Yuri N. Maltsev worked as an economist on Mikhail Gorbachev’s economic reform team before defecting to the United States. Thankfully, he managed to immigrate to the United States without stopping in Siberia. Today he teaches economics at Carthage College and is a senior fellow of the Mises Institute. In a recent speech he gave in Florida, which was part of The Mises Circle in Naples, the former Soviet economist explained to the audience that in truth, all governments are socialist. Yes, that’s right…When it comes to governments, it’s only a question of the quantity of their socialist content.

Shortly after the midterm elections last year, columnist Gene DeNardo made a similar point in an article that appeared at NolanChart.com

“Believing that certain forms of the state or certain forms of governing are socialist and certain forms are ‘free’ is erroneous and a bit ridiculous. All governing states are socialist by nature. The state by definition derives its control and power to enforce its monopoly by confiscating and redistributing the resources of its populace. It cannot survive without acting in this manner. While it may not directly control the ‘means of production’, to ensure its survival and growth it will control the necessary proportion of the product of those same productive means.

Attempting to try to ‘unsocialize’ the state is futile. One political party referring to the other as ‘socialist’ is hysterical. All politics that exist within the state monopoly are only variations on the question of who the wealth will come from and where it will go. This has always been the nature of the state.”

But can a government exist that does not confiscate and redistribute the resources of its populace? In principle, I tend to think so, just as there might exist certain forms of voluntary socialism that redistribute without confiscation. In the broadest sense, governments are simply authorities that establish and maintain order, and (hopefully) justice, according to a system of law. If such a government can perform these functions with the unanimous consent of the governed and without redistributing wealth, then it would qualify as a non-socialist government, in my humble opinion.

But unless you’re are dealing with such a non-coercive government that does not redistribute wealth, you are dealing with a socialist government. You may be dealing with a big “S” socialist government that has a complete monopoly over vast territories, spanning multiple time zones, or you may be dealing with a small “s” socialist government in your state, county, city or town. But because almost all governments are based on socialism, Maltsev asserts that they can’t be reformed, “fixed” or ever made to run efficiently the way a business can in the private (voluntary), sector. The closest we’ll ever get to subjecting governments to market discipline, is by containing them, keeping them weak and dividing them up into as many competing jurisdictions as possible.

If we fail to do so and allow the consolidation of power that Jefferson, Madison and other founders feared, the result can be a dystopian nightmare, like the one Yuri Maltsev managed to escape from. On the other hand, if we succeed in doing so, we may force socialist governments in the U.S. to compete with each other, resulting in a greater number of freer and more prosperous political societies. Such an arrangement is called federalism, and I believe that it would naturally tend to prevent big “S” socialism from becoming a permanent feature of the federal government and gradually diminish small “s” socialism among the several states, as long as Americans remain free to move from one state to another.

Listening to Yuri N. Maltsev’s speech validated my belief that the federal government cannot be “fixed”. It also reinforced my conviction that Americans in one state shouldn’t be in the business of arguing with people of other states, about just how much socialism they ought to embrace or reject. Every state has a different level of acceptable socialism, but they are all socialist to one degree or another.

Now I’m not saying Americans residing in different states shouldn’t dialog with each other or coordinate their efforts when it’s mutually advantageous. But when more populous states choose to use their disproportionate influence in Congress or their greater number of electoral votes to elect a president who they know will usurp the authority of the states and micromanage their affairs, it violates the Constitution and is a recipe for political strife and disunion.

The Constitution authorizes a federal government of strictly limited powers, which are to be exercised for a few, carefully defined purposes. And both elected representatives and a the people the are supposed to represent, need to be reminded that the Constitution is a compact among the states, which are supposed to function as fifty competing laboratories of liberty, as it were.

Late one evening, a DEA agent shows up on at the doorstep of a farmhouse in south central Kentucky. He pounds on the door impatiently, waits about 15 seconds and pounds again. Growing more agitated, he shakes the screen door, turns in a circle and then gives the door a couple more good, hard raps.

Finally, a grizzled old farmer opens the door and peers into twilight.

“Sorry to keep ya waitin’. Was just fixin’ to eat some supper. How kin I hep, ya?”

The agent stands tall and straight and  in his  most official voice declares, “I’m Agent Murdoch, DEA. I’m here to inspect your fields to make sure there are no illegal drugs growing on this property,” He pauses a moment with an air of gravity.  “I’m not asking permission. Just letting you know.”

The old farmer steps out onto the porch as the rickety screen door clatters closed behind him. He hitches up his coveralls and peers quizzically at the agent, absentmindedly brushing a fly away from his forehead.

“I reckon that’ll be jist fine,” he says. “But I’ll just warn ya – ya don’t want to go into the west field over yonder,” he said, pointing to an old rusty gate silhouetted in the setting sun.

The agent bristles, reaches into his suit coat pocket and whips out a badge.

“You see this old-timer? It says DEA. That means I can go anyplace I damn well please. And  I can do anything I damn well please. I have the authority. Do you understand me?”

The old farmer, simply shrugs and cocks one busy, old eyebrow.

“Suit yeer-self, son.”

The agent quickly strides across a dusty driveway and makes his way through the creaky gate, heading  into the west field. The farmer follows and leans nonchalantly against a fence post next to the gate, gnawing on a toothpick.

The fed makes it about half way across the field when Roscoe, a massive red bull, suddenly charges out of a treeline near the back of the field. The agent, screams in horror and turns, hightailing it toward the gate. But it quickly becomes clear he’ll never make it. The 2,000 pound animal quickly closes the gap between itself and the agent.

Moments before a certain goring, the farmer cups his hands around his mouth and yells, “Show him yer badge! Show him yer badge!”

***
I respect authority.

But when an individual or institution takes its authority beyond prescribed limits, it’s clear in my mind that we have the right to resist.

Most people in the United States seem to hold the federal government in awe. It goes beyond respect into what I would call an unwarranted reverence. Yes, we should respect legitimate authority. But when the feds exercise power not granted by the Constitution, citizens have a right and duty to stand against it. We’re not talking rebellion against legitimate authority. We are talking about standing firm against unwarranted, unconstitutional and illegal acts.

And we can stand against it – through our state governments.

James Madison understood the power of the states and the people, and he envisioned it a check on overreaching federal power. When the states band together and stand against unconstitutional overreach, they become a rampaging bull. And no federal badge can stop it.

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. – James Madison, Federalist 46

Introduction

One of the most common arguments against nullification has to do with anarchy and the rule of law.  The horrified central planner exclaims, “Nullification!  We can’t have that in a lawful society.  That would lead to anarchy!”.  The nullifier then responds, “No.  You’re confused.  Anarchy is when the central government usurps a power not granted by the Constitution.  Nullification is how we restore order.”

It will come as no surprise that I am sympathetic to the nullifier’s argument in this hypothetical exchange.  I recognize, though, that this argument has the same intellectual depth as two school boys pointing their fingers at each other, saying, “He started it!”.  Without engaging in a bit of additional thought, many people may be tempted to agree with the central planner in the exchange above.  Let us, then, examine the claim.  Does nullification lead to anarchy?

Analysis

First a few assumptions

• The Supreme Court can err in its interpretation of the Constitution.
• Any of the states can err in its interpretation of the Constitution.
• Nullification is not permanent.  Eventually, either the state will lose its will to resist, or pressure on the central government from a large number of states will cause an Unconstitutional law to be repealed.
• A large portion of the states are extremely unlikely to simultaneously err by all nullifying the same Constitutional law.

Now, for any power, the central government can have two positions.  The central government either claims authority to exercise the power or it doesn’t.  Similarly, for any power which the central government claims the authority to exercise, each of the states can be nullifying or declining to nullify.   So we need to compare the hypothetical state of affairs in these scenarios when nullification is “allowed” and when nullification is not “allowed”.  Which situation is more conducive to the rule of law?

According to Hayek, in “The Road to Serfdom”, a definition for “rule of law” has to do with the predictibility of the government’s actions.  If the government’s actions are predictible, the rule of law is in force.  If the government’s actions are arbitrary, the rule of law is not in force.  We will use this understanding of the “rule of law” for our analysis.

Scenario A: The central government does not claim a power.  Conveniently, we can dispose of this one quickly.  Nullification is irrelevant to this scenario.

Scenario B: The central government claims a power.  All states decline to nullify.  In this scenario, again, it doesn’t matter if nullification is “allowed”.

Scenario C: The central government claims a power.  One or more states would choose to nullify.  This scenario needs to be analyzed.

Scenario C.1: We look first at the case where nullification is disallowed.  If nullification is disallowed, the Constitutional interpretation is done solely by the Supreme Court and is subject to error.  If the Supreme Court does not err, all is well.  If the Supreme Court errs, there is no recourse.  The Constitution says one thing, but the law being enforced says something else.  Over time, interpretation of the Constitution comes to include any meaning which an imaginative attorney can persuade five out of nine justices to agree to.   Additionally, as the years pass, errors compound.  The difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says gets progressively bigger.  The rule of law degrades over time.

Scenario C.2: Now we look at the case where nullification is allowed.  This is the most complex analysis.

With the central government claiming a power, it can be correct or in error.  With one or more states nullifying, they can also be correct or in error.  Since we know that the states and the central government are in disagreement, there are only two cases to examine.  If the central government is correct, the nullifying state(s) is/are in error.  If the central government is in error, the nullifying state(s) is/are correct.

If the court correctly claims a power, a state may err and decide to nullify.  This is the scenario that the central planner in our opening argument was so worried about, so we will need to look carefully.  In actuality, what happens over a long period of time?  As we saw by the Patriot Act, the federal government is patient.  The Patriot Act was drafted in 1995 in response to the Oklahoma City bombing, then sat on a shelf just waiting for the “right time” to be introduced.  Along came 9/11 and in it went.  Similarly, if a small number of states incorrectly nullify a Constitutional power, they are unlikely to be able to maintain resistance over long periods of time.  Eventually, the state politicians will change, and the federal government will pounce on the opportunity to eliminate the erroneous nullification.

On the other hand, if the court incorrectly claims a power, this would be met with resistance from a large number of states.  Over time, this resistance would force the federal government to repeal the Unconstitutional law and the tendency for errors to compound over time would be reduced.  Over time, the difference between what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court says it says would be much less than in the “no nullification” scenario.  Over long periods of time, in this case the Constitution is interpreted to mean what the Supreme Court and 50 states all agree that it means.

Conclusion

So what we see is that it really doesn’t matter, “who started it”.  In the “no nullification” scenario, interpretation of the Constitution is limited by the imagination and eloquence of the attorney who solicits five out of nine votes.  In the nullification scenario, interpretation of the Constitution is limited to what the Supreme Court and 50 states agree to.  Therefore, the interpretation of the Constitution in the “no nullification” scenario is far more error-prone and disruptive to the rule of law.  Contrarily, the scenarios with nullification have error correction built in.  We can now say that the central planner in our opening argument was simply mistaken.  Nullification does not lead to anarchy.   In fact, over the years, nullification actually protects the rule of law by stabilizing Constitutional interpretation.

Steve Palmer [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.

If I were to ask, “What is Freedom?”, each of us would probably come up with a personal definition.  Our founding fathers would probably have defined Freedom as the absence of external coercion.  You notice that I said “external” coercion.  Our founders understood that moral character and righteousness were essential elements of self-governance.  While crafting a document that guaranteed the absence of external coercion, they demanded of themselves and expected of us the “internal coercion” that comes from a personal moral compass, a conscience.  The Constitution removed the external coercion that is necessarily part of an oppressive government.  The Constitutional Republic it defined can only endure over time if the citizens are governed by an internal morality that demands honesty, character, and charity in their interactions among themselves.

Without question, the disintegration of the moral basis for government is responsible for the progressive and relentless loss of our individual Liberties.  We are ruled, not governed, by a gang of interchangeable thieves and liars who sacrifice principle for political expediency and run for office for personal gain.  Our federal government disregards the Constitution, sacrifices individual liberties, and ignores citizens who demonstrate peacefully for a redress of grievances.

Now, we gather in groups and go to meetings to complain about legislation that steals our liberty and to condemn the greed and corruption that infests the halls of government.  We march in Washington to protest a federal bureaucracy in which faceless, unelected pencil pushers create and fund rules, regulations, and entitlement programs whose purpose is to buy the votes necessary to keep the incumbents in power.

Where were we when the intellectual elitists and their power-hungry progressive friends used subterfuge and lies to circumvent the principles of the Constitution in order to undermine the dignity and sanctity of the individual?  Where were we when they enacted legislation that permits our government to steal private property from one citizen and give it to another based on the deception called social justice?  And where were we when they turned “We the People” into the collective “We” instead of individual free citizens of a great nation?

In 1808, John Adams said, “When public virtue is gone, when the national spirit is fled . . the republic is lost in essence, though it may still exist in form.”

Sadly, our nation as it exists today, is a flimsy shroud that barely conceals the moral emptiness inside.  We can no longer claim to be the Constitutional Republic that our founders gave to us and that generations of proud Americans fought to protect.

While we closed our minds in a state of ignorance, men motivated by greed and a lust for power commandeered the ship of state.  While we satisfied our personal cravings for luxury and ease, the moral certainties of right and wrong became relative and elastic.  And while our current leaders reject the undeniable truth of American excellence, the spirit and sovereignty of our nation is purposely being eroded to achieve their global agenda.

The Constitution, my fellow citizens, has not failed us.

Rather it is we who have failed the Constitution.

I am very worried about the future of our nation.  I am worried that our children will not have the opportunity to prosper that we all had.

I am afraid that on some day like today twenty years from now, a man just like me will stand in front of a group like you and say, “And there arose in America a generation that knew not freedom.”

Is that slow descent from freedom to slavery acceptable to any of you?

That is why we must rekindle both in ourselves and in others a passion for the Constitution and the individual freedom that it guarantees to each of us.

That, my fellow patriots, is what I demand of you.

If our nation is to survive, each of you must become a missionary for the Constitution and for Liberty.  Tell the story of our nation to your family and to your neighbors.  Most importantly, teach your children and grandchildren about the greatness of America.  Talk to them about the Constitution and the men and women who sacrificed everything so that we can live in freedom.

Hold them in your arms and say to them, “This is the Constitution that Thomas Jefferson gave to me so that each citizen of our great nation can live in Freedom.  This is the Constitution that George Washington gave to me after I spent the winter with him in Valley Forge, after I crossed the icy Delaware River on Christmas eve and defeated General Cornwallis at Yorktown to win our freedom from tyranny and oppression.”

The price of our failure will be paid for by the slavery of future generations.

Dr. Dan Eichenbaum is a practicing ophthalmologist in Murphy, North Carolina, and a founder of the Cherokee County 9-12 Project. Visit his website at http://drdansfreedomforum.com/

Copyright 2010 Dan Eichenbaum

Are the members of the 10th Amendment efforts supporting federalism or states’ rights? Should we link ourselves to John C. Calhoun and the notion of secessionism and abolishment or to restoration and original meaning as intended during the formation of our country? Do we deny the power of the federal government or simply stand against federal usurpation beyond their supreme authority under the U.S. Constitution? Is it our goal to require states to resume their power and authority afforded them in the protection of people’s rights to life, liberty, and property or to merely resist law and threaten to walk away if we are not given our way?

Last year a group of concerned citizens gathered to form a core group focused on state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Among the many agenda items was the naming of the group. Most were moved to create a name that included states’ rights. Initially my stance was against the name, historically states’ rights does not have the longevity or overall meaning encompassing our founders’ debate over the concept of federalism.

Most in the group were emotionally engaged by using the term states’ rights and I rationalized a compromise early would allow opportunity for clarification as we moved forward. It was an error on my part and it is time to correct the error as the enemies of the 10th Amendment too easily misdirect our debate away from federalism and into areas such as secession and racism.

Foundationally, states don’t have rights as a government, states have power. Power at the federal and state level is derived from the consent of the governed, the people, who do have rights our governing agreements were designed to protect. Inspired by careful historical study, years of debate, considerations, and the declarations of colonies, towns, and associations (prior to July of 1776) the fundamental rights of the people were articulated in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Emphasis added)

These words guided the early efforts in developing state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation. During the war and the years following its end many colonists realized the Articles of Confederation were inadequate or destructive to the ends of protecting the people under the general government. The initial confederation was simply not strong enough, though many would applaud that as a strength, due to the fear a strong federal government would eventually usurp the self-governing right of the people under their state constitutions (social compacts) subverting states’ power.

The Montesquieu concept of federalism, rejected when John Adams proposed it as a federal structure in 1776, was gaining favor as the states, under the Articles of Confederation, were moving toward a destructive end. Massachusetts’s constitution was framed under the concept and was a solid example of success. With an eye toward altering the federal agreement initially, the Constitutional Convention ( held in 1787) closed its doors so honest, heated debate could allow those assembled unfettered consideration of plans calling for the abolishing of the Articles and the creation of a new federal constitution aimed at delivering better safety and happiness for the people in all states.

Federalism was at the heart of these debates. When they concluded there were many learned, patriotic members who were convinced the constitution, sent to the states for ratifying debates and votes, went too far even if the original agreement did not go far enough.

If the great fear and prediction of these men – that the general government would entirely subvert the state governments, with a consequent loss of personal freedom – has not been realized, it will nevertheless be seen in the following pages that many of their objections were embodied in the future amendments, and the disregard of others has occasioned some of our most serious national questions. (Paul Leicester Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, 1888, p. vii) (Emphasis added)

Supporting the stronger approach for a general government were Hamilton, Madison, Washington, Franklin, John Jay, and other respected patriots. Opposing the stronger approach, out of fear federalism would be lost to nationalism, were Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and still more whose names have been lost to our modern knowledge yet men highly respected in these formative times.

Writing under the title of “An American Citizen” Tench Coxe produced four letters which were among the first to be published in support of the constitution. His letters were aimed at citizens of Philadelphia with the same purpose as the better known Federalist Papers aimed at the citizens of New York during the time the U.S. Constitution had been submitted to each state for consideration. He was a member of the Annapolis Convention as well as the Continental Congress, and had written several pamphlets focused on the finance and commerce of the United States. He believed bicameral protection would guard against the usurpation of states’ powers. Speaking of senators he wrote;

They will also feel a considerable check from the constitutional powers of the state legislatures, whose rights they will not be disposed to infringe, since they are the bodies to which they owe their existence, and are moreover to remain the immediate guardians of the people. (Letter Number II, On the safety of the people, from the restraints imposed upon the Senate, Sep. 17, 1787, Quoted from Paul Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, 1888, p.140) (Emphasis added)

Here Mr. Coxe mentions the rights of states yet his main focus is on the constitutional powers reserved to the states under the proposed federal constitution. In referencing ‘whose rights’ it is likely the rights of citizens within the state he was considering as this was the common thought of the times, people have rights while government has power, whether discussing federal or state government. His comments surrounding a call for a bill of rights were focused on his (and others) belief a federal level bill of rights was unnecessary and would create confusions of power since state constitutions were designed for the daily protection of the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and property. Listen to the explanation of this guardianship through proper implementation of the concept of separation of powers combined with checks and balances (part of the Montesquieu concept referenced above);

Besides the securities for the liberties of the people arising out of the federal government, they are guarded by their state constitutions, and by the nature of things in the separate states. The Governor or President in each commonwealth, the Councils, Senates, Assemblies, Judges, Sheriffs, Grand and Petit Juries, Officers of Militia…and many other officers of power and influence, will still be chosen within each state, without any possible interference of the federal government. The separate states will also choose all the members of the legislative and executive branches of the United States…Whether a majority of the Senate, each of whom will be chosen by the legislature of a free, sovereign and independent state, without any stipulation in favour of wealth or the contemptible distinctions of birth or rank, and who will be closely observed by the state legislatures, can destroy our liberties, controuled (sic) as they are too by the house of representatives? or whether a temporary, limited, executive officer, watched by the federal Representatives, by the Senate, by the state legislatures, by his personal enemies among the people of his own state, by the jealousy of the people of rival states, and by the whole of the people of the Union, can ever endanger our Freedom. (Ibid, p. 152-153)(Emphasis added)

Discussing the securities for people’s liberties was of fundamental meaning. The reason societies enter social compacts is for the unified protection of people’s rights against other societies that eye those rights as their own. We would not constitutionally align with each other if we were all of the virtuous nature of never interfering with one another’s life, liberty, and property. We would live, commercially interact, and socialize in the security of freedom without government. Yet we know this is not the nature of humanity. Since it is not in our nature to live as angels we must suffer to attempt governing with the least impact on our daily lives, at least that was the initial goals of our founders under the U.S. Constitution when it came to the federal or general government and its interaction with the states.

We the People of the United States,

1. in Order to form a more perfect Union,
2. establish Justice,
3. insure domestic Tranquility,
4. provide for the common defence,
5. promote the general Welfare,
6. and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Preamble)

Opponents felt even with the safeguards Coxe saw so clearly there were too many ways the devilish side of mankind could still interfere by usurping power and subjugating states and people. Factional interference was a key concern (which we see today at the root of the breakdown in the checks and balance system initially implemented) despite the Bill of Rights opponents fought to have included. It is interesting the historical debate over federalism led, in fact, to the first two major parties (another word for faction or special interest group) and the process of elections was altered early on with the ratification of the 12th Amendment.

One opponent, George Mason, was standing against the constitution at the risk of losing his long standing friendship with many including his neighbor, George Washington. Washington and Mason worked closely in organizing the non-importation efforts during the resistance to the Townshend Acts in the 1760s, were instrumental in writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights in the 1770s, and now in the late 1780s their friendship would be strained over Mason’s insistence without a bill of rights and stronger efforts to end slavery Virginia should not ratify the proposed document. It was his pen that is credited with much of the content of Bill of Rights based largely on his Virginia Declaration of Rights, which he is given large credit for in addition to credit for much of the Constitution of Virginia. On October 7th, 1787 he sent a letter to Washington outlining his objections as he stated, “You will readily observe, that my objections are not numerous…though in my mind some of them are capital ones.” Nor could Richard Henry Lee who felt the general government controlled too much power of the purse and sword to effectively protect the state powers and citizen rights from federal usurpation.

The debate over federalism would be calmed during the first meeting of the new Congress of the United States where James Madison led an effort to review over 200 proposed amendments, forwarded 12 amendments to the states for ratification, and eventually secured 10 new amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Key to the overall success of these 10 amendments were the final two. These were considered by Thomas Jefferson and others to be the very foundation for future success of the union formed under the U.S. Constitution. These foundational amendments are;

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

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.

As the new country began to operate under the guidelines set forth many challenges would occur keeping the debate of federalism alive. The Aliens and Sedition Acts would lead to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions creating what is known today as the Principles of ’98. Jefferson’s embargo of 1807 to 1809 led New England states to band together and when the federal courts declared the embargo constitutional the Massachusetts assembly challenge the ruling. The War of 1812 would cause Connecticut and Massachusetts to refuse to send their militias as they believed the federal government acted unconstitutionally despite all three federal branches claiming their actions were constitutional.

So went the struggles of power between the federal and state governments with the inherent strength of checks and balances and the separation of powers.

According to Professor Eugene Hickok, the idea of states’ rights came much later, during the Nullification Crisis. Centered around the crisis was the issue of slavery and the improper treatment of South Carolina and other southern states at the hands of merchant concerns of the northern states. John Calhoun resigned the Vice-Presidency of the United States over a dispute with President Andrew Jackson.

The dispute centered on tariffs in amounts up to 50% on European goods. Calhoun worked on the “South Carolina Exposition and Protest” secretly while serving under John Q. Adams as vice-president. The resolution focused on the protest of South Carolina yet never passed as the assembly chose to wait for the new president, Jackson, to take office since they believed he would remove the tariffs. Hickok writes, “[b]ut it was widely distributed and read and became the conceptual and philosophical basis for the idea of nullification and “states’ rights” in the years leading up to the Civil War.” (Why States? The Challenge of Federalism, 2007, p. 44)

It is from this beginning history of state’s rights our opponents to federalism, state’s powers, and the duty of all those taking an oath to uphold our constitution like to point to. The effort is to easily paint those supporting our 10th Amendment as people who merely want to return to the days of slavery, separation, elitism, and turmoil. This is, in part, the fault of those of us involved in today’s efforts. We too easily use the label of states’ rights in defining our efforts when federalism or states’ power is more accurate and harder for our opponents to attack in an easy manner with history to back up their claims.

Members of the 10th Amendment effort support federalism. We must understand states’ don’t have rights but an obligation to use their governing power to defend their citizens’ rights whenever federal power oversteps its enumerated obligations. We are not secessionist, nor are we abolitionists but rather restorationists devoted to our original meaning and the foundational strength of the 9th and 10th Amendments combined with an acceptance of personal responsibility.

We honor the federal laws as supreme laws of the land when they are pursuant to, and in keeping with, the U.S. Constitution while we oppose all efforts for federal laws and mandates beyond their granted powers no matter what moral clothing they are dressed in. Unconstitutional law, even if clothed in good intention, is still bad law and the states are obligated to check it, and declare it as such. If an unconstitutional law is so universally good as to benefit the general welfare of all citizens in all states let the processes of Article V be invoked. Until such time we stand by the duty of states’ powers to protect us for many unconstitutional laws and mandates that began with good intentions have crippled our economy and usurped authority far beyond original meaning.

Let every member of every organization supporting state sovereignty and federalism cleanse the language so our opponents cannot easily attack the wrong target. Should they target federalism and the original meaning we can defeat them with truth. Freedom is not outdated, federal government is an agreement among the people of different sovereign states, the 10th Amendment has never been repealed, and virtue is still necessary for securing our posterity’s future rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Gary Wood is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. He works with the Utah 912 States’ Rights Coalition and Hosts March of Liberty Radio every Saturday and Sunday evening at 7pm EST on Blog Talk Radio. He is a lifetime member of the VFW among other groups but more important to him is his title of grandpa. “According to Thomas Jefferson the 10th Amendment is keystone to our Constitution. We must restore the keystone so we can secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, a goal of our Founders and a goal we must still strive to achieve.”

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

In Patrick Henry’s immortal “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech, he said, “[I]t is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth.” Never have Henry’s words been truer than they are today. For too long, good men have turned a blind eye to the obvious reality that America’s Ship of State has swerved significantly off course. In fact, it is no hyperbole to say that America’s Ship of State is completely rudderless and, absent a speedy course correction, seems destined to crash against the rocks of oppression and economic ruin in the very near future. For anyone willing to open their eyes, the manifestations of America’s almost-certain collision with history are everywhere.

America’s Liberty Ship is dependent upon the twin mainsails of Morality and Constitutional Government to stay on course. It is an irrefutable and irreversible law that these twin sails are indissolubly linked. We cannot have one without the other. America’s founders clearly understood this.

For example, our second President, John Adams, said, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Samuel Adams (called the “Father of the American Revolution”) said, “He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man . . . The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.”

Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third President) said, “Self-love . . . is the sole antagonist of virtue, leading us constantly by our propensities to self-gratification in violation of our moral duties to others.”

Jefferson also said, “[If a] people [are] so demoralized and depraved as to be incapable of exercising a wholesome control, their reformation [must] be taken up ab incunabulis [from the beginning]. Their minds [must] be informed by education what is right and what wrong, [must] be encouraged in habits of virtue and deterred from those of vice by the dread of punishments, proportioned indeed, but irremissible; in all cases, to follow truth as the only safe guide, and to eschew error, which bewilders us in one false consequence after another in endless succession. These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure of order and good government.”

Our first President, George Washington (called the “Father of his Country”), said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.”

And to quote Patrick Henry again, “Bad men cannot make good citizens . . . A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”

Yet, what do we see taking place all over America–including in the halls of government, the boardrooms of business, and the sanctuaries of churches? An almost complete and total breakdown of morality. And by a breakdown of morality, I am referring to much more than sexual immorality.

Morality demands honesty and equity in judgment. Morality is selfless. Morality is humble. Morality is jealous over truth and justice. Morality would never jeopardize the future on the altar of the present. Morality does not place personal advancement above principle. Morality respects its heritage and honors its ancestors. And Morality gladly submits to lawful authority, especially divine authority.

But compare basic morality to the modus operandi of today’s governments, businesses, and churches. Instead of truth and moral principles, we find people who are almost totally absorbed by a culture of deceit, selfishness, ambition, and greed. Rightly does the Scripture say, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” (I Timothy 6:10) Of more than one church or nonprofit ministry leader could it be said, “He doesn’t let his Christianity get in the way of his business.” Ditto for many so-called Christian businessmen and politicians. In fact, a good many religious leaders and churchmen today would not take a backseat to the most greedy, corrupt politician, or shady businessman that could be found.

Sunday-by-Sunday, pastors prostitute themselves to wealthy contributors, community leaders, or politicians. Day-by-day, unscrupulous bankers and businessmen give the shaft to honest, hardworking Americans. And almost hour-by-hour, politicians sell their souls to the highest bidder–even if that bidder represents values and principles that would destroy freedom and liberty in our land.

How is it that pastors are unwilling to educate themselves (and their congregants) about the dangers and pitfalls to which America’s leaders are subjecting us? How is it that businessmen will smugly look the other way as their practices advance the causes of our enemies and weaken our own country? How is it that politicians will allow themselves to be corrupted, not only by evil forces from within America, but also by devilish forces from alien powers?

As a result of this total breakdown of basic morality in virtually every distinguished element within the American framework, constitutional governance is also virtually nonexistent. Adams was right: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral . . . people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

America’s political officeholders routinely ignore their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution. Routinely! Many have never read the Constitution, or if they have, they desire neither to understand nor to obey it. And even worse is the fact that most Americans (including America’s spiritual leaders) seem totally unbothered by it all. As long as their favorite politician, political party, or personal cause benefits, they could not care less whether the Constitution is followed or not. More than 50 years of moral relativism has now reached almost total and complete social saturation.

If I’m a Republican, it doesn’t matter if the Constitution is followed as long as Republicans win elections. And Democrats behave the same way. “As long as my party wins, who cares about the Constitution, honesty, or truth?” is the attitude of many politically involved Americans–including many Christian Americans.

Democrats don’t care if Bill Clinton or Barack Obama lies, and Republicans don’t care if George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush lies. The only time we care about someone lying is when it’s the person from the “other” party. If the “other” party promotes evil, we are enraged, but when “our” party promotes evil, we sit on our anatomical posteriors in complete silence and with full approbation.

And this is the bottom line: because We the People have lost our morality and fidelity to constitutional government, we have countless conscienceless criminals located at virtually every level in and out of the federal government (political party notwithstanding) that are up to their necks in total and absolute EVIL! I mean down-in-the-gutter, Genghis Khan-type evil. I’m talking about drug running, kidnappings, sexual exploitations, assassinations, family ruinations, illegal imprisonments, torture, and mass murder. If they desire it, they do it (or hire/order it done). Because there is no moral compass guiding our churches and businesses, there is no moral compass guiding those Machiavellians in Washington, D.C. After all, where do all these politicians, bureaucrats, blood-merchants, and mercenaries come from, if not from within our own social and religious establishments?

Until we wake up to the fact that our country, our Constitution, our liberties, and our future are up against evil–PURE, UNADULTERATED EVIL–we are never going to be able to muster the dedication and resolve required to turn this Ship of State around. Until we get our heads out of the sand and start seeing things as they are (and not as the national news media wants us to see them), until we are willing to stop indulging in the illusions of hope, and until we stop shutting our eyes against a painful truth, it will not matter to a tinker’s dam who we elect or which party is in power. Folks, wake up to it: WE ARE FIGHTING AN EVIL SYSTEM!! And there is nothing that the people who are caught up in this evil system will not do. Nothing! They will steal; they will lie; they will cheat; they will kill; they will rape; they will pillage; they will plunder; they will do ANYTHING they think is necessary to fulfill their evil machinations.

Setting our Ship of State aright starts with We the People returning to the basic, moral laws of right and wrong. Whether it is business, religion, or politics, right is right and wrong is wrong! (And one does not have to be a born-again Christian to know right from wrong: anyone who understands and respects the principles of Natural Law can and will be an ally in the fight for right. In fact, sometimes our enemies come from within our family–even the family of faith. See Matthew 10:36.) It means to stop covering for evildoers, whether that person belongs to our own political party or even our own family. It means to stop living for personal gain and advancement. It means being honest and demanding honesty in others. It means elevating truth to a position above expediency. It means acknowledging that there is a Supreme Authority to which all men must submit–and I’m not referring to the US Supreme Court.

America’s Ship of State is currently rudderless. And as long as we are expecting someone in Washington, D.C., to fix the problem, we will continue to be lost–adrift in a sea of evil and criminality. To get America’s Ship of State back on course, you and I must get back on course. And it starts by being willing to OPEN OUR EYES TO PAINFUL TRUTH.

Chuck Baldwin is a radio broadcaster, syndicated columnist, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the Constitution Party’s Nominee for president in 2008. Visit his website at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Copyright © 2010 Chuck Baldwin

After my latest article, Our Dead Constitution, was released, I received much response, many from those who understood and agreed, and some by those who were opposed to my statement, “Our constitution is dead.” This leads me to reasonably believe that many of us need to be educated about what a constitution actually is before constitutional law and freedom can be restored throughout the states.

1. A constitution does not create freedom. A constitution is created only to protect and secure freedom which already exists, through forms, structure and limitations of government. This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if one’s perspective about the U.S. Constitution is that it statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I could understand how he would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is dead. To the contrary, we know that freedom exists in a state of nature, created by God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These natural laws and rights never die. They existed prior to 1787 and they will exist after we are gone. Thus, a distinction must be made between natural freedom (which never dies) and a constitution (which can die).

2. A constitution may be worthless to secure freedom. History proves this–even America’s history. A constitution rests upon a serious distrust of human nature, and simultaneously upon the skeptical and temporary trust placed in delegated power, which supposedly will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” James Madison, Federalist Paper (FP) 46. These principles determine the constitution’s nature, character, form, and function. This necessarily means that a constitution itself is to be contrasted to the eternal principles that formed the constitution, and where government does not conform its actions and intentions to the principles of the constitution, the constitution itself is practically meaningless and dead. American jurist, William Rawle, expresses the same: “By a constitution we mean the principles on which a government is formed and conducted.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2.

That our government must conform its actions and intentions to these principles is confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, by those who formed our constitutions, and by those who helped form the very fundamental thoughts of American jurisprudence: (1) “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). (2) “[N]o free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but…by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Benjamin Kidd, Principles of Western Civilisation, citing Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776, (London, The Macmillan Co., 1902), 511. (3) “Once the principles of government are corrupted, the very best laws become bad and turn against the [people of the] state.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 116.

Thus, a maxim must be admitted: where the principles of freedom are abandoned, the constitution no longer serves its constituted purpose; that is, to limit the government as the consent of the governed demanded at its creation. And once the constituted purposes and principles are abandoned, how could it be argued that the constitution has life? Is the form (the constitution) greater than the substance (the principles)? Certainly not.

3. When a government breaches its limitations placed upon it by a constitution, (a) the government agent loses its trust to rule, (b) the powers delegated to it are reverted back to the creators of the constitution, and (c) the constitution becomes non-binding on those who created it. This is the natural law concept of “the consent of the government,” as expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is further a concept regarding the rights of the parties who enter into a compact. As noted by our founders, we do not normally exercise this natural and compact right over “light and transient causes,” but in cases where a “long train of abuses” are evident. European forefather, Hugo Grotius, recognizes that when a government contradicts the principles that created its power, that creation (i.e. kingdom/constitution) dies and the people have the right to institute new government:

“[I]f the king act, with a really hostile mind, with a new to the destruction of the whole people…that the kingdom is forfeited; for the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together.” Hugo Grotius and William Whewell, trans., Hugo Grotius on the Rights of War and Peace, Book II, (Cambridge: University Press, 1853), 57–58.

A constitution that has been continually breached by the government is no longer a constitution at all, because the very purpose of a constitution is to limit the government by the will of the people who created it. Thus, a people who continually live under an abandoned constitution do not live under a constitution at all; but rather, they live in voluntary slavery, and the constitution is dead to those people and that government. It is literally time “to alter or to abolish” that constitution before the people’s lack of resistance is deemed to be “the consent of the governed.” (See, Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 185. “[T]o conquer [the existing constitution’s] will, so as to rest the right on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and cessation of all opposition.”)

4. Particular to the United States, the U.S. Constitution was voluntarily formed as a compact by existing sovereign states with existing state constitutions. See FP 39. Despite the deceptive proposition that the States were created by Congress, the States existed prior to and independent of any Congress, as confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which, by the way, was not overturned by any subsequent legal action of the states). “The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 31. And, “Each State, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.” James Madison, FP 39.

Today, there is a fraudulent notion in America which places the U.S. Constitution above the importance and relevance of the state constitutions and state sovereignty, despite the fact that we were told (in efforts to get us to ratify the U.S. Constitution) that “the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 32. The authoritative advocates of the U.S. Constitution confirm that even with the U.S. Constitution ratified or with the U.S. Constitution dissolved, the states would have their own constitutions to protect freedom and secure the blessings of liberty within that state.

It was even proposed during the 1780s that instead of one confederacy being created through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, several confederacies be ratified instead. See FP 2. So, it cannot be accurately stated that the U.S. Constitution was the sole form of convenience of the states. The U.S. Constitution was in fact an “experiment” of union, which admittedly may not work. James Madison, FP 14. Many notable American patriots, of course, (prophetically and correctly) believed the U.S. Constitution would in time, by constitutional construction, become destructive to the natural rights and sovereignty of the people of the states. Even pro-U.S. Constitution advocates warned us of the tyrannical tendency of central governments and implored the State governments to “afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 28.

Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution no more creates freedom than any other government creates freedom; and that the U.S. Constitution was simply a union of states for very limited purposes, all of which were and can be handled by the states themselves without the existence of the U.S. Constitution or federal government.

5. Constitutions can be destructive to freedom where the document itself is used against the people. Montesquieu expounded upon this, as I cited in, Our Dead Constitution. If you disagree, pray tell, how is it that Congress can regulate virtually anything it desires under the Commerce Clause of the constitution? How can the United States Supreme Court “constitutionally” uphold those unconstitutional acts by its rulings, which are supposedly made impartially “according to the rules of the Constitution” (FP 39)? How can the bill of rights be used against the retained powers and sovereignty of the states, when the U.S. Constitution was never intended to limit the states whatsoever? How can a federation be turned into a nation without the consent of the people? How can the first amendment, designed to restrict the federal government in all regards (“Congress shall make no law…”), be used to not only make law through the federal courts but also restrict individuals and states from exercising their natural rights within their own jurisdictions?

How can the constitutional limitations of the federal courts to apply the Supreme Law of the Land be used to justify “federal supremacy” in un-enumerated powers over the states, contrary to the principles of the constitution? How can the constitution’s general welfare clause be a legal justification to the federal government socializing healthcare, economics, banks, manufacturing, and education, despite the clear intention of the ratifiers to the contrary? How can Congress create a fiat money system without any constitutional power whatsoever to do so? How can the President engage in an eight year war with no declaration from Congress? How can Obama supposedly not be eligible to be President while absolutely no one in the federal system cares? You call that a constitution alive and well!? I could go on and on, as many authors have already well documented for generations now. The long train of abuses is clear: the constitution has been and is being used every day against the freedoms and rights it is supposed to protect and against the principles and trust that created it.

6. Constitutions can be dissolved by those who created it. Our Declaration of Independence confirms this natural right, which is inherent in all sovereigns. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the voluntary assent of the sovereigns of the states, in their capacity as states. FP 39. The states created the U.S. Constitution not to create freedom, not to create powers they did not already possess individually, and not to create union for union’s sake. They created it for certain benefits that union provided (at that time). If this union were ever destructive to these ends, the states would most certainly have the right to dissolve their part of the union to preserve freedom for that state. (James Madison, FP 39, “dissolution of the compact”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 28, “original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 26, “people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”)

Thus, a political maxim must be admitted: union, through the U.S. Constitution, does not equal freedom and can actually be destructive to freedom. Given the natural laws of sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation and self-government, the States may in fact be better off not to be a part of a union that is causing their demise. More pointedly put, the States may in fact be better off to declare the compact (the U.S. Constitution) or at least, the federal laws creating their demise, null and void within their sovereign borders. Naturally, this sovereign power can come in different forms, through nullification, active resistance to federal usurpations, controlling the mechanisms used against the states, and secession.

Regardless of your agreement with these truths, the information provided is all based upon the natural law and political discussions of those who formed the foundation of our Republic. The fact that we do not understand them only causes tyranny to tighten its grip on us. Before freedom will ever be restored, government will be limited, and the people will govern themselves, the sovereigns of the states must recognize that the U.S. Constitution is not the answer to our political and societal plight. Rather, it is the principles of freedom that provide the answer. The time has come in America when to restore constitutional law and freedom in the STATES, the people of the states must begin looking internally to their own powers, sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation, self-reliance and constitutions.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his website.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.

“In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and property as possible.”
–Murray Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty

Does it not seem wrong that the mere few hundred politicians in the Federal Government have the power to control 300 million people and influence, either directly or indirectly, the entire planet? Even though the state is unjustified, inconsistent, immoral and inefficient, we should still favor maximum decentralization of power but not because local government is somehow “better” or less evil.

Rather, we ought to favor decentralization because governmental flaws and inherent corruption can be geographically limited, and the amount of damage they inflict remains within its jurisdiction. Those outside the scope of a local government are not affected, whereas those within its scope can find it easier to escape.

Under a Jeffersonian heterogeneous and decentralized hierarchy of power, life in the U.S. could have been quite different. Left alone by the Feds, each of the sovereign states might have had vastly different laws. Indeed, Anthony Gregory correctly points out that “many if not most political tensions would be decentralized down to the state level, and after that, competition and experimentation among states would likely point the way to the benefits of liberalizing and shrinking government at all levels.”

The situation today, however, is totally different. The once sovereign states have now been homogenized by the Federal Government, becoming its administrative arms. No longer is there a major difference between one place and another. Yes, I am aware that some states have significantly smaller governments with less taxation and lower regulations.

And granted, one should not have to move to another place to enjoy freedom just like one should not have to move out of one’s home to avoid a burglar. Yet the unconstitutional departments and programs coming from Washington are so overweening, intrusive and inexorably expansive that it would be preferable to at least have a choice amongst states. Alas, no longer can we vote with our feet.

Under proper federalism, families and groups would decide which style of government best suits them. I do not advocate statism but instead recognize that, lacking a central authority, the local governments would be free to experiment with policies. Don’t like California’s socialist leanings? Move to New Hampshire. Want to carry concealed guns without a permit? Move to Alaska or Vermont. If you don’t like firearms, move to Chicago or D.C. For those who want a nanny environment with heavy business regulations, try Massachusetts.

For better or worse, state laws generally do not cross borders, and their effects are limited. The Feds no longer allow even a limited freedom of movement. Everywhere you go you find the war on terror, the war on drugs, Social Security, income tax, fiat currency and inflation, and an interminable number of abominable and centralist boils of welfare-warfare pus. The only day-to-day sign that your state is part of the Union should be the occasional Post Office, which should not even enjoy a legal monopoly.

Federalism was, thus, an attempt to keep the burgeoning central power away from local life. There is no perfect system, but by exposing failures locally, there can at least be the freedom to avoid bad governments and pursue better ones. Who knows what the outcome would have been had federalism been kept alive, but one thing is certain: it would have been better than what we have today. Instead of fifty states, there is only one, and one is never a choice.

Ultimately, those who love liberty must favor decentralization of power because it is the path towards greater individual freedom and the respect of rights.

Manuel Lora [send him mail] is a freelance TV producer and multimedia specialist in New Orleans.

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures

We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly.  On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen.  The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

• Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
• Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
• Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
• Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.

In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance.  They established a nation of free and independent states.  Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights.  The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.

At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress.  Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated.  In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.

There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states.  However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.

The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.

Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.

Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.

To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only.  The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.

The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws.  It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters.  It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional.

Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.

We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

Susan Lynn [send her email] is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly; serving on the Commerce Committee and Chairman of the Government Operations committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history. She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force.  Visit her blog at http://susan-lynn.blogspot.com

The government of the United States is in the midst of debating major new undertakings, ranging from health care to climate change to energy development to tax reform.  Yet far more fundamental is a basic but stealth shift in national priorities—in the form of a rapid and pervasive expansion of government power over the private sector of the economy.

Although no serious discussion is occurring in the nation about the desirability of shifting economic power from individual decision-makers to the national government, that shift is a basic characteristic of virtually every policy proposal being debated in the Congress.

Take tax policy.  A 131-page document (pdf) issued by the Treasury goes way beyond recommending the extension of some of the expiring Bush administration tax cuts.  For example, the fine print contains over a dozen ways of discouraging American firms from doing business and investing overseas.  Supposedly minor technical changes also would have a severe impact.

For example, eliminating LIFO (last in-first out) inventory accounting will raise business taxes over $60 billion in one decade.  The Treasury also wants to revive four corporate environmental taxes that were eliminated in 1969.  These four arbitrary taxes have no relation between the tax burden imposed on a company and the pollution that it generates.  This bears an uneasy resemblance to Willie Sutton, who robbed banks because that was where the money was. Inevitably a variety of technical tax provisions will increase the paperwork burden on business.  The penalties for failing to file information returns (such as Form 1099) promptly and accurately are raised in a very complicated fashion involving three tiers of penalties.

On the expenditure side, the typical stimulus project increases the power of government in private business decision-making.  The bailout of the automobile industry is really an inefficient method of financing union pension and health plans.  The stockholders are zapped and the bondholders poorly treated.  The taxpayers are left holding the bag, especially considering the restrictions on General Motors importing the really fuel-efficient cars they produce overseas.  Apparently, the new General Motors factory for building compact cars was chosen on the basis of “carbon footprint” and “community impact.”

It is hard to keep a straight face when analyzing the new “cash for clunkers” program.  For example, owners of the biggest old clunkers get a $3,500 credit for trading in the old vehicles for a new one with an improvement of just one mile per gallon.  Surely, it would save energy if the Treasury just mailed the $3,500 checks directly to Detroit!

Of course, the Obama administration is making some reductions in federal spending.  It is reportedly imposing a 9 percent reduction in the budget for the division in the Labor Department that polices fraud and other illegalities on the part of labor unions.  As noted below, a simultaneous expansion of business-oriented antitrust enforcement is taking place.

Turning to regulation, one of Ralph Nader’s biggest disappointments during his heyday as a consumer advocate was the failure of his proposal for a new Consumer Protection Agency.  However, the administration’s financial regulatory plan creates a powerful new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).

This new free-wheeling agency takes authority now divided between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Reserve System.  In a change guaranteed to cause confusion, the CFPA will share authority with the Federal Trade Commission.  The new regulatory agency will also have a mandate to give consumers more economic education.  Educators find that especially scary.

Moreover, the agency will have its own money pot, independent of the normal congressional appropriations process.  It will be financed directly by fees assessed on “entities and transactions” across the financial sector.

The Treasury’s financial plan contains many other expansions of government power over business.  The Federal Reserve System is given new authority to oversee any large financial entity whose failure the Fed thinks could generate “systemic risk.”  The Treasury heads a new Financial Services Oversight Council to “resolve” the inevitable jurisdictional disputes among federal agencies.  A new Office of National Insurance is to be established in the Treasury to monitor “all aspects of the insurance industry,” a sector of the economy traditionally under the province of state governments.

The SEC will require the registration of all advisers to hedge funds and other private pools of capital with assets over a given threshold.  It also will have the power to inspect the books of the advisers and to ensure compliance by their clients.  In addition, the power of the SEC will be expanded by legislative proposals to give it a more active role in guiding the compensation committees of all public companies.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will have new authority to take over and shut down financial institutions (not just banks) whose failure is deemed to pose “systemic risk.”

Viewed in their totality, these technical financial changes would represent a historic expansion of government.  Sadly, there is little comfort in the Treasury’s warning in its 88 pages of detailed proposals:  “More can and should be done in the future.”  Comparisons with the New Deal of the 1930s are too timid.  Shades of Alexander Hamilton!

The complicated climate change bill that recently passed the House of Representatives is a dramatic example of expanding government power over the economy.  Again, the fine print deserves far more attention than it has received.  For example, buried in the 1,201 pages of detail is a provision authorizing the Department of Transportation to require automotive manufacturers to produce vehicles that can run on methanol (wood alcohol), a fuel not widely available.

Other provisions, as expected, have little to do with the subject of global warming.  For example, contractors on some energy projects must pay employees at least the locally “prevailing wage.”  It is well known that, in practice, that means paying higher union wage scales.

Many federal departments are trying to climb aboard the economic stimulus bandwagon.  The Department of Justice wants to help out by showing that antitrust should be a “frontline issue” in the response to the problems facing the economy.  Apparently, business is not getting sued often enough.  Incredibly, one new assistant attorney general views antitrust enforcers as “key members of the government’s economic recovery team.”

When we step back and try to add up all the tax, spending, and regulatory actions and proposals of the new Obama administration, the result is clear: a cumulative squeeze on private decision-making and a more slowly growing economy in the years ahead.

In the process, private businesses will be discouraged by a host of government policies from making major new investments, especially those of a long-term nature with payoffs far in the future.  Key negative factors are the likelihood of higher taxes and greater inflation resulting from the huge budget deficits that are likely to arise in the next several decades, abetted by lax monetary policies.

The American public is likely to have a long wait until the national unemployment rate gets back down to the 7.6 percent that was reported when President Obama took office in January 2009.

One fundamental point deserves to be stressed.  In the inevitable tension in public policymaking between economic prosperity and income redistribution, for the next several years the American people can expect that income equalization will get the government’s priority over improvements in people’s living standards.  The average American, at best, will receive a more equal slice of an income pie that will be far smaller than the public expects.

Murray Weidenbaum holds the Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professorship at Washington University in St. Louis, where he also serves as honorary chairman of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy.