Our States' Superior Sovereign Authority, Part One

From Secession University:

Our States’ Superior Sovereign Authority, Part 1


Posted October 27, 2010 by Bill Miller

Categories: Liberty, Nullification, Sovereignty, secession



There is no denying the fact that the federal government has far exceeded those few powers delegated to it by our States. During a recent Town Hall meeting, Congressman Pete Stark of California claimed, “The federal government can do most anything in this country.” In response to perhaps speaking more honestly than he intended, the audience showered him with boos and catcalls. Yet, his unguarded remarks were an all too accurate depiction of the current modus operandi of our central government.



Unfortunately, as this assumption of undelegated powers has occurred over many years, our States have meekly stood by, failing to perform their most imperative duty of exerting their superior sovereign authority to thwart such unconstitutional abuses of power by our central government.



The Questions



Therefore the question is what, if anything, can we do about this transformation of our Union of sovereign States into little more than an ensemble of 50 administrative districts? It’s not so much a question of how we might stop this whittling away of our States’ sovereign authority, as one of how we can reverse the damage already done. Is it even possible to return to some semblance of the Union envisioned by our Founders—a Union once the envy of all mankind? Are there any solutions available that might offer a reasonable chance for returning the federal government to its constitutional cage?



Constitutional Amendments



Some believe the answer lies in amending the Constitution as a means of forcing the federal government to adhere to the precise and plainly stated restraints on its power. One such amendment might simply state, “This Constitution means what it says, and is to be interpreted according to the original intent of the parties when approved.” Although this may be a good first step, what chance is there for its ratification?



And even if ratified, would any of the branches of our federal government respect the clear language of such an amendment? After all, the federal government has a reputation for recasting the plain meaning of the Constitution to suit its own natural inclination for expanding its own authority. It’s quite unlikely that the ruling class would abandon already ill-gotten powers, as well as its most ridiculous and fraudulent claim that the Commerce Clause grants Washington the absolute power to rule over all activities both between and within our States.



Other amendment ideas—such as repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments—have also been suggested as the key to restoring our liberties, but what chance is there of getting 38 States to agree? With these not-so-united States of red and blue deeply divided over just how intrusive the role of the federal government should be, it’s doubtful any such amendments would find the necessary support.



An Energized Electorate — the Tea Party Movement



A growing number of good folks, Tea Party types in particular, have attempted to stem this tide of government tyranny by holding rallies and meetings in the hope their elected “representatives” in Washington finally get the message and put a stop to the madness. We’ve seen the angry crowds at Town Hall meetings and the marches on Washington; what good did they do?



It’s not that the people’s message hasn’t been delivered; without question, Congress understands just how unpopular its actions have been, but the public’s outrage hasn’t stopped it from adding even more undelegated authority to its domain in defiance of public opinion.



Some believe that with an energized electorate, we can solve our problems with Washington by simply replacing Democrats with Republicans. Many promote different and theoretically more “conservative” party labels as a way to curb Washington’s insatiable appetite for more power and authority, but they seem to forget that Republicans also trend toward enhancing their own power. Whether Democrat or Republican, their loyalty is to their party with their primary focus and concern being reelection.



Regardless of party, a newer ruling class will, at best, only slow, not stop, Washington’s long train of abuses and usurpations, and they most certainly will not reverse the lost sovereign authority of our States.



The solution to our diminishing liberty does not lie in some miraculous electoral revolution; it’s just not possible. There are many reasons why the political process cannot change our federal government in any meaningful way; for one, it’s just too damn big with far too many individuals and organizations depending on its largesse.



A sizable and growing underclass has become subservient to and dependent on Washington’s ruling elite to care for them. This dependent class, with its near majority status, has been removed from the tax rolls and plied with all manner of “free” benefits, from direct cash payments to healthcare to secure their vote. Factor in those special interest groups looking to the central government for some preferential consideration and support for their particular issues and you have a solid base, perhaps even a majority, opposed to any significant downsizing of government or, heaven forbid, returning to a constitutionally limited form of government.



Unfortunately, neither Tea Party protests nor taxpayer revolts stand any chance of reforming this infected system of government where the primary objective of those in power is simply doing whatever is necessary to remain in power. Some measure of success may well occur, but even if wildly successful, just how many more true believers in limited government like Ron Paul or Jim DeMint will be elected? There will never be enough of them to be able to achieve any meaningful return to constitutional fidelity.



Will newly elected Republicans produce any meaningful change on a national level? Of course not! Experience shows that over time most of these born-again conservatives will adopt Washington’s ways of power politics by just going along to get along while stuffing their campaign chest to ensure their reelection.



By the time the next elections roll around, very little, if any, of the most recent massive transfers of power to Washington will have been repealed. It’s also likely that even more State sovereignty and individual liberty will have been hijacked, albeit at a slower pace than under the Obama administration’s full-throttled assault on the same.



Secession



Despite the greatly diminished constitutional authority our States have gradually accepted, there are other more rebellious remedies they could employ to reclaim their sovereignty.



The most effective remedial action would be for States to simply withdraw from a compact that has been repeatedly ignored and violated. This highly controversial remedy is the only surefire method for removing the federal government’s tentacles that have woven their way into the very fabric of our States’ constitutional authority and every facet of the lives of its citizens.



That said, there is no denying that such a solution, effective as it may be, is simply not possible at this time. There are many reasons why the time is not right, and why the odds are long, for States to begin withdrawing from this Union. Chief among them is the resistance of a public that has steadily grown accustomed, over these many years, to the intrusive nature of the federal government. In fact, many, if not most of the citizenry, have come to expect, and even demand, the many “benefits” the federal government has plied them with as a means of securing their obedience.



A recent Washington Post article on the question of America’s view of just how big government should be and how far it should reach into people’s lives came to some interesting conclusions. They found that most Americans “say it [government] focuses on the wrong things and doubt that it can solve big domestic problems.” They also found that, “most Americans who say they want limited government also call Social Security and Medicare ‘very important.’ They want Washington to be involved in schools and to help reduce poverty.”



Despite all the rallying cries of “less government,” when the public is presented with the possible wholesale elimination of those programs to which it has become so accustomed, its opinion changes. Therefore, when those opponents of secession point out the loss of many of these popular, although unconstitutional, programs, those claiming to support withdrawal from the Union are going to have second thoughts. And any politician daring enough to suggest secession as a remedy for our ills will quickly find his opponents inflaming the public and arousing anxiety that popular benefits will be lost if such “un-American” ideas are adopted.



Nullification



The one encouraging approach providing some glimmer of hope is the nullification, or Tenth Amendment, movement now arising in several States. Some States have joined lawsuits declaring parts of ObamaCare unconstitutional, and some have nullified one or two federal intrusions on State authority, including the REAL ID Act, medical marijuana prohibitions, and federal firearm laws. A few States are also pushing back against other federal abuses, the most prominent being Arizona’s efforts to combat illegal immigration.



Others claim that nullifying a few of the more recent infringements on State authority does nothing to restore the innumerable unconstitutional acts that have brought us full-circle to where, as in 1776, we are relegated to being little more than obedient subjects of an abusive elite ruling class.



A recent article by Russell Longcore of DumpDC.com, which focused on the shortcomings of the current nullification movement, summarized it best in his article’s title, “Nullification is for Sissies.” As Longcore writes, “…nullification is a tentative, halting, almost cowering gesture toward Washington. It almost asks permission. Nullification tacitly acknowledges that Washington is the boss. It fairly begs Washington to accept the state’s wishes…”



Longcore is on the mark here. The usual scenario in which a State attempts to nullify certain laws involves its dutiful submission of its objections to the perpetrators of the injustice, followed by a breathless wait for adjudication on the merits of its case.



So, what do these States do when the Supreme Court rules they cannot interfere with illegal aliens, health insurance mandates, federal firearm regulations, or any other federal law? As they always do, they obediently accept the highly partisan rulings of this politically appointed and loyal branch of the federal government.



In a recent article posted on TenthAmendmentCenter.com, Thomas E. Woods, Jr. offered the following analogy of the flawed relationship between the federal courts and our States, “If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself? Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place? Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.”



Despite these shortcomings, the nullification movement, to its great credit, has made more progress than any other group in attempting to stem the federal government’s unconstitutional seizure of State authority. They would make even more progress if only they adopted a hard-nosed approach by rejecting all unwanted and unconstitutional, federal intrusions, past and present—nullification on steroids.



The following ideas on asserting the supreme sovereignty of our States could provide the nullification movement with much needed support and resolve, since nullification is, after all, based on our States’ sovereign authority.



A Solution: Asserting Superior Sovereign Authority



It is time our States start acting like the superior authority they are when it comes to deciding what the federal government can and cannot do. When our States joined the Compact that we call the Constitution, they created the federal government and delegated a few specific powers for this new entity to perform as their agent. They most certainly did not create this central government entity to be their master with the ultimate authority to decide what the States could and could not do.



The States have supreme authority in this Compact, and as long as a State remains a party to it, the State has the absolute right to decide if the actions exercised by the federal government exceed those limited powers delegated to it by the States. The States also retained the power to withdraw any of the powers so delegated (as proclaimed by several States as part of their ratification of the Compact) and to even dissolve the federal government as they did under their previous compact—the Articles of Confederation.



For far too long, States have ignored their duty to protect their citizens from the usurpation of their liberties by an abusive central government, especially so since they possess the superior authority necessary to firmly reject such abuse from a lower authority.



As James Madison declared in his Virginia Resolution, “… that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”



A Plan for Reasserting our States’ Superior Sovereign Authority



Such a plan would naturally begin with a State’s legislature passing a resolution in the spirit of the Principals of ’98, as championed by Jefferson and Madison. These resolves would proclaim the sovereign authority guaranteed our States through our Founding documents, as well as the right and duty of a State to assert its superior authority on all matters that are in the best interest of the State and its citizens.



This resolution would not call for withdrawing from the Union, and it would not call for any new laws or constitutional amendments. It would simply demand that the Union respect the terms and limitations the Compact places on the central government to not infringe on the supreme authority of the State.



But most importantly, it would resolve that should the federal government exceed its constitutionally delegated authority, the State, and the State alone, would have the superior authority to decide whether the federal government was overstepping its bounds and abusing the State’s rightful authority, and if it were, the State would take whatever actions necessary to redress such tyranny.



This resolution would also proclaim that no branch of the federal government, including the judicial branch, and the Supreme Court in particular, has the authority to overrule the superior authority of the States. No longer would States sit idly by while a highly partisan appendage of the federal government rules on the permissibility of any State action.



With sovereignty being such a vital and integral feature of a State, it’s somewhat surprising that none of our States have formalized a legislative department to preserve and protect this most salient element of State governance. This resolution should therefore include a call for the establishment of a new department charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the State’s sovereignty.



This new Department of Sovereign Authority would review both previous and new federal intrusions that appear to be both unconstitutional and at odds with the best interest of the State and its citizens. Should this review determine that certain federal acts are both unconstitutional and not in the best interest of the State and its citizens, this department would suggest appropriate remedial action to the State legislature.



Conclusions



Perhaps the most important feature of this plan is that each State resolving to reclaim and reassert its sovereign authority could do so on a case-by-case basis, determining when such actions are in the best interest of its citizens. In short, there would be no requirement for the State to dismiss all unconstitutional actions by the federal government—the State’s citizens may very well be perfectly happy with many of the federal intrusions.



Consider the clearly unconstitutional Social Security system as just one of perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of federal abuse of delegated powers. It is widely assumed that most citizens would vigorously object to ending or significantly changing this bankrupt Ponzi scheme. Accordingly, most States resolving to reassert their sovereignty would likely leave this controversial program undisturbed.



But what if a State, by asserting its superior sovereign authority, established a mechanism whereby each of its citizens, on an individual basis, were allowed to either stay with the Social Security program as managed by the central government or opt out of all related taxes and benefits? While there are many unanswered questions on the wisdom of this approach, it serves as an example of how a State might fulfill its duty to protect its citizens from abusive and unconstitutional intrusions into their lives.



Should a number of States decide to assert their superior sovereign authority, over time many different approaches to State independence would evolve. Some States might aggressively reclaim the more egregious abuses of their sovereign authority, while other States might willingly accept the status quo.



The true benefit of such a patchwork of independent States, and how each responds to unconstitutional federal intrusions, would be seen in the choices available for citizens to vote with their feet as to the type of governance they prefer.



Part 2 examines the details of such a plan