Before government can guarantee provision of a specific good or service to any one individual, thus creating a so-called “positive right,” it must first take by force the means of producing that very good or service from someone else.

Health care is no different. Whether by forcibly appropriating and redistributing the money to purchase care for those who lack it, or by arbitrarily devaluing the time and effort of those who provide it, once a government mandate supplants voluntary exchange, coercion must be used to exercise that “right” to health care.

But how can taking what belongs to another person (their money, time, or effort) through legislative force be a right?

Is that not the very essence of slavery?

The truth is that the only rights actually guaranteed to Americans by the Constitution are those that protect freedom of action.

They are “negative rights,” which do exactly the opposite of their positive counterparts. Rather than initiate and rely on the use of force to produce a specific reward or outcome, negative rights allow individuals to act or not act in the absence of coercion, so long as they do not hinder the freedom of others to do the same.

For instance, it is the right of people in this country to vocalize unpopular opinions, associate with unpopular people, practice unpopular religions, and even carry unpopular weapons. Thanks to our negative rights the government cannot, without due process, take the life, liberty, or property of any American.

But nowhere in the Constitution does it say that, in order to exercise their rights, each citizen must at birth be given a microphone, a bible, or a gun.

That was no accident. For more than two hundred years, the freedom and responsibility to determine one’s own future has been the foundation of America’s unparalleled success. But the critical role played by our negative rights has become less and less clearly understood over time.

Many of this country’s most celebrated leaders have manipulated that ignorance, redefining rights as unearned rewards for politically favored groups; payoffs thinly veiled in the pious rhetoric of social justice.

FDR himself was among the worst. The abject failure of the New Deal notwithstanding, FDR proposed to codify his authoritarian progressive agenda in a constitutional amendment, known as the “Economic Bill of Rights.”

It reads like a list that could just as easily have flowed from the pen of Karl Marx:

The right to a useful and remunerative job…

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition…

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care…

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

Besides being, as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest, economically disastrous and utterly impossible to define or achieve, the biggest problem with FDR’s list was that it sought to make America into a nation of serfs.

The logic is inescapable. Once something has been deemed a right by those in government, the ability of every person who produces or consumes that good or service to engage in voluntary transactions with the fruit of their own labor is stolen. Their labor is then owned and administered by agents of the collective.

Again, I ask: Is that not the very essence of slavery?

There is no doubt that freedom entails risk, and America has not always lived up to the promise of her founding. But when certain people or groups pervert the notion of rights, harnessing the power of government to take by force what they desire but have not earned, then negative freedom becomes a positive tyranny.

Let us hope that more Americans, before it is too late, learn how to tell the difference.

Josh is a proud “tenther”, freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area.

After the release of my last column “Freedom’s Destruction by Constitutional De-Construction,” I received so many responses to my statement, “The people of the states [must] once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism,” that I felt the need to develop this subject more thoroughly.

The question I received was: “How can I choose federalism once again?” Indeed, answering this question is crucial to injecting a cure for the sickness and illness of tyrannical, national control over the people of the states. Undoubtedly, we are going to need an acute dosage to even begin ridding ourselves of the disease destroying the body of our once-great federation.

The reality is, the answer is not complicated. The more relevant question will likely be, what portion of the cure(s) must we implement. This will require a diagnosis of the degree and seriousness of the disease’s attack on our Confederate Republic.

Let us analyze briefly the seriousness of the attack so that we may proportionally and accordingly respond and defend against the encroachments on our constitutional freedoms, guarantees and powers.

Keeping in line with my last article and the position that the national system of government (under which the United States currently operates) is completely contrary to the federal system that our founders and Constitution’s ratifiers bequeathed to us, a fact is established: We the People of the United States of America have been denied our natural and compactual rights under God and the Constitution.

Again, how can it be argued that it is now legally and morally right and proper to do what our Constitution did not create or authorize? How can freedom exist in a country where we supposedly believe in the “consent of the governed” when that consent has been usurped by force? Consequently, our right of defense is activated.

Make no mistake about this: the US Constitution did NOT create a national government, but rather created a federal government whereby the states were coequal with the federal government in the exercise and defense of the powers granted to them by the people of each State. The founders and ratifiers of the Constitution expressly rejected the notion that the federal government has supreme sovereignty.

The issue here is not whether there are “national components” of the procedures in the system, such as voting for the House of Representatives by the people. We know that the founders implemented a few elements of national-type procedure in the US Constitution, just as they did even in the Articles of Confederation.

Rather, the bottom-line issue is, whether the states have coequal power to exercise and defend their powers–and their citizens–and whether the Federal government has the power to force the states to accept its own interpretation and (de)construction of the Constitution. If the union of the United States was formed by the people of the states in their capacities as the sovereign of each State, creating a FEDERAL government, then the states are coequal in power and do have the right to exercise and defend their powers.

If the union of the United States was formed by the whole of the people as a mass body politic, without regard to the sovereign states, creating a NATIONAL government, then the states are mere corporations of the parent company, called the Federal government.

I need not expound the answer to this question here, because I have done so in numerous other articles before, proving that the union was formed by the states as states, and not by the people as one nation. The conclusion is more than provable that the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution did not create a nation, but created a federation, and actually expected the states to be the active guardians of freedom for their own people.

Thus, what methods can we use today to once again choose federalism over nationalism?

There are five basic methods by which the people of the states can counter the attacks of the federal government’s prolonged tyrannical usurpations of power. They are: (1) Change of Politicians; (2) Checks and Balances; (3) Constitutional Amendment; (4) Constitutional Convention; and (5) Revolution.

1. Change of Politicians. Alexander Hamilton notes in Federalist Paper 21, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” This method of cure is no mystery, and has been the mode of “change” in the US for the past 50 years. Dare I say, this method has proven to be anything but effectual? Please show me how changing the Federal government from Republican to Democrat and vice versa has done ANYTHING to reinstitute our federal form of government, provided by the Constitution. Both parties in the federal government do absolutely nothing to revert rightful power to the people of the states. I shall not waste any more valuable time or words on this ineffectual method. (Then again, if we had a majority of congressmen such as Ron Paul in Washington, D.C., we wouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.)

2. Checks and Balances. There are two types of checks and balances: (a) federal against federal, and (b) State against federal. Since the early 1900s, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government have usurped power from the states. To say that the people of the states can count on the three branches of the federal government to check each other in this regard and to maintain a Federal form of government is a joke. All three branches maintain that they possess the sole power (through the judiciary) to interpret and construe the Constitution, and that all others (i.e., the states) must submit thereto. This is in fact the very definition of nationalism, which the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected.

As for the states’ check against federal usurpations of power, most ignorant or disillusioned people would say that they lost that right when the Confederate States of America lost the Civil War in 1865, and from that point onward, the states could not check the federal government through arresting action. They suggest that to conquer equals the right to rule: a notion completely rejected in American jurisprudence. Time does not allow me to expand on this erroneous doctrine, so I will simply say, How ludicrous!

The fact is, the Federalist Paper writers expected the states to be the guardians against federal tyranny. This necessarily meant (as they expressed) that the states develop actual arms of resistance to such encroachments. This, of course, shows, once again, the FEDERAL character and nature of our form of government: the states were not subservient to the federal government’s dictates, but were coequal in power to protect their own authority and freedoms through their State Constitutions.

Thankfully, we are seeing a current resurgence of State activism to be the voice and arm of the people to protect and perpetuate the US Constitution. While the federal v. federal checks and balances have proven to be less than fruitful, the states today are taking their role more seriously in this regard, just as our founders and ratifiers demanded. It is this State power of active and passive nullification and resistance that will once again protect federalism and freedom in America. Therefore, it is this State power that affords us the best opportunity to defend liberty and restore constitutional government, and that we should expend most our energies to revive.

3. Constitutional Amendment. The US Constitution requires three-fourths of the STATES to amend the Constitution. Most certainly this is an effective tool to reverse and prevent evils in government. Our founders expected that this process would protect freedom and the principles of freedom. However, as we have seen since 1865, the amendment process has been used only to increase national power and decrease State power. From the states being denied power in the Senate, to the income tax and “privileges and immunities” clause of the fourteenth amendment, the nationalists of the twentieth century have had their heyday by deepening their squeeze of national ideals over federal. Ironically, the attack on federalism has come through the same document protecting our federation: the Constitution. (The illegality of amendments being used to propagate principles contrary to freedom and federalism is for another article and discussion.)

That being said: if there were enough states to amend the Constitution to clarify federal doctrines, limit federal government power, and reinstitute original State powers, then it most certainly would be beneficial. Praise the day when such amendments would be ratified.

4. Constitutional Convention. I have heard this method suggested by some in certain circles of the “patriot movement,” and while I understand the suggestion of calling a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution, I believe that to do so would likely create more problems than what we are dealing with today. However, there is a caveat, as explained below.

To convene a constitutional convention, states would have to send delegates (just as in 1787) for the purpose of discussing and drafting a Constitution. Not even getting into the legal issues and ramifications inherent in such a method, a very practical question is raised: Would a majority of the people convening at such a monumental event even possess the understanding, knowledge and belief needed to perpetuate and protect the principles of freedom and federalism? By virtue of what I see throughout the US today, I venture to say, No. I believe one of the greatest contributions to national ideals defeating federal ideals is that the people (including on State levels) do not understand, know or believe in the principles expressed by our founders and their forefathers.

Thus, to call a constitutional convention would most certainly place us in a worse situation. That said, there is one positive that could result from this. If the Constitution were re-written, it would require the ratification of the states that wanted to join a new union under a new contract (Constitution). In this case, it very well may provide a way for the people of the states to decide which path they wanted to take: national or federal. In other words, those states that yet wanted to live under Federalism and not Nationalism could reject the new compact and could declare themselves independent or seek to form yet another compact among like-minded states. (Of course, this could happen anyway, per number 2 above–even without a constitutional convention–making any proposed Con Con a dangerous and unnecessary action.)

5. Revolution. Revolution simply means a change of power. For those who perceive such a term as being a bad thing, why do they not then demonize the current illegitimate system of national government, because this current system is not the one the states ratified back in 1787? If a squatter turns your property into his, are you not within your rights to remove him, his family, his friends and his belongings completely from your property?

It is a fact that Americans (nationalists, federalists and even monarchists) believed in the natural right of revolution–that every generation has the God-given right to effect change by revolution when change cannot be reasonably expected and effected through other more peaceful means.

Coming full circle, then: To what degree has the federal government usurped its powers? This question is crucial because, as our forefathers expressed, resistance should be enacted proportionally to the usurpation. While there may be some who think that “it’s not all that bad,” I suggest that it is much worse than we think it is.

We are at a point today when we are not only fighting for State sovereignty and a federal system, but we are fighting for national sovereignty (according to the LAWS OF NATIONS as expressed by enlightenment philosophers and jurists), against those who desire that the US become part of the global community.

The evidence around us is beyond reasonable doubt: we the people of the United States have been fraudulently denied our rights under the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and under the US Constitution. The rights to resist this tyranny already exist. The methods to choose federalism and freedom have their hands out, offering to help us. It is time we choose which method or methods will best reach the ultimate goal of freedom.

And as I said, I believe a revival of State sovereignty–whereby states are resolved to exercise the authority they have per the terms of their charter (Constitution)–is the most attractive and effective method currently feasible to reclaim federalism and freedom in America.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his blog.

Copyright © 2009 Timothy Baldwin. Reprinted with permission from Chuck Baldwin Live and Liberty Defense League.

In one of his final acts as president, James Madison did something almost unthinkable by modern standards: he vetoed a bill solely on Constitutional grounds.

President Madison agreed that it made sense to use federal funds for the construction or upgrade of vital roadways and canals within the states. But the Internal Improvements bill of 1817 was contradicted by a higher law, namely the absence of a concomitant enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Being among the Framers of our legal system, Madison understood that when two laws clash, the higher one wins out. True to his oath of office, he refused to challenge the Constitution by endorsing an invalid inferior statute.

Seeing this specific issue coming to the fore, Madison had a couple years earlier let Congress know exactly how everyone’s spending wishes could come to pass. He encouraged Congress to fire up the process for amending the Constitution. Given the substantial support that the notion of federal spending on infrastructure enjoyed, it seems likely that the states would have been willing to delegate such power to the federal government, if asked. Congress instead tried the easy route, in the vain hope that Madison was bluffing.

In the almost two hundred years since Madison’s veto, the federal government’s spending authority has still not been officially augmented. But that has not prevented our national leaders from establishing a fantastic variety of new spending programs. Politicians of every supposed political stripe (including many who ostensibly repudiate “big government”) have come to accept federal omnipotence as a given.

Those who still give lip service to the Constitution as law (as opposed to some sort of “guiding document”) justify spending as they please through spontaneous discovery of the Constitution’s “living, breathing” nature, a catch-all interpretation of the general Welfare clause, or the favoring of novel semantic construction over plain-English intent. They have appointed a complicit judiciary to provide cover.

In its end-run around federal limitations, the establishment was skillfully guided by America’s ‘progressive’ intelligentsia. Leftist academics, specifically, provided the philosophical undergirding of expansionist policy.

Of course, systematic misinterpretation of the Constitution was not the only possible route to a dominant federal government. Instead of pushing shortcuts, principled progressives could have advocated that federal prerogative to new powers be secured by Constitutional amendment prior to legislative actualization, in sync with Madison’s exhortation to Congress.

Over time, the states might well have become willing to formally turn over all sorts of responsibilities to the federal government. With every war it won, and with every year it persisted as other governments around the world fell to revolution, the US government appeared to be more competent and stable, worthy of taking on new roles. Had the left pursued a measured, truly Constitutional path to federal expansion, we might today be like the countries of Western Europe, with a centrally-managed welfare state that is completely legal.

But, on the face of it, we cannot expect progressives to be overly-sensitive to the charge that, because they declined to play by the rules, their whole racket is illegitimate. After all, they got their way, and they and their fellow spendthrifts are more or less in charge at every level of government. Why should they regret having bypassed the burdensome formality of the amendment process?

There is actually a very good reason. Given its history, how seriously can the modern left expect to be taken when, for example, it decries DEA raids on California medical marijuana clinics, on the grounds that the clinics comport with state law? Appeal to federalism is, by right of equity, no longer available to the left. As a matter of fact, every time Congress tries to reverse state measures on assisted suicide, or to regulate marriage, the left itself must share the blame.

Through their demonstrated willingness to cut corners, progressives have also hobbled their advocacy for the preservation of the civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The futile cries from the left that the Bush Administration “shredded the Constitution” through its eavesdropping and detention policies were, on one level, quite galling.

Having worked so diligently to debase the structure set up by the opening articles of the Constitution, progressives hardly have purchase to claim offense when that document’s first ten amendments are disrespected. The Constitution is not an à la carte menu.

The mainstream right has, of course, had its own problems with consistent, objective respect for the rule of law. For example, those whose evaluation of War on Terror policies begins and ends with “Bush kept us safe” should consider that, but for lingering respect for the Second Amendment, private gun ownership would likely be a thing of the past. But the right’s misdeeds are beyond the specific scope of this article.

Even if today’s progressives come to fully comprehend the destructiveness of past political mistakes, it is far too late for them to set things right. They are by now completely invested in the legislative fraud through which the institutions of unlimited federal government were created and nurtured.

But the very fact that these institutions stand on such shaky legal ground could be the germ of their eventual demise. If and when we start actually obeying the rules, then higher Constitutional law will automatically trump the statutory law upon which the federal behemoth depends. Fiscal liberalism will be immediately out of business. So we should in this sense be grateful for the left’s procedural delinquency.

Once upon a time, progressives had an opportunity to do their thing, by the book. But they blew their chance.

Michael Cummins is the Clark County, Washington, coordinator for Campaign for Liberty. He is also an operations specialist in the telecommunications industry and a part-time musician.

Copyright © 2009 Campaign for Liberty, published with permission.

The American Revolution was waged against a highly centralized, nationalistic governmental tyranny run by a king, namely, the British Empire. The king enriched himself and his regime through the economic institution of mercantilism, defined by Murray Rothbard as “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” This system impoverished the average Englishman but was a perpetual source of power and riches for the king and his political allies. That is why the system lasted so long (at least two centuries) despite the fact that it was so harmful to the average citizen.

After the Seven Years War with France the king of England needed to pay off his war debts, so he stepped up the application of the corrupt mercantilist system to the American colonists. He did so with numerous taxes and interferences with international trade that benefited British businesses and the British state while treating the colonists like tax serfs. The “train of abuses” delineated in the Declaration of Independence were mostly abuses of the colonists for the purpose of plundering them with the British mercantilist system.

There was always a group of men in American politics who were not opposed to the evil mercantilist system in principle. They recognized it as a wonderful system for accumulating power and wealth as long as they could be in charge of it. Being victimized by it was another matter. These men, led by Alexander Hamilton and his fellow Federalists, strived to implement an American version of British mercantilism as soon as the Revolution was over. In doing so they were traitors to the American Revolution and the worst kind of corrupt, power-seeking political scoundrels.

America’s would-be economic dictators strived mightily to “justify” their corrupt scheme by rewriting the history of the American founding. They made the bizarre argument that, having just fought a revolution against a highly centralized tyranny, the founders at the constitutional convention supposedly embraced the same kind of tyranny in the form of a highly centralized or national government.

The Virginia statesman John Taylor of Caroline smoked out these political scoundrels in an 1823 book entitled New Views of the Constitution of the United States (reprinted in 2005 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd, of Union, New Jersey). Making extensive use of the recently published Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention by Robert Yates, who attended the constitutional convention, Taylor shredded the false notions of “nationalists” like Hamilton (and later, Clay and Lincoln).

Focusing on Hamilton as the chief culprit, Taylor explained how the “nationalists” did try at the constitutional convention to create a completely centralized government, but failed. For example, he quotes Hamilton himself at the convention as proposing a form of government such that “All laws of the particular states, contrary to the constitution or laws of the United States [government], to be utterly void. And the better to prevent such laws being passed, the governor . . . of each state shall be appointed by the general government, and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the state of which he is governor.”

Hamilton’s scheme was rejected, of course, and Taylor correctly commented that “this project comprised a national government, nearly conforming to that of England . . .” (p. 27). “By Colonel Hamilton’s project, the states were fairly and openly to be restored to the rank of provinces, and to be made as dependent upon a supreme national government, as they had been upon a supreme British government” (p. 28). Moreover, under Hamilton’s scheme “A power in the supreme federal court to declare all state laws and judgments void” would be “a supremacy exactly the same with that exercised by the British king and his council over the same provincial departments” (p. 28). Thankfully, Hamilton’s plan was rejected.

Quoting Yates’s journal, Taylor also noted that on June 25, 1787 “it was proposed and seconded to erase the word national, and substitute the words United States [in the plural] in the fourth resolution, which passed in the affirmative” (p. 29). “Thus,” Taylor wrote, “we see an opinion expressed at the convention, that the phrase “United States” did not mean ‘a consolidated American people or nation,’ and all the inferences in favour of a national government . . . are overthrown” (p. 29).

Taylor understood that the reason why Hamilton and other Federalists wanted a centralized or consolidated government was that states’ rights would forever stand in the way of their accumulation of power and wealth through the mercantilist system that they hoped to impose on America. Therefore, states’ rights must be crushed, in the eyes of Hamilton and his followers (despite occasional lip service paid to the notion of states’ rights).

Relying again on Yates’s notes, Taylor wrote of how the Hamiltonians proposed to empower the Congress to engage in a variety of economic interventions, including “the promotion of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures” (p. 29). A “monopoly in currency” by the central government was another of Hamilton’s schemes that alarmed the senator from Virginia. This was their plan for bringing British mercantilism to America: First, consolidate political power in the central government and destroy any semblance of divided sovereignty; then, use that power to replicate the mercantilist British monarchy hidden behind the rhetorical fog of American “democracy.” As Taylor described it, it was “Monarchy, its hand-maiden consolidation, and its other hand-maid, ambition, all dressed in popular disguises . . .” (p. 45). And, “National splendor, national strength, and a national government, were the arguments they [the Hamiltonians] used; but personal considerations, suggested by the prominence of their stations, or the hopes suggested by their talents, really forged their opinions” (p. 46). The “pretended national prosperity, was only a pretext of ambition and monopoly . . . intended to feed avarice, gratify ambition, and make one portion of the nation tributary to another” (p. 46).

But the nationalists failed in their endeavor; the Constitution created a confederacy of states that delegated only a few enumerated powers to the central government, which was to act as their agent, and for their benefit. All other powers were reserved to the people or the states. It was a federal, not a “national” government. Subsequently, “Colonel Hamilton . . . seems to have quitted the convention in despair, soon after the failure of his project” (p. 32).

Yates’s notes on the convention prove definitively that “the whole people” never had anything whatsoever to do with the ratification of the Constitution, which was done by state conventions. There was never any national election that created a national government. As his journal states, quoted by Taylor (p. 32): “that the constitution was transmitted to Congress, and by it to the state legislatures; that these legislatures, by separate laws, appointed state conventions for the consideration of the constitution; and that it was ratified by the delegates of the people of each state.”

Thus, “every step in its progress,” writes Taylor, “from beginning to end, defines [the Constitution] to be a federal and not a national act. . . . It was ratified by each state, because each state was sovereign and independent” (p. 32, emphasis added). Furthermore, “no negative upon state laws was delegated to the federal government, or any department thereof, and the absence of such a power had been enforced by its rejection.”

What motivated Taylor to write New Views of the Constitution of the United States was the alarming fact that, by the 1820s, the men in American politics who still dreamed of reigning over a mercantilist empire began mis-educating the public about the true history of the founding. They did so by repeating Hamilton’s arguments, which were so thoroughly rejected by the convention. As Taylor described it, the public was being told that “the devil, thus repeatedly exorcized, still remains in the church” (p. 36). The “devil,” of course, was the notion that the states were not sovereign over the central government that they had created as their agent. The truth, as Taylor explained, was that “by the constitution, the states may take away all the powers of the federal government, whilst that government is prohibited from taking away a single power reserved to the states” (p. 36).

It was assumed that state sovereignty included a right of secession from the constitutional compact. “In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation” (p. 37). The states “could never have conceived that they had, by their union, relinquished their sovereignties; created a supreme negative power over their laws; or established a national government . . .” (p. 37). In fact, according to Yates’s journal, the states were described at the convention as essentially being independent nations. So much so that the journal stated: “It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the state governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the publick liberty by the national authority” (Taylor, p. 70, emphasis added).

Yates’s journal further states: “Each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered to be a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new constitution will be a federal and not a national constitution” (Taylor, p. 83). This means that any one state would have the right to secede from the constitutional compact. It would have been considered an absurdity to argue that the right of secession only existed by the permission of other states (which was Lincoln’s argument).

But why all the secrecy? Why did the framers of the constitution take an oath not to reveal to the public what they were up to until after they were all dead? (Madison’s notes were not published until after his death). In a recent LRC article entitled “The Most Successful Fraud in American History” Gary North suggested that “the perpetrators [of any fraud] must be bound by an oath of non-disclosure, which all of them keep until they die, yet which leaves no trail of paper for historians to discuss.” John Taylor would agree. It was all kept secret so that “the vindicators of a federal construction of the constitution are deprived of a great mass of light, and the consolidating school have gotten rid of a great mass of detection” (p. 41). Thus, “it was necessary to keep the people in the dark” so that “the people should be worked as puppets” (p. 41).

Taylor also dissects and ridicules the “paradoxical arguments” of the Hamiltonians of his day (who would soon form the Whig Party of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln). The advocates of “consolidated sovereignties,” Taylor noted, contend that

The greater the [government] revenue the richer are the people; that frugality in the government is an evil; in the people a good; that local partialities are blessings; that monopolies and exclusive privileges are general welfare; that a division of sovereignty will raise up a class of wicked, intriguing, self-interested politicians in the states; and that human nature will be cleansed of these propensities by a sovereignty consolidated in one government.

Taylor was being excessively polite when he labeled these absurdities as merely “paradoxical.”

Taylor also provides a clear explanation of the so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, which many contemporary commentators (especially Lincoln worshipping neocons) insist gives the federal government the power to do whatever it wants to the citizens of the states. The truth is that the language in the Constitution about it being “the supreme law of the land” only applies to the seventeen specific powers enumerated to the central government in Article I, Section 8. Nothing more. The states remain the ultimate sovereigns by the Constitution. “The constitutional laws of the states are equally supreme with those of the federal government” (p. 78).

John Taylor issued his warning that “the devil is in the church” in 1823. In the coming years the new generation of “consolidationists,” led by the likes of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, were hard at work repeating Hamilton’s “paradoxical” arguments in the apparent belief that a gullible public would come to believe such arguments if they are repeated enough. They never achieved much success, however, thanks to the strength of the Jeffersonian, states’ rights tradition in America, which was the nation’s true political tradition.

The Constitution was essentially a failed attempt to overthrow the decentralized, federalist system that was created by America’s first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. The delegates to the constitutional convention were only instructed to revise the Articles, not replace them. The first thing they did was to ignore the instructions they were given and write an entirely new constitution. But as Yates’s journal and Taylor’s book reveal, they failed. They only managed to get the citizens of the states to delegate a few enumerated powers to the central government, not to create a national government. They succeeded in replacing the Articles, but not with their ideal, monopolistic system.

It would require a brutal, uncompromising dictator to overthrow the federal system and adopt a British-style consolidated, mercantilist empire. As Taylor wrote (p. 237): “It seems to be nature’s law, that every species of concentrated sovereignty over extensive territories, whether monarchical, aristocratical, democratical, or mixed, must be despotick. In no case has a concentrated power over great territories been sustained, except by mercenary armies; and whenever power is thus sustained, despotism is the consequence.” Furthermore, “the ignorance and partiality of a concentrated form of government, can only be enforced by armies; and the peculiar ability of the states to resist, promises that resistance would be violent; so that a national government must be either precarious or despotick” (p. 238).

Yates’s notes quote James Madison as warning at the constitutional convention that “the great danger to our federal government, is the great northern and southern interests of the continent being opposed to each other” (Taylor, p. 248). Taylor quotes Madison to predict the War for Southern Independence, which would occur almost four decades later. If northern, southern, or western interests are in sharp conflict, he wrote, and “if either can acquire local advantages from a national supremacy, it will aggravate the geographical danger apprehended by a Mr. Madison, a perpetual warfare of intrigues will ensue, and a dissolution of the union will result” (p. 249).

This is where the role of the brutal, uncompromising dictator enters into American political history. The crusade for a consolidated, monopolistic government began as soon as the Revolution ended. Some seventy-five years later Taylor’s worst fear was realized: a consolidated, mercantilist empire was finally cemented into place, and it did require “a mercenary army” to succeed. Lincoln’s army included literally hundreds of thousands of conscripts and European mercenaries who finally snuffed out the Jeffersonian, federalist system of states’ rights with the bloodiest war in human history up to that point.

The New England Yankees and their Midwestern brethren continued to rewrite history in the ensuing decades so that books like Robert Yates’s journal of the constitutional convention and John Taylor’s book on the Constitution are virtually unheard of in America. The whitewash of American history has been very thorough indeed.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe andHow Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

The interest of the current administration in creating a federal national health care program, has provoked discussion of whether the federal government has sufficient power to do so. Often, the discussion is phrased as whether “the government” has sufficient power. Others have asked if the federal government has the power to compel individuals to purchase health insurance.

My article (“Limits to Regulation due to the Interaction of the Patent and Commerce Clause”, in CATO Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3, Winter 2001, pages 401 – 423), gives an insight into both questions, by answering this one: why does the so-called “patent clause” of the federal constitution, not use the word “patent”?

If the word “patent” meant what we currently mean by that term, then the clause could have simply stated the relevant power by saying the federal government can issue patents. Instead, the “patent clause” carefully states that the Congress has the power to issue exclusive rights for a limited time to authors or inventors. It does not use the word “patent” at all.

As reviewed in that article, this use of words tells us a great deal about the purposes and structure of the federal constitution. Citing principal legal scholars of the day, the article shows that at the time the federal constitution was written, the word “patent” actually had a much broader meaning. It referred to any government grant of an economic right, called in the article a “general patent power”. Of course if the federal government can grant such rights without limit, we would not need to ask if the federal government has such power over health care.

Yet we ask. On the other hand, when the US states have created health care programs, or otherwise regulated matters like health insurance, the existence of that power in a state has been little questioned. And note: this common understanding is consistent with the 10th Amendment to the federal constitution, that powers not enumerated to the federal Congress are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.

So looking carefully at the choice of words in the “patent clause” tells us a great deal on what the federal government cannot do. The only general patent power granted by the federal constitution to the federal Congress is the specifically described power to create what we today call patents. All other aspects of the general patent power were not given to the federal government, so if exercised at all could be done only by states.

For example, the states can, and normally do, protect the general welfare by requiring holders of driver licenses (issue of which is a proper exercise of a general patent power by a state government) to also buy accident insurance. The federal government however does not regulate drivers or issue of driver licenses within the jurisdiction of any state.

Given this careful allocation of general patent powers, principally to the states, what then is the role if any of the federal government in matters of commerce? Since the word “patent” when the federal constitution was written refers to allocation of economic rights, and those powers generally were reserved to states (or the people), then the commerce language of the federal constitution cannot be interpreted as a general allocation of such power to the federal government. Had that been the intent, the simple grant to Congress of a power to issue patents, without any other words, would have been sufficient.

Now, the federal commerce clause (Article I, Section 8 of the federal constitution) says that Congress has the power: “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” But we just saw that Congress has no power to regulate commerce among the several States by the use of an exclusive federal grant of markets, or indeed to allocate those markets, because to do so in that form would be to exercise a power (the “general patent power”) not granted. Since the Congress has no power to allocate economic rights (except what today we call patents), therefore, the commerce language must have some other meaning.

But that meaning also is not a mystery. A review of other powers of the federal government in relation to states, shows that the role of the federal government is to prevent overly restrictive use of powers by the states. Thus, in commerce among the several states, (“interstate commerce”) the role of the federal government was not to allocate rights, but to prevent the states from unduly closing commerce when they exercise their own powers to allocate rights.

This fact is consistent with the historical problem of the day, when states had often done exactly that, to the detriment of the general welfare of all. The “general welfare” words of the federal constitution in no sense changes this separation of powers. The federal government protects the general welfare by preventing excesses of exercise of power by the states.

The details of those arguments are laid out in the referenced article. The application to the health care debate seems straight forward: the states can require health insurance or not, as each may choose; the states could create state supported systems of health care for their citizens, if they choose. The federal government can do neither.

What the federal government might do is this: if in the exercise of their rights to regulate health insurance or provide it, the states create rules that obstruct commerce in health care, then the Congress can prevent such obstruction. It is not simply ironic that the one thing the Congress might be able to constitutionally do with regard to health care, to remove obstruction to competitive access, is not among those included in the proposed legislation.

Paul A. Ballonoff operates Ballonoff Network in Alexandria, VA.

Copyright © 2009, Paul A. Ballonoff

“In short, the objective of the libertarian is to confine any existing State to as small a degree of invasion of person and property as possible.”
–Murray Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty

Does it not seem wrong that the mere few hundred politicians in the Federal Government have the power to control 300 million people and influence, either directly or indirectly, the entire planet? Even though the state is unjustified, inconsistent, immoral and inefficient, we should still favor maximum decentralization of power but not because local government is somehow “better” or less evil.

Rather, we ought to favor decentralization because governmental flaws and inherent corruption can be geographically limited, and the amount of damage they inflict remains within its jurisdiction. Those outside the scope of a local government are not affected, whereas those within its scope can find it easier to escape.

Under a Jeffersonian heterogeneous and decentralized hierarchy of power, life in the U.S. could have been quite different. Left alone by the Feds, each of the sovereign states might have had vastly different laws. Indeed, Anthony Gregory correctly points out that “many if not most political tensions would be decentralized down to the state level, and after that, competition and experimentation among states would likely point the way to the benefits of liberalizing and shrinking government at all levels.”

The situation today, however, is totally different. The once sovereign states have now been homogenized by the Federal Government, becoming its administrative arms. No longer is there a major difference between one place and another. Yes, I am aware that some states have significantly smaller governments with less taxation and lower regulations.

And granted, one should not have to move to another place to enjoy freedom just like one should not have to move out of one’s home to avoid a burglar. Yet the unconstitutional departments and programs coming from Washington are so overweening, intrusive and inexorably expansive that it would be preferable to at least have a choice amongst states. Alas, no longer can we vote with our feet.

Under proper federalism, families and groups would decide which style of government best suits them. I do not advocate statism but instead recognize that, lacking a central authority, the local governments would be free to experiment with policies. Don’t like California’s socialist leanings? Move to New Hampshire. Want to carry concealed guns without a permit? Move to Alaska or Vermont. If you don’t like firearms, move to Chicago or D.C. For those who want a nanny environment with heavy business regulations, try Massachusetts.

For better or worse, state laws generally do not cross borders, and their effects are limited. The Feds no longer allow even a limited freedom of movement. Everywhere you go you find the war on terror, the war on drugs, Social Security, income tax, fiat currency and inflation, and an interminable number of abominable and centralist boils of welfare-warfare pus. The only day-to-day sign that your state is part of the Union should be the occasional Post Office, which should not even enjoy a legal monopoly.

Federalism was, thus, an attempt to keep the burgeoning central power away from local life. There is no perfect system, but by exposing failures locally, there can at least be the freedom to avoid bad governments and pursue better ones. Who knows what the outcome would have been had federalism been kept alive, but one thing is certain: it would have been better than what we have today. Instead of fifty states, there is only one, and one is never a choice.

Ultimately, those who love liberty must favor decentralization of power because it is the path towards greater individual freedom and the respect of rights.

Manuel Lora [send him mail] is a freelance TV producer and multimedia specialist in New Orleans.

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

During the Constitutional Convention, from May to September 1787, delegates from the colonies were to gather together for the express purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation to form a “more perfect union” (NOT a completely different union!). The men that met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were under direct and limited orders from their states to attend the Federal Convention explicitly to preserve the federation and State rights and to correct the errors of the existing federal government for the limited purposes of handling foreign affairs, commerce among the states and common defense.

Yet, during that private and secret convention, there were men who proposed that a national system be established in place of their current federal system, destroying State sovereignty in direct contradiction to their orders. (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 1, 2nd ed., [Philadelphia, PA, JB Lippincott, 1891], 121) Of course, the public was not aware of this fact until years after the ratification of the Constitution, when the notes taken in the convention were printed and released to the public.

Indeed, those who proposed such a national system of government (e.g., Alexander Hamilton, John Dickinson and James Madison) would not have the people of the states aware of this proposal for fear of outright rejection of the Constitution and for fear that they would remove their delegates from the convention altogether, giving no chance of success for the ratification of a new Constitution. It was hush-hush for good reason. In fact, Alexander Hamilton was so tactful on the subject that he did not even present his nationalistic notions as a constitutional proposal, but only as his ideas of what America should be. (Ibid., 123) Despite these proposals, in the end, it was a federalist system that prevailed–a union of states and not a union of people, whereby the states retained complete and absolute sovereignty over all matters not delegated to the federal government. The states were indeed co-equal with the federal government. So, what was it about the national system that was rejected during the convention?

The most notable proposal reveals the underlying foundation for all national principles: that is, the national government possesses superior sovereignty to force the states to submit to the laws made by the national government and to negate any State law it deems repugnant to the articles of union. This supreme power was proposed (but rejected) as follows during the Federal Convention: the to-be national government should possess the power to “negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the articles of union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union.” (Ibid., 207) Hamilton, and his like, would have loved it had this national principle of supreme sovereignty been accepted by the delegates. Thankfully, it was not accepted. In fact, as the convention progressed, what became apparent to those who advocated for this national form of government is that their ideas would never be accepted and ratified.

History proves with absolute certainty that a national government and its assuming principles were rejected, not only by the framers of the US Constitution, but also by those who sent delegates to the Federal Convention and who ratified the US Constitution at their State conventions. More important than the limited powers of the federal government, the people of the states rejected the nationalist doctrine that the federal government had the power to negate State laws that it deemed contrary to the Constitution. (John Taylor, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, [Washington DC, 1823], 15).

So, how is it that while the people of the states expressly forbade the federal government from interfering with the internal affairs of the states the federal government can now control nearly every facet of life within the states and the states supposedly can do absolutely nothing about it? Most attorneys who think they know so much about America’s history and the US Constitution would say, “The United States Supreme Court is given the power to say what the Constitution means and that over the years, they have interpreted Congress’ power to reach the internal affairs of a State.” It is the “living Constitution” idea, simultaneously coupled with nationalistic doctrine, which proclaims that the actual meaning of the Constitution can change over time, and that such change is constitutional and does not deny the people their freedom protected under the compact of the Constitution.

Interestingly, the “living Constitution” idea is only used when it promotes a constitutional “construction” that expands and empowers the federal government and neuters the State governments. The “living Constitution” idea (advanced by the British Parliament) in fact is the very notion that caused America’s War for Independence. (Claude Halstead Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, [Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922], 235, 237)

The ludicrous proposition of a “living Constitution” begs numerous critical questions involving the very foundation of a free society, not the least of which is this: If the meaning of the Constitution can change over time, why did the Constitution’s framers spend nearly five months debating which words should be placed in the Constitution? More than that, why would the framers be so emotionally, mentally, intellectually and intensely involved in the question of what form of government we will have: national or federal?

How can it be that the judiciary branch of the federal government, which is not even politically responsible to the people or the states whatsoever (and only ever so slightly to the other federal branches), has the sole and complete power to say that the states have no power to interpret and comport to the US Constitution as they deem constitutional, when that same power was expressly rejected to the national government during the convention? After all, Hamilton and Madison both admit throughout the federalist papers that the states have complete and absolute sovereignty regarding the powers retained by them and granted to them by the people of each State, just as any foreign nation would. Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the only check on power is another independent power and thus, the only real power that could check federal power was State power. They even expected that the states would use their sovereign and independent power to the point of being the voice and, if necessary, the “ARM” of the people to implement a common defense against the federal government.

Both Hamilton and Madison admit that the federal government can never force the states out of existence and can never strip them of their rights and powers possessed prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, except as delegated to the federal government. They even refer to the states’ right of self-defense in this regard to resist federal tyranny. Was this mere “bait and switch” rhetoric to get the people of the states to ratify what they thought was a pure federal system? How can the states possess the absolute sovereign power to check federal tyranny when they are bound to submit to the federal government’s interpretation of the Constitution? The two positions are necessarily incompatible with each other. To say that you have power, so long as I say you have power is to deny your power altogether.

Quite obviously, in no place does the Constitution grant to the federal government (in any branch) superior sovereignty over the states. Instead, the Constitution requires ALL parties to it (State and federal) to comply with the Constitution, as it is the supreme law of the land. All the framers agreed that federal government and federal law do not equal the “supreme law of the land.” Both the federal government and the federal laws are bound by the terms to which all must comply. Thus, all parties must be watching each other to ensure each is complying with the compact. And as was admitted by even the most ardent nationalist (i.e., Daniel Webster) of America’s earlier history, each party to a COMPACT has the sole right to determine whether the other party has complied with the compact.

But over the years, a political idea contrary to our original federal system was adopted–not through open discussion and consent, but by fraud and force. This position states that whatever the federal judiciary rules equates to the “supreme law of the land” and the states must comply therewith, regardless of whether the federal law usurps the power the states retained under the Constitution. What the nationalists were unable to obtain through honest and open debate during the conventions they have obtained through the erroneously construed “supremacy” clause of the Constitution.

What the federal government was denied through constitutional debate and ratification the nationalists have procured through masquerade, subterfuge and trickery. America has been duped into accepting a national government, not by interpolation, but by deceptive “construction.” If the federal government has the power to usurp its powers without a countermanding power checking its encroachments, where is the genius in our framers’ form of government?

Was this form of government the form that best secured our happiness and freedom? And if our framers in fact bequeathed to us a federal system, whereby the states were co-equal with the federal government in sovereignty and power regarding their powers, then where comes the notion that we now have a national system, whereby the states are mere corporate branches of the federal government? Where were the constitutional debates on that subject? Where was the surrendering of sovereignty by the states, which can only be done through expressed and voluntary consent? Where was the right of the people to establish the form of government most likely to effect their safety and happiness? Do we just accept the fact that our form of government can change over time without express and legal action being taken to effect that change? God forbid!

In 1776, the colonies rejected the European (nationalist) form of government. In the UNITED STATES, the people of the states ardently believed that their freedoms would be best protected if each of their agents (State and federal) possessed equal power to check the other against encroachments of power and freedom. This was the “more perfect union” of the US Constitution. How could the founders have suggested that the US Constitution was a “more perfect union” as a nationalist system, when the nationalist system was the very system they seceded from and rejected? That is nonsense!

Ironically, the very document that was designed to perpetuate these principles of federalism has in fact been de-constructed to destroy those same principles, leaving us with the very form of government that our framers and the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected. In the end, if the people of the states do not once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism–the principles upon which America was founded–then this supposed federal power of constitutional “construction” will in fact be our freedom’s destruction.

Tim Baldwin is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former felony prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a soon-to-be-published new book, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE. Tim is also one of America’s foremost defenders of State sovereignty. See his blog.

The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures

We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly.  On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen.  The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:

• Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
• Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
• Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
• Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

It is for those purposes that this letter addresses your honorable body.

In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance.  They established a nation of free and independent states.  Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights.  The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.

At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress.  Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated.  In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.

There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states.  However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.

The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.

Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.

Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.

To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only.  The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.

The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.  The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.

The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws.  It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters.  It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.

With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional.

Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.

We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.

Susan Lynn [send her email] is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly; serving on the Commerce Committee and Chairman of the Government Operations committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history. She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force.  Visit her blog at http://susan-lynn.blogspot.com

As I learned when recently delivering a lecture, the 10th Amendment is getting a lot of attention. Tenthers — those believing the federal government’s authority should be strictly limited to the enumerated powers in the Constitution — are passionate. Their opponents are equally passionate.

One person asked me if Tenthers’ argument had any constitutional legitimacy. My answer was, well, yes.

The 10th Amendment simply 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.”

Since 1789, the major political question has been concerning the paradox of dual sovereignty: To what extent shall we be national and to what extent shall we be federal? To what extent shall the United States government be sovereign and to what extent shall a state be sovereign?

Historically, the 10th Amendment has been used to preserve regional particularism and resist centralization. During the 1850s, some Northerners used the 10th Amendment as a justification to ignore the Fugitive Slave Law, and after Lincoln was elected, some Southerners used it as an excuse to preserve slavery.

During the Civil War, some northern governors invoked it to resist Lincoln’s centralizing tendencies, while some Confederate governors, including North Carolina’s Zeb Vance and Georgia’s Joe Brown, used states’ rights arguments to resist Jefferson Davis’ policies, including conscription.

A lot of contemporary liberals don’t have much sympathy for the 10th Amendment, however. “This argument has been used to stop progress, and to not keep hope alive,” said commentator Alan Colmes. “If the tenthers had their way, there would be no Medicare, no Social Security, even no public education. How about Every Child Left Behind”

What a simplification!

The 10th Amendment does not prevent states from having public education or creating welfare systems — to name two examples. In fact, North Carolina had public schools during the antebellum era.

Although it has problems, TennCare, a government-operated medical assistance program, has existed in the Volunteer State since 1994. Again, the argument is whether such programs should be created or heavily controlled and directed by the national government.

Invoking 10th Amendment concerns about sovereignty is nothing new.

In 1788, North Carolina balked over ratifying the Constitution and relinquishing more of its power to a centralized government. It remained out of the Union for a year, and in many ways, acted as a quasi-nation.

In 1818, the Tar Heel State levied a tax on out-of-state banks doing business in North Carolina, and charged each branch $5,000. The state snubbed its nose at a national bank: The Bank of the United States.

In a truly federal government, regional particularism lives. Sometimes it can be ugly and immoral. Other times it showcases genuine progress. Sometimes the argument “It’s just the way things are done here” is good enough for me; everyone doesn’t have to think like me.

In a truly federal government, Massachusetts could allow same-sex marriages and bar the Ten Commandments from public displays. In a truly federal government, Alabama could display the Ten Commandments in state courtrooms and outlaw same-sex marriages.

Until State of Missouri v. Holland (1920), migratory bird hunting was regulated at the state level, and in a truly federal government, it would be so today. In a truly federal government, states would make laws concerning abortion, health care, and many other issues.

And in a truly federal government, these states would continue to trade with each other and join forces in times of national emergency.

As government becomes more centralized, and states relinquish authority, the powerful redouble their efforts to make others act (and believe) like them.

Originally published in CarolinaJournal.com – reposted here with permission of the author.

Troy Kickler [send him email] has been Director of the North Carolina History Project since August 2005. He holds an M.S. in Social Studies Education from North Carolina A&T State University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Tennessee. His specialty areas are nineteenth-century U.S., Civil War and Reconstruction, African American, and religious history.

In a recent piece at the Huffington Post, columnist David Sirota attempted to advance a somewhat tortured political theory, one he called “Progressive Federalism,” that demonstrated two important things; neither of which were likely what he intended.

First, despite the ignorant vitriol against “tenthers,” the state sovereignty movement is alive, well, and continuing to gain much-needed penetration into the national political discussion.

And second, when it comes to advancing statism, some members of the so-called media elite either utterly lack knowledge of history or have no regard whatsoever for the meaning of words.

Sirota’s article starts out innocently enough, quoting the New York Times‘ definition of Progressive Federalism as an ideology whereby “governors and activist state attorneys general [are allowed to] lead the way on environmental initiatives, consumer protection and other issues.”

States setting their own environmental and consumer protection standards? So far so good.

In fact, one might be forgiven for confusing Sirota’s Progressive Federalism with the good old fashioned Jeffersonian kind that was codified in our Constitution.

But then, showing his ignorance of the history behind both federalism and state sovereignty, Sirota follows up with this gem:

[I]n order for Progressive Federalism to happen, the federal government has to be supportive of floors, not ceilings — that is, oriented toward setting minimum progressive regulatory standards that states must at least comply with, not maximum regulatory ceilings that states are not allowed to go above and beyond.

In other words, “governors and activist state attorneys general” may foist as much progressive policy onto voters as they can get away with, but no less than the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. determine is necessary for their own power lust.

Heads they win, tails you lose.

Experimenting with 50 laboratories of progressivism may sound like a great idea to some, but a wasteful, corrupt political class holding sway over the entire country sounds like a nightmare to me. Which is why the point of federalism was not to institutionalize Sirota’s brand of liberal self-righteousness, but rather to divide power so that no ideological camp could gain control over a central authority and so assert their agenda by force.

Contrary to the prevailing attitude in politics and the media today, the words of our founders do still have meaning for many Americans. They value both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, and, as its Tenth Amendment underscores, that document intentionally placed each state on coequal footing with the federal government, which the sovereign states themselves created.

In no place other than the very minimal, very enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, did the states surrender any sovereignty at all. Which means that, quite simply, the states don’t need permission to exercise any of the countless rights left to their individual discretion.

If progressives like David Sirota wish to claim that the power of the federal government over their own lives has always been unlimited, simply because its three branches now act as if it is, they are certainly free to do so. Just as we who fear and detest centralized power are free to point out the historical errors in that logic.

But Sirota’s misunderstanding of history (willful or otherwise) is no excuse for allowing him to repackage his paternalistic fantasies as federalism. Intellectual honesty demands that our opponents not justify their incessant drive toward absolutism by perverting the meaning and intent of a constitutional system designed explicitly to abolish it.

Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.