Posted on 02/09/2009 6:51:33 AM PST by SunkenCiv
I absolutely believe the states may be our last, best hope to regain our freedoms. It's my belief the states should have been in the watchtower from the beginning, and in the beginning I believe they were. From what little I know of history, the states jealously guarded their Constitutional turf. But, after decades of federal abuses, the states have been all but neutered. I'm sure several books have been written to explain how we arrived at where we are, but the hard truth is, if we are to regain anything resembling what our Founders envisioned, SOMEONE has got to draw the line. The states are in a better position to make it happen than we are. Will they?
I think the events of the last few months are ample proof we have lost our voice in DC. They heard us loud and clear on the first round of the pigout scheme but after what I saw as good cop/bad cop, rope-a-dope machinations between the house and senate we are going to leave a debt our grandchildren can never retire. They will be working for the new government/corporate partnership.
Can you ping me with any new info you get?
Thanks!
Kind of what I had in mind. If Freepers can't get behind something like this as maybe our last potential, venue to exact some "change", we will have just about run out of places to turn, short of taking up arms.
Can you ping me with any new info you get?
I had already added you to the list.
Ping Away!
This is an issue that well may be the lynchpin of our resistance to the Obamination.
To all concerned about the placement of these threads, do what I did. Set your preferences to “Everything.”
Agreed; maybe all we've got left without employing the remedies within the 2nd amendment.
To all concerned about the placement of these threads, do what I did. Set your preferences to “Everything.”
I'm not that concerned about it since most of the articles will probably pass for "news" and end up in the right pigeon hole.
Thanks for adding on you ping list. And I appreciate the work you put into to finding folks.
We are all 1895 Southerns.
Thanks
ping!
But the Constitution is a living document, so the 10th Amendment is like the body’s appendix. It’s there, but it no longer serves a useful purpose, at least that’s what my college professor sez..../Heavy Sophomoric Sarc/
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the early history of the Union, in the case of Ware vs. Hylton, 3d Dallas’ Rep., 199, in which it is held by Judge Chase, that the effect of the Declaration of Independence was “not that the united colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, but that each State of them was a sovereign and independent State”.
Each State was, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a sovereign and independent State, and acted as such in adopting the Constitution. This is manifest—from the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the several States to be “free and independent States”—from the second of the Articles of Confederation of 1778, which declares that “each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not thereby expressly delegated to the United States”—from the treaty of peace with Great Britain, after the close of the war of the revolution, recognising each State by name as a “free, sovereign and independent State”
Madison; “It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach committed by either of the parties absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.”
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and we will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
~Thomas Jefferson, letter to Guideon Granger (circa 1802)
James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” said,
“The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.
Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
The Tenth Amendment declares, “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.” So what powers does the Constitution delegate to the feds?
Depending on how one counts the various delegated powers there are about 25 or 30 subjects upon which the federal government is authorized to exercise its authority. They are found primarily in Article One, Section Eight, with a few other powers scattered in other sections of the Constitution. Additionally, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to form and operate the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. Period!
“Agriculture,” “Arbitration,” “Highways,” “Intoxicating Liquors,” “Labor,” “Mineral Lands and Mining,” “Railroads,” “Telephones, Telegraphs and Radio Telegraphs,” and “Transportation” are all Titles of U.S. Code that are not among the subjects upon which the federal government is authorized to exercise its authority.
Similarly, the powers assumed in Title 12, “Banks and Banking” are a far stretch from the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states.”. The Supreme Court has stated that regulating commerce among the states means between state lines and not within a state. And there certainly is no delegated power to charter a private monopolistic cartel of bankers like the “Federal Reserve System” to which we are indentured today.
“Education,” “Food and Drugs,” “Hospitals and Asylums,” and “The Public Health and Welfare” are Code titles which might be construed as authorized by the power to “provide for the ... general welfare.” But considering the extensive regulatory and entitlement programs these titles have spawned, do they bear any resemblance to the original intent of the nation’s founders?
Title 32 creates a “National Guard” in the absence of any such authority to do so, while the constitutionally mandated “organizing, arming and disciplining the militia” is wholly ignored.
“Public Lands” is a U. S. Code Title subject, yet the only lands the federal government can own under the authority of the Constitution are the District of Columbia, “forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings.” Military installations are not “public lands.”
And then there are those laws which are not merely enacted without authority; they clearly violate the Constitution. The National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 make a mockery of the Second Amendment’s mandate, “... shall not be infringed.” And the USA PATRIOT Act defies nearly every provision in the Bill of Rights.
As a judicial doctrine, interposition is interpreted as a right of the states. But it’s also a right of the people. Based on the Tenth Amendment, it is a power “... reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” There are many cases of the people conducting an interposition when necessity required it.
The American Revolution was another interposition. Again, an English tyrant imposed his will upon a remote part of his kingdom, the American colonies. After much petitioning and “remonstrance” from the colonists was ignored and their resolutions and legislation was vetoed by the King and his governors, the colonists “ proceeded ultimately to nullification, with forcible resistance.”
The people have the right of interposition under the Tenth Amendment which “may be peaceable,” but the Second Amendment affirms how an interposition can be applied when necessary “with forcible resistance.” Are the people brave enough to become free again?
The “people” is you. The state is not interested in interpositioning on your behalf. It has vested itself with the federal powers. And it’s very unlikely that your neighbor will stand up for your Rights. He probably doesn’t even know what his are. Get active. Be creative. Use your God-given intelligence and American ingenuity. Interposition is up to you. Interposition “may be peaceable, as by resolution, remonstrance or legislation, or may proceed ultimately to nullification, with forcible resistance”. Assume the interposition now!
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under the robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber barons’ cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
~C.S. Lewis
...And another thing! Lots of Folks here that claim to be conservative want strict interpretation, original intent. They bash the liberals for going against this, until it suits them to change the intent. For instance, Art.1 Sec.8 Para.11. The same people that hate the UN agreed, like congress, to give the potus the power to declare war...
...So much for sovereignty...
“The Constitution’s original intent was to be a prohibitive instrument regarding federal power.”
Come on now, that’s just silly. The Constitution created the federal government. Its reason for existence is the notion that the states weren’t competent to run things on their own.
“Its sole purpose was to spell out what the government can do.”
Not really. It also says what the federal government can’t do. For instance, it can’t
“Their comments don’t track straight.”
Your problem is with the language “applies to the federal government”. The Constitution proclaims itself the supreme law of the land, and therefore applies to the states as well as the government. But the spirit of the prevfious poster’s words are accurate. The Constitution by and large dictates the powers of the federal government. The phrase about powers “prohibited by it to the States” refers to powers out of reach of the states by virtue of their having been delegated to the feds.
There are also various powers expressly denied to the states. For instance, the ability to establish non-republican governments. Some sweeping denials of power apply to the feds and the states at once, for instance the 13th and 14th amendments. However, I think more often than not, the phrase about powers “prohibited by it to the States” refers to powers out of reach of the states by virtue of their having already been delegated to the feds.
If it listed what it can’t do, it would be a very long document
Ah, but it does specify things the government can’t do. Most notably in the bill of rights. Madison famously objected to officially denying powers that weren’t enumerated in the first place. But there are issues that we think are too dang important to leave unsaid. Furthermore, there are denied powers in the articles before the amendments, as well. For instance, the government is not allowed to grant titles. Nor is it allowed to withhold habeas corpus except for times of civil unrest and/or invasion.
“IMO, the states voluntarily gave up their rights when they ratified the 17th Amendment back in 1913.”
Senators are still expected to serve the people of their state, no matter how they’;re elected. I’ll agree that the precipitous abandonment of states’ rights coincided with the change. Then again, the Civil War didn’t help. Also, the House was always popularly elected. Did we really expect the Senate to be our saviors? Would electing them through state legislatures really have distinguished them from the whole rest of the federal government, whatever branch be they from?
It would drive out all the campaign financing that results from 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years. It's that need for campaign financing that drives loyalty away from the states and towards the special interest donors, and the party blocs.
-PJ
Yes, I definitely think so. I don’t think that the Founders intended for the Senate to represent the people of the states....that’s why they formed the House & had their terms of office for only 2 years. The Senate was supposed to represent the state legislatures, in order to help prevent the concentration of power from shifting from the states to the newly-formed federal government.
You are right about the “Civil War” (I prefer to call it the War for Southern Independence, but that’s off topic here) — Lincoln set the stage for increasing power to the executive branch.
In both cases the rights of the states were squashed like a bug.
By definition, when we accept, submit or yield to the unconscionable, immoral or unlawful conduct of government or its commercial affiliates, we become partners, accomplices, co-conspirators; or at the very least, an accessory to the crime!
Very few citizens pay any attention to the foundations and limitations of governmental authority. Most assume that government can do what it does. Fewer still do anything to turn back the tide of a government that has breached the levy of the Constitution. And what is this tide that has ruptured the foundations of our nation? An exponentially expanding socialism which wields the sword of commerce.
Socialism is that scheme by which our individual rights, secured by a republic, are converted to privileges granted by those who operate a democracy; the form of governance where the liberty and property of the individual is surrendered under the pretense of the common good. The common good, of course, is defined by the socialists who seek to revoke your rights and grant privileges to you as they see fit. So what does this have to do with commerce? It’s as simple as one of our American icons, the gun.
In 1967 a 14-year-old boy could order a rifle and ammunition from the Sears catalog and then pick it up at the Post Office. Then came the Gun Control Act of 1968. An adult citizen could no longer mail a gun. Neither could they cross state lines and purchase a gun without having it shipped to someone in their state who held a “Federal Firearms License.”
And how did Congress assume the authority to control guns and license gun dealers? The “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution. “The... power... to regulate commerce... among the several states...” has become the basis for the federal infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The vine of socialism isn’t about to stop here. Having sunk its roots into the Commerce Clause, it will grow to control all aspects of the gun. But only if we fail to rip that weed off the wall that is our Constitution.
In the wake of the 1968 Gun Control Act, many more entanglements have sprouted. Import bans on “assault rifles.” Taxes on ammunition. Limitations on magazine capacity. Background checks. Waiting periods. All under the socialists creed, “for the common good.” Many more infringements are promised as the vine of socialism grows around the right to keep and bear arms. And it all began with commerce.
Can you spell infringe? Then look it up in the dictionary. Will you allow the belief in the socialists cause to prevail, or demand your rights under the Constitution? For want of actually looking, all most people will ever see is the leaves on the vines of socialism. Seeing is believing, so they say, and the faithful converts to socialism continue to believe in that untended weed which is choking the foundations of our country. Our rights are fading like a sunset turning into darkness.
“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state. ...He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.” Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1905)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.