Most articles that seek to demonize the Tenth Amendment movement are so rife with logical and intellectual fallacies that even responding to them is a waste of time. However, in the case of Dan Casey, blogger for the Roanoke Times, an exception must be made.

For starters, Casey is writing in my (and Thomas Jefferson’s) home state of Virginia, and his piece, “The Whole Tenth Amendment Business is Dumb and Crazy” actually links to the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center, which I helped to found.

But, more importantly, in his article, Casey attempts to smear the brilliant men who wrote the U.S. Constitution by claiming the document doesn’t mean what they explicitly said it meant.

As James Madison might have said, there is a host of proofs that Dan Casey is dead wrong.

Like so many others before him, Casey leads his attack with a flaccid attempt to discredit the “Tenthers” (as he pejoratively calls them) by linking constitutionalism with support for slavery.

Of course, this completely obscures actions by Tenthers of an earlier era, who used the 10th Amendment as the prime justification for the “States Rights” argument that itself was a smokescreen for the real cause of the Civil War — the South’s insistence on preserving slavery.

Behold straw man number one: The Tenth Amendment is code for racism. Casey is either ignorant of the fact that many Northern states used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for undermining slavery long before 1861, through their refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Acts, or he has chosen to ignore that inconvenient part of history. 

Either way, it doesn’t matter. Historical accuracy is not Casey’s goal. He merely intends to color his readers’ perception of Tenthers by linking them, however spuriously, with Southern slaveholders. To acknowledge the truth about the history of states’ rights in the North might disrupt his narrative of unquestioning obsequiousness to centralized power.

Casey continues:

But apart from aligning themselves with slaveholders, there’s another more fundamental flaw in the whole modern Tenther argument. In a nutshell, it’s this: Their interpretation is based on a single sentence in the Constitution, rather than on the document as a whole.

In fact, the larger document directly contradicts the Tenthers’ argument.  That’s right — words the founding fathers quite deliberately wrote into the Constitution clearly and effectively rebut the Tenthers’ faulty reasoning.

It’s hard to imagine where Casey got this impression, considering that James Madison himself described the document he helped to write by saying

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.

Thomas Jefferson also knew the Tenth Amendment was more than just “a single sentence.” He called it the Constitution’s foundation: 

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: All powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.

It really cannot be any clearer than that. The self-serving opinions of Dan Casey and myriad federal judges notwithstanding, if the people and the states didn’t explicitly surrender a power in the Constitution, then they still retain it. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is another story.

But if federal power is limited to what is enumerated in the Constitution, Casey asks, why do we need a Bill of Rights at all?

The problem for the Tenthers here is that the First Amendment has nothing to do with what Congress can do. It’s all about what Congress can’t do.

And this is where the Tenthers’ entire argument falls apart. Because under Tenther-logic, unless the Constitution permitted the feds to establish religion, or abridge freedom of speech and so on, then the feds would automatically be prohibited from doing it.

Obviously, the founding fathers themselves did not believe that, or they never would have felt the need to write the First Amendment in the first place.

Here Casey has a point, although not the one he thinks. He is right, the feds are automatically prohibited from doing any of the things he lists, just as they are prohibited from requiring every American to buy health insurance, based on the fact that those powers are not delegated under Article 1 Section 8.  

But, more importantly, many of the founders themselves argued against the Bill of Rights for the same reason as Casey: It should not be necessary. 

Alexander Hamilton said

…bills of rights… are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. …For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? 

If there is any argument to be made against the Tenth Amendment, it is Hamilton, not Casey, who has made it.

The Bill of Rights should never have been needed. Every one of the first 10 Amendments is essentially legally redundant based on the text of the Constitution itself.

But, over time, activist judges and complicit politicians have turned the entire document on its head, until the only rights left to the people are those explicitly granted, while the only powers not yet claimed by government are those explicitly prohibited.

Yet Casey calls Tenthers, who only want the Constitution’s clear language enforced, ”intellectual boobs who can’t be bothered to think for themselves.” Apparently, thinking for oneself means ignoring the purpose of our founding documents, and gratefully acquiescing to federal tyranny.

Those of us who demand liberty are feared and ridiculed by weak minded men like Dan Casey who consider themselves intelligent, but are really nothing more than errand boys for the State.

As Samuel Adams once said

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Early in my development as a human being, there was the pledge of allegiance. There was the National Anthem and of course, the Stars and Stripes.

I grew up in Southern California and now that I have had a chance to deprogram myself (which has taken years) I have some questions- for one, where was the pledge to the California Republic? Where was my class on the California Constitution…or even just a mere mention of it in one of my other government classes at my government school?

The reality is that my generation was indoctrinated with a very subtle, but dangerous notion- that the Federal Government IS the United States.

There was no mention in my childhood of state sovereignty…not even the briefest mention of the 10th Amendment. Oh sure, I knew about something called the ‘Bill of Rights’ but all that I can remember being taught was that it was separate from the Constitution, with a sneaky inference that the first 10 amendments were somehow a lesser part of the framers’ vision.

One flag. One nation. One ruling body, Washington DC.

This is the situation we all face today as Americans who value the philosophy of our founding fathers. Despite being an absolute desecration of the founder’s concept of ‘United States’, the ‘Omnipotent Centralized State’ has become zeitgeist through our words, our patriotic displays and our teachings.

It’s a steep hill to climb, but this effect must be reversed if we are to keep our republic. Deprogramming the masses and awakening once again a pride in one’s state house is more cultural than legal, more art than science but it must be done. If the territory gained by the Tenth Movement is to stand we will have to find a way to ensure that future generations honor TWO flags in their classrooms, maybe even at ballgames- The Red White and Blue AND the flag of their state.

In an earlier post, I wrote that the Tenth Amendment was adopted to reinforce the legal interpretation rule providing that if you list some items in a document, this implies that other items are excluded.  The Tenth Amendment clarified that the federal government enjoyed only the powers listed in the Constitution and no others.

But why should anyone think there were others?  Especially if there was a legal rule of interpretation to the contrary?

The answer to that question takes us to a story known to very few – even to very few constitutional scholars.

Throughout the period of the Continental and Confederation Congresses (1776-1788), advocates of a strong central government argued that, in addition to whatever express powers Congress had received from the states, Congress also enjoyed additional “inherent sovereign authority.”  This theory would allow Congress to exercise many powers not on the list granted by the Articles of Confederation.

During this period, the “inherent sovereign authority” argument was made by John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Hartford Convention of 1780.  They argued that Congress necessarily had inherent sovereign authority because it was America’s agent for foreign affairs.  They sometimes argued that the British Crown conveyed inherent sovereign authority to Congress by the 1783 peace treaty recognizing independence.

The best-known exposition of inherent sovereign authority appeared in James Wilson’s Considerations on the Bank of North America.  Wilson’s purpose in composing this paper was to justify Congress’s decision to charter a national bank, even though the Articles of Confederation had given Congress no such power.

Opponents of the Constitution admitted that the Constitution enumerated federal powers, but they feared that Wilson & Company might raise the same “inherent sovereign authority” claim again.  Accordingly, most of the states demanded a constitutional amendment explicitly limiting the federal government to those enumerated in the Constitution.  That amendment became the Tenth.

What is particularly surprising in light of this history and the Tenth Amendment’s explicit wording, is that some people still argued that the federal government had a vast reservoir of “inherent sovereign authority.”

The subject came up in a 1907 case (Kansas v. Colorado), but the Supreme Court rejected the idea, citing the Tenth Amendment.  But the Court used the theory in a 1936 (U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright) to justify federal foreign affairs powers.  And a majority of the court seems to have endorsed it in a 2004 case (U.S. v. Lara) explaining federal power over the Indian tribes.

But as a matter of history and constitutional text, there is no real doubt that the Tenth Amendment rendered the theory of “implied sovereign authority” completely illegitimate.

Rob Natelson is Professor of Law and David Mason scholar at the University of Montana, where he teaches constitutional law and constitutional history.  He is currently seeking a publisher for his latest book, The Original Constitution.

It only took the Obama administration a couple of weeks to prove that the national leadership of the Democratic Party is guided by totalitarian-minded socialists who seek to create an omnipotent government. The U.S. government is now controlled by people who have been dreaming of living out their utopian socialist fantasies ever since the fantasies were brought to their attention in college decades ago by their Mao/Castro/Che Guevara poster-hanging, capitalism-hating, communistic professors.

The administration’s main agenda is an explosion of federal spending and debt so large and outrageous that America will soon exceed Sweden in the proportion of the economy that is controlled by government – if it hasn’t already. That’s just for starters. They also want to sharply increase taxes on the most productive and hardest-working people in society; increase the capital gains tax to deter private investment; expand the welfare state; spend trillions on pure, pork barrel spending in a massive vote-buying spree; set all corporate compensation levels by governmental fiat; tax away the wealth of unpopular business people (only starting with those AIG executives); regulate and control all risk taking by private entrepreneurs; enforce a civilian draft to create a modern-day, American version of the Hitler Youth (See Rahm Emanuel’s creepy, Stalinist-sounding book entitled The Plan); nationalize entire industries, starting with the capital markets (they understand that there can be no capitalism without private capital markets); and double, triple, and quadruple the number of “regulators” who already regulate all aspects of human life in America.

At the recent G-20 meeting Obama even signed off on the creation of an international regulatory “authority” that could set compensation policies in American corporations. On top of this, there is a never-ending drumbeat of anti-capitalist propaganda coming from the administration and its worshipful mouthpieces in the “mainstream media.”

What can be done? How can this rush toward totalitarian socialism be stopped? Will the Republicans find another old, angry geezer to appeal to the angry white male vote? How about another mumbling and incompetent Bush family heir? Will there be another Reagan who will talk libertarian while governing more like a European Social Democrat? Will they trot out another old “war hero” who will plunge us into war with Iran, North Korea, China, or whomever, to divert our attention away from the economic mess government has placed us in? These are the likely alternatives if we cling to the fantasy that “throwing the bums out” at election time leads to something other than another group of slightly different bums.

The fact is that the American people have been servants or slaves to their government for generations. It wasn’t always that way. When the Adams administration enforced the Sedition Act that made criticism of the federal government illegal, Jefferson and Madison responded with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 that clearly stated that the people did not intend to allow the enforcement of this unconstitutional law within those two states. Section One of Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolve stated, for example, that “the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General Government . . .” Other states supported Jefferson and Madison in their defense of free speech.

When President Thomas Jefferson imposed a national trade embargo and consummated the Louisiana Purchase, New Englanders, led by George Washington’s Secretary of State, Timothy Pickering, loudly threatened to secede. They decided against it (for practical economic and political reasons) at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, but their actions sent a clear message to national politicians.

Outraged by the embargo, the Massachusetts legislature used the language of Jefferson’s own Kentucky Resolve to proclaim that the embargo “was not legally binding on the citizens of the state” while denouncing the federal law as “unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional” and reminding President Jefferson that “this state maintains its sovereignty and independence . . .” All the New England states, plus Delaware, did the exact same thing and nullified the embargo.

When Alexander Hamilton’s Bank of the United States, a precursor to the Fed, created 72 percent inflation in the first five years of its existence and corrupted politics with its politicized spending policies, citizens all over the country assisted President Andrew Jackson in eventually destroying the institution. The heroic Ohio legislature slapped a $50,000/year tax on each branch of the BUS, attempting to drive it out of business. “The states have an equal right to interpret the Constitution for themselves,” announced the Ohio legislature, and it decided that the BUS was not constitutional. Kentucky, Tennessee, Connecticut, South Carolina, New York, and New Hampshire followed suit.

When the War of 1812 broke out the New England states effectively seceded from the union by refusing to participate. A proclamation by the Connecticut legislature was representative of the opinions of New Englanders: “[I]t must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated Republic,” and that it was refusing to support the war.

When the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” created an average tariff rate of 45%, applying mostly to Northern manufactured goods, South Carolinians clearly understood that this was a pure act of political plunder at their expense. They convened a political convention to utilize the Jeffersonian idea of nullification and refused to collect the tariff. They even got the South Carolina legislature to allocate $160,000 for the purchase of firearms with which to fend off any would-be federal tax collectors. The result was that they forced the federal government to lower the tariff rate.

During the 1850s the “middle states” of New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey developed a very active secession movement that sought to either join a Southern confederacy, form a middle-states confederacy, or support Southern secession. (See The Secession Movement in the Middle States by William C. Wright). Their overriding desire was to separate themselves from the imperious New England Yankees.

When the Southern states seceded in 1860–61, Abraham Lincoln pledged his everlasting support for Southern slavery in his first inaugural address, an address in which he endorsed a constitutional amendment (the “Corwin Amendment”) that would have forbidden the federal government from ever interfering with slavery. In the same speech he promised a military invasion and “bloodshed” in any Southern state that ceased paying his beloved tariff on imports which, at the time, accounted for more than 90% of federal tax revenue. The average tariff rate had just been doubled by the Republican-controlled Congress.

The Southern states, along with most people in the North, still held the Jeffersonian belief that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and when that consent is withdrawn the citizens have a duty to abolish the existing government and form a new one. Jefferson never wrote in the Declaration of Independence that the citizens have a duty to abolish the government and form a new one “as long as the other states all agree that you may do so.” If the right of secession depends on someone else’s permission, then one does not have a right of secession. That was a fantasy invented by Lincoln, which he used to “justify” waging total war on his own country, murdering some 350,000 American citizens, including some 50,000 civilians. From that time on, government in America was no longer “for the people, by the people, of the people,” as Chief Justice John Marshal once said in a phrase that was later plagiarized by Lincoln. From that time on the purpose of government has been for those who run it to plunder those who do not. Nullification and secession were no longer tools with which the citizens could control their own government.

The final nails in the coffin of government by consent were pounded in during the year 1913 with the advent of the federal income tax, the creation of the Fed, and the Seventeenth Amendment calling for the direct election of U.S. senators. The income tax and the Fed gave the federal government the ability to do whatever it wanted to do regardless of the Constitution – even to wage “undeclared” wars. These vast “riches” were used to make millions of Americans totally subservient to the state lest they lose their tiny government subsidies, and to bribe or threaten state governments to do whatever our masters in Washington, D.C. decree, lest they lose their cherished federal highway grants. The ability of the citizens to oppose the federal Leviathan by organizing political communities at the state and local levels was finally destroyed and the centralized, monopolistic bureaucracy that rules America and much of the rest of the world today was created.

The direct election of U.S. senators, as opposed to the original system of having them appointed by state legislature, ended popular control of the federal government. Today, candidates for the senate go to New York, California, China, or wherever the big money is that can be raised as “campaign contributions” to finance their political careers. The interests of such “contributors” are not necessarily congruent with those of the folks back home.

If American citizens are to resist the rush to Obammunism they must first give up on the fantasy that the Republican Party is anything but another cabal of crooks, conmen and clowns, just like the Democratic Party. The only realistic route to freedom, including a restoration of genuine free enterprise, is through the devolution of power away from Washington, D.C. via peaceful secession and nullification, the original American ideals.

Thomas Jefferson understood that democracy could never work in a country as large as the U.S., let alone one with more than 300 million people. In a January 29, 1804 letter to Dr. Joseph Priestly he wrote: “Whether we remain one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern.” On the topic of secession, Jefferson continued: “[D]id I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.” When the New England Federalists were threatening secession, Jefferson wrote to his friend John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803 that if New England seceded and created a second confederacy, “God bless them both if it be for their good, but separate them, if it is better.”

Unlike Lincoln, Jefferson did not believe in threatening “bloodshed” in the case of a “separation” or secession. He understood that such behavior would be a moral abomination and an unimaginable act of barbarianism. A civilized society does not wage total war on “our children,” as Jefferson described the future citizens of a new state formed by an act of secession. Yet it is Lincoln, not Jefferson, who is portrayed by American court historians as a kindly, benevolent, and charitable angel.

The Constitution long ago ceased placing any meaningful limits on governmental power. This social contract between the American people and their government was destroyed long ago by Hamiltonian nationalists. Americans now live under a series of dictators (called “presidents”) who all believe that they are essentially dictators of the world, capable of ordering the bombing of any place on earth without anyone’s approval. (Within weeks, Obama dipped his hands in blood by ordering a few bombs to be dropped in Pakistan).

As of this writing, several dozen states have reportedly issued resolutions in support of the Jeffersonian principle of nullification. These will all be completely meaningless unless the American public has the fortitude to actually enforce the resolutions and begin ignoring any and all federal government actions that they interpret as unconstitutional and illegitimate. In addition, citizens of every state should learn about the Second Vermont Republic which, for several years now, has been laying the groundwork for Vermont to secede and once again become an free and independent republic, just as all the states thought of themselves as being prior to 1865.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

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

There is a secession movement afoot and its proponents are determined to put a halt to the federal government’s ambitions to destroy and reconstruct an entire economy and dissolve the last remnants of individual liberty. Twenty-eight states are invoking the law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, by rolling out legislation to assert their sovereignty as free states in order to keep from being undermined by the never-ending swarm of unrestrained federal decrees.

The speed with which the federal government intends to take over private institutions and usurp states’ rights and individual autonomy is unprecedented. When the Bush-Obama regime maneuvers are compared to the Hoover-FDR New Deal era, it looks like today’s hare vs. yesterday’s turtle. The state’s various propaganda arms, from big media to institutionalized special interest forces, are being empowered to publicize and sell the agenda of the totalitarian state by painting it in glossy colors that warm the hearts of unresisting Americans. There are, however, growing pockets of dissenters who conclude that life, liberty, property, and the futures of their children are more important than the trivial things that occupy the minds of the submissive class. For that reason, the state’s militarized police force, which has been given unparalleled powers by the contrived crises following 9-11, has snowballed in size and is being fortified in expectation of confronting rebellion from those citizens who intend to resist the tyranny of an over-reaching Leviathan.

Since the Bush II regime took control and 9/11 became its launch pad for sweeping hegemony, the police state has moved more swiftly than ever to demonize resistance and criminalize dissent. The most recent example is the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report that profiled individuals according to their political convictions, especially those ideas that agitate against the institutionalization of unconstitutional acts that are intended to grow state power at the expense of individual liberties. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr (!), guns & ammo, taxes, the Federal Reserve, secession, and resistance to universal government service or anti-privacy actions – all of those topics have become keywords in the crusade to criminalize individuals who refuse to be rounded up like cattle and marched toward serfdom.

Two years ago, a similar thing happened in Alabama when its Homeland Security Department released a report pigeonholing freedom activists as “anti-government types” who “claim that the U.S. government is infringing on their individual rights, and/or that the government’s policies are criminal and immoral.” Such groups, the report said, “May hold that the current government is violating the basic principles laid out by the U.S. Constitution…” Don’t bother to look up that report, however, because LewRockwell.com blogger Chris Brunner’s post on the Alabama report spread like wildfire ’round the Internet, resulting in that report being pulled from the website.

In addition, the MIAC report was quickly stifled by hordes of liberty activists, leading Chuck Baldwin to say, “the most effective way to fight an ever-encroaching federal leviathan is to focus on our individual states.”

The struggle for sovereignty, though begun on the part of spontaneous individuals with leanings toward the radical principles of our nation’s founding, has reached state legislatures across America in the form of sovereignty bills. According to the Christian Science Monitor, twenty-eight states are now commencing resolutions as a reaction to the sudden and massive expansion of federal powers. Even the Republic of Lakotah is declaring its withdrawal from all treaties and agreements imposed on it by the US government. The notion of state secession, once written off as a subject matter for political crackpots and eccentrics, has become a legitimate and practical solution for undoing the years of accumulated assaults on individual liberty that has come from the centralized state.

With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state “sovereignty bills” – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn’t rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states’ rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment.

…And although Pitts [state rep from South Carolina] hails from Abbeville, the place where the South’s first secession votes were cast, he insists that today’s efforts to check federal power aren’t limited to regional pockets or even political affiliation. “The mainstream media would portray some of us as rednecks, whether we’re from Pennsylvania, Oregon, or South Carolina,” says Pitts. “But this is a wake-up call. And if Washington doesn’t heed that wake-up call, revolution is on the horizon.”

That is from a recent issue of the Christian Science Monitor. Walter Williams, a respected academic and popular, syndicated columnist, declared this in his most recent column:

Our Colonial ancestors petitioned and pleaded with King George III to get his boot off their necks. He ignored their pleas, and in 1776, they rightfully declared unilateral independence and went to war. Today it’s the same story except Congress is the one usurping the rights of the people and the states, making King George’s actions look mild in comparison. Our constitutional ignorance – perhaps contempt, coupled with the fact that we’ve become a nation of wimps, sissies and supplicants – has made us easy prey for Washington’s tyrannical forces. But that might be changing a bit. There are rumblings of a long overdue re-emergence of Americans’ characteristic spirit of rebellion.

Emory Professor and constitutional scholar Don Livingston notes, in his Secessionist Paper No. 19: What is Secession?, “talk about secession makes Americans nervous. For many it evokes images of the Civil War, and is emotionally (if not logically) tied to slavery, war, and anarchy. That the word “secession” is laden with these negative connotations should be surprising since America was born in an act of secession.” He goes on to describe secession as an act that “does not seek to overthrow or alter the government of a modern state, but seeks merely to limit its jurisdiction over the seceding territory.”

But still, the negative connotations of secession live on, even within some libertarian circles. Perhaps the most puzzling thing I keep hearing from some libertarians is that those of us who adhere to secessionist ideas are wacky outliers who offer no value “to the movement,” and instead, we only throw up red flags that warn others to avoid us, and libertarianism as a whole. Thus we are led to believe that our founding fathers, the architects of rebellion and the champions of Jeffersonian principles, were reactionary wackos.

The anti-radical libertarians ask for practical solutions, with “practical” being the code word for something that is acceptable to the majority of the Oprahized masses. This kind of thought is known as “libertarian lite,” or as I call it, “car wash libertarianism.” The car wash libertarians persuade others – “especially those new to libertarianism – to stay away from the radical, “crazy” stuff and hold true to the agenda of getting “our people” elected through legitimate political means. The car wash libertarians still have a voice in the modern LP, which is also known as GOP 2.0. These libertarians are in the game not for reasons of deep-rooted principles and love of liberty, but for the social, bonding aspects, with some mild libertarianism sprinkled on the side. They love attending their local meetings and dinners each month and discussing who is going to run for what local post, and when, and applying strategy. How fun it all is. City council or board of county commissioners? Now those are appointments that will have a significant impact upon an America that is quickly descending into a Communistic hellhole.

Truth is, the car wash libertarians will be the ones cowering in a corner the day they come for our guns (under a massive, federal gun control act) and our children (under federal, child “protective services” laws or a national service act). But they may have a post or two at some tiny township, with such important duties as arranging for an annual dinner at the VFW or setting up the car wash fundraiser to pay for new lamp posts along Main Street. The car wash libertarians tend to have scant knowledge of history, monetary policy, constitutional disputes, and the political philosophers who have, over the years, defended states’ rights and the natural rights of the individual against the totalitarian, centralized state. In fact, they tend to shy away from the intellectual life because it’s not as fun, or as social, as the monthly meetings and supper club invites.

In spite of the radicalism of many of the early LP’ers, in 30+ years the LP has made no advances whatsoever, except that a few of them hold feeble local offices where it is their brand of politics in charge as versus the other guy’s rules. One guy’s coercion in place of another guy’s coercion offers us no progress whatsoever in terms of quelling the federal expansion that is speedily choking off life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The rapid-fire socialization of America, I hope, will have the effect of turning many of these libertarians toward more radical plans of action.

The Feds are engaged in a sweeping series of measures to take complete control of the financial system (which is forever destroyed) and selected business entities; ratchet up plans for perpetual war; socialize health care; further implant federalized education and criminalize homeschooling; grab guns and ammo; remove children from the homes of dissenters; commence race wars and class wars; force young adults into mandatory state service camps; send protesters to FEMA camps; and on and on and on.

At this point, none of this can be undone through time-consuming, political means. Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and the other agents of Obama’s unfreedom brigade were brought to Washington D.C. for one very specific purpose: to centralize every last bit of property and life and put it all under federal rule, from money to education to personal behavior. Note the condescending and arrogant behavior of King Obama on the 60 Minutes television show as he laughed at the inability of majority opinion to do a damn thing to stop his freight train of power grabs and federal takeovers.

Perhaps the most significant move on the part of the Feds, outside of crushing the free market through rapid nationalization, is the move on the part of the centralizers to extinguish the single most important characteristic of a free society – the right to bear arms. A society in which individuals cannot bear arms is a society doomed to eternal serfdom and oppression from self-serving overlords. Attorney General Eric Holder has long been an advocate of snuffing out gun rights, yet he got through the confirmation process with nothing more than a few feeble whimpers from helpless Republicans playing partisan games. Even worse is a recent occurrence that is perhaps unprecedented on the part of modern presidential administrations. Rahm Emanuel, in his capacity as Chief of Staff, is being utilized outside of his official role and is acting in the role of propagandist by lobbying for absolute and unconditional gun control. Emanuel, an Israeli citizen, is attempting to target gun owners by categorizing them in terms that will brand them as terrorists (the government’s favorite buzz word) in the eyes of their fellow Americans. Yet there has been no challenge to Emanuel for stepping outside his role and becoming an official flag-bearer for the disarming of America.

Gun rights is one of the most visible issues causing states to retreat and claim the federal government has gone way beyond its limits. In Montana, elected officials have signed a resolution declaring that any ruling by the Federal government on the Second Amendment violates its statehood contract. In fact, Montanans are moving to add more lenient concealed weapons laws to what’s already on the books. In Tennessee, state Senator Doug Jackson, a Democrat, has filed legislation that would ban the sale of micro-stamped firearms and ammunition. Such laws will mean a federal registry of gun owners, and Jackson calls this insanity “a preamble to gun confiscation.”

The other prime mover spurring claims of sovereignty on the part of states is rejection of the Federal Reserve and its illiberal policies that enslave the citizens of states by locking them into its inflationary fiat money machinations and debases their currency. Legislators in some states, such as Georgia and Montana, have agitated in favor of throwing off the Federal Reserve in favor of instituting a sound money policy advocating the use of gold and silver as opposed to the Fed’s legal tender notes. In Montana, Representative Bob Wagner introduced a sound money bill (HB 639), though it later died in committee along partisan lines. As times go on and the economic landscape becomes even gloomier, we are more likely to see many more of these kinds of initiatives on the part of state legislatures.

Gold, as such, is a tool for protection against the collapse of the dollar, which is why opponents of the Federal Reserve desire to buy it and hold it. Guns are the tools with which you defend yourself, not only from the local criminal who wants what you have, but even more so, they provide free men with the capability for physical resistance from a federal government whose expansion of powers and oppressive tactics are out of control. Think Rahm Emanuel and Eric Holder, and ask why it is that they champion an agenda that puts guns only into the hands of the government and its approved agents.

The only way to get this oppressive tyrant – known as the federal government – off our back is to break away from it and start anew. That twenty-eight states are starting to fan the flames of rebellion by moving towards a sovereign itinerary is fairly remarkable. States and people must declare their sovereignty and remove the tentacles of the federal government’s oppressive laws from their necks. Only a breakup of this monstrous and out-of-control, despotic giant can restore freedom and keep us all from descending further into the federal government’s grip.

Karen De Coster [send her mail] is a Certified Public Accountant, has an MA in Economics, and works in finance and accounting in the securities industry. See her website and her blog.

Copyright © 2009 Karen De Coster

I’ve met a lot of social conservatives over the years.  It should come as no surprise after all, I’m one too.  For some people, the desire to promote all, or a specific, issue(s) in the social conservative agenda is their modus operandi, his or her specific driving force in politics. 

It could be:  abortion, school prayer, gay marriage, obscenity, or a host of other issues relating to social or religious norms.  We believe despite the general liberalization of laws and society that we speak in favor of the “silent majority” of citizens who agree with our positions but do not exercise their political voices.

In addition, most social conservatives support legislation, as an extension of their religious beliefs, to shape the world in a manner, which they believe, would be pleasing to God.

The problem comes when social conservatives look to the federal government to promote their agenda.  By doing so, they put themselves in conflict with both the fiscal conservatives and limited government conservatives.

Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the federal government has been severely restricted in its powers and involvement in societal issues.   The 10th Amendment is, without a doubt, the most neglected amendment and yet, so much of our freedoms and liberties rest with this amendment.

Relying on the federal government is a two-fold problem.  First, it grants the government authority that the Constitution doesn’t allow. For example, suppose we pass a pro-prayer in schools law.

Once we allow the federal government the power to act on social or economic issues, what happens when the liberals get into power and enact legislation that is contrary to our own?   Perhaps they pass a law not allowing prayer in schools or a law, which is favorable to some religion other than our own.

What can we do?  What is our defense?

We can no longer claim the government has no authority to act in such a way, because we just used the might of law to enact our own social legislation when we were in power.  And so the federal government continues to grow, at the expense of the rights of the states and the individuals.

I ask you consider also the track record of federal government in social issues.  Do things get better or worse?  Let’s take abortion.  Since the federal government claimed jurisdiction over the issue in 1973, have the number of abortions inn this country increased or decreased?  A silly question I know.  Did it not overturn a number of state laws, including the laws of Virginia, to allow for a far greater number of abortions?

We must strip this power from the federal government and allow the states to decide.  Will abortion still continue?  Yes…I’m certain that a number of states will allow this practice to continue, but at least we can eradicate or vastly reduce this plague in Virginia.

There are a number of otherwise well-meaning social conservatives that will throw the other strains of conservatism aside in order to achieve their social agenda.  Although seemingly well meaning, this line of thinking is dangerous to both the social conservative movement and to freedom and liberty as a whole.

We all have some sort of grand vision for society, but using the might of the federal government to enforce a worldview leads to trouble.  I’d like to see society transformed where violence and profanity are drastically curtailed in the media and the rest of life.  A world without abortion…a world where the family is protected…a world where everyone acts morally and honor God.  A nice vision I think.

But if I use the heavy hand of government to enact such a goal, do I not destroy freedom and create a fascist state?  Some might retort, “Who cares?”  However, what happens when we enact a fascist theocratic state where some faction is in charge? What happens to the protected rights of those people not in power?  Could the Catholics persecute the Protestants?  Or the Protestants persecute the Catholics?  Or how about the Muslims, Jews, or non-believers?

The next thing you know the enemies of the state are quarantined or are even executed in the search for order, uniformity, and stability.  Is this the kind of society you desire?  Alas, as a result of neo-conservatives, both the nation and the conservative movement have been sliding in this direction.  Conservatism can succeed, but, with so many other problems in life, the federal government is the problem, not the solution.

I know the temptation to seek help from the all-powerful federal government, but as citizens in a supposedly free society, we must reject these tactics.  Although we may achieve success via these means, such success will only be temporary.

We will end up yoking ourselves to this totalitarian state and end up begging our masters to promote some sort social order.  Our liberty will be lost and we will have only ourselves to blame.

Note: The following letter was found left behind at a local drinking establishment; the authors’ identity is unknown. It is passed along without comment.

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…” ~ Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies, 1776

Dear Federal Government,

Drop dead.

Excuse us. Some may consider such bluntness to be indecorous, but why beat around the bush? In any case, we’ve been around this bush (Bush?) too many times to count already. It’s time to let you know what we really think of you, what we say behind your back, what we whisper to each other when you leave the room.

We hate you. We want you to drop dead. Or, anyway, to go away and never come back. You are not welcome anymore. We have tolerated you – and we emphasize “tolerated” – for a long time, long after whatever romance there may have been was gone. We can pretend no more. You are disgraceful, boorish, nauseating, corrupt, shameful, arrogant, dishonest, self-serving, parasitic, disgusting, hypocritical, and rotten to the core. You have not even one redeeming quality. There is nothing you offer that we want any longer. We’re not even sure what it is we ever saw in you to begin with.

We suppose you can be forgiven if this letter comes as a shock. “Why,” you say, “what do you mean? I still command great respect and inspire widespread adulation. And I still care about you. Isn’t it obvious?”

It’s true that, in public, we often nod our heads and agree with you, even defer or appear to defer to you. But we assure you that this happens not out of respect; rather, it arises merely from the fact that you have a lot of guns and a bad temper. Inside, we are seething and resentful. Inside, we imagine your demise in the most vivid and gratifying of ways. We may fear your irrational and violent behavior, but we manifestly do not respect or agree with you. We don’t love you. We don’t even like you. (See the part about hate, above.)

At any rate, our revulsion toward you has finally come to outweigh any fear we have of you. We refuse to keep our real feelings in for even one more second. We want you gone from our lives. And we mean completely. Vamoose. Go. Die.

Please understand we aren’t here to argue. No special new subsidy, tax break, or privileged “loophole” is going to sway our opinion or make us change our minds about this. We’ve been there, done that, for too many decades to count now. Likewise, your threats are starting to make us yawn and even laugh. You see, we know all your tricks now. We can see through your lies because we’ve heard them all so many times before. We are fully aware of your true nature, and we see that that nature is radioactive evil, wrapped in a tattered blanket of ignorance, foolishness, and stupidity.

Look, we know it’s only a matter of time anyway. Your dimwittedness, greed, fraudulence, and moral bankruptcy are finally starting to catch up to you. Even your former employees admit as much. Do you remember Paul Craig Roberts, one of your past Treasury officials? Today he says of your latest economy-wrecking and warmongering efforts:

“The world has never seen such total mindlessness. Napoleon’s and Hitler’s marches into Russia were rational acts compared to the mindless idiocy of the United States government.”

Mindless idiocy: We could not have said it better ourselves. Wait, yes, we could have, because we would have also mentioned your meanness and malevolence.

Our state governments are starting to feel the same way about you that we do. Many are openly refusing to obey your so-called “REAL ID” attempt at creating a national “your papers, please” regime of Hitlerian proportions. Some are even starting to make noises about the Tenth Amendment, which reiterates that you aren’t allowed to just do anything you feel like doing. (We are not big fans of our state governments either, but at least they don’t start wars, counterfeit our money, and prop up tyrannies across the globe.)

You see? Look in the mirror for once. The emperor not only hasn’t got any clothes, he’s a quadruple amputee demanding that everyone admire his muscular physique. We don’t know whether to laugh at or feel pity for such a pathetic creature.

In conclusion and just so we’re clear: We’re done. Pack up and get out. Better yet, don’t pack – all that stuff belongs to us in the first place. Just get out. And when you finally, mercifully, do kick the bucket, please make sure it is in some place far away from us, where we won’t have to smell the stench of your hideous, rotting corpse.

Signed,

Every Normal Human Being in America and the Rest of the World

David Bardallis [send him mail] hails from the Glorious Sovereign Republic of Michigan (motto: “Never forget we have all the water!”) and blogs at Suds & Soliloquies.

Copyright © 2009 LewRockwell.com

“For instance, Uncle Sam has become a nanny-state, telling us what we can eat and how old we must be to drink. More than 100 university presidents have called on Washington to reduce the drinking age of 21. Maybe they are right and maybe they are wrong, but this isn’t a job for Congress. It should be the decision of the 50 states, which have very different histories, traditions, and views of such issues.”

“The same goes for the speed limit,” says Barr. “Republican Senator John Warner wants to revive the national 55 mph limit, but why should politicians in Washington decide how fast people can drive in Butte, Montana; Chicago, Illinois; Decatur, Georgia; and Lubbock, Texas? The respective limits should depend on local conditions, and are questions for the states and local communities.”

“Today the national government seeks to run every school system in America,” Barr continues. “Washington has nationalized much of the welfare system. Congress funds everything from left turn lanes to bridges to nowhere across the country. It makes no sense to tax all Americans, ship their money to Washington, deduct a big handling charge, and then have legislators and administrators hand it back—with lots of strings attached.”

“Unfortunately, both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama believe in an all-powerful federal government. While they and other members of Congress act like city councilmen and state legislators, they are failing to deal with national problems,” observes Barr.

“The deficit next year will run a half trillion dollars. The occupation of Iraq continues to drag on. Social Security and Medicare are heading towards financial disaster. The federal government is filled with waste. Our liberties and privacy are under attack. But congressmen and presidents prefer to spend their time on local matters that should be decided by local people.”

“Even if politicians in Washington were competent to manage local affairs, that wouldn’t be their job,” notes Barr. “They don’t know what is best for local communities. At the same time they’ve made a mess of the issues that are their constitutional responsibility. Only by looking beyond the Republicans and Democrats to Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party will we get real change in America.”

If you reflect back on how the institutions of governance grew in America, from 1620 to the present, you will see that National Government grew into its present level without much public support.  The settlements starting in New England, as well as Jamestown, were small and managed more from a town hall perspective than any formalized institution.  Every hamlet, town and county was an almost informal, non-national government.  None of them existed as the means for special interests to capture the loyalty of some inhabitants, nor was there any treasury worth plundering.

They existed mainly for peacekeeping and settling civil disputes.  Town and hamlets wrote their own laws or ordnances to establish behavioral boundaries acceptable to the majority of citizens.  On occasion, when special interests did gain excess power, or criminals were more powerful than the peacekeepers, vigilante groups formed by citizens corrected those conditions.  Each colony acted as its own governing institution as it related to currency, infrastructure and relations with colonies and nations outside of its boundaries.

In every colony, individual freedom, private property and free commerce existed, with the exception of slavery in some of the Southern colonies, introduced by the Crown in Jamestown.  The unification of the thirteen original colonies grew because of the actions of the British, in their moves to reinstate Crown powers where it had all but disappeared through neglect. A Colonial Congress established by representatives was to deal with common colonial causes. As tensions between colonists and King grew, unity increased, until open rebellion began and the Articles of Confederation were adopted.

The Articles provided the official naming of the Union of Colonies, now States, as the United States of America.  The Second Article, again reiterated in the 10th Amendment to America’s second constitution, said; “Every state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

Article III says these states enter into “a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding them to assist each other, against all force offered,” mentioning attacks by trade as well as war. From that point on, the Articles describe what a State may not do in direct dealings with other nations, except in unison as agreed in the Congress.  Appointments and committees, under the guidance of an annually elected President, would manage the National government formed by the Articles. This fit Jefferson’s idea of a political organization national in foreign affairs and non-national in domestic affairs.

Following the successful separation with Britain, and flush with a pride in flag and nation, many notable personages sought an organization both national in foreign affairs as well as national in domestic affairs.  The Federalists used their newly gained respect to call for a new constitution to create a central government, which, though not foreseen by many, would ultimately eclipse the role of state and local governments.

Men like Madison and Jefferson did see the possibilities of centralization of power, and moved quickly to get a commitment to a Bill of Rights appended to the Constitution at the sitting of the first congress.  If you want to know how rapidly power would have moved to the National Government, look at the Sedition Act, passed even before the ink had dried on the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech.  The Federalists ignored the Bill of Rights and the intent of the Constitution.  In 1800, they paid the price and lost their grip on government, appearing later as the new Democratic Party in Jackson’s time.

The Jefferson-Madison Republicans wanted nothing to do with a powerful central, national government, preferring states and counties as the primary seats of government. They knew that special interests and factions would swarm toward a distant government with a growing treasury.

Were they correct?  All you have to do is look closely at our National Government today, with special interests writing laws to suit their own needs, and hoards of citizens with their hands out, and votes promised, for special awards from the treasury.  The Federal Government is now a fully corrupted government serving the interests of the few, paid for by the wealth of the many.

Traditional Republican voters, since the days of Barry Goldwater, have fought for the election of conservative candidates pledged to reverse the direction of the National Government.  Those elected in the 21st century have, for the most part, double-crossed their voting base and joined with the free-spending, high-taxing Democrats who serve the narrow special interests of treasury raiders. The year 2008 may be the conservative’s last chance to turn the tide.

Easier said, but it can be done.  It starts with the new CEO of the Federal Government, the President, telling all those who work for the Executive Branch there will be no more hiring, except for the military.  That means when people die or retire, they will not be replaced by anyone from the outside.  If necessary to replace them, it will be from people already working in other departments of the government, like musical chairs.  That is when you will see impending shrinkage of the bureaucracy.

In addition to that, you eliminate the Cabinet Departments by telling them they may neither hire nor replace at all, ever again, for certain, and if done, heads will roll. Each Cabinet chief comes into the administration for the sole purpose of eliminating the department in, say, four years.  The result is departments will ultimately disappear and have to share necessary functions, if there are any, with the states until they are out of the loop.  This is kind of a Tenth Amendment thing, gradually accomplished by deaths and retirements, and no replacement of those working in the Departments.

Which Departments are we discussing?  Let us begin with the ones we should keep, those organized earliest under our Founding Fathers.  That would be four of the fifteen to remain.  The Departments of Defense (once the War Department), Justice, State and Treasury should stay.  That leaves eleven to eliminate, whose duties are sent back to the people and the states where they belong.

The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation and Veteran’s Affairs.  We should eliminate all of these, perhaps over one Presidential term of four years. The anger at losing these departments, their power and their largesse for special interests, would be so great that the President who carries it off will never get re-elected.

All you have to do is look at the activities of each of those departments and ask yourself if their responsibilities, if even needed, are beyond the capabilities of the people and their states.  In other words, are people at the Federal level more efficient, more in tune with how our nation should work than Americans in a state?  I should not think so!  Basic government is the County, and the states exist to do what is commonly needed by the counties, such as that which they could not do for themselves.  The Federal Government, as it was originally organized, was an association, a union, a confederation of sovereign states that did only what those states were unable to do alone.

The functions acquired by the Federal Government, by adding those departments, took place while the people slept.  If they knew the horrors that would arise as these departments grew and sucked up the people’s private resources, they would have said no.

Look closely at those departments and their functions.  They assume the people and the free market are incapable of discovering the right kinds of energy to use, how best to educate children, or transport goods and people from place to place.  They assume farmers would be lost without the Department of Agriculture, and certainly could not sustain growth if relying only on states or created associations.  Every one of those eleven departments started because politicians believed the people were incapable closer to home.

Some of their functions may have to be shifted to the four remaining departments, such as Homeland Security may have to go totally into the Department of Justice.  Veteran’s Affairs goes to the Defense Department where it belongs.  Much of the rest goes back to the states, and where redundant, they can be eliminated.  This may sound simple and perhaps naïve, because the bureaucrats and politicians who build their personal prosperity on the department programs will scream bloody murder. Further, if the redistribution of income for equal outcome is more important, they will want to keep things as they are.

Once all these functions and programs are shifted closer to the people who vote for those who vote for them, we will see how generous the flow of money.  The Federal Budget will have to be reduced significantly in a manner that leads the way back to the states. The methods of taxing will have to be modified.

It is conceivable that the lower federal take on the income and productivity of private citizens will be so significant as to create a completely new economic boom.  Such a boom will be the fastest way of income redistribution respecting effort and merit, rather than special interest bloc voting.