According to a report published on the Tenth Amendment Center’s web site, “Introduced in the Ohio House on October 16, 2009, the ‘Firearms Freedom Act’ (HB-315) seeks ‘To enact section 2923.26 of the Revised Code to provide that ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories that are manufactured and remain in Ohio are not subject to federal laws and regulations derived under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and to require the words “Made in Ohio” be stamped on a central metallic part of any firearm manufactured and sold in Ohio.’”

The report went on to say, “While the HB315’s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment’s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:

“‘The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. The congress of the United States has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.’

“Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.”

See the report here.

Two states have already passed their own Firearms Freedom Acts: Montana and Tennessee. And, along with Ohio, at least 7 other states have introduced similar bills. Those states are Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.

More information regarding the status of these State bills can be seen here.

As you might suspect, the federal government doesn’t take too kindly to these State laws. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) sent an open letter to all Montana and Tennessee firearms dealers denouncing the State laws. ATF assistant director Carson Carroll wrote that “Federal law supersedes the Act.”

The Tenth Amendment Center quotes constitutional historian Kevin Gutzman as correctly stating, “Their [ATF's] view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.

“This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn’t suit them.”

Ah! But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades–so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.” And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

At the end of the day, the Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It has always been about protecting the people and states against federal tyranny.

The Second Amendment itself states, “A well regulated Militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis added.) Note that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms was to insure “the security of a FREE STATE.” (Emphasis added.) “Free from what?” you ask. Free from federal tyranny. Free from an overbearing, encroaching, heavy-handed, would-be national government.

The founders–even the Centralists of the day–all acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms was, first of all, for the protection of the people against government tyranny. Observe:

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Number 29)

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny.” (Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville [NC] Gazette, October 12, 1789)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? . . . Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, ally of James Madison and member of the Continental Congress, Freeman’s Journal, February 20, 1778)

Coxe also said, “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article [the Second Amendment] in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789)

So, for now, 10 states have proposed–and 2 have passed–a Firearms Freedom Act, properly declaring that federal authority granted in the Constitution regarding interstate commerce cannot apply to products (firearms, in this case) that are manufactured and sold within the territory of each respective State. In other words, 10 States are serving notice to Washington, D.C., that they are going to insist that the federal government stop ignoring the Constitution of the United States.

In the same vein, Tennessee State legislator Susan Lynn recently sent an open letter to the State legislative bodies of the other 49 states stating:

“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 the powers and the imposed mandates.”

In the body of her letter, Rep. Lynn states, “The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.”

The Tennessee State representative continued by saying, “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.”

See Rep. Lynn’s letter here.

This is a battle that is just beginning to heat up, but promises to get red-hot in the not-too-distant future. As for me and my house, we believe this showdown is long overdue. To quote Patrick Henry, “Let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come!”

Chuck Baldwin is a radio broadcaster, syndicated columnist, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the Constitution Party’s Nominee for president in 2008. Visit his website at www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Copyright © 2009 Chuck Baldwin

Recently, the U.S. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, responding to a reporter’s question of whether the Constitution gave Congress the authority to enact individual health insurance mandate, kept repeating, “Are you serious?”

Now, let’s give Speaker Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and attribute her impolite reply to simple disbelief. In fact, from her point of view her authority is unchallenged per a September press release, and many others such as Politico’s Erwin Chemerinsky and even the contemporary Supreme Court agree. From her press release, Pelosi states:

“The Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.“

The Speaker is certainly correct that federal Congress has certainly legislated on “many aspects of American life.”  In fact, there is a lot more at stake with the Commerce Clause than “just” our health care — the entire authority for economic central planning rests on this single clause. I strongly disagree with Pelosi that the Constitution allows Congress broad power in this respect. First, the exact language from my job description in Powers of Congress, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

“The Congress shall have Power… to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Pelosi believes that she has the power to “regulate Commerce… among the several States” and I suggest that in blunt language she instead literally means to “control the economy… of the States.”  Pelosi and her ilk accomplish this by confusing the modern meanings with the legal meaning and contemporary context of the founders.

Regulation, in today’s dictionaries, means “a governmental order having the force of law.” However, this is not the historical definition.  The founders believed “regulate” to literally mean ‘to make more regular’ or, per Black’s Law Dictionary at the time, “a rule or order prescribed for management or government; a regulating principle; a precept.” In other words, regulate meant that Congress should in principle assist with Commerce disputes between the States, but did not grant Congress the power of law to inflict criminal penalties. This is most clearly seen in Article 2 of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson.

Next, although the Federalist Papers are not legal documents, they do serve as public demonstrations of the founders’ intentions as they were part of a series of essays published to explain the Constitution to the public before its’ ratification. James Madison in Federalist #42 wrote:

“The defect[s] of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members… [has] been clearly pointed out by experience… It may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity… it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade… The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls.”

A modern example of “unregulated” Commerce by the founder’s meaning would be manufacturing companies in the interior of India, which has 28 states. As goods move by rail or truck from interior states to a seaport in a coastal state, each state assesses its own tariff at its border which rightly leads to “animosities” and a “less convenient channel” for foreign trade. But what did the founders mean by ‘Commerce’?

Within the last century, several American lawyers have claimed the founder’s definition of commerce was “all gainful activities” or “all human interactions.” This has been taken by the leviathan federal Government as authority to control not just health care, but the minimum wage, manufacturing, agriculture, the mining, oil and lumber industries, possession of firearms, land use, criminal law such as federal drug laws, and environmental protection, in most cases usurping states’ rights per the 10th Amendment and in some cases even inventing jurisdictions.

Fortunately, Dr. Robert Natelson wrote a well-documented paper “The Legal Meaning of ‘Commerce’ in the Commerce Clause” in 1996. After examining thousands of instances of ‘Commerce’ used in contemporary legal documents, Natelson concluded that commerce simply and exclusively meant “exchange” or “traffic” and its associated activities, such as navigation, to the founders. In simple English, commerce benefits agriculture or manufacturing, but does not include either agriculture or manufacturing. Furthermore, Natelson notes:

“If we read “Commerce among the several States” to mean “all gainful economic activity among the several States,” then the clauses by which Congress is empowered to regulate commerce with “foreign Nations” and the “Indian Tribes” become either largely redundant or nonsensical. Even more seriously, if the Commerce Clause grants Congress power to regulate all economic activities, then some of Congress’ other economic powers become surplus.”

So, if the Commerce Clause gave Congress economic central planning authority, many of the powers listed in the Constitutionwould be redundant. The powers of Congress over postal roads and offices, dockyards, intellectual property, and more would be repetitive if the power was already enumerated in the Commerce Clause. During the Federalist Papers debate, one would have expected the Commerce Clause to have been hotly debated by the anti-Federalists if it had been truly intended to give unlimited power over all gainful economic activities to the federal government. Federalist #42 would not have been able to dodge such a huge stripping of power from the States. What do we hear from the historical record? Silence, which indicates that this was a non-issue.

Natelson goes into a lot more detail than I have, and it is much easier to shred the other constitutional references given to support government infringement into health care.  Please read my Health Care plank which also links to the Constitution of the USSR (which DOES authorize government involvement in health care) and this great discussion on the “General Welfare” clause.

The “Necessary and Proper” clause is briefly dismissed by the referenced Natelson paper, but more strongly in his other papers. In short, Pelosi and the rest of Congress simply MUST have a constitutional amendment passed before legislating on health care. Their actions in Congress are highly illegal, and is one of many unconstitutional and illegal acts committed against the American people by Congress.  Since no help can be expected from the appointed-for-life Supreme Court, the last defense, really the only defense, is that of We the People ourselves.

So in formal reply to Speaker Pelosi, even the notion of federal government authority over the health care of the American people is completely absurd. My reply is: “Madame Speaker, are YOU serious?”

Jake Towne, “The Champion of the Constitution,” is running for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania’s 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties.  Jake is a columnist at NolanChart, and also contributes to LibertyMaven and CampaignForLiberty.

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

Forget everything you know about politics. Forget the age old story about the Democrats and the Republicans, where one side is good and the other side are a bunch of America hating vats of pure evil. Forget about the left vs right debate, forget about conservative vs liberal. At this stage in the game, there are only two sides;

Those who support the further growth of a centralized authoritarian state and those who oppose them.

That’s it. There are your teams, which one are you playing for?

In the wake of the liberty revolution, there are many active groups doing good things to oppose centralized tyranny. They go by many names: the 912ers, the TEA Partiers, Campaign for Liberty, GOOOH, We Surround Them and of course our own Tenthers. These groups are all playing for the same team. Their backgrounds and tactics may be entirely different, but as members of any number of these groups, we must all keep the big picture in mind.

We are all on the same side.

Too often I hear about meetings of these different groups where there is a clamoring for control, where there are too many chiefs and not enough soldiers. This must stop.

When members of almost every group mentioned above found their way to Washington DC on September 12th, the estimated number of people present was not tallied as “300,000 GOOOH, 200,000 C4L, 800,000 912ers etc”. The number was simply 1.7 million people, all ready to fight tyranny and whether they knew it or not, all on the same side.

Let us learn to accept those who come from different ideologies, political parties, lifestyles and parts of the country. For me, the only thing I need to know about you at this point is this-

Are you with me, or are you with Big Brother?

Let’s begin at the beginning. Medical care is not a free good found in nature. Of course, no one really thinks it is. But that doesn’t keep most people from wanting to pretend otherwise, and the current institutional setting makes that possible. After a while, one forgets one is pretending. Yet medical care goes on being a collection of produced goods and services — subject to the laws of supply and demand, and requiring resources and labor that come with opportunity costs. Therein lies the problem.

Medical insurance has come to mean getting something for free. The receiver of a service need not ask how it is financed. It’s just taken care of. (Passive voice intentional.) Yes, somebody gets paid, and the money comes from somewhere. That’s okay, as long as it doesn’t come from the covered party. (What would be the point of having insurance?) Don’t bother us with such matters.

Let us believe it’s free. Let the insurer figure out the rest. But he’d better keep that coverage going. And don’t hassle us by not paying all bills eagerly and unquestioningly. That’s what he’s there for. Just reassure us that whatever services we consume will be taken care of. We don’t want to know the details. What’s that? The government is promising to cap our out-of-pocket expenses, require coverage for preexisting illness and free preventative care, and extend the same deal to absolutely everyone? And this will have no negative consequences whatever, such as limits on what we can buy or enlargement of the budget deficit or higher taxes for the middle class — but it will actually save money? Oh thank you, government!

This irresponsible mindset, which is similar to a not-very-inquisitive child’s, is what at least two generations of government intervention in health care — and the welfare state in general — have produced in the American people. Thus the welfare state retards moral and intellectual development. We expect the State — our surrogate parent — to make it all right. The demagogues we call politicians are happy to feed this attitude because it provides occasions for the expansion and exercise of raw power while seeming, like Santa Claus, to give away free goods. Of such things long political careers are made.

Something for Nothing

The healthcare “reform” juggernaut seems to be on an irresistible course. The 1,990-page (!) bill (pdf) released by the House leadership yesterday is just the latest variation on the corrupt something-for-nothing theme. The details obscure the big picture. A modest public option instead of a robust public option? Blah blah blah blah blah. The government-run insurance “alternative” was always more signal than substance.

Why do you need a government “competitor” if the government will be dictating every detail of the private insurance business under any circumstances? What motivates the public option, I submit, is sheer hatred of private, for-profit business in the medical industry. Of course, we don’t have purely private, for-profit insurance companies — every state government runs a regulated, protectionist insurance cartel. (That’s why the feds exempted the insurance industry from antitrust; it was a favor to the state regulators.)

But the public-option advocates would oppose truly free-market insurance companies. Their true preference is a government monopoly — which is why it is so funny to hear them praise “choice and competition.” That’s the last thing they want, but they know that the American people won’t accept their single-payer scheme. Anyone who really wanted choice and competition would at least support legalizing interstate insurance sales. The silence about that is deafening.

Most people get their insurance through their employer, so they won’t have the option of the public option anyway. One of the biggest sources of trouble in the healthcare system is employer-purchased insurance — it cuts the consumer out of decision-making. Yet this bill, and all the others, strengthen that perverse system. Some reform. Despite the squawking, the insurance companies love the idea of forcing people to buy their products. The corporate state thrives.

Like an uninquisitive child, most people seem willing to believe politicians when they promise to subsidize and compel the use of medical “insurance” while reducing prices without controlling choices. And while they’re at it, they’ll cut the budget deficit and boost economic growth. One shouldn’t have to be an economist to smell a scam. Exactly how is that supposed to work? They’ll get the money out of Medicare — without degrading the service — and they’ll tax millionaires, while fining employers who don’t provide insurance and those of us who don’t buy it. Since the American people aren’t rolling on the floor laughing their you-know-whats off, I can only conclude that the government’s schools have so dumbed them down that they have no trouble swallowing this patent nonsense.

A final word about the nearly 2,000-page bill. Others have said it, but it needs to be repeated. No one will be able to understand all the implications and consequences of a government attempt to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. Heck, few will read — and grasp– the bill in its entirety. (You also have to read all the statutes that are amended by the bill.) Enacting laws that no one comprehends, and that turn over yet-to-be defined powers to others, wouldn’t seem to satisfy the criteria of self-government, the consent of the governed, the rule of law, or any of the other political myths we live by.

I don’t how any theory of political obligation rooted in popular sovereignty that could regard this bill as morally binding when it becomes “law.” The process mocks the philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It insults the intelligence. It disgraces everything decent about this country.

We’ve come a long way baby, in 233 years!  The elite are still controlling our money, the corrupt, in and out of government, are still making billion (or is it trillion) dollar deals with the devil and the Congress and the President are trying to strip us of our freedom and sell America’s sovereignty to the third world, along with giving away our national wealth and resources.  Other than that, not much has changed.  In fact, we continue to repeat the same mistakes, over and over and over again, to the detriment of all Americans and to the destruction of our freedom and sovereignty.

President Andrew Jackson (1829 to 1837) knew what the central banks were doing and he closed them, paid off the national debt and returned the monetary system to gold and silver coins.  He said about the central banks:

“The paper-money system and its natural associations—monopoly and exclusive privileges—have already struck their roots too deep in the soil, and it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil.”

Jackson also said, while throwing the bankers out of the oval office:

“… You are a den of vipers and thieves.  I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, I will rout you out,” and he did.

Jackson called paper money “rag money”.  He was right then and he is still right now.

Thomas Jefferson said to John Taylor in 1816 that: “I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…”.

President James Madison (1809 to 1817) said: “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance.”

These men knew what they were talking about.

In the end, it only took the money changers and the power brokers 81 years to undue the actions of Andrew Jackson and get their way again, by convincing the U. S. Congress and President Wilson that we needed another central bank, euphemistically called the Federal Reserve, which isn’t federal and it doesn’t have any reserves.

Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. PA - June 1932) said of the Federal Reserve:  “The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International Bankers.” McFadden also blamed the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve.  McFadden was right then and he is still right today.

The Federal Reserve, with the help of many socialist presidents and Congresses since 1913, have turned a once prosperous and wealthy nation, into a debtor nation by corrupting the phrase in the pre-amble of the U. S. constitution where it states: ”….. and promote the general welfare“.  As a result, every dollar we spend now represents debt and does not equal a fair measure of goods and services, as it should.  You would need $21.60 in 2007 to equal what a dollar was worth in 1913, prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve.  Since 2000, the value of the dollar, thus each American’s buying power, has eroded by over 20%.

Socialist politicians in our government, for almost 100 years, for the purposes of remaining in power by exploiting the weakness in individuals who were looking for a free handout, worked in conjunction with the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply (debt) to pay for the handouts.  Not only was the public treasury pillaged for purely political reasons (that should be treason), but the American taxpayer also picked up the tab for the interest paid to the Federal Reserve and other countries for the loans and the hidden cost of inflation because of diluting the number of dollars in circulation.  This evil is still going on today, but the numbers are escalating exponentially.

The estimated liability for actual government debt and unfunded entitlement programs (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) for every man, woman and child in America, is estimated to be almost $350,000.  The Social Security unfunded liability is just shy of $14 Trillion.  Medicare’s unfunded liability is over $73 Trillion.  Both numbers are rising rapidly.

In light of the nation’s current financial black hole, which we are being dragged into by the sheer gravity of it, along with the failure of most government social programs, for the government to even be contemplating, much less debating the implementation of nationalized health care and cap and trade legislation, is not only fool hardy and grossly negligent, it is outright treason.

But as long as there are corrupt politicians who will exploit the weakness in humans for their votes and conspire with special interest groups, giant, international corporations and the Federal Reserve to create money out of thin air to pay for unconstitutional welfare and environmental protection programs, America’s airplane is on fire and is in a crash dive to the deadly sea of national bankruptcy, while Americans are headed for perpetual indentured servitude.

No!  Americans are already indentured (slaves) to America’s rising debt and the relief can only come from patriotic Americans who will bring this madness to an abrupt halt, first peacefully and if that doesn’t work, by any other means.

We claimed freedom from tyranny once before and if necessary, we can and will do it again.  We cannot let the bastards win, or the Revolution from which America was born and all the lives that were sacrificed since then to maintain our freedom, will have been for naught.

It is high time that free Americans everywhere, repeat the words of President Andrew Jackson, to the politicians of Washington DC and to those politicians elsewhere in state and local governments, “… You are a den of vipers and thieves.  We intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, we will rout you out,” and then do it.

President Jackson also said,  “it will require all your efforts to check its further growth and to eradicate the evil”, and indeed it WILL take the efforts of millions of Americans to “eradicate this evil.”

Ron Ewart [send him email] is President of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS, an organization dedicated to re-establish, preserve, protect and defend property rights.

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

by Michael Boldin

A recent article in the New York Times covered the growth of state-level resistance to a future national health care plan. For example, in 2010, voters in Arizona will have a chance to approve a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban national health care in that state. Legislators in Florida and Michigan have already introduced similar legislation, and potentially, 15 other states will do so in the 2010 legislative session.

But here’s something fundamentally important that NYT writer Monica Davey claims in her article:

…the Constitution’s supremacy clause ordinarily allows federal law to, in essence, trump a state law that conflicts with it…

A best, this is a highly-misleading statement.

There are two main points to make here:

1. The “supremacy clause” does not allow federal law to trump state law in all situations, or even “ordinarily” as Davey claims. It only does so when both laws are in pursuance of a power that has been delegated to the federal government by “We the People.” – in the Constitution.

2. We know that this is the case because Monica’s version of the supremacy clause was actually proposed by leading founders – and rejected. When the Constitution was being drafted, James Madison and others proposed what came to be known as the “Virginia Plan.” A major part of this plan was to give the congress a veto over state laws. It was defeated. That means, in plain English, the founders considered this idea, and said no. And Davey is irrefutably wrong in her claim.

So we know from this short lesson that the supremacy clause did not authorize the power that Davey is claiming. In reality, things are pretty much the other way around. The biggest Constitutional problems that actually exist in this country are those times when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it by “We the People.” And that happens far more often than not.

Unfortunately, though, not enough people know this important history of the Virginia Plan, and this basic premise of the Constitution, so they’re easily swayed by patently false statements by people like Davey and the New York Times.

This satirical piece first appeared in The American Mercury, 41 (June 1937), 129-36, and was reprinted in condensed form by The Reader’s Digest, 31 (July 1937), 27-29. In order to indicate what reached the widest audience, the condensed version appears here, thanks to LewRockwell.com

The principal cause of the uproar in Washington is a conflict between the swift- moving idealism of the New Deal and the unyielding hunkerousness of the Constitution of 1788. What is needed, obviously, is a wholly new Constitution, drawn up with enough boldness and imagination to cover the whole program of the More Abundant Life, now and hereafter.

That is what I presume to offer here. The Constitution that follows is not my invention, and in more than. one detail I have unhappy doubts of its wisdom. But I believe that it sets forth with reasonable accuracy the plan of government that the More Abundant Life wizards have sought to substitute for the plan of the Fathers. They have themselves argued at one time or another, by word or deed, for everything contained herein:

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish social justice, draw the fangs of privilege, effect the redistribution of property, remove the burden of liberty from ourselves and our posterity, and insure the continuance of the New Deal, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

ARTICLE I

The Executive

All governmental power of whatever sort shall be vested in a President of the United States. He shall hold office during a series of terms of four years each, and shall take the following oath: “I do solemnly swear that I will (in so far as I deem it feasible and convenient) faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will (to the best of my recollection and in the light of experiment and second thought) carry out the pledges made by me during my campaign for election (or such of them as I may select).”

The President shall be commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, and of the militia, Boy Scouts, C.I.O., People’s Front, and other armed forces of the nation.

The President shall have the power: To lay and collect taxes, and to expend the income of the United States in such manner as he may deem to be to their or his advantage;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to provide for its repayment on such terms as he may fix;

To regulate all commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and within them; to license all persons engaged or proposing to engage in business; to regulate their affairs; to limit their profits by proclamation from time to time; and to fix wages, prices and hours of work;

To coin money, regulate the content and value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to amend or repudiate any contract requiring the payment by the United States, or by any private person, of coin of a given weight or fineness;

To repeal or amend, in his discretion, any so-called natural law, including Gresham’s law, the law of diminishing returns, and the law of gravitation.

The President shall be assisted by a Cabinet of eight or more persons, whose duties shall be to make speeches whenever so instructed and to expend the public funds in such manner as to guarantee the President’s continuance in office.

The President may establish such executive agencies as he deems necessary, and clothe them with such powers as he sees fit. No person shall be a member to any such bureau who has had any practical experience of the matters he is appointed to deal with.

One of the members of the Cabinet shall be an Attorney General. It shall be his duty to provide legal opinions certifying to the constitutionality of all measures undertaken by the President, and to gather evidence of the senility of judges.

ARTICLE II

The Legislature

The legislature of the United States shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Every bill shall be prepared under the direction of the President, and transmitted to the two Houses at his order by their presiding officers. No member shall propose any amendment to a bill without permission in writing from the President or one of his authorized agents. In case any member shall doubt the wisdom of a bill he may apply to the President for light upon it, and thereafter he shall be counted as voting aye. In all cases a majority of members shall be counted as voting aye.

Both Houses may appoint special committees to investigate the business practices, political views, and private lives of any persons known to be inimical to the President; and such committees shall publish at public cost any evidence discovered that appears to be damaging to the persons investigated.

Members of both Houses shall be agents of the President in the distribution of public offices, federal appropriations, and other gratuities in their several states, and shall be rewarded in ratio to their fidelity to his ideals and commands.

ARTICLE III

The Judiciary

The judges of the Supreme Court and of all inferior courts shall be appointed by the President, and shall hold their offices until he determines by proclamation that they have become senile. The number of judges appointed to the Supreme Court shall be prescribed by the President, and may be changed at his discretion. All decisions of the Supreme Court shall be unanimous.

The jurisdiction and powers of all courts shall he determined by the President. No act that he has approved shall be declared unconstitutional by any court.

ARTICLE IV

Bill of Rights

There shall be complete freedom of speech and of the press – subject to such regulations as the President or his agents may from time to time promulgate.

The freedom of communication by radio shall not be abridged; but the President and such persons as he may designate shall have the first call on the time of all stations.

In disputes between capital and labor, all the arbitrators shall be representatives of labor.

Every person whose annual income fans below a minimum to be fixed by the President shall receive from the public funds an amount sufficient to bring it up to that minimum.

No labor union shall be incorporated and no officer or member thereof shall be accountable for loss of life or damage to person or property during a strike.

All powers not delegated herein to the President are reserved to him, to be used at his discretion.

Henry Louis “H. L.” Mencken (September 12, 1880 – January 29, 1956), was an American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, acerbic critic of American life and culture, and a student of American English. Mencken, known as the “Sage of Baltimore”, is regarded as one of the most influential American writers and prose stylists of the first half of the 20th century. (from Wikipedia)

But rather than shame dissenters into silence with labels like “tenther,” the disdain shown by the political class and its sycophants for the Constitution has only heightened the growing tension between those in America who desire absolute central government, and those who still believe in the federalism and freedom of our founding.

Witness the charges leveled by Virgina attorney general candidate, Steve Shannon, during a recent debate against his opponent, Ken Cuccinelli, who has promised to protect Virginians’ freedoms by upholding the Constitution as it was written.

Which could mean refusing to enforce certain unconstitutional laws passed by the federal government.

From the Washington Post:

Shannon said that through history, Virginians who opposed federal law supported slavery, shut down schools instead of integrating them, prevented interracial marriage and sterilized mentally retarded people.

“When he’s talking about states’ rights, you have to understand the mistakes we have made in the past.”

This is a theme that has been echoed by many on the Left of late, and it represents an opening salvo in the brewing battle between state and federal power that will likely take center stage in upcoming election cycles.

But Steve Shannon and his ideological cohorts are either shockingly ignorant or being very selective in their version of American history. They seem to have chosen race-baiting over an honest discussion about the clear, albeit imperfect, connection between states’ rights and personal freedom.

The Tenth Amendment, states’ rights, and state sovereignty were invoked post-ratification as early as 1798 in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were a direct affront to the constitutional freedoms of speech and association.

Thomas Jefferson himself made clear the relationship the framers envisioned between the federal and state governments when he penned the Kentucky Resolutions, one of the most liberating texts since the Declaration of Independence against those vile Acts:

Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…

[W]hensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…

[T]his government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but…each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

In other words, whenever there comes a question of constitutional authority, Americans should refer as final arbiter, not to the Supreme Court or the federal government’s inflated opinion of its own powers, but to the letter and spirit of the Constitution. If that fails, each party to this voluntary contract (read: the sovereign states) may decide for itself whether the terms of the agreement have been violated, and if so, what course of action to take.

Between 1798 and the start of the Civil War, there were a number of other instances in which states forcefully reasserted their constitutional rights under the Tenth Amendment, often using Jefferson’s own words. Many of those states were located in the North, where sovereignty was even cited as legal grounds to undermine slavery, through opposition to the (Lincoln-endorsed) federal Fugitive Slave Act.

Perhaps it truly is out of ignorance that Steve Shannon and others like him disparage the principle of states’ rights as defined by racial prejudice, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But even without a history book, they need look no further than California and the 12 other states that have passed medical marijuana laws in direct conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act. Thanks to that defiance, hundreds of thousands of desperately sick Americans get access to relief that the federal government has denied them.

Or consider the Real ID Act passed by Congress in 2005. It has since been rendered null and void because more than 20 states exercised their sovereign rights in refusing to implement its patently unconstitutional provisions.

Clearly, America has enjoyed the benefits of dual sovereignty and states’ rights, not just historically but in the last decade, without dissolving into paroxysms of racial animosity.

Therefore it would seem that the logic of the Left regarding the supposed inherent bigotry of the states’ rights movement is flawed in the extreme.

Would they also hold that Islam itself is to blame for violence committed in the name of Allah?

Of course not. That violence is committed by people, just as past laws limiting the freedom of minorities were enacted by people (in the North as well as the South), and not by a political principle.

Leaders like Ken Cuccinelli have joined a growing movement by invoking the Tenth Amendment as it was written to protect individual freedom from the ravages of arbitrary power. Such principles are shared by all those who support a return to the decentralized, federalist government laid out by our Constitution.

These “tenthers” harbor no racist or oppressive motives. In fact, the modern states’ rights agenda is exactly and demonstrably the opposite. To imply otherwise is simply dishonest.

Americans should be proud of their federalist heritage, and they should defend it jealously. Constitutional federalism once changed the world, and, as the true source of America’s strength, it is the only well from which there can be any hope of drawing future greatness.

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