The purpose of this site is to document the events of the day. Few read it and fewer still take what is written here to heart. Mostly, it is cynical. It is the view of the world as one might view a train wreck before it happens, reporting on the screeching wheels and metal before the train hits the wall.
For just a moment I'm going to step out of the role as cynic and reporter of our demise and propose a few ideas that could turn this impending tragedy around, avoiding the train wreck. It isn't inevitable, but it is likely, given the direction we're heading. That direction needs to change.
The United States Constitution is an amazing document, both for its forward-thinking and its clarity. The few aberrations, including slavery and limited suffrage, were corrected by the sweat and blood of patriots, others were corrected peacefully. What we have left is a miracle -- a kind of road-map to preserving our treasured liberties. It is only as useful as it is used and respected.
In some cases (the minutia I'll leave to another day) we screwed things up. For all the good intentions and lofty goals, prohibition was a bad idea, and it was later reversed. The Sixteenth Amendment was enacted to give Congress the ability to collect taxes on income (not wages), for the purposes of paying war debt. The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was severely harmed by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, changing the election of Senators from state selection by the respective state legislature, to popular vote. It, too, was invented with the goal of correcting a perceived wrong, but it created far more trouble than it benefited us.
I fully expect that those Amendments will be eventually overturned, viewed through the lens of history as mistakes as great and obvious as prohibition proved to be. In some cases the Constitution is fine as it is today, but it has been interpreted to mean something other than it was intended to mean. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, was enacted to gaurantee that the Bill of Rights, the respect of individual rights, and the status of U.S. citizen were uniform throughout the states, not that all other laws between the states had to be uniform.
Whether those Amendments will be overturned (or the interpretations of others limited to their original intent) will happen in my lifetime or later is the question. The larger question is if we'll exist long enough to reverse them.
Those are important, but trivial compared to what remains intact, based on the Founders exquisite understanding of the purpose of government and how government can be prevented from becoming the tyrannical state.
The Founders made it quite clear that the Federal government had limited powers -- that it derived its powers from The People -- and that all the powers not specifically granted to the Federal government remained with The People (individually) or collectively, by the States. On the whole, the Constitution doesn't limit what the people or the Several States may do; on the contrary, the Constitution limits and articulates what the Federal government may do. In all cases, however, the Founders made it quite clear that we retained the rights we temporarily delegated to the Federal government. At any time we could rescind their authority, or grant it additional powers, but only through Constitutional Amendment (not, as far too many believe, by doing whatever they damn well please).
There was fear that the Federal government would attempt to trump State powers, but more concern that larger states would attempt to trample the smaller ones. There were "checks and balances" as well, dividing the Federal government into three branches: Legislature, Executive, and Justice.
Each branch had their specific role and authority. The legislature was empowered to make laws and to lay taxes for the express purpose of carrying out those laws and their duties, but what laws they could create was strictly limited to those articulated. The Executive, beyond its primary directive of foreign affairs and domestic security, was empowered to make sure that the laws enacted by Congress were carried out. Justice was the arbiter between the states, and was the last hope when justice could not be found elsewhere.
All of the above was carefully worded in the various Articles. Article I addresses the Congress. Article II describes the Executive role. Article III describes the role of the judiciary. The remaining Articles (IV through VIII) address specific matters, such as how the Constitution may be altered, how new states may be admitted into the union, etc.
After the initial draft was presented to the people for their review, individually and by their respective state governments, a great debate ensued. (Actually, many debates ensued.) The most important one were the debates between the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists." These are known as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. There can be no doubt of the Founders original intent when understood through those debates.
In Federalist 37, Madison framed the argument by describing the difficulties, goals, and the outcome of the Constitutional Convention:
The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments; and that even during this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but a number of hands. Stability, on the contrary, requires that the hands in which power is lodged should continue for a length of time the same. A frequent change of men will result from a frequent return of elections; and a frequent change of measures from a frequent change of men: whilst energy in government requires not only a certain duration of power, but the execution of it by a single hand.
Heretofore I have described the authority granted by the people to the Federal government. More importantly, however, is the balance of power between the Federal government and the States. Madison also describes the difficulties of this in Federalist 37:
To the difficulties already mentioned may be added the interfering pretensions of the larger and smaller States. We cannot err in supposing that the former would contend for a participation in the government, fully proportioned to their superior wealth and importance; and that the latter would not be less tenacious of the equality at present enjoyed by them. We may well suppose that neither side would entirely yield to the other, and consequently that the struggle could be terminated only by compromise. It is extremely probable, also, that after the ratio of representation had been adjusted, this very compromise must have produced a fresh struggle between the same parties, to give such a turn to the organization of the government, and to the distribution of its powers, as would increase the importance of the branches, in forming which they had respectively obtained the greatest share of influence. There are features in the Constitution which warrant each of these suppositions; and as far as either of them is well founded, it shows that the convention must have been compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous considerations.
In Federalist 44, Madison addresses some of the ant-Federalist criticisms. In the passage below, he addresses the powers granted to Congress and the concerns that Congress would, at some future date, enlarge or expand on their limited powers (as they have done today):
If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.
In Federalist 45, Madison details the concerns of too much state power, but what was concerning them at the time was an attempt by a powerful state to invade/control another state, not the Federal government encroaching on all the states. For this reason, state powers were not specifically articulated, but some state sovereignty was limited. Reading it today, however, is almost laughable. The checks and balances against encroachment of state authority has happened so pervasively and extensively, that remarks about how the numbers of people employed at the state level providing a buttress against the "few" at the Federal level, makes it absolutely clear that we have allowed all power-balancing strategies to be entirely eliminated. Madison was certain that the people would raise the alarm, and go to the guns, to address encroaching Federal powers long before they got to the point where we are today.
In Federalist 46, Madison addresses the concerns that the usurpation of state autonomy (or individual autonomy) would get so bad as to destroy the spirit and the literal powers of the States:
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
Madison scoffed at the concerns, believing that the people would never stand for it, but all those fears have become our reality. We allowed all the worst-case scenarios to occur and that was something that Madison could never have fathomed.
So what do we do and what powers remain?
Before I address the best option, I'd like to address a concern: In many states the Second Amendment is in full force. For many of us, however, we wish to use that as a last resort, and attempt to restore the powers of the people and the respective States without resorting to war (or even some sort of agreed-upon, peaceful secession). The war option is far from being the only option, and surely the least desirable, when other options are still open to us.
There are a variety of suggestions to address the encroachment of Federal powers. Some have gone so far as to suggest we need to restate the limitions again, perhaps in new words, to make the point that the Constitution limits what the Federal government may do. This is the equivalent of applying bolds, asterisks, and underlines to what is already written. While I would not be opposed to these options, as I would support any and all peaceful attempts to address the problem, I do not think it is our best option.
The Constitution, in Amendments Ninth and Tenth, already state that the powers not specifically listed as granted to the Federal government remain with the states and/or the people. Saying it again is not going to change the status quo. The Federal government is already ignoring what was written, so writing something else to be ignored is a futile gesture. We're past words. It is time for action.
The option that is open to us is state disobedience, but I use disobedience to better explain the idea rather than the word as a value judgement. It is the state-collective equivalent of civil disobedience. In truth, it is the Federal government that has been disobedient, by exercising powers they have not been granted. The only effective way to put meat into the limitations imposed on the Federal government is for the states to ignore actions, measures, and laws that are extra-constitutional. Only those actions, measures, initiatives, and laws that are specifically articulated in the Constitution as belonging to the Federal government will be respected by the several States, and by The People.
To this end, some state legislatures are passing "State Sovereignty" measures to restate their authority and limit Federal authority. These involve restatements of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which are:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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.
While we shouldn't ignore Congressional elections, it is more important now to pay attention to state elections, including the legislatures and the governor. It is time for governors (with agreement by the state legislatures) to refuse to abide by unconstitutional Federal encroachment. This includes:
- Refusing all TARP funds/invasions of Federal officers in local businesses.
- Refusing all Stimulus funding.
- Refusing all education funding and federal legislation regarding education (and all other unconstitutional government departments).
- Exercise the option to call out the National Guards to protect our borders if our Federal government continues to refuse to exercise their primary directive.
It is time for states to refuse to comply and also refuse the bribe money that comes with it, while protecting state citizens from unconstitutional taxes and penalties.
It is the responsibility of our state legislatures and our governors to exercise the authority we have granted to them. It is time we work locally to elect representatives who will restore the balance of power between the Federal and State governments and reject all invasions and encroachments of Federal authorities.
The following is the kind of speech that every governor of every state should deliver on the day he or she is sworn into office:
The People of this state have graciously elected me as their Governor, and I understand fully the responsibilities and authorities they have entrusted to me, as well as the limitations of that power within our state, and those entrusted to the Federal government. There are strict lines of delineation, between the counties and cities within our state; the powers granted to the local mayors and city/town councils; the unique relationships we have with neighboring states, and the authority we recognize as belonging to the Federal government.
The authority we have granted to the Federal government is strictly limited to those items articulated in the U.S. Constitution. The Federal government has the responsibility and authority to declare war, to provide for the common defense, to coin money, to regulate the seas, oceans and post roads, and to protect the products and arts by providing copyright and patent laws, and the judiciary may intervene on matters between us and other states. The Federal government has no other powers or authority. As part of my oath today I swore to uphold and protect not only our State Constitution, but the Federal Constitution. I take that oath seriously. Beginning today, I will issue an order which returns all funds received from the Federal government that goes beyond their authority. I reject all laws enacted by Congress that goes beyond their specifically limited authority. I will refuse, with force if necessary, the invasion of Federal officers, in whatever department or uniform, to exercise authority not specifically granted to them.
For too long states have remained passive, gradually morphing from free and sovereign states to lowly beggars, looking to the Federal government for hand-outs and to do the job that governors were intended to perform. That transition into a lowly beggar class ends now.
- If the Federal government does not perform its duty with respect to protecting our borders, I will call out our National Guard to do so.
- If the Federal government attempts to send agents to interfere with our peaceful commerce within our state, I will stop them at the border, with force, if necessary.
- If the Federal government attempts to arrest or in any way interfere with our citizens' refusal to pay taxes on anything other than their incomes (not wages) or taxes imposed equally among the states, but only for the percentage of Federal government budget that is Constitutional, I will issue orders to stop them. Our state officers, police, and National Guard will be called upon to intervene to protect our citizens from arrest or property seizure, if necessary.
- I will call upon neighboring and friendly states to assist us if necessary, and I will respond to calls for assistance from other states, if they should need our assitance.
It is time, finally, for the State governors to exercise the powers they have been granted, to protect thier citizens in their respective states from invasions of their liberty by the extra-Constutional acts of the Federal government, and for the Several States to refuse to abide by unjust and unconstitutional laws.
Today, the liberty and values established by the Founders will be restored in this state, and I hope many others.
That is what is necessary. That is the change of direction I introduced in my opening paragraphs to alter the course of the train to prevent the wreck. Although patience is required, anything else or short of that is a guarantee that our republican government will cease to exist.
Chances it will happen? Zero. But Americans love the underdog and this post is supposed to be my non-cynical view of the future. Despite the fact that I clearly and carefully stated that "going to the guns" was not an option, I suppose that my suggestions would classify me as a terrorist to some. Oh, well. So much for being optimistic.
Posts
