As a matter of general understanding, I offer these observations:
The U.S. Constitution and the sovereignty of the people of Missouri
I understand that the United States Constitution and our founders intended a very specific relationship between the federal government and the states. By ratifying the Constitution, the states were ceding to the federal government a subset of roles or powers that, under normal circumstances, would be the purview of a sovereign nation. For example, states do not go to war, mint currency, or levy tariffs on imported goods. The 10th amendment makes it clear, in any honest reading, that the states have the sovereign authority to manage their affairs for their citizens in all but a limited number of situations as clearly spelled out. That this is poorly understood is a failure in education and a willful disregard of what our nation’s founders and founding documents enacted.
Over the years, and particularly in the first half of the 20th century, the federal government began encroaching upon the states’ sovereign prerogatives, typically in pursuit of a progressive economic agenda (expansion of the Commerce Clause, e.g.). These insults to state sovereignty were great and small, and, it must be admitted, they were advanced under both Republican and Democrat leadership. Nearly every department of the President’s cabinet, for example, creates some measure of havoc at the state level either through regulation or funding offered with a rat’s nest of strings attached. These realities have brought us to this point where we the states and the people are becoming broke and hobbled.
Respective states have a right and duty to stand between the federal government and the state’s citizens in some circumstances. When the federal government – which derives its authority from the states – oversteps its boundaries, the state must interpose itself between the federal government and the people. This is not a time for choosing: interposition is a REQUIREMENT of our system of government.
This defense of the state ought to begin with each United States Senator whose task is to put to rest any encroachment upon his fellow citizens’ rights and sovereignty. That senator should work in consultation and concert with the people’s representatives at home, to keep the Feds tending to Federal tasks and leaving the states to their business. I do not think the role of a U.S. Senator is to be a “super representative†or some sort of associate President to help burden states and their citizens with new programs or regulations.
Obamacare and the Protective Assertion of Sovereignty
In light of this understanding of the relationship between the people of Missouri and the federal government, I believe it is time for significant change in how our state deals with federal encroachments.
How then do we return to a more honest understanding of the sovereign relations between the states and the federal government? Or more simply: how do we undo what has been done to us?
First, we must state, publicly and without reservation, the truth of the sovereignty of the state of Missouri as it relates to the state and federal governments. Second, we must join forces – today! – to fight off the encroachments of the federal government starting with Obamacare.
Why begin with Obamacare? First, Obamacare was so recently repudiated by the overwhelming majority of Missourians in passing proposition C. Second, it is a clear and unequivocal assault on the freedom of individual citizens of Missouri and the regulatory prerogatives of the state. Third, even after the landslide drubbing proponents of Obamacare took in the November elections, federal elected officials are not moving to repeal, defund or otherwise stop it.
By engaging in a debate, and ultimately legislation to nullify this most odious federal law, Missouri lawmakers have an opportunity to take the lead where members of Missouri’s executive branch have had feet of clay. Further, Missouri will begin the slow process of restoring the state’s proper position in the pantheon of American political institutions. I am convinced that this is a potent curative to the overreach we have been experiencing these last many years.
Should I prevail in the 2012 election for the United States Senate, you will have an ally in the reassertion of the Great State of Missouri’s sovereignty. I do believe it will be my role to help protect Missouri from federal laws and regulations that overstep the proper role of the federal government.
Toward that end, I make these commitments to you and to your successors in office:
1. Each year, I will meet with you and the General Assembly expressly to discuss any federal actions or contemplated actions that we are concerned constitute an overreach by the federal constitutional authority. (Perhaps the week of March 23rd would be a good time given its significance as an anniversary of Obamacare.)
2. I will support you in any effort to nullify or interpose any law, regulation, or other action that we deem to be an overreach of federal constitutional authority.
3. Finally, I will fight against any action by the federal government to punish the state or Missourians for any expression of their sovereignty. I know that the federal government can use its power to withhold and intrude in our state, and I will fight to stop this abuse.
I am copying this letter to your fellow legislators, and to Governor Nixon and Attorney General Koster, for their information and education. Also, I intend this to be a “circular letter” and will treat it as such. I wish you all the best on this day, Wednesday, March 30, 2011.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Alex Hamilton,
Interposition is the law of the land. You can look it up as implicit in the 9th and 10th Amendments and as clearly expressed in the 14th at Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, key phrase "or enforce":
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
I had a comment posted earlier but it has since vanished. I will try to reconstruct it.
For Alex—
I have read your comments throughout TAC and I was curious as to where you are coming from constitutionally. I have just a few questions.
1)You seem to place great emphasis on the judicial branch in your constitutional interpretation. Can the federal judiciary ever be in violation of the constitution? And if so, what is to be done about it?
2)Can the acts and laws of the other two federal branches be unconstitutional? If so, what is to be done when all three federal branches are in violation of the constitution?
3)In your comments you seem to be of the opinion that the US Constitution treats the states as an afterthought and not an important center of political sovereignty. What is the purpose of the states?
4)If the federal judiciary is the final arbiter of all constitutional questions, acts of the executive and laws of the congress, both federal and state, and the judges are not elected, what system of government do we have in the US? What do you appropriately call rule be judges?
I am just trying to understand your constitutional thought. Thanks—
One of the founding fathers (Jefferson?) said of a judges ruling - "He has made his ruling, now let him enforce it".
Judges are not the only arbiters of what is constitutional. Ed's point is well made - interposition fails because there is a crapload of money being funneled that the feds can shut off if the states do not play ball.
I think that the threat of interposition is enough to scare off the feds and change direction.
Ed Martin's website is http://edmartinformissouri.com
This comment is for Alex Hamilton.
After seeing your comments scattered throughout TAC I have a few questions for you.
1) Can the actions, laws and/or rulings of any of the branches of the federal government ever be in "defiance of constitutional authority"? Your comments seem to indicate that the US Constitution treats states as an afterthought or of little importance as one of the depositories of political sovereignty.
2) Can the decisions and opinions of the judiciary EVER be unconstitutional? And if so what is to be done?
3) If it is possible for the three federal branches to do anything unconstitutional, what is to be done when they are all doing or sustaining unconstitutional acts and laws?
4) And if the federal judiciary, which is made up of justices who are unelected, is the final arbiter of all actions and laws of the other federal branches and states, the only interpreter of the constitution and interposition is hogwash, what system of government are we living under? A republic? A democracy? An oligarchy? A monarchy? An aristocracy?
I really am seeking to understand your constitutional thinking? Thanks--
Interposition IS a de-facto constitutional "doctrine" (the word doctrine really doesn't make sense in this context). Else you have tyranny. Philosopherking is right. Judges didn't create the Constitution and many of their rulings have been proven to be created out of thin air. I'll take the original text any day. It doesn't take a genius to "interpret" it.
You want to rely on the "original text" of the Constitution? Fine, let's look at it. Let's find the clause that says "the states may refuse to follow any law that they believe is unconstitutional." . . . Oops! There is no such clause. It's not in the "original text."
In creating the national government, the people didn't give the states the right to negate the national government's laws. Rather, the people specified that the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land and are superior to state laws. That's in the "original text" (Article VI). The people specified that all cases arising under the Constitution are within the judicial power of the federal courts, and that the Supreme Court has the final authority to decide those cases (Article III). That's in the "original text." The drafters well understood and explicitly intended that this would give the federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, the final say about what the Constitution means. That's why the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions are authoritative.
Awesome! A PERFECT example of having no clue how the constitution is structured.
Alex here claims that since something isn't listed in the text of the constitution, the STATES cannot do it.
BUZZZZZZZZ. wrong.
The constitution is a listing of things the FEDS can do, with article I, section 10 being specific prohibitions on states. Since there is no such prohibition on state activity....well it just ain't prohibited.
But Alex's goal (with his multiple ip addresses from very \"suspicious" locations) isn't likely the truth. I would suspect it's his intention to lie and misdirect.
But that just my gut instinct after nearly 13 years of managing websites....
"The drafters well understood and explicitly intended that this would give the federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, the final say about what the Constitution means. That's why the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions are authoritative."
You are espousing the doctrine of judicial review and it's not in the "original text." In fact this idea was specifically brought up in the Constitutional Convention in the form of a judicial veto and was rejected by the framers. So much for all the drafters explicitly intending and agreeing to the idea of judicial review.
That is a court decision and not the actual constitution which is a huge difference. I don't understand why court precedents, which can be overturned when they are in error, are somehow seen as something that has as much weight as the actual text itself.
There is no limitation in the constitution that limits who a state can arrest. Can a federal officer be immune from the state law of murder simply because they are federal officers? No person is immune from the legal authority of the state.
Too bad you're not in office yet. BUT, most importantly, will you REALLY do what you say you will? We elected a skank to the senate in congress and, in spite of his assurances, this bastard voted to continue the PATRIOT Act. TREASON! If I could, I'd go personally to his office and drag him out by his hair and deliver him to federal prison.
"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
Alex Hamilton,
Interposition is the law of the land. You can look it up as implicit in the 9th and 10th Amendments and as clearly expressed in the 14th at Paragraph 1, Sentence 2, key phrase "or enforce":
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like