by Brian Roberts

Social Justice for All

It appears that there are two popular definitions of “social justice”. One involves an individual who chooses to give freely to people in need; this one is historically referred to as charity. The other requires the use of government force under the guise of good will to seize production from one and give to another. This one is nothing but theft and historically results in little less than slavery. Unfortunately, this is what most people mean when they speak of social justice.

Definition of Justice:

“The administering of deserved punishment or reward”

Is it possible that adding the word “social” before “justice” can result in a definition that makes it “just” to steal from someone because it is socially acceptable to do so? Promoters of social justice should spend a moment and reflect on which definition they support, why they embrace it and whether their concept of “justice” infringes on another person’s rights or freedom, and whether this other person guilty of a crime and thus punishment.

When the definition of social justice does not involve government force then it is easily supported. Voluntarily sharing private wealth with someone in need is truly a selfless act of love. On the other hand, if the definition somehow involves government force, then that position represents a hostile act counter to any possible definition of justice.

Christians often support the social justice movement because they have been led to believe believe that government enforced redistribution represents a selfless act, thereby an act of charity. As a Christian myself, I must ask what selfless act was performed and by whom? Does the government that administers such a program act selflessly or do they act in their own best interest? Are the politicians honorable statesmen or are they corrupt and self-serving?  Is the Church that sponsor’s such an act selfless, or is it frustrated by its failure to elicit charitable action from free men? Are you as an individual acting without regards to self, or do you somehow believe that the way to win hearts is by force? Is it selfless to force someone under penalty of law to provide for another?

All social justice advocates should consider this: How can “justice” arbitrarily be redefined by the creation of law that takes property from one man that has committed no crime and gives it to another who has offered no service to earn it? That is injustice, by definition.

Definition of Injustice:

“Violation of another’s rights”

Regardless, social justice advocates march on chanting “and social justice for all…” without respect for our founding documents and the concepts of life, liberty and property; and while ignoring that “social justice” is nothing more than a selfish lie disguised as a selfless act.

Social Justice is Incompatible with Federalism

So what does this have to do with the 10th amendment and state sovereignty?

As a Texan, I know that a large majority of my fellow citizens do not want the laundry list of enslavement acts that the social justice movement proposes. The recent passage of the health care bill was a huge “win” for social justice activists. But the “win” is short sighted because if left to stand it will literally rip this country apart. In Texas, large numbers have properly identified government enforced social justice as a farce designed to control and over-tax the population, not unlike the goals of global warming advocates, or dictators from the recent past.

The Constitutional solution for social justice champions would be to implement their programs at the state level. The founder’s knew that different regions would have different needs and priorities, so they did two things. First, they chained the federal government down and outlined only specific enumerated topics upon which federal laws could be made and enforced. Second, they left the state government’s options wide open.

Madison made this clear in Federalist #45:

“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.”

The catch is that states must find a way to fund expensive social justice programs.

Free men do not produce so that others can loot. And that is the rub, isn’t it? If social justice programs are implemented at the state level, then it will be impossible to force producers to continue to produce. Individuals and corporations will simply move to another state; and without these producers paying taxes, the state will go broke. Lacking a fiscally sound method of implementation at the state level, social justice programs are fundamentally incompatible with federalism as defined in our Constitution.

Ignoring these Constitutional restraints, the social justice movement has positioned the federal government to become the administrator of “justice” precisely because it has the ability to use the force of the barrel of a gun to keep producers producing. Keep in mind, having the ability is not the same as having the Constitutional authority; and when the federal government attempts to create and then enforce laws in which it has no authority, we have a real problem as a country.

Thomas Jefferson bluntly stated:

“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force”

reclaiming-american-revolutionIt’s also important to note that, unlike the states, the federal government has the ability to print money. This is significant to the social justice movement because real production plummets when individual incentives are removed from the system.  By design, printing money will help alleviate the pain of becoming a second-rate country… at least for a  little while.

At some point, since history tends to repeat itself,  the federal gloves will come off. Hopefully, when this happens state representatives will have already passed aggressive state-level  nullification and interposition legislation to protect the people from these unconstitutional laws and enforcement measures. Otherwise, “we the people” are on our own.

Brian Roberts [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Texas Tenth Amendment Center

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

The 10th Amendment

“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.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


maharrey minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.