Replies

Amendment X addresses the subject of powers, not rights. That’s an important distinction, and, in my opinion, should decide where we launch our attack.

Mostly agree, governments don't actually have rights per se, The People have rights, most God given and unalienable at that. Our Constitution was arranged in such a way so that The People ceded limited and enumerated "powers" to various governmental bodies for purposes of protecting those rights and of course, mediating disputes.

All too often, “rights” debates go unresolved, and are thus viewed by many as ultimately unresolvable except by a superior (i.e. federal) arbiter. A “power” debate is not only free of this historical baggage and lopsided advantage, but also focuses our attention on a more alarming subject (power) and clarifies the contestants in the struggle (federal vs. state governments).

Difficult to argue with that also; the few and enumerated powers of the feral government vs the numerous and indefinite powers of The States. On the surface at least it would appear The States would have the upper hand. Which only seems natural since The States are the nearer governing body to The People.

I’d like to see the debate framed as “States’ Defense” or “States’ Jurisdiction” or some such.

I like the idea! IMHO, what it boils down to in 25 words or less is, with the assistance of the feral courts, the overreaching and expanded powers of the feral government under the supremacy and commerce clauses in particular have gone far beyond any sensible reading of our Constitution. The feral agents taking sides against The States no less. Surprise! Government skools have given us a couple of generations with "The feral government is all powerful" mentality. Framing the debate in a constitutionally illiterate populace will be a trick I suspect.

Framing the debate in a constitutionally illiterate populace will be a trick I suspect.

Exactly so. The simpler the argument, the easier our job will be. Everyone understands "jurisdiction"; and, agree or disagree, most will at least understand the jurisdictional issue at stake in this debate, viz. federal vs. state.

On the surface at least it would appear The States would have the upper hand. Which only seems natural since The States are the nearer governing body to The People.

I couldn't agree more. But that's political theory, and what we need is a practical argument to pound into the heads of public-skool victims. As you know, there aren't enough John C. Calhouns out there to save this nation, and the Lincoln-Douglas debates wouldn't draw enough of an audience today to fill a Yugo.

Our strategy requires an easy-to-wield weapon: a simple, straightforward, easy-to-understand argument with clear and consise points. The battleground should be issues of particular interest to the states engaged (gun manufacture in Montana, offshore drilling in Louisiana, etc.)

It'll be an assault on many fronts, and some states may need to shift ground in order to exploit weak spots. The objective is to force D.C. to retreat on one front or other. Then we use our momentum to exploit the hole, and before you know it, they'll be in full flight and we can regain as much ground as the Founding Fathers left in our possession.