Were the States Sovereign Nations?

by Brian McCandliss, LewRockwell.com

A defining – but so far unasked – question regarding the Civil War is the political status of the states: specifically, was the “United States of America” indeed, as our popular Pledge of Allegiance claims, “one nation, indivisible?” Or was it, rather, a union of sovereign nations, bound only to each other by mere treaty, as with any other treaty – such as the current United Nations? (As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time).

This question seems to be the proverbial “elephant in the room” of American law and history, for its answer is key in defining a state’s right of secession: this question marks the difference between, for example, Boston seceding from Massachusetts, and Spain seceding from the United Nations. While in the first instance, few would question the legal right of state officials to use force in preventing local urban inhabitants from seceding with a state’s city, such an exercise against a sovereign nation in the latter example would be (hopefully) viewed as nothing short of ruthless imperialism equivalent to that of Saddam Hussein, Adolph Hitler or Genghis Khan.


The Case for Disunion

by Joe Schembrie, LewRockwell.com

The Establishment Media is hyping the dire prophecy of a Russian professor that the United States will have a bloody civil war and “disintegrate,” after which the secessionist regions will be absorbed by other nations. The Establishment Media Moral: we must patriotically embrace our federal government or face horrendous consequences.

Certainly a full-blown civil war would be hellish. With modern weapons the casualties could exceed all our other wars. The disruption of food production and distribution chains in our specialized economy could trigger famine. To be imperially dominated by other nations could well mean the loss of our civil liberties.


State Sovereignty Movement Quietly Growing

by Dave Nalle

You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.


Only the States can stop the Feds now

by Rich Hand

It is completely out of control in Washington DC. We have a bunch of bumbling idiots in charge of the treasury and the country’s future. Talk of trillion dollar deficits, cap and trade, bailouts, tax welfare to those that don’t pay, taking over our healthcare and economy; like in the Meatloaf song “Paradise by the Dashboard Light” where the woman screams – “STOP Right There, before we go any further do you love me, will you never leave me…”

The state Governors must pull out their pocket constitution and read the 10th amendment carefully for their next step in strategy. Instead of putting their hands out, they should be shutting the door on the federal government. As Raficki in the Lion King says to Simba- “It is time…”


Liberty and Federalism vs States Rights

by Steve Kubby

“States’ Rights” is an Anti-Libertarian Concept

The concept of federalism is properly used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the federal government and the states.

In contrast, the term “states’ rights” is a fraudulent and profoundly ANTI-Libertarian concept that has no other purpose but to deceive and rob us of our natural, inalienable, inseparable, non-transferable rights as human beings.