Posted on 09/02/2008 11:49:53 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake
One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.
Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.
The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: '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.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."
Key's resolution passed in the Oklahoma House of Representatives with a 92 to 3 vote, but it reached a bottleneck in the Senate where it languished until adjournment. However, Key plans to reintroduce the measure when the legislature reconvenes.
Federal usurpation goes beyond anything the Constitution's framers would have imagined. James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated … 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, [such] 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, liberties, and properties of the people." Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. … The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."
Both parties and all branches of the federal government have made a mockery of the checks and balances, separation of powers and the republican form of government envisioned by the founders. One of the more disgusting sights for me to is to watch a president, congressman or federal judge take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, when in reality they either hold constitutional principles in contempt or they are ignorant of those principles.
State efforts, such as Oklahoma's, create a glimmer of hope that one day Americans and their elected representatives will realize that the federal government is the creation of the states. A bit of rebellion by officials in other states will speed that process along.
Too many people think the start of our decline into socialism started with FDR. But FDR’s programs would never have been possible without the federal power grab that came with the defeat of the Confederacy in the War Between the States.
I agree. Good on Oklahoma!
Ping as you see fit...
I’m a huge supporter of State’s Rights.
We should have a collection of 50 mostly independent nation-states. In some there might be no taxes..some would have no drug laws...some would be mostly socialist in nature while others would be extremely capitalistic. We could move where we felt most comfortable while the Fed Gov provided for the common defense. I’m probably a bit naive but I really wish things were like that, I hate that the central government has assumed near total power over every aspect of our existence.
Excellent article. President Reagan spoke about federalism, but did little about it. We need to return to our original form of government.
It just goes to show that when the winners get to write the history, things can get a little muddled in translation, but true enough.
I'm a little ashamed it wasn't my own home state(Texas) being first with something like this. Of course the talk around here is always for reverting back to a republic of our own ;^)
bump
Just so, but the Federales could not have accomplished the takeover without the, at least, tacit approval of the several states. Makes one wonder what it was that induced the states knuckle to under to the feral beast.
We could move to any state that allowed immigration from other states.
A while back my home state tried pushing the State's Rights issue. (SC)
Would that it might happen but I suspect the feral gummint has its hooks so firmly embedded by now that any state that desires to leave the plantation would suffer some pretty severe financial pains. Question is, would the state's residents be willing to shoulder the additional burden -- at least for a while.
Ohhhhhh, I like it!
Quite incorrect. The Confederates very much wanted to annex Maryland and thus DC.
While Williams may be up on economics, his history is oft imaginary.
Yeah, I hear rumblings from time to time but you can rest assured the dinosaur media will do their best to keep it under wraps as much as possible. Just for grins, do a Google search under "news" for this article. Then do a "web" search to see where and how it shows up. With the coming of age of the internet, it has become possible to communicate with millions but the background noise is so daunting it's still difficult to reach the unwashed. I was truly surprised the article didn't show up on FR. Walter Williams is pretty well respected around here.
I'm sure you probably have a cite for that, so would you mind humoring me??? I'm not as much a historian as I could be.
Oklahoma can actually begin to do this only if it renounces all federal money, like highway funds and Title this money and title that money and school lunch money. Most federal control comes as **if you don’t do as we want you to do you forfeit xx% of your federal highway/schoollunch/titlexx/etc. money.** States always cave.
The reciprocal to that is for the federal government to stop taxing for those items.
I don't know this but I have suspected for some time, that somewhere along the way, the feral gummint offers to the states a really neat deal. That is, the IRS will help the states by collecting confiscating taxes from everyone and re-destributing it where it is most needed. That way, the various states don't get "blamed" for raising taxes; it's those meanies in the feral gummint. I can hear the sales pitch(es) even now...
Where exactly the loyalty of the majority of white Marylanders lay is unknown but they were very much divided. Downstaters were Confederate. Western Marylanders were Unionist. Confederate troops several times entered western Maryland and were disappointed at the lack of welcome.
The Confederate Congress passed a resolution that no peace treaty could be made which did not allow Maryland to join the CSA. This would also have forced the Federals out of DC as it is surrounded by Maryland and Virginia.
I would have to do some rereading of Civil War histories to give you a date of that resolution.
The assertion that the war was not a civil war is incorrect, as is the assertion that the slaveowners were champions of limited government. Many northerners would have been happy to let all or most of the slave states go. Many southerners did not support secession. Every Confederate state except South Carolina had volunteer units in the Federal army.
First Rule of Politics: Always follow the money.
This is exactly right!
The Federal Government takes so much money from the individual and business that that they can control everything.
The States cannot tax because the Feds take so much now and it is easier to vote to toss out a local (read state) level politician than to toss out one of the three or more entrenched Senators or Representatives, so the state level people have their hands tied when it comes to finance and MUST rely on the Feds to give back some of the trillions of dollars they confiscate via the IRS.
Face it. Money is power and the Federal Government has taken the power away from the States and we have let it happen.
Thanks for posting this. It gives me a small ray of hope we can turn away from this path of domination of our lives by the Federal government.
Yeah it would be good.
But we still have Power that Oklahoma lacks, if we do get the will to go the way Oklahoma did.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005511
Advantage: Texas
Don’t forget Wilson. The 17th Amendment was the key to converting states from sovereign partners into administrative districts. It removed one of the central pillars of the Federal system devised by the founders. Any meaningful reform must begin with its repeal.
Federal funding. Grants, highway funds, etc, etc, all of which come with strings attached: "Obey or be cut off"
This all comes from the unlimited federal funding that the Income Tax provided. Without the income tax, the feds would have been limited to the revenue provided by tariffs, excise taxes, and direct taxes. What's a direct tax, you might ask? Constitution Article I Section 2 says:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other PersonsDirect taxes would have been levied on the states according to their population (as in "Hey New York? You have X% of the population of the US, so you are liable for X% of the money the federal government needs. Tell your legislature to raise it and send it in.")
Go tell me that the state governments would have been enthusiastic about expanding federal government, if they would have been liable for funding it out of their own budgets.
Nope. Even if this passed, it would be mere words on paper.
FedGov has amply demonstrated its willingness to send in men with guns to enforce their edicts, Constitution be dammed.
The only way to reclaim our Republic is to demonstrate the same willingness. Until then, nothing changes (except the Leviathan gets bigger every year).
bump later
ping
And Baltimore locals rioted against union troops as the troops marched from one train station to another; killing some and injuring many others. All of which proves that Maryland was a divided state as were several others. The rest of your story I'll have to take on faith until, and if, I take the time to research it.
Amen!
Indeed that seems to be the case. Would you also submit that this happened by design and not by chance? In any case I suppose it goes without saying that many, maybe most of our elected feral representatives are actually traitors.
An item of curiousity: Do you recall when we sent in the Pubbies to haul out the trash in what, 1994? There was a move afoot from the newly elected majority to reconcile all new legislation against the Constitution. Quickly faded of course as the Dims, along with the entrenched Pubbies I'm sure, put the kurbash on it.
Well, it doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies because the PTB will do everything within their considerable powers to see it never happens. I'm pretty well convinced the broad powers given the states in the Constitution will only be reclaimed by force. A tyrant like our feral gummint will not relinquish its usurped powers willingly. IMHO.
Gotta run for now but will check back in later this afternoon.
Thanks.
I've often heard that Texas might be one of the few states that could actually make a go of it on our own but I'm not so sure about the (US)constitutionality of it. There are those on this forum that have argued that a later provision of the US Constitution more or less prohibited it. Don't recall the particulars though, FWIW.
Not likely. We would probably still be operating within the constitutional constraints placed on the feral gummint. But for tyrants, and would be tyrants, where there's a will, there's a way.
Agreed, Oklahoma's piece of paper in and of itself wouldn't constitute much of a threat to the "majesty" of the feral leviathan. I only have a small quibble zeugma; that is, if there is to be a fire, a small spark may be all that's needed to create an inferno. Indeed, all that's usually required.
Welcome.
Perhaps the first time that money was tied to programs or specific performance, it may have been chance but it has certainly been by design since that time.
I do recall the Republican Revolution/Contract with America and its notion of measuring legislation against the Constitution. Again, it was about the money because they couldn't find the authority to provide pork barrel spending back to the home districts. Therefore, they could not ensure their continued political existence on our dime and the idea had to fall of its own political weight.
We could have an interesting discussion about which functions of the federal government could be devolved to the state level or even done away with, but this topic tends to get hijacked by the neoconfederate crowd.
What really changed federal-state relations was the 16th (Income Tax) Amendment, which gave the federal government the advantage in terms of finances. With the feds collecting the money for the big things, state governments could avoid controversy and concentrate on lesser matters.
Frankly, no they are not enough. I’ve read endless rationalizations about how the confederates were such 10th amendment champions; none are convincing; nor have I been convinced that the war was a 10th amendment issue. I’m just not interested in rehashing the old arguments. I was looking for some legislation President Lincoln signed that trampled on the 10th amendment rights of the states (that didn’t secede) or the people.
You're right about the spark. I keep expecting it to come, but it never does. People seem to be pretty complacent. I suspect folks will wait until the leviathan is too strong. I never underestimate the willingness of people to allow themselves to be subjected to indignities beyond reason though. Look at how bad things were in the soviet union, and the various satellite countries, as well as other hell-holes around the world.
The people who operated the ovens and manned the concentration camps in Nazi germany were just ordinary folks that would do anything as long as they were on the other side of the barbed wire. Those people areall around you. The number of people who will actually stand up no matter what tyranny is faced is vanishingly small. Look at what we willingly submit ourselves to at airports, when we know that nothing the TSA mouth-breathers are doing has anything to do with our actual safety. Yet, even here on FreeRepublic, you'll find those who will cheer it on, regardless of what the ultimate consequences of blindly following the dictates of the political class.
Like you, I don't really know one way or the other BUT, I'm not so sure I'm willing to give human nature the benefit of the doubt. IOW, I suspect there are people in this world who think in longer terms and on larger scales than most of us. The old saw about following the money may in fact apply but not in terms we would generally think of.
Probably true in too many state legislatures, if given a choice. Passing the buck is a time honored system that works better with larger and larger bureaucracies. Getting lost in the shuffle or computer glitches are convenient backstops. I'd be willing to bet our Founding Fathers were privy to the scheme and one of the primary reasons why they were so intent on leaving the powers in the states.
"Find out just what people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglass actually...
Apparently we are a tolerant bunch.
bump
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.