James Ostrowski, author of Direct Citizen Action: How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot recently wrote, “In the realm of politics, the best chance the liberty movement has is not winning elections but convincing states and localities to stop cooperating with the federal government. I believe the Tenth Amendment Movement, as it is known, has great potential.”

An important revolutionary principle that American colonists learned from reading “Cato’s Letters” in the mid-18th century was this: Unjust laws must be resisted immediately, or they will set the stage for additional encroachments. One of “Cato’s Letters” explains:

“A nation has but two sorts of usurpation to fear, one from their neighbors and another from their own magistrates. Nor is a foreign usurpation more formidable than a domestic, which is the most dangerous of the two, by being hardest to remove and generally stealing upon the people by degrees, is fixed before is scarce felt or apprehended.”

Thomas Jefferson had a personal copy of “Cato’s Letters” in his home library and he put this principle into action when the so called federalists began arresting their political opponents and throwing them in jail. While still serving as vice president, he secretly urged immediate resistance by drafting what have come to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

The reason he drafted those resolutions was to convince state legislators that nullification was the most appropriate form of immediate resistance . The reason I wrote this essay, is to convince American libertarians today of the same thing. I won’t go into detail explaining what nullification is. There are plenty of other articles widely available which already do that – not to mention Tom Woods’ latest, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.

The Problem of Power

In an oration in 1772, John Adams declared that, “Liberty, under every conceivable form of government is always in danger.”

26 years later, he personified that very danger when he signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticizing the president and others in the federal government a crime. Adams showed us that government is the greatest threat to liberty because it always tends toward the destruction of the individual’s natural rights.

Because government is such a dangerous concentration of power, American revolutionaries recognized the absolute necessity of limiting government power and dividing it into as many competing jurisdictions as possible. The hope was that under such an arrangement, the federal government would be held in check and people would have the option to move freely between more powerful, but competing states. Competition would keep their multiple jurisdictions from becoming intolerably oppressive.

This decentralized condition, which is called federalism, should be very desirable to libertarians. Why? Because if they are forced to live under a government at all, this condition at least makes it much easier for them to move to a state with more freedom or chip away at their own state government, to the point that it barely escapes being no government at all. So why is this not our condition today? At least one very important reason is because we have not insisted that our state governments use nullification.

For the first time since the 1850s, such a condition is a real possibility in America. Political, technological and economic conditions are coinciding to create what could be a perfect storm. In military terminology, conditions such as weather can be used as force multipliers, which make a given force more effective than that same force would be without it. In addition to making the most of economic and technological force multipliers, what is needed next is greater acceptance and approval by the majority of Americans for the widespread use of state nullification. Successfully gaining that acceptance and approval at a time when the federal government is perceived as being bankrupt, both financially and morally, could bring about radical decentralization sooner than most libertarians could have imagined just two decades ago. In his 1975 research article entitled, The American Revolution and the Minority Myth, William F. Marina wrote:

“What I am suggesting is that the question of legitimacy is really at the heart of the whole process of revolution. A revolution is impossible unless a majority withdraws its allegiance from the old regime and begins to place it elsewhere. Often that process is masked to the point that when the old regime collapses, the fall appears more ‘sudden’ than was actually the case.”

Considering what lies ahead of us economically, it seems not only plausible, but probable, that people will soon begin to rapidly transfer legitimacy from Washington, DC to their state capital, partly from disgust and partly out of sheer necessity.

Nullification: Revolutionary or Reformist?

This scenario has nothing to do with overturning the constitutional order. In fact, it is precisely how the constitutional order was supposed to work in the first place. The use of nullification by states to neutralize acts of federal usurpation is both constitutional and revolutionary at the core. William J. Watkins explains it like this in his book, Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy:

“The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written over two decades after the colonies declared independence from Great Britain, represent a reaffirmation of the spirit of 1776. At the core, the Resolutions are intrepid statements in favor of self-government and limited central authority. A product of the political and constitutional battlegrounds of the 1790′s, the resolutions serve to link the federal union created by the Constitution with the aspirations of the patriots of the American Revolution. Indeed the touch of the author of the Declaration of Independence is unmistakable when one reads the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”

Unlike the reformist strategy which seeks to mobilize power within Washington, DC in order to reform and redirect that power, nullification seeks to diminish and redistribute that power through relentless, decentralized, but ideally coordinated, acts of state level, constitutional resistance.

Over the past few years, state legislators across the country have created a heavy wave of nullification legislation. We libertarians need to grab our surfboards!

Revolutionizing the Tea Party

As libertarians, we must play a leading role by carrying out the labor-intensive but very fruitful task of selling nullification to non-libertarians who are already mobilized. These Americans are extremely upset and have become very active in grassroots organizations. Unfortunately, they are transfixed by national politics and attribute too much importance to wining in federal elections. What they have not yet realized is that their almost exclusive reliance on electoral means to oppose federal tyranny will only get them more of the same. Libertarians should, therefore, act alongside them in ways that do not compromise our principles, while simultaneously wining their support for nullification legislation and directing their attention to state level solutions that involve more radical means of resistance. Those running for, or already elected to state office need to be sold on the constitutionality, morality and effectiveness of nullification. The good news is that unlike beltway insiders, most of these people actually live and work in your community.

Libertarian intellectuals, leaders and grassroots organizations have been busy manufacturing the tools and preparing the soil for us. Tom Woods, for example, has just written what some have called a handbook on nullification. One well known talk show host has called it, “a battle plan” and “the answer to our prayers.” The Tenth Amendment Center has been tracking recent nullification legislation, writing new and improved bills, and working with state legislators to get them introduced and passed.

On top of all that, a host of organizations like Downsize DC, Campaign For Liberty, Daily Paul, and others have joined the Tenth Amendment Center and libertarian activist Trevor Lyman in sponsoring the Nullify Now! tour, something that advocates of this essential principle may have thought impossible just a few years ago. The tour will feature speakers almost all libertarians know and respect – Tom Woods, Jim Babka, Tom Mullen, Michael Boldin, Jack Hunter and others. These speakers will give grassroots activists and people in state government a logical, moral, and constitutionally sound case for nullification.

The ground has been prepared and conditions are favorable for radical decentralization . Whether a critical mass of libertarians will get involved in this new movement and make use of the tools available to them before this decisive point in history has passed us by remains to be seen. You can be sure that there are plenty of politicians in Washington, DC who live in fear of the day that states, guided by liberty activists, stand together and once again make use of that powerful weapon called nullification. That’s why they want it to remain taboo to even discuss it. And it’s why we libertarians must do everything we can to advertise it.

Lew Rockwell interviews Michael Boldin, founder and head of the Tenth Amendment Center.

What is the Tenth Amendment, and why should we care? (“Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. 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.”)

It’s a linchpin of the states rights phenomenon that is lighting a prairie fire all across the country. And it is not a “right-wing movement,” despite the MSM’s claims. Indeed, its most powerful component is the drive to legalize medical marijuana. (The pro-gun and anti-REAL ID movements are important too, of course). The feds ordered the states to crack down, but they ignored our overlords.

And here is a lesson for all of us. Electoral politics, except Ron Paul, tends to be a corrupt sham. Rather than write, call, or fax congressmen or senators, or work to exchange Bum B for Bum A, ignore the federal government as we peacefully resist. That drains its power. Like the Devil, it needs our consent.

Websites:
Tenth Amendment Center
WeRefuse.com

cross-posted from LewRockwell.com

This week, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal signed House Joint Resolution 2 (HJ0002), claiming “sovereignty on behalf of the State of Wyoming and for its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.”

Freudenthal, a long-time Democrat, was previously a US attorney for the Clinton administration, and is currently serving his 2nd term as Governor of Wyoming. He endorsed Barack Obama for president and is commonly referred to as one of the most popular governors in the country.

In a memorandum sent to the Wyoming legislature in late January, Freudenthal made clear his position that the federal government has gone beyond the limits of the constitution:

“For decades we have shared increased frustration dealing with the federal government and its agencies. What started out as a leak in the erosion of state prerogative and independence has today turned into a flood. From wolf and grizzly bear management, to gun control, to endless regulation and unfunded mandates – the federal government has become far too powerful and intrusive.”

Once brought to a vote this year, the legislature showed little opposition to sending a notice to D.C. that the federal government is overstepping its constitutional authority. The Senate passed it by a vote of 26-4 and the House by a vote of 56-4.

NOTICE AND DEMAND

These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement of the legislature of the state. They play an important role, however.

For example, if you owned an apartment building and had a tenant not paying rent, you wouldn’t show up with an empty truck to kick them out without first serving notice. That’s how we view these Resolutions – as serving “notice and demand” to the Federal Government to “cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.” Follow-up, of course, is a must.

House Joint Resolution 2 includes language to this effect:

That this resolution serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. The state of Wyoming will not enforce such mandates. [emphasis added]

Wyoming joins 10 other states that have passed similar resolutions since last year; Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee passed theirs in 2009, and Utah, Alabama, and South Carolina have joined Wyoming in passing resolutions this year.

A GROWING MOVEMENT

These resolutions are part of a growing grassroots movement in state legislatures across the country as a protest to the intrusion of the federal government into state government affairs, and is an essential first step towards efforts to push back, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws and regulations.

Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that take the next step – and work to nullify specific federal laws seen as unconstitutional by the state. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. Two dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today. The legislatures in both Virginia and Arizona have passed legislation effectively nullifying a national health care plan within their borders. Three states have already signed a “Firearms Freedom Act” into law, and Governor Freudenthal is expected to sign HB95 to make Wyoming the fourth.

Resolutions, guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.

The final goal? It’s a long way off – a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.

Note: Thanks to Brenda of WyomingWatchdogs.com for helping with this report.

CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s Legislative Tracking Page for Current Nullification Efforts

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

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

We The People of the several States created a federal government to serve as our limited agent, delegating to the federal government only those limited and few powers listed in the Constitution, and no others.

We recognize the federal government has seized unlimited power over virtually every aspect of Americans’ lives in violation of the Constitution of the United States, specifically with respect to the Tenth Amendment.

We call upon freedom-loving citizens everywhere to stand with us, as candidates for state and federal office, to pass meaningful and sensible legislation to restore the most critical check and balance deliberately designed into our constitutional republic: that of strong, sovereign states.

We pledge to limit and restrain all federal government exercise of power that exceeds in any way the plain language of those few powers listed in the Constitution and to nullify all others that exceed such limit.

When we restore the balance of power between the states and the federal government according to the Constitution, our country will enjoy the dynamic blessings of liberty and prosperity.

Signed:

Ray McBerry
Adam Kokesh
Francisco Rodriguez
Ken Ivory
Lex Green
Valerie Sargent Myers
Roy Moore
Dan Eichenbaum
Dean Madere
Troy Stanley
Bill Taylor
Joe Leinweber, Jr.
Van Irion
Dean Moore
Michael Frisbee
Jeremy Jones
Neal Towey
Eric Forcade
Jason Sager
Steve Tarvin
Matt Sheffield
Charles Lincoln
Mark DeVol

The following article is from the May 1950 issue of analysis, vol. VI, no. 7, and was reprinted on LewRockwell.com

It is never too late to put up a fight for freedom. True, the prospect for such a venture at this time seems bleak indeed, what with the prevailing madness to push more power upon the political overseer so that he might the better regulate our lives. Recruits would be scarce. From the rank and file, those who under all circumstances are determined to be harnessed, little can be expected; they are too preoccupied with mere existence. And those who seem to have the necessary ingredients – that is, those who have by their own initiative pushed themselves above the general level – are equally fervent for a regulated and subsidized existence under an omnipotent State. Subvention has become everybody’s business.

The despair of those who still put a value on freedom is understandable. Perhaps, as they say, it is best to let the country have its fill of socialism – or fascism or communism or any other pup from the litter of absolutism – and be done with a quixotic struggle. After a century or two of that kind of existence, when human dignity shall have scraped bottom, a Moses will emerge from the bulrushes and gain a respectable following. By that time, they point out, the State shall have become emaciated from malnutrition, slaves being poor providers, and a handful of resolute men can push it over. It was ever thus. Every civilization we know of arose and flourished in the sunshine of freedom; political institutions attached themselves even at the beginning, but remained quiescent until an abundance of economic goods stimulated cupidity; then followed a period of increasing political predation until at long last the civilization disintegrated and became an historical or archeological curio. After a while, freedom germinates a new civilization. That is the inevitable cycle, and we can do nothing, they say, to prevent or retard it.

Maybe so; maybe our civilization is also doomed by the ineluctable forces of history; maybe it is in the decline right now. Nevertheless, men do what they are impelled by an inner urge to do, not what history dictates. The stars in the heavens tend to their eternal business while we transitory mortals travel within our own specific orbits. It was no historical imperative that directed the pens of those who signed the Declaration of Independence; it was the integrity of the signers. There were many at the time – the Tories – who deemed the venture foolhardy and undesirable, and they could have argued the historical uselessness of all revolutions. Nevertheless, the rebels (none of whom were driven to it by economic necessity) put their signatures to what at that time seemed to be their own death warrant. Why? For lack of better answer, let us say they were made of a particular kind of stuff and could not do otherwise.

Looking to history for causation, we find that man’s constantly recurring excursions in search of freedom are identified by their leadership. The logical inference is that when men of that stripe appear on the scene the cause of freedom is not neglected. If, for instance, those who now prate about “free enterprise” were willing to risk bankruptcy for it, as the men of the Declaration were willing to risk their necks for independence, the present drive for the collectivization of capital would not have such easy going. Assuming that they are fully aware of the implications in the phrase they espouse, and are sincere in their protestations, the fact that they are unwilling to suffer mortification of the flesh disqualifies them from leadership, and “free enterprise” remains merely a mouthing.

The present low estate of freedom in this country must be laid to lack of leadership. Whether or not leadership could have averted, or can still stop, the socialistic trend, may be open to question; that a glorious fight for freedom might yet enliven the American scene is not. And, if we can trust the historic pattern, the odds are that nature will give us, in her own good time and at her pleasure, the kind of men that can and will make the good fight.

A Block to Power

The American terrain, so to speak, is fortuitously favorable for the forces of freedom. Not only is there a strong supporting tradition, but the Constitutional form of government which grew out of this tradition is still in existence, though somewhat distorted, and could provide the favorable battle line. It must be remembered that from the very beginning of the country political power has been in bad repute; even though it is well on its way to religious status, political power in America still lacks the adulation that it receives from peoples long inured to submissiveness.

In the beginning, the Founding Fathers recognized the need of government in organized society, but were ever jealous of its powers. They knew that political authority is constitutionally incapable of moral inhibitions. It is force, and, like physical force, can be held in check only by an equal and contrary force. For that reason, when they came to organize a government to replace the one they had thrown out, they put into its pattern provision for a series of counterbalancing forces. Not only did they aim to keep the central government weak by a division of authority, but also pitted against it the governments of the component states. Freedom was to be preserved by keeping political power decentralized and off balance. The scheme worked well for a time, but no Constitution can of itself constrain the inherent tendency of power to expand; only constant surveillance and opposition can do that, and since the primary concern of man is the business of living, political power makes its way unnoticed. The present condition of freedom in this country is due entirely to the breakdown of the strictures laid upon the government by the Founding Fathers, most particularly the one providing for the dual form; the powers of the central government have been enhanced at the expense of the state governments. Hence, any campaign to restore freedom in this country must begin with an effort to reverse that process.

The virtue in the juxtaposition of local and federal governments is demonstrated in reverse by the careers of tyrannies. In no country where a totalitarian regime established itself did it have to contend with the dual system that obtains in this country. When Hitler came along there was still some semblance of the local autonomy that Bismarck had broken through, but it was too attenuated to stay the path of the conqueror; he had to meet nothing like our sovereign state governments, legally entrenched and supported by a tradition of voluntary association. Mussolini’s march on Rome was likewise facilitated by the structural consolidation begun by Cavour, and the Czars had long ago effected all the centralization that Lenin needed. Again, for centuries the seat of ultimate authority had been London when the socialists took over: home government in England is merely an administrative agency.

When the trend toward centralization in this country took definite shape under the New Deal, its leaders ran head on into the impediment of divided authority. They set out to remove it. They went so far as to draw up a blueprint for a new political setup, one that would circumvent, if not obliterate, the troublesome state lines. In 1940 the National Resources Committee, in a report called Regional Factors in National Planning, proposed to divide the country into a dozen regional areas, as a basis for national planning and the coordination of federal administrative services. It was a proposal so violative of the spirit of the Constitution, if not the letter, that the committee made haste to give assurance; the regional organization, they said, “should not be considered as a new form of sovereignty, even in embryo.” It would have been foolhardy to say anything else, especially since the consolidation of the states into a national unit requires, under Constitutional procedure, the joint action of Congress and the state legislatures. Nevertheless, the committee insisted that the “division of Constitutional powers” handicapped any program of national design; the report left no doubt of the necessity of overcoming this division as a condition for the federal solution of “otherwise insolvable problems.” It was clearly a bid for a nationalized system; and in the propaganda of the day the prediction that the states are “finished” was uninhibited.

Thus, the proponents of planning, with its correlative of restrictions on individual initiative, are on record as to their strategic campaign. The separate states must be either wiped out or reduced to parish status. It is impossible to effect complete control over the individual of divided allegiance; he must have only one god. History is on their side; no political power ever achieved absolutism where the subjects were permitted to indulge more than one loyalty; the Caesars persecuted the Christians because, despite the homage they rendered Rome, they worshipped God.

Pending the organic consolidation of the states, the planners adopted a policy of conquest by purchase. Armed with the enormous revenues from the unlimited income tax, they have to all intents and purposes penetrated and almost obliterated state lines. All was done, is being done, in the name of “public welfare,” but the political effect of flood control, public housing projects, farm subsidies, federal control of banks, loans and subventions of all sorts, has been to win public support for the central government and to discredit home government. The loyalty as well as the integrity of the citizenry is purchased by gratuities derived from its own substance, while bribery and blackmail reduce the petty local politician to subservience. For a brief tenure of office the sovereignty of the states is bartered away; such areas of independent action as are left to them are those the federal government has not yet chosen to absorb, like patrolling the streets or real estate taxation. Washington has thus become the American Mecca and, if not stopped by vigorous and uncompromising opposition, will become its Moscow.

The Origin of States’ Rights

The forces of centralization, then, have selected the “front,” the line of battle, and there is nothing for the opposition to do but to meet them at this line. The issue is again the matter of states’ rights, but this time vitalized with the issue of freedom. Specifically, it is the original American issue, before it became sullied with sectionalism and racialism; it is the problem that confronted the Founding Fathers.

The people of the recently liberated British colonies had had their fill of government from afar, of impersonal government, of government by decree. If they were going to have any government at all they wanted one they could keep their eyes on and, if need be, put their hands on. They were for Union, to be sure, for by such cooperation they had rid themselves of a foreign tyrant, but they recognized that under the Articles of Confederation the Union was imperfect; it was to correct these imperfections that they sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention, not to draw up a new Constitution. They accepted the Constitution rather grudgingly, even though it left to the several states almost as much autonomy as they had had; in internal matters the only material limitations on their authority was in imposing interstate tariffs and in the matter of issuing currency; in the important fiscal powers, with the exception of import tariffs, the states gave up nothing, merely allowing the federal government to share with them the right to levy excise taxes. Direct taxation, on land and on incomes, remained the exclusive prerogative of the states. And, while the Constitution did not touch on the subject, the opinion prevailed that withdrawal from the Union was permissible, an opinion that found expression first in the 1815 Hartford convention called for the purpose of exploring the possibility of secession of the New England states. The first loyalty of the early American was to his local government, and for good reason.

There is no vice in the government of a large nation that cannot be duplicated in the government of a small nation or of any political sub-division. Even the Greek city-states had their tyrants. Our state and city establishments have proven themselves susceptible to the ubiquitous malady of corruption, and the rights of citizens have not been immune to the power-complex of county sheriffs. If we were divided into forty-eight nations, each independent of the other, the case for freedom would hardly be better; it could be worse. But, where power is diffused, as was contemplated in the original Union, and the citizen can play one authority against another, his inherent rights are less likely to be infringed upon. That political fact was taken for granted, or rather sensed, by those who drafted, ratified or opposed the Constitution; the arguments in the Convention, the pleading for ratification in the Federalist and the warnings of anti-ratificationist pamphleteers all bear evidence to a general distrust of centralized power. Except for a handful who urged the monarchial form of government, everybody was for local authority at least equal in scope to that of the new national authority.

Freedom Is a Fight

Freedom is a personal experience; a free society is an association of free individuals, nothing else. Freedom consists simply in the absence of external restraints on thought and behavior. Yet, because the individual, in his efforts to improve upon his circumstances, not infrequently transgresses the equal freedom of his fellow man, restraint becomes a necessary condition of social living; it is the means of maintaining an equilibrium, or justice. But, the administrators of justice are themselves men, possessed of the frail ties common to all men, and in the exercise of the powers of restraint vested in them are not immune from temptation. Power over men is itself a satisfaction, besides providing opportunity to better one’s circumstances with a minimum of exertion. Hence, the lust for power increases with its enjoyment and restraint is added to restraint. The government instituted to prevent men from transgressing one another’s equal rights thus tends to become a transgressor of the rights of all. The injustice is far more oppressive than any one man can do unto another, and the interests of freedom can be served only by restraint of government.

The fight is unending. Man being what he is, government is necessary; but government being subject to its own perversions, must be kept in line by constant surveillance and opposition. At times, as during the present, political power gets the upper hand and seems well on the way to reduce the individual to animal status; but because of man’s innate urge for self-expression, which is the essence of freedom, the struggle flares up again and again. Between man and political power there is never peace, only a temporary truce.

On this basic premise a states’ rights movement can build an appealing program. If it promises freedom, with decentralization as a means only, it will speak to the hearts of men. The romantic appeal of government by neighbors, of non-interference from outsiders, of the preservation of cherished local customs, of the pride of belonging to one’s home environment – all this will have its contributory effect; but far more fetching will be the expectation of greater freedom, economic as well as political. That is the goal men have always striven for.

And the promise must be implemented with specific objectives; ideals alone will not do. Its platform must offer relief from all the interventions in human affairs that the federal government, under the guise of humanitarianism, has possessed itself of and without compromise. Going to the tap-root of its present overweaning power, repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment should be the keystone of a states’ rights program. The power to tax the earnings of men is a denial of private property, the one right without which man is reduced to subject-status. Our entire Bill of Rights became a dead letter when the right to keep and enjoy the product of one’s labor was taken from us; for human dignity cannot be divorced from the sense of ownership. Once the political establishment acquired a proper lien on everything produced, it had the means to undertake ventures for which it has no competence in theory or practice, ventures which are properly in the domain of individual initiative. It acquired the means of becoming the Monopoly State Capitalist. Nor is there any power left to prevent its achievement of that goal. For its enormous economic resources enable it to maintain the machinery for the repression of opposition.

A states’ rights movement that did not encompass repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment would be meaningless. For the autonomy of the state government was inevitably doomed when the incomes of the people became the incidence of federal taxation. In the first place, loyalty of the citizen, who before that had been primarily a citizen of his state, and only secondarily of the nation, was transferred to the authority that takes his wealth; he became a subject of the government controlling his economy. And then, with these funds at its disposal, the federal government was in position to bring the local governments to heel, mainly through the process of bribery. It is now clear that when the states ratified this amendment they signed the death warrant of their own sovereignty.

Secession and Nullification

With that plank as a beginning, the platform should tear into every device of centralization, always exposing it as a threat to freedom, regardless of the promise with which it is eased into our lives. Let us take the Federal Reserve System as an example. This was in the beginning a quasi-public organization, or a private organization under the aegis of the government; its function was to move money from banks with an excess of it to banks that had a need of it for sound purposes. However, through its monopoly privilege of making money and issuing bonds, the government has reduced this organization to subservience; it is now an arm of the government, willy-nilly. As a consequence, the local bank, which once served the commercial life of its community, is an obedient secretary of the U. S. Treasury. Since sixty percent of its assets are in the hands of the government, the bank’s interest in the local merchant and industrialist is only forty percent. The banker is hardly the servicer of the society of which he was a part, but has been fitted into the “foreign” bureaucracy. Not only is his freedom being whittled away, but the freedom of the citizen he once served is being limited by the rules and regulations of the super-banker, the government. A states’ rights movement must not only point out how the liquidation of private banking came about, to the discouragement of private initiative, but should advocate a system of state-chartered banks as free as possible from federal entanglement.

But, whether it is against the banking system, or flood control boards with authority superseding that of the states, or the multitudinous lending and spending agencies that everywhere demote civic management to secondary importance, the attacks should be made with the purpose of laying upon the federal government the odium of a “foreign” government. One could make a strong case for the proposition that the disabilities put upon the colonials by George III compare favorably with the disabilities we suffer under the Washington bureaucracy; the indictment of that monarch in the Declaration of Independence needs little change to fit it to the Trojan horse named “Welfare State.” It must be the business of a states’ rights movement to point out that freedom can be bartered away as well as taken away. The result is the same.

Important as is this ideological program, the movement must attach to itself an economic interest. This is essential. In 1815, the movement got up a head of steam only because “Mr. Madison’s War” was playing havoc with the merchants and individualists of New England, and it was the economic difficulties of the South that germinated interest in nullification and secession. No political movement travels on ideals alone; it must be fueled by economics. Through the intelligent use of the fiscal powers of the states, it is possible to induce capital to engage in intra-state ventures; the current attacks of big government on “big business” should favor such decentralization, and the graduated income tax will in time make the per-dollar return from a small investment more attractive than possible earnings from a large undertaking. Farming freed from local taxation should prove more profitable, and infinitely more dignified, than subsidized and regulated farming. The exemption of buildings from local levies would long ago have overcome the housing shortage, upon which the bureaucracy has waxed fat, and would have started a wage boom of proportions. In numerous ways, the states individually or through voluntary agreements could go in for encouraging local industry, to the disparagement of federal methods.

In short, a states’ rights movement should take the form of the secession from Washington, not from the Union, and nullification of the directives issuing from bureaucracies. It would be revolutionary in character but legal in form, because the autonomy of the state governments is inherent in the Constitution. Besides, there is no way for the federal government to indict the state governments, and revolution is always legal when it is successful.

Frank Chodorov (1887-1966), one of the great libertarians of the Old Right, was the founder of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists and author of such books as The Income Tax: Root of All Evil. Here he is on “Taxation Is Robbery.”

Over the past several years, our leaders in Washington — from both political parties — have watched over a major expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.

This has been fueled by excessive regulations, unfunded mandates, multi-billion dollar bailouts and the federalization of banks and other industries.

This growth not only threatens the financial stability of states and local governments and the well-being of future generations of Americans, but violates the very ideals that our country was founded upon.

When our Founding Fathers traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they came from states as far south as Georgia and as far north as New Hampshire, all with different economies, landscapes and traditions.

Therefore, they fought to preserve their states’ individuality and ensure that the laws of the nation protected the right of each state to govern themselves and make local decisions.

The 10th Amendment reads: “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.”

In other words, the federal government only has certain powers which are spelled out in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, many recent actions by the federal government directly contradict this principle.

For instance, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress continue to champion a cap and trade energy policy that could have a devastating effect on Ohio’s economy, while dramatically raising electricity prices for consumers in our region.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also pushing excessive regulations on states that would not only increase operating costs for existing Ohio business, but could impact our ability to attract new development and create jobs.

In addition, the President is leading an effort to create a public health care option and give the federal government more control over our nation’s health care system.

Concerned about the increasing influence of the federal government and its impact on the future of our state and Ohio taxpayers, my colleagues and I in the Ohio Senate recently approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which urges Congress to respect the 10th Amendment and adhere only to the limited rights and responsibilities delegated by the states to the federal government.

I co-sponsored the resolution.

Similar resolutions have been introduced in other states, including New Hampshire, Arizona, Michigan and Missouri.

However, it is important to note that SCR 13 does not threaten secession; it only seeks to affirm Ohio’s sovereignty at a time when the federal government is rapidly expanding.

Former President and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, once said: “The states should be left to do whatever they can do as well as the federal government.”

While all levels of government can serve a valuable purpose in our society, there must be a strong balance between local, state and federal power.

What is good policy for California or New York may not be good for Ohio or West Virginia. For that reason, our leaders in Washington need to honor the 10th Amendment and respect the right of the states to make their own decisions.

Originally published at The Ironton Tribune

John A. Carey is a member of the Ohio Senate and represents the 17th District. He can be reached at Ohio Senate, Statehouse, Columbus, Ohio 43215 or by phone at (614) 466-8156.

The following article is from the June 1950 issue of analysis, vol. VI, no. 8, and was reprinted on LewRockwell.com

The Constitution that came out of the Philadelphia convention in 1787 was not acclaimed a “divine document.” On the contrary, the folks were rather skeptical about it and made ratification difficult. Yet there was no organized opposition. The Constitution simply ran head on into the individualism that had defied the arrogance of British Toryism. The backcountry, which started at the outskirts of the few seaboard cities, was as suspicious of a national government as if been hostile to foreign intervention. It was this spirit of self-reliance, of wanting to be let alone, that the ratifiers had to face and to which they addressed their argument in The Federalist.

Since the doctrine of States’ Rights is rooted in this early opposition to the Constitution, any effort to revive it should take into account the psychological barrier that confronted Madison and Hamilton. States’ Rights and individualism are historically related. It would seem to be good strategy, therefore, for a modern decentralization movement to plot its course by the same star. True, it is impossible to reconstruct the environment in which the individualism of early America was tempered; there is no haven of free land around. But the urge to be oneself, to work out one’s destiny without let or hindrance, is not a matter of environment; it is inherent in the human make-up. Even the socialist, for all his talk of immolation for the good of a mass, betrays by his very rebellion the altogether human urge for self-expression through free choice. We all have it in varying degrees; none is ever rid of it. The necessity of existence may impel us to make adjustment to conditions, but the ego thus put under restraint is not destroyed. The indestructibility of the ego is certified by the revolutionary movements that characterize the history of man. A States’ Rights movement is in essence a revolution, an opposition to the urgency of political power to limit choice and compel adjustment to its will and must rest its case on this fact. It is a certainty that any attempt to cut down the power of the central government is a fatuous gesture unless there is some feeling for freedom in the country.

At any rate, Hamilton and Madison and Jay were faced with the latent fear of political interference that was strong in the American of their day. It is for that reason that the logic of The Federalist is underlined with a note of supplication. In view of the high place the Constitution has attained in the hierarchy of American values, this pleading for its ratification is suggestive. Why was it necessary? For answer, we might recall what John Adams, writing in 1818, said about the revolution. It was effected, he declared, “before the war commenced. The revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people.” It was exactly what was in the hearts and minds of the people, their character, that constituted the opposition to nationalism in 1787 and explains why the Constitution put so many restrictions on the powers of the proposed government, not the least of which was the sharing of sovereignty with the state governments on a basis of equality. It could not have got by otherwise.

The Backbone of States’ Rights

Above all things these Americans cherished freedom. They had come to it by way of hardship and it stuck to their ribs. Many of them were but a generation away from indentured servitude; still quite alive was the memory of the horrors of migration; they had paid a high price for freedom. No government had given them their prized possession; they had literally hewn it out of the forest and they meant to keep it. All their experience with government, in the Europe from which they fled or in the colonies, taught them to distrust political power. Perhaps some government had its place in the scheme of life and might be tolerated – say, for organized opposition to the Indians or for the building of roads, and such things – but on the whole, the less of government the better. At best, it could never provide freedom, for that was something you got by your own effort; at worst, it could and would rob you of your freedom and therefore needed constant watching.

But how can one watch a government that operates from some distant seat, completely out of reach and behind a bulwark of laws of its own making? One has chores to do. The agrarian individualist was not taking chances. A government of neighbors, amenable to the will of neighbors, he would countenance and support, but he was intuitively opposed to a national establishment. The authors of the Constitution were thus put under the necessity of convincing him – and he was the unorganized majority – that the proposed government would in no way deprive him of the freedom he enjoyed under his home-made establishment; and for the title it would ask of him, in the way of taxes, it would provide him with services the local government could not furnish.

That is a distinguishing feature of The Federalist, a party platform replete with promises of what the party would not do. It is strange reading, when compared to modern political pledges, in its negative assurances. The delegates to the Philadelphia convention were sent there by the state governments with instructions to fix up some defects in the Articles of Confederation, for the Congress operating under that charter was not functioning satisfactorily; the general economy was laboring under the handicap of interstate tariffs, lack of a uniform money, difficulty in enforcing contractual obligations. These deficiencies were blocking trade, and trade was the great concern of the new country. But, when the delegates came up with a brand new Constitution, declaring that a mere overhauling of the Articles was impractical, suspicion was aroused. It was therefore incumbent on the framers of this Constitution to prove its harmlessness, as far as individual freedom was concerned. The new government would do what the states separately could not do and no more. Only when a state could not maintain order and called upon the government for help would it take part in local matters. In fact, the federal government would be little more than the foreign department for the state governments.

In paper number forty-five Madison writes: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which last part the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.

“The operations of the federal government will be most extensive in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. . .” And so The Federalist goes on; promise after promise that the local governments shall remain immune.

Dualism and Individualism

Thus came the doctrine of States’ Rights. It came as a concession to the dominant individualism of the times, to the spirit of freedom that was in the people. Perhaps with some of the delegates it was a considered theory of government; there is reason to believe that most of them would as soon have left it out of the Constitution. Hamilton, at any rate, would most certainly have preferred a national rather than a federal government, with undivided sovereignty, but the genius of the American people was decidedly against him. The Constitution was, after all, only a political instrument, and as such had to confine its moralities to a preamble; in its working parts it had to conciliate divergent interests. The individualist was too important an interest to be ignored; he had to be appeased, and dual government was the price he demanded.

The doctrine of dualism came up for discussion many times between ratification and the Civil War. Almost always the debates were legalistic. On this ground, the nullifiers and the secessionists had the best of it, for nothing could be more certain than that the Union was conceived as a voluntary association of the thirteen states and that the states had existed as political entities for nearly a hundred and fifty years before the Constitution was thought of. Nor was there any question, as John C. Calhoun constantly insisted, that the Union was an organization of states, not of citizens; a Virginian was a Virginian before he was an American, and that was written into the Constitution as a condition of ratification.

But the debates were singularly free of the ideological background of the doctrine. States’ Rights was invoked in support of sectional and economic interests rather than to protect the immunities of the individual from federal encroachment. In 1814 the New England manufacturers brought it up; before the Civil War the South made much of nullification and secession because of its tariff disabilities. If the present embryonic movement to restore some measure of local autonomy is to achieve any success, it must go back to beginnings; it must make its appeal to the unquenchable yearning for freedom; it must convince the American that his best chance for a good and freer life is under the aegis of a government of neighbors.

The Theory of Government

It has always been the boast of States’ Righters that they were the true Constitutionalists, that they adhered to the letter as well as to the spirit of the original document. The evidence supports the claim. To be consistent, the current crop of fundamentalists might look to the basic theory of government written into the Constitution. This theory, borrowed from John Locke, holds that the only purpose of government, and its only competence, is to protect private property. If it presumes to go beyond that function it is guilty of misfeasance; if it fails to perform that function it is derelict in its duty. “The first object of government,” says Madison in the tenth number of The Federalist, is the protection of “the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of private property originate.” From that theory, despite their willingness to make compromises, the Founding Fathers never deviated.

From the standpoint of this theory of government, the Constitution has not only been violated, it has been destroyed. What exists now is only a faulty facsimile of the original document. The process of mutilation began a long time ago, in the Jackson Administration, when political gangsterism announced that “to the victors belong the spoils.” But not until the Sixteenth Amendment was incorporated into the Constitution was its character completely altered. The income tax insinuated. a theory of government quite unknown to the Founding Fathers, holding that the function of government is to act as pater familias to society as a whole. To perform that role, the government must have access to all that is produced, as a matter of right, just as a feudal baron might lay claim to the fruits of his vassals’ labor. This, of course, is a complete rejection of the right of private property; what the citizen may retain from his earnings is a concession, revocable at will. The citizen thus becomes a subject. For Constitutional support, this theory of government takes recourse in the ambiguous “general welfare” clause.

The “general welfare” clause meant different things to different members of the Constitutional Convention; according to Madison it was the subject of much bitter debate. But of one thing we can be sure, and that is that it meant nothing like the New Deal interpretation to any of them. It could not have justified in their minds the investment of tax-money in government ventures competing with private industry, or the regulating and restricting of enterprise even to the extent of stifling it; and a system of doles was simply unthinkable. For, the economic thinking of the day was singularly laissez faire, and the idea of government intervention in one’s way of making a living was abhorrent to these recent revolutionists. In the context of their economic philosophy the general welfare was promoted only by production. The wealth of the nation is the sum total of the wealth of the citizens; the government might extract from it but could not contribute anything to it. To them the only thing the government could do to promote the general welfare, in the economic field, was to provide protection “for the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.” Having done that it should get out of the way.

The Business of Politics

If, as Charles A. Beard has so clearly shown, the Constitution was an “economic instrument,” if “every fundamental appeal in it is to some material and substantial interest,” does that invalidate its basic theory of government? To be sure, the Founding Fathers made concessions to the slave trade, the landed gentry, the money speculators and the protection-seeking industrialists. In so doing they simply accepted what the mores sanctioned. The business of the politician is not to improve upon the intelligence and conscience of his times, but rather to take what he finds and write and enforce the rules of the game accordingly. Whenever he tries to make men better than they are, or their understanding permits them to be, he is assuming a capacity he does not have and is courting trouble. The Founding Fathers made concessions to pressure-groups, to be sure; but when did politicians do otherwise? Can they do anything else? Even where the politician presumably abolishes all special privilege, as in totalitarian regimes, he simply makes of himself the sole beneficiary of all special privilege. The moralist’s passion for a society free of special privilege will be satisfied, if it ever is, by some mutation in the nature or intelligence of man; it will never come by way of politics.

It is beside the point to criticize the Founding Fathers for failure to distinguish between property got by one’s own labor and property got by privilege. The distinction was quite unknown then and, except in the ivory tower of moral philosophy, is quite unknown now. The Constitution concerned itself with the principle of private property, not with a definition of it, and our present concern should be with that principle. Is the individual in better case under a regime that guarantees security of possession and enjoyment, or does he prosper better under a regime that confiscates all production and doles it out according to a formula of its own design? Putting aside the iniquities that grow up under the institution of private property, or the perversion of it, is it not, nevertheless, more conducive to the general welfare than State Capitalism? A States’ Rights movement must face that question squarely.

Origin of Private Property

The answer to that question must be sought in first principles. Why does a man produce? Obviously, to satisfy his desires, and desires are personal, not collective. If he is deprived of the fruits of his labors, by marauders or the government, the profit in laboring is gone, and if the defalcations persist he loses interest in production. The need of living impels him to produce what he can consume immediately, but the uncertainty of possession dissuades him from accumulating; he does not save, he does not put by any capital. Under compulsion, as in slavery or a totalitarian regime, he will exert himself to produce more than he consumes only because of the desire to avoid pain, but his output will be in proportion to the constancy of surveillance and the certainty of punishment. The slave is a poor producer simply because he has no interest in production.

On the other hand, if possession and enjoyment is secure, the urge to produce knows no bounds. For the desires of man are without limit. His first need is food, but with a plenitude of that commodity on hand, or easily obtainable, he conjures up from his imagination a desire for tablecloth, napkin, and, at long last, music with his meals. The humble hut that was the pioneer’s castle is replaced with a mansion ablaze with electric light and equipped with hot-and-cold running water – only because he has been able, under private property, to accumulate a superfluity of wealth. The progress of civilization, the advancement in the sciences and arts, is in proportion to the degree of private property permitted in the going modus vivendi, and retrogression follows from the discouragement of production where confiscation is the general practice. A society of thieves cannot prosper.

The principle of private property, then, stems from the composition of the human being. And the general welfare, or the aggregate of production, is promoted only by the certainty of possession and enjoyment. That is the underlying thought of the laissez faire philosophy which, at the time the Constitution was framed, was accepted as axiomatic.

It was, indeed, a mass attack on private property that spurred the Founding Fathers in their work and furnished them with ammunition in their fight for ratification. In Massachusetts, a mob of farmers, burdened with mortgages and taxation, had attempted to force the state government to issue fiat money with which they could rid themselves of their obligations. Whether or not their grievances were justifiable, their action was a threat to the principle of private property, to which even these farmers held; they would have been in the forefront of a fight to retain possession of their holdings. However, the danger of mob action put the Fathers on their guard; they wrote into the Constitution provisions which, they expected, would prevent a majority, having got hold of the reins of government, from executing a policy of confiscation. The system of checks and balances was designed as a bulwark of private property.

States’ Rights and Private Property

Under these restrictions, which tended to keep the federal government weak and off-balance, the country did well for a century and a half. Private property was fairly safe and the wealth of the nation multiplied; the general welfare improved. But the spirit of spoliation grew apace, ever encouraged and exploited by self-seeking politicians. By means of amendments, interpretations and political subterfuge, the checks and balances were finally eased out of the Constitution. The “mob” so feared by Madison and Hamilton did in our time get control of political power and proceeded to use it as predicted; finding justification in a perversion of the “general welfare” clause, political gangsterism has put the government machinery to purposes other than the protection of “the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.” Private property is no longer a tenet of the American creed.

Because the human being is ever intent on improving his circumstances, striving always despite handicaps and hindrances, the effect on the general welfare from the disregard of private property is slow in showing itself. It will do so in due time. Already labor is looked upon as a useless occupation when doles are available, and investment in enterprise of a long-term nature is regarded as folly. That the American standard of living must decline, that our civilization must sink to a lower and lower level, is a certainty to which the history of intervention testifies. Politics may deny private property but it cannot prevent the consequences of its action.

The issue is clear. Is it possible to stem the tide by a strengthening of our state governments? Can our state governments provide some protection for private property, now denied by the federal government? As a patriotic gesture, and in the interest of future generations, the effort should be made. A States’ Rights movement dedicated to that effort could well call upon the shades of the Founding Fathers for support; they favored a federal government because they saw in it a protection for private property; now that the federal government has become an instrument of spoliation, would not the Founding Fathers join up with a States’ Rights movement so dedicated? Even Hamilton should be a States’ Righter these days.

Frank Chodorov (1887-1966), one of the great libertarians of the Old Right, was the founder of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists and author of such books as The Income Tax: Root of All Evil. Here he is on “Taxation Is Robbery.” And here is Murray Rothbard’s obituary of Chodorov.

By a vote of 19-12 today, the Ohio State Senate passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (SCR13).  (h/t OhioFreeState.com)

The resolution seeks to “claim sovereignty over certain powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to notify Congress to limit and end certain mandates, and to insist that federal legislation contravening the Tenth Amendment be prohibited or repealed.”

If passed by the House of Representatives, Ohio will become the 8th state to have passed such a resolution in 2009.  Other states that have reaffirmed their sovereignty are Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee.

While sovereignty resolutions do not carry the force of law behind them, supporters say that they are a long-overdue first step in moving the country towards constitutional government.

Charles Key, state representative from Oklahoma and author of that state’s sovereignty resolution, compared these resolutions to a cease and desist notice a landlord gives a non-paying tenant.

“If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck,” said Key in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center.  “First, you serve notice.  That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government.  And there defintely will be follow up.”

The follow up that Rep. Key is referring to has been popping up all over the country.  Legislation that calls upon the Jeffersonian principle of “nullification” has already been advancing a number of causes, and some success has been gained, too.

A state-level rebellion to the Bush-era Real ID act has rendered the law virtually null and void.  Thirteen states have passed various marijuana laws in direct contravention to federal laws.  Two states have passed laws nullifying some federal gun regulations.

Groups in multiple states are pushing their governments to withdraw their state’s guard troops from Iraq and elsewhere. And people in up to 10 states may have the opportunity to vote on state constitutional amendments effectively banning national health care.

The long-term success of all these efforts remain to be seen, especially with a Federal Judiciary which has not often been too friendly to the Constitutional intent of the Founders and Ratifiers.

But, many supporters point to the growing success on issues like Real ID and Medical Marijuana as examples which prove that with enough state-level resistance, the federal government has no option but to back off, with or without judicial approval.

Read the full text of SCR-13 below:

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “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”; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and

WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment signifies that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are often treated as agents of the federal government; and

WHEREAS, Many federal laws directly contravene the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, We believe in the importance of all levels of government working together to serve the citizens of our country, by respecting the constitutional provisions that properly delineate the authority of federal, state, and local governments; and

WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government may not usurp; and

WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,” and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states by compelling them to enact and enforce regulatory programs; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court, in Printz v. United States/Mack v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), reaffirmed that the Constitution of the United States established a system of “dual sovereignty” that retains “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty” by the states. The majority of the United States Supreme Court noted in that case (521 U.S. 898, 921-922):

“As [President] Madison expressed it: ‘[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.’ The Federalist No. 39, at 245.

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’ . . . To quote [President] Madison once again:

‘In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.’ The Federalist No. 51, at 323″; and

WHEREAS, A number of proposals by previous administrations, some now pending proposals by the present administration, and some proposals by Congress may further violate the Tenth Amendment restriction on the scope of federal power; now therefore be it

RESOLVED, That the State of Ohio hereby acknowledges and reaffirms its residuary and inviolable sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this resolution serves as notice to the federal government as agent of the states, to end federal mandates that are beyond the scope of the constitutionally delegated powers; and be it further

RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalty or sanction or that requires states to enact legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Clerk of the Senate transmit authenticated copies of this resolution to the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature, and each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation.

Copyright © 2009 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

(Lansing, MI) – Today, September 17th is Constitution Day.  In a fitting tribute, Senator Bruce Patterson’s resolutions affirming Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government were passed unanimously in Senate session today.

The United States Constitution was completed and signed at the Philadelphia Convention on September 17, 1787.  Senator Patterson’s Senate Resolution 17 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4 are reminders that the founding fathers knew what was best when they established that our new country needed a commitment to the rule of law, limited government and the ideals of liberty, equality and justice for all.

Senator Patterson introduced these resolutions because our country is straying away from our founding fathers’ ideals.  The Senator’s resolutions specifically affirm the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.  This part of the Bill of Rights specifies that each state should be able to decide what is best for their people.

“My reasons for so strongly stating my belief in the Tenth Amendment through these resolutions is that our federal government is becoming oppressive in size and is intruding in our lives,” Senator Patterson emphasized.

“Our founding fathers decided that the country would be established on the sovereignty of the states. Our voices need to be heard, we will not stand by while our rights are stripped away.  It was great to see that my Senate colleagues concurred. ”

Similar resolutions have been introduced in 36 other states.

Senator Patterson made an impassioned speech regarding his Senate resolutions today.  Look for the video to be posted on his website in the coming days at www.senatorbrucepatterson.com

###

Both resolutions passed by a vote of 33-0.  Read the text of each below:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 4.

A concurrent resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. The Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power and prescribes that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. Currently, the states are treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states. By this resolution Michigan claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not granted to the federal government under the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, All government agencies and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the state of Michigan, or whose actions have an effect on the inhabitants, lands, or water of Michigan, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future within the Constitution of the state of Michigan, the Michigan statutes, or the common law. This resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as Michigan’s agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates that are beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That we affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

Senate Resolution No. 17.

A resolution to affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government.

Whereas, The Tenth Amendment provides that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. The Tenth Amendment limits the scope of federal power and prescribes that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. Currently, the states are treated as agents of the federal government; and

Whereas, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the United States Congress may not commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states. By this resolution Michigan claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment over all powers not granted to the federal government under the United States Constitution; and

Whereas, All government agencies and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the state of Michigan, or whose actions have an effect on the inhabitants, lands, or water of Michigan, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future within the Constitution of the state of Michigan, the Michigan statutes, or the common law. This resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as Michigan’s agent, to cease and desist immediately all mandates that are beyond the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally delegated powers; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate, That we affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government; and be it further

Resolved, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the Michigan congressional delegation.

After decades of broken promises, many Americans have realized that whichever party is in office, the more power held by federal officials, the less control the people have over their own lives, and the more arrogant and dangerous those far off federal officials will become.

The only way to keep the government accountable, to keep its size and power where they cannot be easily abused, is to keep government close to home.

Yet over the century and a half since Lincoln settled the Confederacy question, an ongoing and unrestrained power grab by the federal government has led to the assumption that its mandate is unlimited. State obsequiousness to central authority in exchange for federal tax dollars has helped fuel that delusion, and resulted in significant loss of individual freedom over the years; but the true scope of federal arrogance has been on display only since last fall.

That was when the executive branch via President Bush began nationalizing huge swaths of private industry despite an utter lack of constitutional authority to do so.

But even though more resources and power than ever are flowing into Washington, D.C., one day students of our history may look back on the early part of the Obama administration and see not a new authoritarian foundation, but rather the pinnacle of an unsustainably centralized power structure. Already, public attitudes toward the new president are shifting from cautious optimism about his professed faith in the American dream to incredulous horror at his continued and worsening abuse of federal power.

That’s because, contrary to popular belief, the American people are not fools. They love liberty and can clearly see the dead hand of government as it grasps further than ever into their lives and wallets. The last six months have exposed a vacuum in the political marketplace and rancorous town hall meetings over health care “reform” are just the beginning.

While members of Congress tell themselves that opposition to their statist agenda is motivated by ignorance or special interest cash, it is actually America’s Anti-Federalist heritage re-emerging in front of their eyes. Millions of Americans have grown so disillusioned by the tyrannical similarities between Republicans and Democrats in Congress (and in the presidency) that they are now raising serious questions about the fundamental virtues of federal versus state power.

And while proponents of state sovereignty may not be able to stop a president and his supermajority on health care or cap and trade, their movement is preparing for the start of a major upheaval in 2010.

And what’s coming won’t be your daddy’s Revolution.

Even now, the rumblings have begun. Look no further than the stands taken this past spring by Rick Perry in Texas and Mark Sanford in South Carolina over taxes and unfunded mandates tied to federal stimulus money. Or the sovereignty resolutions that have now passed in many states. These are not isolated coincidences.

During next year’s elections (and beyond) many candidates will argue that the time has come to stop subverting state interests to self-serving diktats of the federal government, or risk losing autonomy altogether.

And some of those candidates, mostly at the state level, will win. In the process, Anti-Federalism as an issue will regain its rightful prominence in our national political dialogue. Millions of Americans who currently feel shut out, disregarded, and unrepresented in national politics will demand their state representatives stop dreaming of an office on Capitol Hill and start bringing power and control back home where it belongs.

The key to success for this new generation of Anti-Federalists will be the countless small government groups that have sprouted like weeds all over the country in the past six months.

If they turn their formidable energy and principled fiscal conservatism to state politics, the pressure on those governments to reduce tax and regulatory burdens will be enormous. The representatives will have to respond, or risk being run out of office.

Eventually, to keep their jobs, they will fight for those same demands on behalf of their constituents at the national level; defending individual freedom against a power hungry federal oligarchy, just as the Constitution intended.

Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.