Skip to comments.For Those About to Seek Sovereignty, We Salute You
Posted on 02/11/2009 4:23:28 PM PST by ADReditor
Two days ago Sheridan Folger, one of our Senior Writers and the Co-Founder of Lets Get Theis Right.com and Conservative Solutions.org, wrote a very thought provoking article concerning the desire of many New Hampshire citizens to declare their sovereignty from the leftist Obama influenced law makers of Washington DC and their attempts to put a stranglehold on their state should they decide to further infringe on their states rights.
Much like my state of Texas, the voters of New Hampshire have always considered themselves keepers of the flame when it comes to preserving and reserving the right of the state to withdraw their support for an over-reaching federal government by force should it be necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
The states have sold themselves into slavery by taking money from the feds that they should have doled out to the feds far more carefully to begin with.
If you believe a state can withdraw from the Union you are barking up the wrong tree.
Federal funding does not come from “the states” it comes from American citizens.
States do not fund the feds. We tried that and it didn’t work too well. When states “doled out money to the feds” the central government couldn’t pay its bill and we got the Constitution.
Until the American people wake up we are screwed.
Um we tried this a few years back, and didn’t work out so well in the end....
"With respect to the two 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.
"If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
BTW, thanks for the heads up AAC. And fellow keepers of the flame, please ping me to 10th Amendment articles as you come across them so we can slice and dice as necessary. Thanks.
I’m not sure how I got on this Ping List, but PLEASE keep me on it! Thanks! :)
De nada. Just doing my part as a member o’ the ping list.
The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
States rights began to die after the Civil War. They were dealt another crippling blow with the passage of the 17th Amendment.
***The 10th Amendment 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.***
The most ignored Amendment.
One of the FEW phrase in the whole of the Constitution the libtards have any use for. Of course they must go through all manner of mental gyrations to arrive at their conclusion: That taking the well earned resources of some and giving it to others does NO harm the ones they confiscated it from. Rational? Heh. I can't even begin to tell you how many libtards I've tried to carry on a rational conversation with, that ends up with them foaming at the mouth and waving their arms as if it contributes in any way to the conversation. Dolts, they are. Dragging us along into the abyss -- unless we stop them.
First, allow me to apologize for not posting the disclaimer I normally do on my ping; that is, I spent MANY hours poring over older threads re states rights, 10th Amendment, sovereignty, etc, and pulled names off contributors to those threads. And anybody that wants off, just say so. Glad you're here.
The Founders never intended for the General Welfare or Necessary and Proper Clause to be grants of power, rather a purpose for the listed powers in Article 1 Section 8 in the case of the former clause and an explicit statement of what was implied by granting those powers in the case of the latter clause.
The Necessary and Proper Clause really gets to me because people have taken it to mean it gives Congress “wiggle room”, when in reality it’s a completely redunant statement basically saying Congress has powers and the way it executes them is through laws. Here it is:
“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the FOREGOING [my emphasis] Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 33 on January 3, 1788, If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.
It was universally understood by the Framers——and the State governments that ratified the Constitution——that the States were the supreme governments and that the federal government was the subserviant, limited agent of the States, authorized to carry out only the specific and enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution. If the President wanted to Proclaim something (especially something not specifically authorized in the Constitution), he had to ask the Governors or legislatures of the States for their approval and assistance.
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.” —James Madison, author of the Constitution, in Federalist Paper No. 45.
“It is not by the consolidation, or concentration, of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.” —Thomas Jefferson
..But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity?” —James Madison, from Federalist Paper No. 46
I, George Washington, do further declare, that because the people of Massachusetts have perpetrated this brazen treason, all their rights are forthwith revoked. Of course, if any Massachusetts resident disavows his states dastardly decision, and swears an oath of loyalty to the federal government, his rights shall be restored. Such cases excepted, federal soldiers should feel free to loot any Massachusetts home. Crops not seized for army provisions should be destroyed without regards to the needs of the rebels and their families. After all, war is hell.
“Glad you’re here.”
Me, too! It was a nice PING after a long day of work, all the while thinking of the CONFISCATORY Federal & State Taxes taken out of my hide while I was gainfully employed!
Now I’m revved up to ‘Fight the Good Fight.’ :)
Keep ‘em comin’! :)
And would we be FReepers of the Flame"?
Gotta run gather up a sick grandbaby so I'll check back in approaching the wee hours.
“If you believe a state can withdraw from the Union you are barking up the wrong tree.
Federal funding does not come from the states it comes from American citizens”
Let us consider the argument relied on to support this view.
Great reliance is placed upon the words of the preamble: “We, the people of the United States,”
Let’s see if that holds water?
Declarations of Mr. Madison, in the Federalist, No. 39. Speaking of the ratifications by the States, he says: “This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing an entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. * * * Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”
Events then were what Washington warned about in his Farewell Address. Most people incorrectly believe it was a warning about foreign involvements when, in fact, it warned of secession and civil war.
Please add me to your pinglist
Your quotations do not address the point of my post.
States were not sovereign even theoretically after the Constitution was ratified. Then never were in reality though perhaps in theory under the Articles. Nor could they get out of the Union after ratification as Madison made clear to Hamilton in letters written during the NY ratification debates. The Constitutional Convention explicitly rejected the argument that the document allowed only specific powers to be exercised by the feds as well. Hamilton defined constitutionality in his argument on the constitutionality of the National Bank.
State “governments” NEVER ratified the Constitution as you claim. State governments were deliberately by-passed for conventions called of the People IN states. Congress understood that the State governments were dominated by petty politicians concerned only about themselves and opposed to a government strong enough to bring our nation together and make it strong. It also understood that any state legislative act could be unilaterally undone which made a perpetual Union impossible.
In addition your comment about what the Framers believed is complete fantasy certainly nothing either Madison (who was ready to get rid of the states entirely early in the convention) or Hamilton (who despised the corrupt state governments) believed.
The quote from Madison actually shows why the federal government has grown at the expense of the state. The requirements of war and foreign relations has grown far more important than it had when we were a out-of-the-way backwater on the world stage. Now we occupy the center.
Jefferson is the last person one should quote when concerned about the Constitution and what it means. He didn’t even believe the Louisiana Purchase constitutional nor the Bank which made it possible.
Madison’s belief that the states would resist a federal government stepping out of bounds can be said to show that states do NOT believe it has happened or that they don’t care.
Sherman myth goes marching on. People hundreds of miles away from the March claim his soldiers burned out “Ole Grandpappy and raped the Missus.” When idiots are followed into political suicide things are tough for lots of innocent people along with plenty of the guilty. Those who perpetrated the RAT Rebellion were traitors.
It was Madison who believed once a state was in the Union it was always in the Union or so he told Hamilton in rejecting acceptance of a conditional ratification. Hamilton was about to throw in the towel and accept that from the NY state ratification convention. Madison said “No!”
BTW that “sovereignty” Madison mentions was ONLY in relation to the ratification. It could not be coerced by another state. And there was no other mechanism available for the expression of the political will EXCEPT through state mechanisms.
But Congress was clear that it wanted the decision taken OUT of the hands of the states. It specified special conventions out of the control of state governments.
I’m thinking I could hold off my share of federal troops....the ones that you could actually get to fire on US citizens....I should be good to hold down one to two rifle companies, from my mountainous area in NH. The taliban got nothing on a pissed off american when it comes to insurgency.
Ohhhhh, I like that!
Done. Good to have another aboard.
lol - that was easy
I hope my pings are helping you out some.
If you wouldn't mind playing devil's advocate for a bit, what remedies do you see available to the states or to the people? Let's assume "the people", after decades of misinformation and basic laziness haven't a clue their government is using our Constitution for toilet paper. Assume also the states have been intimidated and bludgeoned into submission by the fedguv so they no longer feel adequate to the challenge of holding that fedguv to its Constitutional restraints. What next?
BTW, Washington offered several warnings in his farewell address. One of which was to guard against those that would usurp power by bypassing the restraints of the Constitution. As far as I could tell, he didn't propose any remedy for such a thing. What might he have done?
“State governments NEVER ratified the Constitution as you claim. State governments were deliberately by-passed for conventions called of the People IN states.”
Yet the Constitution itself says in Article VII:
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
The ratifying documents of the various states can be seen here: www.usconstitution.net/otherdocs.html#rats
You also seem to suffer from some strange notion that Congress had something to do with the constitutional convention. In fact, as far as the Congress of the old confederation knew, the convention was negotiating an amendment to the then current Articles of Confederation, the actual nature of the convention being a tightly held secret.
On the up-side, your handle is accurate.
We can only link the source.
Done J J. How you been?
Great article! I'll see if I can figure out a way to get it posted or otherwise get more exposure. NOTHING under Goober news or Yeehaaaw news. Surprised?
--John Stuart Mill
Wake me when/if the shooting starts.....
Arrogantsob is a typical Yankee, forcing their socialist big govt. views down the rest of the countries throat. If we in the south don't go along, I guess we'll be invaded again. Well come on then....
Thanks for the ping, and thanks to all for some very enlightening comments/ opinions/ quotes.
One quick (and trivial) note:
Typo in the first line (Let’s Get Theis Right).
I have never understood........why states would be happy about sending a dollar and receiving back only 77%.
Baffling, you make our laws or you won't get any money back......then keep the money!
All good here.
If you're serious about participating in discussions concerning efforts to reclaim our sovereignty, personal attacks based on geography, or any other unrelated issue will only serve to distract from or even hijack those discussion. Is that what you really want???
You probably realize not all, or even most, "Yankees" are marxist driven idealogues but would not admit it because of some deeper resentments from long ago. Similar to muzzies. Irrational behavior that will serve no good purpose, IMHO. So please, can we discuss idealogy and not geography?
Yeah, geopgraphy has NOTHING to do with it, considering NE is ALL BLUE right! I guess you're a socialist Yankee too. Truth hurts.
As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time.
Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus “retained” from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:
“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do”
Note that the term “state” used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term “nation” for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term “United States” literally meant “United Nations.”
You then, must believe that the states somehow “surrendered” their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution
However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated,
“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”
In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence with both union and non-union nations solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.
Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Since the term “others” as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of every state which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them.
Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes under force of law wielded by such would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed or even implied in the Constitution or any other document.
I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.