by RJ Harris
During the decades leading up to the American Revolution, the major European powers of that age jousted for the rights to the spoils of the new world. The American Colonials were little more than pawns to be sacrificed back and forth for minor gains for their mother countries. Often, after great hardship and bloodshed, the European powers would sign treaties returning things to pre-conflict states, which meant that what had been won or lost was irrelevant and the death and sacrifice of the colonial militias for king and country was all in vain.
President George Washington was an officer in the colonial militia and he was all too familiar with the cavalier way that European Monarchs would so recklessly sacrifice Americans as so much cannon fodder. It should come then as little surprise to learn that he warned us against becoming involved in European affairs “foreign to our concerns.” (George Washington’s farewell address)
Following President Washington’s advice, President Adams successfully kept us out of war in Europe when so many were calling for intervention. President Jefferson reiterated America’s non-interventionist policy by asserting in his inauguration address, “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” James Madison also followed suit on Washington’s non-intervention advice and kept the United States out of the Napoleonic Wars. James Monroe was so committed to Washingtonian non-interventionism that he became famous for it by articulating the same principles in what came to be known as the “Monroe Doctrine.”
Five out of the first five Presidents, men that bear the title founding fathers as much or more than anyone else, all were committed to the principles of non-interventionism. Why was non-interventionism so important to our first five presidents? Because they knew from their colonial experiences that entangling, foreign alliances would ultimately have to be redeemed with American blood and treasure. And when the European powers were done pounding on one another, and us, there would be nothing to show for the sacrifice.
In the last 60 years, more Americans Soldiers have died policing the world than from all other industrialized nations combined. What would Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe have to say about that? But what does all this have to do with our National Sovereignty? Everything! Since the early 1900s we have increasingly involved ourselves in the business of others. We have joined international pacts and unions and each time we do we sacrifice more of our sovereignty and prosperity. International bodies, like the UN are allowed to take command of our soldiers and dictate to us where and when we may come and go.
Now they want to force member nations to purchase “carbon credits” to pay for their “pollution” and they do this with willing accomplices from within our own country and current government. The time is fast approaching when US Military forces will scarcely be allowed outside the country without a blue helmet on. As you know by now I am all for keeping our Army and Militia right here at home by our own choosing, but our Navy and Marine Corps should answer to no one save the President and they come and go at his pleasure, not the Secretary General’s.
Most recently, our various borders are coming under attack by those who want to build super highways connecting all of North America, never mind that they have to cut this country up to do it. Some believe that our currency is purposefully being debased to make way for a new North American Currency modeled on the Euro. As much as I would like to believe that these things won’t happen, time and experience have taught me otherwise. Folk, the number of dead for the sake of the preservation of this country and our sovereignty is measured in the millions. We should not give it all away so recklessly.
Equally important to our National Sovereignty is our State Sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: “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.”
This means, notwithstanding the short list of restrictions on the States found in Article I §§ 9 and 10, that the States have always retained their sovereignty. Non-sovereigns are not treated like sovereigns. Ratification of a binding agreement like the Constitution requires the power of a sovereign. And why would a National Government bind itself to non-sovereigns? The answer is that it would not. States have the authority to entreat with the United States Government and the US Government with other sovereigns on behalf of the states.
States retain the right to govern themselves and to adjudicate disputes among their citizens. States may retain militias, armed citizens, who but a sovereign can keep soldiers under arms? States retain limited sovereign immunity. In fact, the Eleventh Amendment was hastily passed in 1795 because of an infringement into state sovereignty and sovereign immunity.
Unfortunately, the federal government has spent the last 70 years attempting to take our state sovereignty away from us one piece at a time. It all began with the Congressional abuse of the Commerce Clause wherein the Congress is given near plenary power to regulate commerce among the several states. Since the last Great Depression the federal government has used entitlement programs and over-taxation to hold control over states not given to it by the Constitution. Numerous Supreme Court Cases have articulated that the federal government may not tell the state legislatures or executives what to do. However, it can coerce behavior by withholding money upon which the states have become dependent. Against this rising tide of socialism and stimulus packages, we must resist the temptation to trade more of our sovereignty for “thirty pieces of silver” from the federal government.
Tribal sovereignty is also established and recognized by the Constitution. Article I and II establish the power of the Congress and the President to treaty with the Indian Tribes. Treaties require two-thirds concurrence from the Senate and once ratified they become part of the established law. As was previously mentioned, sovereigns do not treaty with non-sovereigns. For the last two hundred plus years, the federal government has entered into hundreds of treaties with the Indian Tribes of North America often agreeing to allow them to keep their land and sovereignty in return for peaceful cohabitation with the American emigrants into the Western States. Eventually, the tide of American emigrants to the West began to stem and Native territorial boundaries and reservations began to stabilize. Today, tribal governments stretch from Maine to Hawaii and all operate with the same sovereignty as the states, if not the same representation.
As a Congressperson from Oklahoma’s 4th District, I pledge to do all that I can do defend the liberty of the individual and the sovereignty of our Nation, State, and Tribes. However, these bodies must begin to protect their sovereignty and stop giving it away for government handouts and entangling alliances with foreign sovereigns.
Of course, this issue is tied directly to the elimination of federal over-taxation because until we stop the overflow of money to the federal government, the states are going to be motivated to continue trading their sovereignty for federal money. Read my position on taxation to see how I intend to address that issue.
RJ Harris [send him email] is an entrepreneur, a law student, and a candidate for Congress in Oklahoma’s 4th Congressional District.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Pretty good article. You wrote:
“Against this rising tide of socialism and stimulus packages, we must resist the temptation to trade more of our sovereignty for “thirty pieces of silver” from the federal government.”
Thirty pieces of silver? Don’t you mean selling our birthright for a pot of beans? Beans, incidentally, that originate with the states and the people thereof.
But of course the states retain their sovereignty, and all that that implies. If I, as an individual, (voluntarily) enter into contract with another individual or entity, then I’m bound by the terms of the agreement and so is the other party/parties to the contract. To allow the other person/entity to break his end of the bargain to my hurt and to my family’s ultimate destruction is, well, worthy only of an infidel. But even if our founding fathers had signed on to an agreement which they knew they could not get out of under any circumstances (i.e., had they voluntarily enslaved themselves — subjected their lives, liberties, fortunes — to the central authority), they had no right or paternal authority to do so for succeeding generations of Americans.
As I’ve said many times before, I’m personally not inclined to be enslaved by anyone, dead or living. That others are is not my problem, but theirs. It is quite literally the height of stupidity to assume that a dead generation has power to enslave the living to the former’s ideas and enactments. But, you know, there are a lot of stupid people out there with whom we have to contend. So be it.
I’d like to see your article on taxation. You should submit it.
I have some thoughts in that regard.
First and foremost, you have to ask, “Will the federal government cede to our sovereignty because we demand it?” I am hopeful, but do have some grave doubts.
Therefore, we have to wonder what the source of the power to usurp is. Of course, it is our money. So, therefore, we must starve the federal government until it no longer has the ability to meddle in and micromanage state affairs.
Didn’t the Soviet Union fall apart because Moscow was going broke?
Now, with over 40% of Americans not paying tax, it is no wonder tax-increasing measures keep on passing. Too many voters are not vested against taxation because they do not feel its pains. Any plan to reduce federal government must necessarily come from a rising surge by voters against taxes. Until more Americans pay taxes, that sentiment will not arise.
This is why a national sales tax is in order. Everyone should feel the pain of taxation.
I haven’t seen it, but I can probably guess what it consists of:
Deny the ‘federal’ government the power to tax us into oblivion; collect taxes (on incomes or whatever) at the state level. Give to the feds that portion deemed necessary for its subsistence in its proper (constitutional) role. Keep the rest for building and maintaining infrastructure and so on.
That’s the way we Okies think.
Can’t argue that logic Terry. But we have to drive the Fed taxman out first. Therein lies the challenge.
Well, without taxes and the federal reserve, it would be quite difficult for the federal government to violate the constitution.
But, what I think is the simple greatness of this article is that it recognizes that begging federal politicians for real change isn’t getting us anywhere. In fact, attacks on our liberty are getting worse by the year. I believe this localized effort is something that can make a true difference. i.e. the Free State Project.
Free State Project idea is good intentioned but the part about 20,000 or more signatures will effect no change. Everyone in America could sign a citizen initiative to change government and one Federal judge could over rule everyone’s signature on lack of standing grounds. Consequence of everyone being seen thru lens of law and court is that we’re all 14th Ammendment persons. Translation; Federal citizens which exist at the bottom rung of the chain of command. Federal judge occupies position of Govt. sovereignty over such citizen. We’re all deluding ourselves into beleiving we can change any govt. by being U.S.citizens. There is no sovereignty in U.S. citizenship. When Founding Fathers exited their domicile state they were identified as American citizens. We fail to recognize there are two United States operating in law simultaneously. The one we’re all tethered to,and extensions of, is Washington,D.C.,insular possessions,and territories wherein Congress is sovereign. We’ve all been duped into federal citizenship and occupy the states in that capacity. State’s are relucant to reinvigorate the suppressed 10th Ammendment standing birth right of American born. For therein is the sovereignty and innate judicial power of People. Were States coming forth in good faith with clean hands full disclosure they’d be producing 10th Ammendment standing documentation for all to recognize,relative to Doctrine of Recognition. State’s seem to fear a sovereign citizenry from empowering county govts. and vesting them with right to compete against both State and Federal re; programs, common welare,protection,etc. Such elevation of newly empowered County governance could reroute all tax money thru county treasuries thus vicariosly imposing limitations and constraints upon both State and Federal. Visualize People reserving as 10th Ammendment right to have 80% taxes County,10% State,Federal. Unfotunately, The adopted belief system of both State and Federal is that soverign citizenship is a lawless society comprised of patriot nut jobs,radical fringe extremists,and basically those law enforcement are taught to view as being dangerous persons. The fallacy is that such adversarial position is what cements everyone into 14th Ammendment recognition and reduces State’s to being political islands in an ocean of Federal overlay.
The Free State Project is not just signing a petition or an initiative….you should look into it a little further.
As aforesaid, Free State Project is good intentioned. Were it conjoined with Jeff Mathews’ post ” Furthering Liberty, A plan that will work” it would be a more potent process. Alone, its just a good idea that once its run its course may have no greater effect than the end result of what came out of the Million Man March. What’s really a good idea is the link you provided for others to likewise investigate. Experts/Authors which write these posts/blogs are introduced to other websites which potentially could network with theirs becoming as one in creating the perfect solutions. We all share a common objective. We’re just lost in the specifics and particulars which keep us all segmented. Doesn’t matter who’s right,it matters whats right.
Colorado back in the 1990′s attempted to address the taxation issue by routing all federal taxes thou the state as to enable the state to deduct from its federal contribution the money needed for things the federal government with holds from em.
If Colorado actually did it the federal government would of course be most upset and try to get the courts to stop it but, what if a lot of states did it?
What if we amendment the constitution so that all states could do it?
Control of federal money contribution is the logical answer to avoid the extortion.