|
Counterpoint:
|
| STATISM the Enemy of States' Rights |
The Myth of State Sovereignty
James Hall, From the Left
From SARTRE's account one would think that the 10th Amendment was the
central document of the Constitution, and that we were still a Confederacy of American States. But state sovereignty
is and always has been a constitutional myth created by anti-federalists, along with the centrality of the Tenth Amendment.
Real sovereignty rests with the people of the United States and is expressed by their constitutional government--the government
of the United States of America.
Rather than being central to our Constitution, the 10th Amendment was
created three years after the ratification of the Constitution, after a federal government was already in place. And
the 10th has never possessed the power that anti-federalists would give it. At the Constitutional Convention convened
to write the Bill of Rights, the delegates by a 2-1 margin (32-17) rejected adding the word "expressly" to this amendment
which might have given it the power anti-federalists crave for it. This rejection makes it clear that it was up to the
people themselves, as expressed by their elected government to decide in what ways the federal government would apportion
power to the states.
The resultant amendment is clear: "The powers not [expressly] 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." Now from where does the delegation of these powers proceed? As a gift from the states to the federal
government? Clearly not. The powers are reserved BY THE US CONSTITUTION ITSELF.
And who determines exactly what these powers are and how they are wielded?
Congress wields the power to write laws and apportion funds for their execution, and the judicial branch of the federal government
the power to decide on the constitutionality of those laws, including our Bill of Rights. States do not get the chance
to decide which laws or treaties or elections they will obey and which they won't--neither nullification nor secession is
part of their limited, constitutionally granted powers. Anti-federalists who would like to squelch federal powers not
"expressly" mentioned in the Constitution were defeated in that attempt before the Tenth Amendment was ever ratified.
Myths like state sovereignty are simply grist for the mill of ideological
minorities. Finding themselves deeply out in cold, they warm themselves by burning the Constitution and would love to
declare a sovereign republic out of some flyover piece of land whose politics faintly resembles their own. But their
arguments are no more credible now than they were in 1861.
Or 1775 for that matter. For the colonies never were independent
sovereign states making treaties with foreign powers or exercising self-government. The Declaration of Independence
was made the First Continental Congress and the war prosecuted by a Continental Army. Most of the original colonies
didn't even set up state governments until after the Declaration of Independence, making the national government predate the
majority of state governments.
Even the Articles of Confederation, drawn up by a committee of the Second
Continental Congress at a time when people strongly feared a central government--their experience with the British creating
that fear--never granted more than a limited role to the states. States could not create their own foreign policy, form
their own armies and navies, coin their money, set qualifications for citizenship, or run their own post office. They
could not refuse to join in any war or agree to any treaty that a majority of other states wanted to support, they could not
refuse rulings from another state's jurisdiction, and they could not secede from the Confederacy (described by its founders
as a "perpetual union") without the approval of all twelve of the other states.
Does anyone--even SARTRE--really consider any state governed by all these
restrictions to be a sovereign entity?
And that was under the anti-federalist Articles of Confederation.
The Confederacy proved so ungovernable that it was gone in eight years, replaced by a stronger central government, whose Constitution
specifically defines "powers" for the states, but which yields no sovereignty to them.
Besides the sovereign powers accorded to nations that it kept to itself--the
armies and navies, the foreign policy, the coinage, etc.--our Constitution gave the federal government the power to tax and
to regulate interstate commerce, things lacking under the Articles of Confederation. It provided an executive branch
to run these offices, a legislative branch to make laws and fund executive offices, and a judicial branch to rule on the constitutionality
of state and federal laws.
To perform these offices people have been constitutionally elected and
appointed. SARTRE can criticize their performance any way he likes, but as far as the majority of the people of this
nation are concerned--and it is in the people that real sovereignty exists--the federal government has performed its responsibilities
in a constitutional manner. Today the federal government's responsibilities ebb and flow as the people require them
or put them aside.
The myth of states' rights and state sovereignty is increasingly identified
with the defense of minority opinions at odds with the will of the majority. These bogus "rights" have been cited to
defend slavery, white slavery, child labor, and segregation among other things--all positions at odds with the people's will.
While our Constitution gives the minorities defending these positions the right to express their opinions and the right to
participate in the marketplace of ideas, it never granted them the right to withdraw in order to flout the people's decisions.
Final Word:
SARTRE can attempt to redefine government and reshape history all
he likes, but it's clear that our founding fathers knew the difference between federalism and anti-federalism and took sides
accordingly--one side in favor of a strong national government, the other in fear of it. Our nation's political climate
continues to be shaped by this debate, though the momentum is now with the federalists.
The myth of "state sovereignty," the antifederalists' bedtime story,
has nothing to do with actual history. The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution make it plain that we declared
our independence from Great Britain as "one people"--a nation, not as a collection of states. Our Constitution also
makes it plain that its origin and legitimacy stem from "we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union...do ordain and establish this Constitution...." The 10th Amendment is clearly a grant of powers from the people's
constitution.
These statements make plain the Lockean philosophy that motivated
our founders, that placed the nation's sovereignty directly in the hands of it's people, not it's states, the people who "established
and ordained" the Constitution and its government. SARTRE would have us believe that the 10th Amendment states that
all powers not expressly designated federal accrue to the states--only the founders specifically rejected the word "expressly,"
leaving the people and their representatives the flexibility to choose a weaker or stronger form of national government as
they wish.
Historically Americans have chosen a stronger federal government,
one capable of looking after the general welfare of its citizens, of maintaining a standing professional army in their defense,
one with the power to intervene against states who oppress the civil rights of their citizens, a nation vigorous enough to
withstand the competition from other nation states abroad. The people are quite capable of deciding if this kind of
strong national government suits them--and they have answered with a vigorous "Yes." Anti-federalists like SARTRE can cringe
at this choice, but the people, the only legitimate sovereigns in this debate, have spoken.
James Hall, From the Left
|
 |
 |
|
|
Enter content here
|
|
|
Point:
The State of Rights for the States
The Tenth Amendment has long been ignored, but has never been invalidated.
The United States adopted a "Federal" form for government that is based upon shared powers. The STATE was designed to balance
and define authorities among different jurisdictions and sovereign entities. The central government was bound to the restrictions
of a constitution. The most significant of the "Bill of Rights" amendments is the clear acknowledgment of the basic
authority of States' Rights: "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."
Even the most rabid proponent of the political elites that form the oligarchy
that rules from the Beltway, knows; that they are in continuous violation of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Only the fool would defend the tortured court decisions, the treason of House and Senate legislators, the arrogance of bureaucratic
thieves and the ultimate betrayal of Presidents. The egomaniac Lincoln, waged a war of aggression and destroyed the "Federal"
symmetry that was so unique and glorious in our founding as a country.
Let's understand the central lesson. A union is not a marriage when you
have a battered spouse. Sophistry that argues that the central government is absolute and may rule over independent states
by ignoring and omitting clearly defined constitutional restraints, is the most detestable duplicity of any Statist. Nullification
as a reserved power of each independent state was recognized as a rightful remedy principle within the 1799 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions It held that states have the right to declare null and void any federal
law that they deem unconstitutional. The great John C. Calhoun championed the legitimate rights of individual states, and
the likes of Henry Clay worked to preserve the rightful balance within the "Federal" framework.
But as we know, the excess and lust for supreme power destroyed the dream
of America. Under the constrains of breaking the constitutional system, armed force was inflicted upon the will of the people
from independent states, into coerced compliance. This is the record that is factually true. But the original conception of
a practical union based upon agreed cooperation, with distinct functions was forsaken for the same old version of a single
STATE domination, with a central master. The "People" in the Tenth Amendment are citizens of particular states. Any edit that
claims a league of states forfeits their home rule as independent commonwealths, as a condition of joining the federal union
denies and repudiates our constitution. The Tenth Amendment cannot be any more clear on this point.
If you rely on the treachery of the courts to sort out this mandate, you fail to understand the nature of a "Federal"
union. This unrivaled concept of organization recognized the formation of a Republic that would be radically different from
any other government on earth. The separation and defined limits placed on a central authority is the essence of the American
Republic.
By denying the primacy of this division, you obliterate any legitimacy
for a union. The noted academic Walter Williams, hardly a devout secessionist of the early 19th century says: "The
10th Amendment simply and clearly says if the Constitution does not permit the federal government to do something, then the
federal government doesn't have the right to do it. You tell me where in the Constitution is there delegated authority for
federal involvement in education, retirement, health, housing, transportation, handouts and other activities representing
more than three-quarters of federal spending."
Notions that the general welfare clause justifies cancellation
of the Tenth Amendment are pure folly. Just go back to the patriarchal source himself, James Madison: "With respect to
the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them
in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs
was not contemplated by its creators."
States' Rights are integral and essential to restore the genius of the
"Federal" system. In an era where self determination is the universal cry that seeks to justify democratic rule, the Washington
DC crowd has emerged as the ardent destroyer of the delicate balance that an independent union represented. With the break
up of the Soviet empire, independent states have regained their own sovereignty, while the 'Feds' enforce feudal tribute on
our own fifty states. Quebec wants separation from the Dominion of Canada. Where is their right for self determination?
The basic principle that must be confronted is that each state IS sovereign,
that the union must be limited and with defined functions for independent states and the central government. Efforts to avoid
this fundamental question in recognition of individual rule, cannot be dismissed with emotional pleas. Applying national laws
dictating civic conduct, when rightful authority has never been conferred to a central comrade committee of oppressive commissars,
is pure totalitarian tyranny.
Each state reflects different cultures and regional interests. What works
for Idaho may differ from the will of the citizens in Massachusetts. The Federal government never acts as a fair arbitrator,
but rules with the personification of a perverse dictator. Without a constitutional restoration of legitimate States'
Rights, we live under the despotism of the true evil empire.
James Hall aka SARTRE
Rebuttal:
The meaning of America is absent from the consciousness of JH from the
Left. States' Rights is an intricate part of our form of government - which is "FEDERALISM". Federalism means: "the distribution of power in an organization (as a government)
between a central authority and the constituent units. The independent authority of the constituent units, emphasized
in each of these definitions, distinguishes federalism from systems of government in which subsidiary governments derive power
from the national or central government.
Denial of this foundation for our Republic is acknowledged in the words
from the 'Satanic Statist'. For him a myth is any restraint that prohibits the absolutism of the central government, even
when it is part of the fundamental constitution of the land. Make no mistake about his distorted chronology history - the
Tenth Amendment empowers the uniqueness of American "FEDERALISM".
It was the statist John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803) who took the first set to undermined the Federalism design and its
relationship to States' Rights. The Supreme Court usurped its restricted authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication
acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important,
the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. Not exactly
consistent with Federalism!
James distorts and ignores any section of the founding documents that
conflicts with common sense and limited governance. What else needs to be violated? Ever heard of the Eleventh Amendment?
What you have from the 'bad seed' is the open admission that his Liberal ideology supplants allegiance to the "FEDERALISM"
system. Traveling down this road is not just a slippery slope, it is the abdication of America. The result is tyranny in the
abyss of oblivion. Without a Federalism that shares powers and States' Rights that provides legitimacy, the United States
reverts into the despotism of imperial totalitarian government. At last, the commissar reveals his ultimate purpose.
States' Rights were despised by the like of 'pledge my loyalty only to
the central government' Alexander Hamilton. James Hall is no Hamilton . . . Hamilton had the honor to duel Aaron Burr. But
his Statism dogma is the official doctrine of both political parties, accompanied with the ignominy of the depraved.
James Hall - 'The Right'
Enter content here
|
|
