The Left vs. 'The Tenthers': On Getting States' Rights Wrong

Campaign for Liberty ^ | 11/3/09 | Josh Eboch

[Bokababe]

It is no surprise that America's renewed focus on the separation between state and federal authority has created an almost hysterical rage on the Left. Collectivist ideologues are always necessarily threatened by divisions of power.

But rather than shame dissenters into silence with labels like "tenther," the disdain shown by the political class and its sycophants for the Constitution has only heightened the growing tension between those in America who desire absolute central government, and those who still believe in the federalism and freedom of our founding.

[Bokababe]

Interesting article on rebutting the racist tag on those who discuss 10th Amendment rights.

[Bokababe]

10th Amendment Ping!

[cripplecreek]

Two things.

First, never let the liberals forget that they started pushing 10th amendment legislation when Bush was president. It first arose in NY, Mi, and Ca.

Second. We should never forget that the feds didn’t “take” states rights. The states have basically been selling thier independance for years. It doesn’t make it right but its an important distinction.

[RobRoy]

I see it this way: Before the Civil War, we were called “these united states”. Now we are called “the United States”. Both seem to say the same thing, but the former can only describe several things “united”. The latter, in most people’s mind, is interpreted to mean a single entity. They see the states as counties in a state.

Before the Civil war, “These US” was like a brick wall, where the states are the bricks and the Federal government is the thin line of mortar holding them together.

Now the US is like a chocolate chip cookie, where the federal government is the cookie and the relatively sparse chocolate chips are the states.

The Federal government is WAY too big.

[usurper]

Second. We should never forget that the feds didn’t “take” states rights. The states have basically been selling their independence for years. It doesn’t make it right but its an important distinction.

I am not sure I can agree with you on that one. When the feds take millions in tax revenue from a state the state has little choice but to try to recover as much as they can.

I think the real issue is why is the federal government rising funds (from the states) for doing so many things that are outside its authority and rightly belong to the states.

[sergeantdave]

As long as leftists and their useful idiot voters continue to live in this country, Americans will never enjoy a modicum of freedom or respect for individual rights as stated in our constitution. We either agree to an amicable divorce and separate or we do it the hard way.

There is no middle ground. Two diverse groups - one for freedom and the other for slavery - cannot and will not live together peacefully.

There are two ultimatums coming down the track from opposite directions.

The left is saying that it will not follow the law as outlined by the founders, that it will make up any law as it sees fit and you better obey or we’ll kill you. From the other way comes those who believe in the founder’s law and state that the constitution will be upheld or we’ll enforce through the sword.

While we’re still talking, this needs to be settled or prepare for Civil War III.

[x]

I think the real issue is why is the federal government rising funds (from the states) for doing so many things that are outside its authority and rightly belong to the states.

The great divide wasn't the Civil War. It was the 16th Amendment.

When the federal government had to rely on land sales and taxes on liquor and imports there was only so much it could do.

When it got the power to tax everyone directly and progressively, it got the money to do what ever it wanted.

Before the income tax, Washington DC stayed out of things that it couldn't afford. Afterwards people who wanted things went to Washington rather than staying closer to home. Given that the federal government could simply borrow the money on the promise of later taxes that hadn't yet been collected, the temptation was all the greater.

[highlander_UW]

I see it this way: Before the Civil War, we were called “these united states”. Now we are called “the United States”.

Interesting, and I believe important distinction. Thanks for posting.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks bokababe! I apologize for arriving late to the dance but I’ve been a little under the weather and it’s cut into my Freeping time. Decent article that’s worth a read folks...

[Still Thinking]

While we’re still talking, this needs to be settled or prepare for Civil War III.

Did I miss II? I distinctly remember asking to be told when it happened.

[Bokababe]

"The left is saying that it will not follow the law as outlined by the founders, that it will make up any law as it sees fit and you better obey or we’ll kill you. From the other way comes those who believe in the founder’s law and state that the constitution will be upheld or we’ll enforce through the sword. While we’re still talking, this needs to be settled or prepare for Civil War III."

Here's the problem, Dave: none of them want to honor the Constitution completely; they only disagree on what part they want to ignore without having the guts to come out for an amendment. So who do you follow? The ones who want to ignore this part or that one? Ignore "States Rights" or ignore "Only Congress Can Declare War"?

When that's decided, let me know and I'll know what to defend. Until then, even I am often confused.

[eyeamok]

The great divide wasn’t the Civil War. It was the 16th Amendment.

currently there is more evidence that NOT ONE STATE ratified the 16th amendment, than there is that Obama attended ANY SCHOOL IN THE US. see thelawthatneverwas.com, I watched this on CSPAN when it originally aired, pretty fascinating. but then again NOBODY has standing to challenge this FRAUD.

[EBH]

Personally, I like one of the first Rights enumerated not in the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence(see my tagline).

When Congress chooses to ignore the Constitution it commits an act of Treason. There, I said it. This business of letting the courts straighten it out is wrong and that balance of power misinterpreted. Congress Critters and the President, VP et al., take an Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, that is part of their job and responsibility.

When Congress chooses to enact laws that are knowingly unconstitutional it declares war on We the People in the form of Treason. If in discussing new laws/programs/etc. congress were to ask if it is Constitutional and by what Right to they have the authority...many laws would remain state matters.

Right now Congress is acting in a treasonous manner. The question is ....Are they our legitimate government?

[bamahead]

Collectivist ideologues are always necessarily threatened by divisions of power.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)

[boxlunch]

I would love more information about that if you have any links.

[eyeamok]

thelawthatneverwas.com, Bill Benson has appealed to USSC, I think it has been accepted but not sure, will have to read some more on it. Last time I looked it was the single most requested video ever from CSPAN. I almost had a heart attack and died when I watched it Live on CSPAN at least 10 years ago. but I don’t think serf’s have standing when it comes to the Constitution.

[NoObamaFightForConservatives]

bump

[SunkenCiv]

It is no surprise that America's renewed focus on the separation between state and federal authority has created an almost hysterical rage on the Left. Collectivist ideologues are always necessarily threatened by divisions of power.

[o_zarkman44]

I think state’s rights (10th Amendment) is the way to go first and foremost. States hold the cards to financing the federal government. States send billions of dollars to the feds in exchange for “goodies” bought and paid for by our money first.
The US Constitution is of utmost importance. But it can only be upheld in context of what each state holds elected representatives accountable for how they legislate.

Elected Representatives and Senators from each state are bound by the laws of the state, which include defending the State Constitution as well as the US Constitution. Reminding those elected officials that their jobs are not permanent if they fail to keep their oath. Fail to read the bill before voting etc.

Each individual state has the power collectively to shut down the federal government just by withholding taxes. Since that money belongs first to the people in the state, who earned it, states have a basis to withhold taxes going for federal projects they have no need for.

I know it is a far cry because the feds will threaten cutting off this and that for not complying. But states resisting en masse would pose a great challenge.