by Thomas E. Woods, LewRockwell.com
“The several states composing the US. of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…”
–Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Ask the typical undergraduate to discuss the ideas advanced in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and you may as well be asking for an overview of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Yet these nearly forgotten documents fully merit a place among the most important political writings in American history, both in terms of the ideas they put forth and the influence they had on subsequent generations of American political thinkers. That’s why William Watkins’ book is something to celebrate.
The Resolutions in effect posed and sought to answer a series of fundamental questions. How is the central government to be restrained? Are frequent elections and internal checks and balances sufficient, or does the limitation of federal power require still more institutional safeguards? Which institution, if any, possesses the definitive word on constitutional disputes between the federal government and the states?
To the suggestion that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter, the drafters of these documents had yet another question: how can the federal courts function as impartial umpires between the federal government and the states when they themselves are part of the federal government?
Watkins skillfully guides the reader through the context within which the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were drafted. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed during the Quasi War with France, alarmed Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Republican Party in general. The alien legislation, which authorized the president to deport resident aliens who had “treasonable” leanings, was a source of concern to Jefferson and other Republicans; Jefferson believed the legislation was aimed at Albert Gallatin, the important Pennsylvania Republican, who had been born in Geneva. (He later became Jefferson’s own treasury secretary.)
But it was the prohibition of seditious libel that concerned them most. For Jefferson, it wasn’t only that this prohibition would be enforced in a partisan way that made it objectionable – though of course it was, with Republican newspapers and spokesmen targeted for harassment, fines, and even jail time. (Watkins refers to correspondence between Jefferson and Madison at the time in which they express concern that someone might be tampering with their mail.) And it wasn’t that seditious libel could be arbitrarily or loosely defined – although, again, in practice it was: one poor soul, who expressed the fond wish that the presidential saluting cannon would “hit [President John] Adams in the ass,” was fined $100.
The primary issue was the acts’ dubious constitutionality. Jefferson based part of his objection on their violation of the First Amendment, but noted that they violated the Tenth Amendment as well. Nowhere had the states delegated any authority to the federal government to pass legislation pertaining to the freedom of speech or press. In doing so, then, the federal government had encroached on a state prerogative. For Jefferson, who spoke of binding men by the chains of the Constitution, immediate action was necessary lest such federal usurpations begin to multiply.
Was there a constitutional remedy – that is, a solution short of the extreme measures of secession or violent revolution? As far as Jefferson was concerned, there had to be. And that constitutional remedy, as so often in Jefferson’s political philosophy, involved the states. Given that the states were the constituent parts of the Union, and had enjoyed an independent existence long before the Constitution had come into effect, they had to have some measure of protection against the federal government.
Certainly the federal government could not be permitted to have the exclusive authority to make authoritative judgments about the Constitution, since the obvious long-term consequence would be the eventual concentration of power in the federal government as it consistently handed down rulings in favor of itself.
The states had to be able to make their own interpretations of the Constitution, to which they themselves had acceded, count for something. Even the centralizing Alexander Hamilton had envisioned a role for the states in restraining the federal government, arguing in Federalist #28 that “the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.”
As far as Jefferson could see, the only way in which a state could both remain in the Union and retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act on the part of the federal government was for the state to declare that by virtue of its being unconstitutional, the federal action was null and void and would not be enforced within the borders of that state. (He and others did indeed entertain and reply to the various objections to such an idea.)
An anonymous Jefferson (who was vice president at the time) penned what became known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which spelled out the objectionable aspects of the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as the states’ rightful response: nullification.
Madison penned similar resolutions that were approved by the Virginia legislature. Although Virginia and Kentucky found little support in other states for these ideas in 1798, with the passage of time all sections of the country would appeal at one time or another to what became known as the “Principles of ’98.”
You may have noticed that these ideas are rather out of fashion today on both left and right. Watkins, however, identifies these ideas as absolutely fundamental to American liberty and as legitimate means, faithful to the spirit of the Constitution, of preventing the expansion of the federal government.
Watkins could have strengthened still further his case that the Principles of ’98 merely vindicated older and settled doctrines about the nature of the federal Union by referring to some of the recent scholarship of Kevin Gutzman, a professor of history at Western Connecticut State University.1 Gutzman has shown, contrary to the contentions of Straussians, neoconservatives, and left-liberals alike, that nullification was not simply a doctrine that Jefferson and Madison contrived out of nowhere as an ad hoc response to the threat to civil liberties posed by the Alien and Sedition Acts.
To the contrary, the line of thought that culminated in the Resolutions of 1798 can be traced all the way back to the Virginia ratifying convention, where its central principles were laid out by prominent Virginia Federalists. (That’s right: Virginia Federalists set forth these doctrines.)
The context was as follows. At the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry expressed his fear that the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution (which said that the federal government would have all powers “necessary and proper” to carry into effect the powers granted in Article I, Section 
would inevitably be interpreted by the federal government as a boundless grant of power, transforming the limited government that supporters of the Constitution promised into an unlimited government that would menace the people’s liberties. He was likewise concerned about the “general welfare” clause, since government could justify practically any action it might take by some strained reference to the general welfare.
Edmund Randolph, the leading Federalist speaker at the convention, argued that Henry’s fears were unfounded. Those phrases could not have the expansive meaning that Henry attached to them because, Randolph explained, the only powers possessed by the federal government would be those expressly conceded to it by the states. “All rights are therein declared to be completely vested in the people, unless expressly given away,” he said. “Can there be a more pointed or positive reservation?”
Randolph belonged to a committee of five men whose task it was to draft the ratification instrument – that is, the statement by which Virginia would officially ratify the Constitution. George Nicholas, another member of the committee, told the convention that if Virginia assented to the Constitution it would do so on the basis of the clear and manifest meaning of that document.
If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification and intent, to be, what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote; that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it, whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted – I ask whether in this case, these conditions on which he assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve? In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them.
By the slimmest of margins the Virginia convention went on to ratify the Constitution, but on the terms of their instrument of ratification, whose exegesis they had heard from Randolph and Nicholas. They had announced to the people of the other states how they understood the document, and that Virginia should be exonerated from it should the new government stray from this understanding. They had acceded to a compact establishing a federal government that possessed only those powers expressly granted to it and no more.
Already in 1790 Virginia was expressing its displeasure with the direction of the federal government. Alexander Hamilton had proposed federal assumption of the state debts, in order to bind the wealthy more closely to the success of the new federal government. (In other words, the wealthy would have a vested interest in the success of the new government since if it failed, their bonds would be worthless.)
Patrick Henry introduced into the Virginia state legislature a resolution, approved by both houses, calling Hamilton’s plan “repugnant to the Constitution…as it goes to the exercise of a power not expressly granted to the General Government.”
As the decade progressed, John Taylor of Caroline kept up this posture of vigilance vis-à-vis the federal government. What is more, Taylor argued that the state legislatures had the authority and indeed the duty to enforce the original understanding of the Constitution, and to prevent the federal government from usurping the reserved powers of the states.
As Gutzman puts it, Taylor envisioned state legislatures acting “as Americans have now come to think it is normal for the United States Supreme Court to act.” Thus when Jefferson and Madison penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, they were not introducing any radically new doctrine but merely drawing out the logical conclusions of a vigorous intellectual tradition traceable to the Virginia ratifying convention.
And it is that intellectual tradition that this book describes and vindicates so effectively. Reclaiming the American Revolution is a relatively short book, but it contains scarcely a wasted word. In some ways, it is a miniature American history in itself, as Watkins takes us on a tour of the nation’s past through the lens of the Resolutions.
In the manner of James J. Kilpatrick’s unfortunately out-of-print classic, The Sovereign States, Watkins provides example after example of acts of state resistance to the federal government, recreating for us a time when the states were genuine actors in a constitutional drama. He likewise sketches the process by which political consolidation, the evil that the Jeffersonians sought above all else to avoid, triumphed over the Principles of ’98 in the decades following Reconstruction and during the twentieth century in particular.
As many readers of here well know, one important aspect of this process involved the Supreme Court’s increasingly expansive interpretation of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, such that practically everything came to be defined as “interstate commerce” and therefore subject to federal regulation. Reclaiming the American Revolution contains the best short discussion of the original intent of the commerce clause, and its subsequent perversion, that I have read. (He also discusses the clause’s relevance to such present-day controversies as medical marijuana and federal hate-crimes legislation.)
William Watkins has won the praise and admiration of a wide array of very fine scholars – Reclaiming the American Revolution carries some very high-powered academic endorsements – while nevertheless making clear his own sympathy for a political tradition that could hardly be less fashionable in academia (or, for that matter, in modern politics). It will take a lot more than good scholarly work to reverse the century and a half of political centralization through which the United States has passed, but in the meantime we can use excellent books like this one as a moral rebuke to those who, in defiance of American law and tradition, aid and abet the aggrandizement of the central state.
Watkins has done a superb job of reopening what the establishment considers closed questions. That, really, is what people in this orbit consistently seek to do: not to debate the minutiae of this or that policy proposal, but to raise and explore fundamental issues that the establishment would prefer not to discuss. That’s why we read here every day, and it is why the serious student of liberty needs to read this book.
- In particular, see Kevin R.C. Gutzman, “Edmund Randolph and Virginia Constitutionalism,” Review of Politics 66 (Summer 2004): 469–97; K.R. Constantine Gutzman, “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: An Appeal to the ‘Real Laws’ of Our Country,” Journal of Southern History 66 (August 2000): 473–96.
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [visit his website; send him mail] is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of nine books, including two New York Times bestsellers: Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Read Congressman Ron Paul’s foreword to Meltdown.
Copyright © 2005 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:23 am
So then I ask, If Nullification is the trump card against government intrusion, Virginia, and Kentucky Penned the Idea 211 yrs ago against The Alien and Sedition Acts how is this the answer to the problem of violating the tenth amendment? Not to be disrespectful or flip, but Why is this being propped up as an answer to Governments power grab?.. we point to an act that has been used once effectively 200 yrs ago, and thousands of times ineffectively since then. and we claim this is the answer? Hardly.. it’s just meaningless rhetoric..
but I have a question to people who think Resolutions are the magic bullet to the restrictiveness, over regulation and coercive nature of our Big lovable Uncle Sammy:
What part of “resolution” works as a coercive measure against federal intrusion as “federal mandate” works against States rights?..And why do we keep going down the road of passing such worthless, and ineffective legislation? better used to line the cat box with?
Resolutions are worthless. Why don’t States react to federal legislation the way federal legislation imposes it’s self on States.. as Ultimatums. People seem to forget that it is WE WHO WRITE THE CHECKS TO UNCLE SAM in the form of federal Income Tax, among other form of tax and in return, it gets sent back to the States in the form of Federal dollars. Repeal, pull back and reduce, or the great state of ( fill in the Blank) will withhold the State Citizens Federal income tax, federal road tax, federal gas tax, federal ( fill in your favorite tax) Tax. By doing this, you have leveled the playing field, you have the power to dictate.. not the other way around. pick your issue.. and withhold the finances that support it. until federal intrusion is scaled back.
Someone explain how this is a bad idea?, and why this would not work? It’s non violent, I violates no ones rights, and it sends a clear, concise, and unified message from the citizens of a State..Other states can get on board if they choose, and if a state needs to have a general election in order for it to fly, so be it, Not all states will do it, but it only takes one.
And for those who support resolutions, Give me an example of how they are working, other then making us sound like a bunch of toothless cry babies?
July 6th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Larry, if you come from a position of ignorance, of course you’ll see the solution as nothing more than empty rhetoric - and “worthless” as you’ve called it.
There are certainly examples of state level laws that have nullified federal laws…..very recently. But, of course, the mainstream media and the politicians don’t like advertising it as such…people might get too many ideas that nullification is peaceful, practical, and it works.
Little has more real “teeth” in it than nullification. Mass resistance to federal laws, outright disobedience of federal mandates is all the teeth this movement needs. From the unconstitutional federal drug war to national id card schemes, we’ve seen mass movements rise up on a state level and they’ve been quite effective.
Here’s some reading for you, in case you’d like to learn more of modern examples:
Real ID Act on its way out. - Nullification eliminates the 2005 law.
Arizona Health Care Nullification - multiple examples of today’s nullification movement growing
Podcast with Charles Key - who explains the need and effect of sovereignty resolutions
July 6th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Just to add, Larry - I agree with you that at some point there’s going to have to be some kind of mass tax resistance, although I personally don’t think that there’s widespread support for that at this moment.
So, while I agree with you in theory on that - for you to call sovereignty resolutions as “meaningless rhetoric” and those who support them as “toothless cry babies” is not just rude and condescending to those who see this as an important first step, but it’s totally wrong.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Fueling the fire of controversy accomplishes what? It matters not what a single Founder said because if what he said is not “written” in the Constitution than it is not a part of the Constitution.
Quote;
“Given that the states were the constituent parts of the Union”
End quote.
No why Jose - The “House” of Congress is the People’s part of the Federal government and the “Senate” is the State’s part of the Federal government. The States are as distinct from the Federal government as are the People and the People even from the States.
Much knowledge of history is incorporated in the Constitution - the American jury came from the Magna Carta of 1215.
The Federal government’s powers and jurisdiction are limited by the Constitution. The Constitution delegates the Federal government no power over the States. No State Elected Official is obligated to obey federal dictates, just say no - Sheriff Mack.
Bottom line is the People “Hire” every Lawmaker in the Country and can fire them as easily. The People’s interpretation of the Constitution overrides every government Official or government agency’s interpretation but only when exercising the Right of Conscience in a Duty of Citizenship.
Wake up from controversy fellow Americans and learn the Constitution and “your” duty in citizenship to “Enforce” it on government.
Allan
July 6th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Larry, I would just like to point out that these resolutions are part of a grassroots uprising against an ever increasingly centralistic and (in my view at least) tyrannical government. All such movements have tiny beginnings, but if tended to properly, have bountiful yields. As such, even if these resolutions were meaningless, and trivial, which I don’t believe is the case, they would still symbolize, in legislative form, the people’s ability to rise up against their very own Goliath. As such, any move which proposes something promoting such a movement’s cause is far from toothless. On it’s own, anything might be worthless; but as part of a greater movement, everything is important. These resolutions represent the will of the state governments. And when all fifty states come to agreement, there is no federal government anymore. As long as the states have the will to perservere, that is.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Michael,
Far from Ignorant, I have indeed read ( and commented )on all ( two ) examples of how nullification has actually worked, And the jury is still out on the other ( one ) all the way back to four whole years ago. It is my opinion that settling for just politely turning ones back on the latest and greatest “issue of the day” does nothing But react to our dissatisfaction of the Flavor of the month. Nullification, is in your opinion all that is needed. ” All the teeth is movement needs” we can just sit back and watch this thing take off because we can simply turn our backs on whatever is coming. Forget what is already here.. and I am of the opinion that the real issue is not what may being coming, or what has recently shown up at our door step, but rather what is already here. What comes, is supported by what is already here. The interstate commerce law is the excuse for virtually every single liberty that Government has taken. The 16th amendment is the reason Government imposes it’s income tax..
Now, I’m not saying that we attempt to stand contemptuously against these laws….yet.. I am only using these as examples. I am saying that withholding funding until laws can be Changed can be an effective tool. We are the subjects of federal mandates that impose the same coercive measures against us. and they work. The federal drug war can be fought by starving it of resources.. this is both non violent and peaceful and very effective. Real ID thankfully never got off the ground ( except in my state ) so perhaps nullification works in an area where budding new laws are introduced.
I am not in favor of violence, and there is nothing violent about withholding funding from programs that are both unconstitutional and intrusive.
Nullification looses it’s credibility if it is introduced after years of abiding by a law. How can you argue that the war on drugs is a waste after abiding, obeying, funding, supporting, and participating in it for over 20 yrs?..By simply withholding the resources that it takes to run the program in a certain state, you effectively starve it into submission, Much like our federal government does to states. Again, this is nonviolent, and very effective.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:42 am
I believe that we need a Nullification Amendment that would give states all the teeth they need to reign in the federal government. Something like:
State legislatures shall have the right to propose a nullification of any Supreme Court decision or Congressional legislation signed into law by the President. Upon approval by two thirds of the states, the federal action shall be immediately nullified.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Michel,
My words are not meant to be taken personally, it’s our legislators who pass resolutions, eagerly willing to pound fists, stomp feet, and throw tantrums. until real legislation is introduced then its back to the special interest money source…explain again how this is should be viewed? if not crybabies until pacified by financial incentives then what?
July 6th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Larry, In respect to my interpretation of your opinion, you seem to believe that the teeth gnashing of the states in their writings on nullification resolutions is nothing more than political posturing. Howver, even though you may be correct, and that the states have no real interest in anything other than political gain for themselves, it does not nullify the effectiveness of the nullification resolutions. Sorry, couldn’t resist that particular redundancy! It is a matter of opening Pandora’s Box. This is true in this case, as in many others. Think of how many such sites as this exist on the internet. The box has been opened, and regardless of the self-interest of those who opened it, the public is starting to enjoy it. That is where the true effect of any real reform comes from. A wide-spread grass-roots movement that empowers the people to affect real change that they can believe in. I do seem to be stuck on slogans today, don’t I?
July 6th, 2009 at 8:13 am
I’m not sure what good tax protests would do in this day and age. All the federal government would do is exactly what it’s doing right now: print all the money it needs to run its operations and thereby effectively tax everyone through inflation.
On another note: one of the problems that somehow needs to be addressed in the 10th Amendment movement is that the world has changed enormously since the founding. Back then, the majority of commerce was intrastate. Now, the amount of commerce that is *legitimately* completely intrastate is negligible.
So we have a conundrum: on one hand, no state should be able to restrain or regulate the trade of another state (for all of the sovereignty reasons we’re familiar with), and on the other hand there’s so little non-interstate trade that this leaves states with little commerce they can legitimately regulate.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that even if the Supreme Court *hadn’t* expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause beyond what is reasonable, reality has caught up with it. Something like 99% of all trade is interstate.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Larry,
First off I want to commend you for your tenacious spirit in resisting an out of control DC. Your defiance is the stuff of our forefathers who got this republic started in the first place.
While I agree with your position on holding on to our state dollars, I see that as the ultimate stage of a long process of dissolving indoctrination, for it is a strategy that would only be effective with broad support from the populace, support that will take an extended campaign to foster.
You are correct that these memorial resolutions are non-binding, but the psychological effect can be significant indeed.
In my mind these non-binding resolutions are only the first step, see if you can imagine the effect on the general zeitgeist once resolutions such as these are passed in all fifty states.
From there, if the feds still don’t want to play ball then it would be far more feasible to mobilize a tax resistance like the well thought out strategy that you described.
Thanks for your contribution to this debate!
July 6th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Jim,
I under stand that this is grassroots, But resolutions are not new, they are simply nonbinding, and paints a legislator as something they are not. isn’t it about time we hold them accountable?.. if you say you are for something by voting in favor of a resolution, then your voting record should reflect it if and when it becomes real. But this never happens because special interest money always interferes with it.. it’s all about getting re elected.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:53 am
Mr. Shonka,
The reason why I think resolutions are pointless, is because the Political landscape is constantly changing. But our Elected leaders rarely do. Our Political environment is made up of two prominent parties, Both are very well versed in what it takes to get and keep their positions. Once in office it is almost impossible to get them out and they know this, resolutions are simply pacifiers for the public, they are always encouraged by leaders to be reported, they are non binding, have no leverage, but make for great photo op’s. resolutions have no effect on election results. special interest money is where reelection lays. So I ask why do we give them so much credit? why do we think this is the path to reform? We have also claimed that Calling our elected leaders is also a step in the reform process, yet this too falls on deaf ears. Anyone remember the Immigration issue?.. with a 92% majority in favor of closing the border, we see the effects of calling our elected officials and voicing our concerns
I certainly do not want to sound like the instrument of doom, But logic prevails..
if you continue to do the same thing over and over, and the results are always the same, isn’t it time to recognize the fact that shifting gears is needed?
And taking lessons from our Federal Government, nothing works better then withholding federal funds to coerce an otherwise reluctant Big brother into changing directions. it is nonviolent, it is peaceful, and it sends the appropriate message.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:03 am
State resolutions have long been used by legislators as a means either to “calm down” certain constituents to whom the legislators have no intention of listening..i.e. write laws which embody the contituent requests or to in fact set up a tone or public attitude of the opposite intent.
Is not the question regarding the resolutions..what comes after?
How will various constituent groups grassroots or non grassroots use these resolutions as leverage to the next set of actions or thought?
Frankly…separation of the concept of states rights from the garbage heap to which it has been relegated..i.e. oh…those old time slave advocates are still at it…is an amazing accomplishment to begin with..
and I credit the site along with others for working hard to do that.
One could hardly use the terms states rights since The War Between The States without an immediate rejection of the concept.
Keep up this necessary and real distinction…educate the public…keep doing this..for only until the concept is seen to be larger than what has been defeated already by years of neglect of intellectual distinction and linkage beyond the slave issues connected to it..will the people understand that in fact….these rights…are ours…then and now!
July 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
And for the record..again..I am a lifelong Jeffersonian Democrat…who no more could vote for what we have in office now than than the old time yeller dog…people tend to forget that there was more to that old saying in the South..I would vote for a yeller do before I would vote Republican..the rest of that saying?..that is unless something worse comes along….
Well it not only has come along …it currently prevails…and this Southerner certainly has no intentions of shutting up now!
July 6th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Correction Forgive me..that old saying in the South..I would vote for a yeller DOG..before I would vote Republican….
Some of you boys might want to claim Jefferson as a Republican…
He “ain’t”..although of course..ha..that is a whole other wonderful fun discussion!
I so very much appreciate what The Tenth Amendment center has done and is doing…re states rights distinctions and the traditions of thought you continue to try to bring forward. Keep it up…Keep it up!!! and Thank you.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I know of no method a State can “nullify” a law. A citizen Juror can nullify any law, legislation or constitutional amendment. Only Legislators can repeal legislation and infringing and unconstitutional whatnot must be repealed before Americans will stop being harassed, fined and jailed by government under such criminal legislation.
If you do not like infringing legislation then quit reelecting your Lawmaker.
Allan
July 6th, 2009 at 9:26 am
It is my opinion that the pubic reacts more favorably and quickly to long standing, deep rooted federal laws that are challenged more so then budding new threats. it isn’t until the long term affects of a law are felt that the public can relate to the loss of freedom. As they say Hindsight is 20/20. Repeal the Federal 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax, By withholding funds and you will see outspoken support by the public.
Fight an increase in federal gas tax by nullification and what is the expected reaction by an otherwise disinterested public?
July 6th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Allan, I know exactly how state governments can nullify laws, and voting in national elections never brings us more liberty. Pushing for that as a solution is virtually saying that you want more unconstitutional government.
No method to nullify? how has california and a dozen other states done it with marijuana laws? Or Missouri and 20+ other states with anti-real id laws? Or, Montana and Tennessee are doing it right now with their Firearms Freedom Acts, or Arizona putting a measure on the 2010 ballot to ask the voters of that state to nullify any socialized health care law?
By what method do they do it? Courage.
Only when people have the courage to resist will we ever see real change - and a movement towards constitutional government.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Allen,
your assumption that the Lawmakers future is in the hands of voters is incorrect
the Lawmakers future is in the hands of special interest groups that promote, finance, and breath life into his campaign
July 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
My view on how States should affect nullification of repugnant federal statutory and decisional law is for their legislatures to make “legislative findings and declarations of fact” as to the original intent of the commerce clause, the 14th Amendment, or other provision in question. Findings and declarations of fact are fairly common, and often are found in preambles to statutory schemes, and serve to identify the factual basis for the legislation as well as state its purpose and intent.
For example, the 10th Circuit Courty of Appeals recently ruled that Haskell County, OK, has to remove a 10 Commandments monument as a violation of the “Establishment Clause.” This is a CLEAR violation of the 10th Amendment. The Establshment Clause binds only Congress and the federal government, not the States. Federal courts turn the Bill of Rights back upon the States the doctrine of “selective incorportion” through a perversion of the 14th Amendment.
To nullify this invasion of reserved states’ rights, the Oklahoma legislature need only hold hearings in which the original intent of the 1st and 14th Amendments are factually examined and demonstrated, then make appropriate findings and declarations of the intent of the amendments. These could then be embodied in a preamble to legislation nullifying the federal court order and (preferably) attaching criminal and civil sanctions against anyone attempting to enforce the order, or another like it. This would set up a confrontation between “original intent” and “judicial activism” by the collective voice of the State legislature. Since the legislation would rest upon legislative findings and declarations of fact, I doubt any federal court would dare attempt to contradict it. They would have to show the fact finding process and conclusions were somehow defective to overthrow them. Since “selective incorporation” is totally judge made with no basis in law or historical fact, the federal courts would lose everytime (Yeah!).
Of course, when push comes to shove, Oklahoma would have to be willing to enforce its law by charging a federal marshal or the plaintiff in the case should they attempt to enforce the federal court order. Naturally, this would take moral resolution (testicles, in more vulgar terms), which is something the States no longer have but maybe they can learn to obtain somewhere. We recommend reading the Bible to obtain some moral fiber to their weak and worthless diet of submission to the federal government. Maybe then the tide of federal despotism will turn.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Excellent Post PHL,
History has shown that the Federal Government backs off when challenged, yet diligence is needed when implementing states rights. States cannot just roll over when federal officials over step their boundaries. case in point, the California marijuana laws. states need to “respond” to federal agents who enforce Laws that over step California’s sovereignty. But it takes cahoonas, and conviction to follow through.. The Black caucus is a good example of the scrappiness that is needed, ( although for the benefit of everyone and not exclusively for race )
July 6th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
SO WHAT IS THE FIRST STEP WE CAN TAKE TO CREATE AN AWARENESS OF THIS NULLIFICATION OPTION IN OUR STATE?
July 6th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Larry, since when did special interest hire (elect) Lawmakers? Since 1787 - Article I, Section 2, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the “People” of the several States, …”
I agree specially interest, foreign interest (Israel) as a matter of fact, do “control” Congress but do not control “who” is elected to the House.
Allan
July 6th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Michael,
“ask the voters of that state”, huh?
Considering the state of unconstitutionality; States, or voters of States, nullifying federal (unconstitutional) legislation is better than what we’ve got even though those acts are themselves contrary to the Constitution. In Constitutional America the People cannot enact or repeal federal legislation, neither can the States.
So nullifying federal legislation is only a temporary bandaid on a never ending merry-go-round of federal criminality.
If Americans really want a constitutional America and personal liberty/freedom they must hold elected Officials accountable to their Oath of Office by voting to not reelect those Officials that dishonor their Oath. So says the Constitution in so many words.
Allan
July 6th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Hi Nancy,
In the midst of this excellent debate, your question is possibly the most important of all, that being ‘what can I do to resist DC right NOW. I’m glad to have you with us!
What we recommend as a first step is to gather together with a few other patriots by forming a local tenth amendment group on Meetup.com. I have seen the tendency of these groups to multiply like rabbits firsthand and I can tell you that starting one yourself today is a HUGE first step for your state. Once you have your group formed, tenth amendment center will be there to support you and your patriots in your push for nullification.
Nancy, I welcome your call or emails if you would like to ask me anything at all about this very important first step.
You can call me at:
310 367 5981
Or email to:
Bryce@tenthamendmentcenter.com
As the grassroots director for tenth amendment center, It’s my job to empower you or any other patriots reading this, so don’t be shy!
I’d love to see 100 emails come in by the end of the day =]
July 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Larry, While it is true that special interests (read corporations and foreign bodies) do control congress, we still have an effect upon the congress. While it is true they ignored us across the board on the bailouts, and on cap and trade, this is not to their advantage but to ours. A continuing policy of ignoring the people is akin to Marie Antoinette’s famous (but fictional) saying “Let them eat cake”. There are repurcussions as we do live in a causal world. The resolutions, in and of themselves, mean nothing. Yet, they have opened Pandora’s Box, and she ain’t ever going back in. We, the People, will continue to be ignored until there is a tipping point. At that time, or before if the crooks have any sense whatsoever, there will be change. All of this must build up to a tipping point however. It is the way of all grass roots movements. It builds up it’s own impetus, and with all of our help it does so exponentially faster. It is a start, though I can understand your frustration with the process. Have faith, never quit, and always question authority.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Allen,
it is money that sends elected leaders to Washington, it’s Money that keeps them there. While referring to Article 1 Section 2 as the method by which state citizens go about being represented in DC is a logical answer, it is far from reality. Proof is the general consensus and emphasis on raising money for elections, the media is well aware that it takes literally millions to gain a seat in Washington.. and Hundreds of millions to win the seat of president. It is campaign contributions and favors that are offered up to support a candidate, and the payback comes in the form of voting in a particular way, one that favors your campaign contributors. This is the game that is played, the single Voter actually has very little to do with who goes to Washington, it is Blocks of voters, the Unions, a particular race, a very large employer, trade associations, civil rights groups, women’s groups etc… who corner votes. 1 vote, while honorable.. means nothing compared to 5000 or 10,000 votes a donor hands someone running for office, in return for favorable voting records relating to that particular cause.. One can quickly see the insignificance of a solitary vote compared with this type of arrangement.
Once an elected official gets in office, it is next to impossible for an incumbent to unseat him because of the amount of votes he must produce. The seasoned Politician already has the relationships established, the money trees planted and his hand out ready for harvest. while the poor incumbent must pursue votes the old fashion way of shaking hands and kissing babies. Knocking on doors, begging for support, and coming up with enough cash to get his message heard by the masses. Now here is the kicker….
he starts out kissing babies, and shaking hands.. but he knows it aint gonna get him enough votes, so he also starts making promises to large groups to vote a particular way in order to gain enough votes to even challenge the old bull in the herd.. so then the process starts all over again with a different face, pulling the same old tricks, and where is the taxpayer?.. local, normal guys like you and me who are just one voice?.. we are stuck scratching our heads wondering what happened to the guy who knocked on our door and shook our hand, and seemed to be different then the rest. the Incumbent who won, had to resort to taking the same special interest money that he complained about in order to win the election!…
July 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Larry, while what you say is true, it does not reflect the power of a grass roots movement which grows large enough to demand attention by congress. My personal opinion is that with our upcoming economic crisis, the cap and trade disaster, and numerous other bills flowing through congress as well, the nation is going to have to look towards another document for redress: The Declaration of Independence. I am not exactly against that move, but I believe that all other avenues of settling our differences should be exhausted first. One method of changing congress would be to have campaign finance reform. A true reform which would fund the five largest vote getting parties. It wouldn’t do the whole trick, but it would be a start as well. Until then though, I personally believe we should work on as many fronts as possible to reform the congress at hand, as voting one bum out only puts another bum in office. This is the only chance we have to prevent an otherwise inevitable revolution in this country. As my political leanings are of Anarchy (and yes it has worked in the past and in present times until very recently (Mexico, and believe it or not Somalia experienced greater peace and prosperity without government at all). But, I doubt that the people would want that much responsibility for their own lives just yet. But anyway, until peace is no longer an option, peaceful dissent is the path I am taking.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Lunsford,
as long as Money is what dictates who goes to Washington we as normal taxpayers have no say. and Here is why:
Campaigns are won with money, and votes.. Votes are bought as blocks. the National association of widget manufacturers are comprised of 10,000 widget makers and their employees, the association gets involved in politics to further their business interests. widget makers livelihood are threatened by upcoming legislation and they are directed to vote a certain way….the disgruntled home owning taxpayer has only one vote to offer or take away from a politician.. the widget manufacturers have 10,000. how much influence does Johnny homeowner have over a politician with just one vote?
granted each widget manufacturer and their employees are just one vote, but, they are all on the same page with respect to the issue of the day, Unlike the one, single voice of the citizen.
I tell you it’s the special interest money that fuels this game.. take away the money and all you have is mad widget makers with no influence.. the politician must then pander to the public for support ( like he is supposed to do )
one more note on “support”
Support comes not only cash donations, but also perks that make getting the politician’s ‘message’ out easier. Half a million dollar Motor homes to make the trip cozier, chartered jets, TV air time, flyer’s, speaking engagements, all must be “supported” Meaning paid for by contributions, people at these speaking engagements are catered to, goodies, treats, gifts all donated by the local (Fill in the blank) in return for that candidate to ’smile’ upon a particular cause Hotel stays must be paid for, this is what it means to “support” a candidate, these engagements are swanky, they cost a ton of money and every campaign stop on the trail throws one or two.
take all of that away, and make the job of public servant a job of honor and conviction, instead of lucrative and profitable.. make it an uncomfortable job. and The halls of congress would clear out, with Ron Paul having the run of the place.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
One more note lunsford,
Even Grass roots efforts are in on the game of special interest money. MADD, DARE, NOW, NAACP, Unions, and all the rest started out grass roots.. is it the intentions of this grass roots effort to get in on the same game in an effort to further it’s cause?..and how will it be justified in the eyes of the average citizen?
July 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Larry, it is true that those movements got corrupted. Yet, that doesn’t mean that one should quit trying. My personal goal isn’t really to change Washington vis a vis resolutions, or other means, but to awaken as many people as I can to the fact that our government does not represent us. That there is no difference between the two parties. In doing so, it is my belief that enough people knowing this, will come to their own conclusions as to how to handle the matter. If enough people take action on a state level, the resolutions will be forced onto their state reps by the citizens. If this happens on a national level, each state would be forced to do so by their state’s citizenry. On the national level, this would be forced by the state’s citizens and not by the special interest groups. For example, in my home state of Georgia, if enough of us become active enough we can force the state to put teeth into their resolution. In doing so, this brings the matter to the national front instantly. In this case, I believe that most states would form on the side of the states. Why? Because people all over are getting tired of this government. They are going to be feeling all sorts of pain soon. Financially mostly. No jobs, no job prospects, and a half-million per citizen in debt. It won’t take much when all that crap starts landing on the shores of our paychecks before action begins and big government has to respond. Or else. I would prefer a peaceful solution, and this is but one of the many fronts to fight upon. So, even though you are right today, and right every day before, it only takes one time for you to be wrong. Sort of like the case of the Black Swan. Until they were discovered in Australia, the Europeans were correct to believe they didn’t exist (at least in their world). But it took only one Black Swan for them to be wrong forever. In this case, resolutions may not work. There may not be any peaceful resolution at all. But there will be resolution of this issue, as the times will demand it. We’ve come close a few times towards losing our type of government. Many would say, and to a large degree correct in saying so, that we lost it in the Civil War. But, we also almost had a coup in the thirties. We also almost lost the country, and by popular demand, to communism at the same time. But these financial times ahead are far more formidable than the thirties, which nearly broke our country completely. I’m just doing what little I can to prevent the probability of massive bloodshed while we can still do so. Any other ideas are welcome.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Unfortunately no one seemingly has realized that the two party system or for that matter any party system, union group or whatever is one of the major problems why we the individuals can not make any progress in securing improvements to our governments (county,city, state or national).
The party system (and groups) was and is set up to divide us as Americans. If we would think as Americans and not separate group members, we could accomplish decidedly more.
One person earlier stated that he would not vote Republican, no matter what. I am afraid many of us have that strong party affiliation seated deeply enough to influence our thinking clearly when making decisions.
Independent thinking, as Americans, free from group mentality, just might make some independent candidates available that are worthy to instigate true governmental reform.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Mr. lunsford,
I agree with you with respect to preventing bloodshed, Civil war “two” cannot be an option. However I see armed confrontations by fed up citizens if there is no venue to voice their opposition towards federal intrusiveness. This is why avenues of expression are so vitally important. it may not do much to change the system, but it can defuse an otherwise unhealthy atmosphere.
Wgray:
it would be nice if groups of citizens could come together for political reasons, to agree ( or disagree ) on a direction for government, without having an agenda to push. the problem I see is groups do have an agenda, because government is in the position to reward. take away the ability to reward, and you take away the incentives to group up with expectations of reward. group mentality is a good thing, so long as the plan isn’t to further the group into an environment of exclusivity. groups of like minded citizens are necessary in order to be heard. the message seems to get lost when just one lone voice is speaking.
Serving in public office should be on the same level as volunteering at the food bank. it shouldn’t be glamorous, it shouldn’t be made comfortable, it should pay a marginal salary with no perks, to discourage people from seeking to make a career of it. holding public office should be a post of conviction, it should be a choice that requires sacrifice on the part of the public servant, a willingness to sacrifice for his country.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
wgray, I remember hearing George Wallace when I was a kid when he made his famous quote of “There ain’t a nickels worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.” Of course it is still as true today as when the party first formed up as the Democratic Republican party (I think that was in Adam’s day but am not completely sure). That there are only two, and have been only two for a long time, is part of the problem. Both parties own the presidential debate on TV and won’t allow others in. Both parties collude to exclude other parties. Both parties are guilty of squashing true public debate on real matters and sending the masses out to quarrel on minor ones instead.
Larry, Civil War 2 should never be off the table. It should be avoided as a measure of last resort, but I for one would rather die on my feet, than on my knees. My greatest concern is that both parties have so bankrupted the system that only a tyrannical form of government will allow them to stay in power at all. I don’t see any difference between the parties, rather I see them as puppets of the bankers that lay behind them. Those figures, of which JFK spoke, fear the constant threat of change in a truly free nation and desire stability at any price. Yet, it is through chaos and the promotion of individual freedoms that we grow as a nation. Chaos is the natural state of life, it should not be feared as stability is synonomous with stagnation and should be avoided at all possible costs. Peace, Jim
July 6th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Michael has repeatedly made the case for nullification and why it works, Apparently, some regulars here still doubt that.
Let me put it this way… If the federal government can get its way by ignoring the Constitution, it must be obvious that states can get their ways by ignoring the federal government.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Larry, I agree that groups are necessary to effectively carry a purpose to an end conclusion. It is, however, very hard to keep a group focused and single agenda purposed. I only see the problem, I have no really concrete way to effectively implement a recovery program. This is, of course because every individual’s inherent differing way of approaching a problem.
Jim, You are correct - there is not any difference between the two parties presently in power. They differ only in the way they approach governing but both are and have been going in the same direction. It appears to me that there is an unseen force keeping both alive and in power. If it were not so, how could each travel the same path so consistently?
So how does one detect this unseen power? As always, follow the money trail.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Each state undoubtedly has the right to enforce the District of Columbia Government to obey the regulative document binding the DC government. The 10th Amendment guarantees this. After all each state was and could be again an independent nation, bound together by a Constitution for the purpose of defense and mutual prosperity. If they would take the initiative of individual sovereignty, yet be Constitutionally bound, the District of Columbia government could be brought under control.
Unfortunately the states have the party affiliation dividing and hindering any substantial progress along these lines. I do see some ray of hope of late in the stand quite a few are taking regarding the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately it is not binding but it is a start!
July 6th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Abel Upshur discussed this principle in depth in his book, The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character. Published in 1868, it is one of the two finest books ever written on the nature of the federal government. Here are a few of the many quotes on this subject:
“There is no case in which a judicial question can arise, before a federal court, between a State and the Federal Government. Upon what principle, then, are the States bound by the decisions of the federal judiciary? Upon no principle, certainly, except that, as to certain subjects, they have agreed to be so bound. But this agreement they made in their character of Sovereign States, not with the Federal Government, but with one another. As sovereign States, they alone are to determine the nature and extent of that agreement, and, of course, they are to determine whether or not they have given the federal courts authority to bind them in any given case. This principle has frequently been asserted by the States, and always successfully.” pp., 178-180.
“Ordinarily, the judiciary are the proper interpreters of the powers of government, but they interpret in subordination to the power which created them. In governments established by an aggregate people, such as are those of the States, a proper corrective is always found in the people themselves. If the judicial interpretation confer too much or too little power on the government, a ready remedy is found in an amendment of the Constitution. But in our federal system the evil is without remedy, if the federal courts be allowed to fix the limits of federal power with reference to those of the States. It would place every thing in the State governments, except their mere existence, at the mercy of a single department of the Federal Government.” p. 180
“So far as our own government is concerned, I venture to predict that it will become absolute and irresponsible, precisely in proportion as the rights of the States shall cease to be respected, and their authority to interpose for the correction of federal abuses shall be denied and overthrown. It should be the object of every patriot in the United States to encourage a high respect for the State governments. The people should be taught to regard them as their greatest interest, and as the first objects of their duty and affection. Maintained in their just rights and powers, they form the true balance-wheel, the only effectual check on federal encroachments.” p. 239
“The danger is, not that the States will interpose too often, but that they will rather submit to federal usurpations, than incur the risk of embarrassing that government, by any attempts to check and control it. Flagrant abuses alone, and such as public liberty cannot endure, will ever call into action this salutary and conservative power of the States. But whether this check be the best or the worst in its nature, it is at least one which our system allows. It is not found within the Constitution, but exists independent of it. As that Constitution was formed by sovereign States, they alone are authorized, whenever the question arises between them and their common government, to determine, in the last resort, what powers they intended to confer on it. This is an inseparable incident of sovereignty; a right which belongs to the States, simply because they have never surrendered it to any other power.” pp., 240-241.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Toothless? Hardly. Just the begining.
I have been a supporter of Tenth Amendment activities since the movement in the early ’90s.
The legislation which I expect to follow the State Sovereignty Resolutions would be the same which lost steam in 1995 -The State Sovereignty Act.
(Did you know about this, Michael? I should have sent it to you months ago.)
The following link is the State Sovereignty Act as introduced in Oklahoma in 1995, (passing committee and the house, only to fail to be called for a vote in the senate,) by Oklahoma Rep Key:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/forcing.html
This Act calls for the holding of taxes within the states.
When this type of legislation begins passing State Houses, (I look for this to happen next year,)-the game is on. The Resolutions are only the pre-game show. Get in it.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Toothless? Hardly. Just the begining.
I have been a supporter of Tenth Amendment activities since the movement in the early ’90s.
The legislation which I expect to follow the State Sovereignty Resolutions would be the same which lost steam in 1995 -The State Sovereignty Act.
(Did you know about this, Michael? I should have sent it to you months ago.)
The following link is the State Sovereignty Act as introduced in Oklahoma in 1995, (passing committee and the house, only to fail to be called for a vote in the senate,) by Oklahoma Rep Key:
(Google this, I can’t post a link:) Oklahoma State Sovereignty Act - 1995
This Act calls for the holding of taxes within the states.
When this type of legislation begins passing State Houses, (I look for this to happen next year,)-the game is on. The Resolutions are only the pre-game show. Get in it. Support it.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
As someone put it recently, the Resolutions are something akin to breeding a guard dog. Later State Legislation will teach the dog to Bite.
I think certain States such as Montana and Utah have skipped the dog and gone straight to the bite. Arizona is not far behind.
Charles Henry- I’d personally like to see the States as a whole tell the Fed we aren’t sending you any more money to waste. All of the States would be better off and the DC Madhouse would quickly come to a grinding halt.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Jeff matthews,
This is why I think withholding funding sends the appropriate response.
The feds have ignored the Constitution and implemented their own agenda. This is why the answer to their over reaching, is to simply starve their programs of money.
Nullification only answers new budding laws that have no record of impact, they don’t address the long deep-rooted federal laws that the public can feel the effects of.
DC uses these same tactics of withholding federal funds to coerce States into compliance. States can turn the tables, withhold payments and starve DC into constitutional compliance.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:42 am
Mr. Lunsford,
Violence ( civil war2 ) cannot be an option, if we are to try to return our Country to the People, whom exactly would you be killing? I think you will find that the majority of the public, while passive towards the ongoing problem, are unwilling to rally behind 535 crooks, liars and thieves. Congress is not seen by the people as a credible governing body, thus you have no one to fight against.
Congress can call up federal troops, but this is a volunteer Military, young, impressionable kids who’s parents are also recipients of congress’ I doubt very much the Citizens of this country have much to worry about from the majority of our armed forces. it would take one unfortunate clash and the Military would loose the support from it’s citizens that they have enjoyed for the past 200 years.
This thing, this tenth amendment movement should not be seen as an “us against them” movement, but rather a movement to restore, not to revolutionize. there is a big difference. we are not debating change, we are debating methods of restoration of rights…
That said, I feel we would have more to fear from the police, then our Military.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:38 am
There are places where nullification can plainly work. Where the federal government requires the States to impliment a policy, like REAL ID, then the States can effectively negate federal power.
However, I feel that urging this as a remedy for the crisis our country is in is ridiculous. I mean, here we stand on the threshold of economic collapse, the White House is occupied by a man who is does not appear to be a natural born citizen, a man whose college and university records are all sealed, who appears to have travelled abroad (e.g., Pakistan) on a foreign passport, who for all outward appearances seems deliberately to be attempting the destruction of our country, who has illegally appointed 20 Czars without the advice and consent of the Senate as required by Article III, who has nationalized GM, the banking industry, and has his eye on nationalized health care, an adminstration that is already talking about a SECOND STIMULUS package (the first one is now admitted not to have worked - actually, this will be number 4 - Bush passed two that didn’t work either), an administration that is overthrowing all the moral foundations of our country by declaring June “Lesiban, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgener Pride month”, etc, etc, etc, and we are talking about nullification???? Come on, get real!
The very suggestion that Washington DC can be reformed or reigned in is absurd on its face. Why not rather try to change the laws of gravity, or physics?
We don’t need nullification, we need secession! There is no hope for freedom while tied to the federal Leviathan. If you cut one of its arms it still has eight more and will only grow the severed one back.
The people of the several States must be allowed to pursue freedom and security independent of Washington DC.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Larry, I must disagree with you on the violence NOT being an option. I’ve been involved in two conflicts and don’t want another, but there are things worse than war. One of them is living in a society that would rather do anything than wage war. If (or rather when) a government becomes so tyrannical that it no longer is willing to consider the needs of it’s citezenry, the people have an obligation to wage war upon it’s government. To do otherwise would be to merely submit to tyranny. Such a solution was noted in our very own Declaration of Independence. Pacifism is fine to a point. However, if the other side views pacifism as a weakness, which it is not, then it only encourages the destruction of the pacifists. Any shoolchild who has been assaulted by bullies knows that sometimes you just have to fight, regardless of whether you win or not.
As for who would we fight? Whoever chose the side of tyranny. Those who are so cowed as to believe that the government must protect us from the very tyrannies they impose upon us. Those who refuse to stand up to it out of fear, and would rather stand on it’s side than make a decision for themselves. There are many who would stand up for the government. Even in our military, despite their oath to protect the Constitution. It is our job as citizens to wake up as many people as possible to encourage them to take action (millions of people doing incredibly small acts would have a tremendous impact) in order to avoid such a scenario. Failing that, the only other option is war. And I believe we will be looking at just such a scenario in one or maybe two years. Unless we act. The thought of war is a wonderful motivator, as it is something to be taken seriously. And far more seriously than most of those who propose it now.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:44 am
A List of North American Secessionist Groups as provided by the Middlebury Institute
http://middleburyinstitute.org/currentamericansecessionistgroups.html
“The charter of the American Secession Project is simple. We desire to place the concept of secession in the mainstream of political thought. Our intent is to proclaim that secession is a viable and legal right and a practical solution to contemporary problems. Secondly, we desire to build a coalition of groups seeking autonomy and independence within the current United States. Mutual support for the concept of self-determination and secession will eventually benefit all groups seeking freedom.
“Secessionists come in all ethnic and cultural backgrounds colors and religious persuasions. Secession is neither liberal nor conservative, it is a right that might be equally applied regardless of a group’s persuasion. The folks that support a free California and an Independent Alaska certainly disagree on numerous issues, specifically environmental issues. However the concept of supporting another in their bid to manage their own affairs is certainly a historic American (if not 20th century American) point of view.
“As such the project has and will attempt to represent each separatist, independence and secessionist group fairly and objectively. Our purpose is to establish that self-determination is a basic right and support all groups seeking self-determination and independence.”
July 7th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Jim Lunsford - while I appreciate your input, and feel that much of your perspective is right on (especially the wallace quote!), calls for violence - direct or implied - are not welcome on this website.
Completely refrain from that in the future.
Thank you.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Michael, I believe if you read all of my posts you will find that I am not calling for violence. I do not believe it should be off the table as an option, or as a result of peaceful means of dissent not working. But to say that it is not a possiblity ranks up there with denying the sky is blue. It is a fearful spector, and while I don’t want it to happen, to deny it’s possiblity is foolish in my perspective.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:28 am
It is interesting that Edvin Vieira, who holds four degrees from Harvard, including a Phd and a JD, and who has argued and won several important cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, says that the Patriot Act and Homeland Security was never intended for Islamic extremists, but for American citizens.
Vieira, who wrote in 2005, predicted the banking and economic crisis we are presently facing, and said that Homeland Security is to keep the “establishment” in power when the economic house of cards collapses and there is wide spread civil unrest. And while I certainly agreee that calls for violence are wrong, still, the observation that we may be at war in a year or two certainly accords with Vieura’s comments.
This is a MUST READ article. Even if he is wrong, the fact that he foresaw the economic and banking crisis way back in 2005 lends much credibility to his views. Moreover, the infamous DHS brief calling normal, law-abiding Americans concerned about the Constitution, illegal immigration, gun ownership, abortion, etc, “Rightwing Extremists” and the army calling protestors “low grade terrorists” corroborates his claims. It is WE THE PEOPLE they see as enemies, not Islam. Scary, scary, scary.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin.htm
July 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I don’t believe you are directly calling for violence today, but you are advocating it as an acceptable method, which in my opinion is the same thing.
If you feel the need to continue including that in your comments, I encourage you to go elsewhere. Or, you could start your own site where you set your own rules. It is not welcome here.
Period.
I have no interest or time for in engaging in any further discussion with you about this rule.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I simply do not understand these premature calls for secession. It may be a viable option in the future (and I tend to believe that it will eventually come to that, as I’ve said here several times before), but now is not the time for various reasons, one primary one of which is that the people are not ready for such a radical step.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
I definitely agree with Michael about violence. Never seek or advocate it. The ONLY acceptible use of violence is defensive. The States should seek secession, not overthrow. We can legally work for secession, but never legally work to overthrow the government. Let the “blue states” have Washington. The rest of us can go our peaceful way (Lord willing, someday).
July 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
It may be premature to secede today, July 7th, 2009, Terry, but by sowing the seeds now, we may reap a harvest later when will we need it. Dig the well before you get thirsty, as the old saying goes.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Personally, I would like to debate the issue of violence on this site with Mr Lunsford, I think it would bring to light the reason why it would not accomplish what we want, and discredit our message that we need to return the country back to the people.
But this is, Mr. Boldens site, and we are his guests, he sets the rules, and dictates the direction, topic and mood of discussion.
Mr. Lunsford,
If you would like to continue the debate we can exchange emails. Otherwise, I must respect Mr. boldens request and move on to ’safe’ topics.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Have just read the Oklahoma Sovereignty Act 1995 Concerning the issue of states withholding, or confiscating Federal taxes. It leaves quite a few unanswered questions.
What if the Feds decided to play the same game and withholds all SS payments, Fed retirement payments, Medicare, etc for any citizen living within the state that is engaged in withholding federal taxes.
Would the state be willing or capable to pick up these payments? If not, how would they deal with the anger and poverty of those denied said payments?
This is not as simple an issue as the advocates of this movement would have us believe.
Basically I do like the idea of states withholding Federal taxes, and would like to hear suggestions how this procedure could be implemented.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
IT’S GOOD THAT BEFORE ANY ACTION IS TAKEN ALL THESE GOOD QUESTIONS KEEP ARISING.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Pete,
You raise a legitimate concern. This is one of the reasons that I personally think the current pace is the right pace. On the other hand, social security is all but dead anyway. Part of what the so-called “stimulus” package is supposed to do is to keep people working so that they can continue to pay federal income taxes and social security taxes. The social security taxes will, in turn, be paid out in benefit checks because no social security fund exists in the first place. But that’s all predicated on the idea that the stimulus thing will work, which it won’t.
So, in essence, it doesn’t matter what the response will be from the federal government. When you get down to brass tacks, it’s all going to come down to survival. And if the beneficiaries of social security don’t like the way a given state handles it, they can move themselves to another state.
A friend and I attended our local Tax Day TEA rally on April 15. We had a conversation with a gentleman concerning federal taxation. My friend mentioned the “Fair Tax” as an alternative to the current system. Our interlocutor responded in this fashion: “Well, I could never go along with something like that because I’m exempt from paying federal taxes, so why would I settle for something less?” The obvious answer is that our current system isn’t working, and has indeed bankrupted us. You can blame it on the pols if that makes you feel better about it, but that man’s attitude (and I’m afraid it’s a more prevalent attitude than many of us would like to believe) is simply that (a) I’m dissatisfied with the way things are working, but (b) any plan devised to solve the crisis which requires any bit of personal sacrifice on my part, I can’t go along with.
Just another government welfare case.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Pete,
I have been thinking about this as well,
Before a State ventures into the abyss of “federal withholding” States must pick and choose it’s battles carefully. This is uncharted territory, so withholding must be selected for the least amount of negative impact on it’s citizens, and yet have a high enough profile that Ordinary citizens will see immediate and personal results.. a great place to start would be the Federal gas tax. at 18.4 cents per gallon, every single hard working human will feel this. The impact of less road money that states recieve in the form of federal $$ to maintain it’s roads will have to be made up by increasing it’s own state tax.. But it wont be anywhere close to 18.4 per gallon
The first argument to come up would be that we are just exchanging one tax for another.. but this can be countered by explaining that while yes, we do need to boost our own fuel/ road or whatever tax, they can be voted on by the general population!.. bringing the element of CHOICE back to the people they may opt to put off the tax for a year or two or they may go ahead and agree that the tax needs to be implemented…either way, this empowers people, it brings the issue of what they pay at the pump (something that everyone has an opinion on anyway ) right to their mailbox.
The results of this is going to have some pretty serious implications..
Every Federal Mandate that is tied to road money will automatically be repealed, so States must be prepared to deal with things like Federal guidelines on drink driving convictions.
Helmet/seat belt laws
fuel type laws, ( purple diesel )
the list is HUGE
you cant give the feds the boot without having a plan in place to take up the slack…
July 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Terry,
I think withholding of federal funds can be palatable for everyone if it is done correctly.
I think jumping into the social security quagmire, before learning the process would have negative results. Also, We dont want to thumb our noses at citizens, telling them if they dont like it they can move, we want Citizens to embrace the idea that the state is looking out for the rights of it’s citizens.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:55 am
THE PRESENT OVERBURDENED BUREAUCRACY DID NOT EMERGE OVERNIGHT SO THE DISMANTLING OF IT WILL TAKE TIME IN THE FORM OF RESEARCH, PLUS AND MINUS OF MANY CHOICES ETC. THIS MAY BE A PANDORA’S BOX BUT LET’S OPEN IT AND DEAL WITH IT.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:25 am
You know, this is making me think that we states are not fighting this battle on a level field. The feds break the rules, and we states are looking for ways to win, while playing within the rules.
Perhaps it would be a better strategy to break the rules as much as the feds do in order to have a fair fight.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Also, We dont want to thumb our noses at citizens, telling them if they dont like it they can move, we want Citizens to embrace the idea that the state is looking out for the rights of it’s citizens.
Larry, with respect…
Aren’t you more or less arguing the same position that our reverend friend was arguing a few days ago? I.e., giving a segment of the citizenry a payoff in exchange for their loyalty to our cause. Besides, what “rights” are you talking about — the right to receive social security benefits? Social Security was a gamble and an ill-bargain from the very gitgo. But no one wants to admit that. They just keep trying to figure out how to keep it soluble when that is an absolute impossibility at this point in the game. In point of fact, SS recipients aren’t just interested in ’saving’ social security, they continually want more and more. The buck’s going to stop somewhere out of pure necessity. I can’t help that. It’s just the way it is.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
oh! parish the thought of me aligning with the good reverend!..lol
No, I was approaching this from the direction of a “this or that” scenario.
because this is such virgin ground, to me anyway, it makes sense not to alienate the blue hairs into running to the federal government for their refuge.. admittedly, I am arguing this from the political angle. Because our elderly make up such a large percentage of voters, I guess in a way I am saying cater to them, By not tackling the SS issue right out of the gate. but only because when it come to the ballot box, we would need their numbers. I think the Majority of the elderly are in favor for larger government, there would have to be some way of winning them over… this of coarse would depend on which State stepped up to the plate to try this.. I don’t think North Dakota would have as much to worry about as say, Florida…this would seem to take on the all embraced individualism of a State.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Well, I really hated to run the risk of insulting you, but, you know. Anyway…
I understand your concern, and I admit it is a legitimate concern as I said in reply to Pete. It’s going to be tough medicine to swallow for many seniors who have actually paid social security taxes on the promise of receiving benefits when they come of age. For all the rest (people who haven’t actually paid net social security taxes), I literally have no sympathy whatsoever. But it doesn’t change the fact that social security is in a state of irrecoverability. Nonetheless, being a Bible believer myself I harken back to when the children of Israel were wandering around in the desert preparing to go into the promised land. At one point in the story God announced to them that everyone above twenty years old would first have to die out before he would allow them to occupy ‘the land of milk and honey.’ Hmm.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:58 am
Yikes!,
I hope he wasn’t checking ID
I know that we are just prolonging the inevitable, it’s going to happen. I heard or read somewhere that this mess rests squarely on the shoulders of greedy Baby Boomers The story goes, that they made quite a nice retirement for themselves, and that the returns on their investments make SS look like pocket change, some say they should have made SS unavailable to those who are financially setup. My take is that as soon as it was implemented it was doomed to fail. We all know that anything government touches can be considered doomed.
If you get the chance, see what Gerald Celente has to say about the state of the economy, and where it is heading. To some he may seem like an alarmist. But he abhors politics, and has a knack of saying exactly what he thinks. Refreshing while others are tip toeing around the obvious train wreck-in-a-tunnel that we are in.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:42 am
This is just the beginning of a small wave that could turn into a Tsunami!!!
I LOVE IT!!!
July 10th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
It has been an interesting discussion concerning SS, but I am fearfull that the economy is going down hard, and all of us wether on SS or otherwise will feel the full force of being without.
In light of this projected poverty, my next question is: Is it possible to form a bubble of economic stability within the borders of an individual state by the use of very wise legislation and cooperation of the citizens? The success of this concept would vary depending on the resources of each individual state, thus the need for commerce between states. All this speculation on my part is predicated on the assumption that the state has successfully asserted it’s 10th Amendment rights, and will ignore the Commerce clause of section 8.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Pete,
Certainly,if the production of goods and services are allowed to proceed without the current level of federal intervention, guidelines, tax, and oversight. this would promote the growth needed. But as it is now, companies that are required to pay federal income tax every month, are required to submit to federal regulations, are limited by guidelines are effectively hamstrung..
Savings to States would include
Environmental taxes,
Communications and air transportation taxes,
Fuel taxes,
Tax on the first retail sale of heavy trucks, tractors and trailers,
Luxury tax on passenger cars, and
Manufacturers’ taxes on the sale or use of a variety of different products.
This is of coarse a very short list, But as you can see, eliminating the federal equation would promote growth in a number of sectors.
That said, it would be unwise for a state to “create a bubble” so to speak, an open market in which the unrestricted flow of goods and services is healthy for the economy.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Although I have posed some questions, and am thankful for the insightful answers posted, I would now like to share what we are doing in Idaho.
Much discussion has evolved around the question of whether the various state sovereignty declarations are meaningful legislation, or merely symbolic statements. I would submit to you, (with out going into a lengthy discussion of similarities and differences), the state sovereignty declarations and the Declaration Of Independence are basically the same. Both documents put a usurping, overreaching, and abusive authority on notice that they the colonies/state are going to assert their independence, and no longer comply with the mandates of said authority. Both documents are statements of intent, but without the force of action carry no authority on their own. As we all know the Declaration Of Independence turned out to be an awesome document by force of action of the Revolutionary war.
In order to put force of action into our state sovereignty declaration, we are sending a petition throughout the state via the teaparty movement requesting the Governor and Legislators enforce their statements as set forth in their sovereignty declaration. The petition also carries a clause requesting that the state refuse all federal funding with mandates and spending guidelines that encroach on the state’s 10th Amendment rights.
The petition serves several purposes. 1. It gives the people a chance for active participation in the fight against the “Feds” 2. It is a vehicle for uniting the various state Teaparty groups into a potential coalition of political action. 3. And as the petition gains exposer throughout the state, it is putting pressure on the Governor and Legislators to respond to the “Feds” unconstitutional mandates by preemptive legislation, which I would describe as “Nullification”.
I would be pleased to share this petition with any of you in other states, as perhaps it could serve as a template for a proactive movement in your state. I firmly believe our only chance for survival as a nation is for the states to put this Federal monster back into it’s original constitutional cage, and the more states that join this movement, the better our chance for survival as the Republic intended by our founders.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I would like to see the petition. You should post it here so we can copy it. I beleive that secession may soon be the only hope we have. I don’t say that “today” it is right, but I talk about it with a view of looking ahead. I don’t see any hope of the federal government abating its usurpations or oppressions. I think the States will reluctantly awaken one day to the need to seceed. Sad, but I do think unavoidable.
July 12th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
PHL, I would be glad to post it, but it will lose some impact due to the uniform format avaiable here.
Is there a way to attach it here in PDF?
July 12th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
I’m Next door to you Pete In Washington state, regrettably, we are in bed with Washington DC so much so that we couldn’t even get one of those toothless meaningless resolutions claiming sovereignty passed. But, I am only 2 hrs from you, If I see Idaho taking concrete steps, I’m closing my doors and on my way to Moscow.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:48 am
WELL I AM 68 AND ON SS. STILL WORKING BUT I’LL SAY TO MY GREAT STATE OF OKLAHOMA GO AHEAD AND STOP SENDING THE REVENUE TO DC. I’LL GET BY WITOUT SS . REMEMBER BEFORE THE 30′S THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS SS AND PEOPLE TOOK CARE OF THEIR OLD FOLKS. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN.