The states can assert their control over the Feds in only one way short of rebellion. Article V of the Constitution gives the states, when 2/3 officially call for it, the right to demand a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of adopting amendments. Amendments adopted by the Convention if approved by 3/4 of the states then become the law of the land. Otherwise, the Feds alone write the laws and interpret the Constitutionality of the laws they write. If you really care about the 10th Amendment, you must favor a Constitutional Convention. One is needed now more than ever.

So our Union has the same problems as the Soviet Union did-- and for the same reason, i.e. no minority can resist the central government. That's why the Constitution never established national authority in one government, but it remained dispersed in the PEOPLE-- not governments-- of each individual state.
Then if there was a dispute over the meaning of the Constitution, each individual state had the final say over whether they would go along with it-- and the rest could either do without the law, or do without the state.
Unfortunately, Lincoln and Co. ended that for over 140 years; and until we recover our state sovereignty, things can only get worse.

I said THANKS to the Republican oligarchs-- i.e. Lincoln & Co.
I never said it REMAINED wholly with them.

ALL national parties are equally bad, since they all maintain that the USA is a nation (which it isn't), and not a federal republic of sovereign nations (which it IS).

It was this type of distortion which caused all the problems, since a national government doesn't have to obey the Constitution. Meanwhile, a federal government DOES have to obey the Constitution, since otherwise the minority states will resist by threatening to nullify and secede.
Under our current regime, which claims a national government, the government can do whatever it wants-- and the rest of the states have to obey, or else our state of Georgia, will meet the same fate of SOVIET Georgia, i.e. tanks will roll down the streets.

I'm talking about the United States of America-- the "country" that orders the People's money and sons into the war.

The ones who NEED the wars are the oligarchy, i.e. the politician and special-interest fatcats who scratch each other's backs.... while usng the People as a litterbox

Legally, every state is a sovereign nation under its respecitve People, while the Union was just a federal republic among them-- but thanks to the Republican oligarchs, now the Union is supposedly "one nation" in which the "the People" only get to vote for who's in Congress and White House, so they're not exactly the "nation's owners"asthey're told.

"but thanks to the Republican oligarchs, now the Union is supposedly "one nation" in which the "the People" only get to vote for who's in Congress and White House, so they're not exactly the "nation's owners"asthey're told"

I agree wholeheartedly, except it is not "republican" oligarchy. It is royal (globalist) oligarchy. Republicans slap you on the right side of your face and the democrats on your left side. We are double teamed. We need to back away from the political side show to recognize what is happening.

"If you understand the difference to offense, then you'll realize that America has never been in a war it didn't start"

Maybe it would help if you clarified who America is. Are you talking about the citizens as a collective, or the Federal Government, or the Federal Reserve, or....? Maybe the ones who need the wars are none of the above.

Sovereignty means lordship over LAND, not people; however those people who are ON the land must obey the rule of the sovereign, i.e. "my land, my rules." By your claim, however, anyone can do anything, anywhere; therefore your argument is reductio ad absudum impossible, other than as a recipe for tyranny and chaos. But if you knew what reductio ad absurdum means, you'd know that as well.

The issue of sovereignty begins with the individual, but it also ENDS there as well. Sovereignty means LORDSHIP, and no one has a right to be LORD over any other human being. It follows therefore that no group of people can claim lordship over another group--even if one group is bigger than the other. You cannot delegate a right or an authority you do not have. Since you do not have the right to claim lordship over me, you do not have the right to extend that claim to someone you call a "state" or a "government." The idea of lordship (sovereignty) is preposterous on its very face; as ridiculous as the "Divine Right of Kings." Anyone who claims lordship over another is immoral, and a tyrant, and deserves to be ignored, or resisted. So there to all your arguments about State sovereignty, federal sovereignty, Constitutions, and other idiotic ideas. You and your government (State, Federal, limited, unlimited, democratic or theocratic) have no more right to enslave me (excercise Lordship) that PT Beauregard has to own blacks.

"it's not "defense," if we started it"

that was my point when I said I understand its' difference to offense.

"they hate us because we're free."

yep, and they decieve by speaking in half truths. The operant is "they", as in royal sovereigns

Paul writes that "The issue of sovereignty begins with the individual."

Only with regard to a sovereign STATE, or nation. In this sense, every state is POPULARLY sovereign, i.e. it is owned collectively by its population of sovereign individuals, by virtue of their inalienable right to self-government; and this is why the People of a STATE have the right to ALTER OR ABOLISH their government at will.

Clearly, this is not the case under the current regime, which claims national authority OVER the states-- but no popular sovereignty among the People; on the contrary, the people can only choose their governors, not their government; likewise, as a result, the Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. (Tell me, what does a 220-year old piece of paper cost these days?)

Therefore, in order to restore sovereignty to the individual, we must also restore sovereignty to the individual STATES; otherwise, the federal government is the only sovereign-- and we all know how THAT works out.

Paul,

I would tend to be one who agrees, except at what level do we provide for a common defence? I understand the difference from offense. The question of how much and at what level is perplexing. It is also thee major tenant in the claim in need of government at all. I guess it matters what other groups of indoctrinated people are thinking, doing, and how they view us. Maybe, we are striking at the root at last?

Dave

The issue of sovereignty begins with the individual. If we believe in the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then this applies to all. Royalty on this earth claim to be sovereign, which is really a claim that you are not. Otherwise there could not be a differentiation. If you were sovereign, then you own yourself and the product of your labor, to sell and trade without interferance. If this applies to everyone, then you have competition. The real sovereigns of this earth hate competition, meaning they hate you trying to be soveriegn. Their answer is to monopolize by centralizing. Central banking, central government, central manufacturing, central trade, on and on, all things global. It seems 1/3 of us understand because we have experienced some degree of success, which brings on their attack, causing us to think, ponder, seek truth; whereas finding truth causes opposition. 1/3 who are losers will embrace the attack believing in a magic carpet ride. The middle 1/3 just want to work, live and enjoy life. They have not mentally engaged and form their opinions according to which way the wind is blowing. Where will it all go? Same place it allways has throughout history. Rise and fall. Like the tides, it is natural. Only this time it is bigger (population) than ever before. The higher the high, the lower the low.

Why is it that people are trying to restore the Constitution? It is a dead end game. It was dead the minute Washington crushed the Whiskey Rebellion in clear violation of a document whose ink was barely dry. It is not going to work. the solution is to smash the federal government entirely, and remove it. Then dissolve the state governments as well. If we are left with any governments it should be on the town or county level. And these governments should be limited to one thing: Adjudicating a body of law, not subject to amendment, agreed upon by consensus. These governments should bepaid for on a fee-for-services-rendered basis.

"I know of few or no Libertarians who think freedom is possible under the Leviathan."

The majority sure do, with their obsessing over "Who killed the Constitution," irather than by addressing the issue of state sovereignty. The federal government can construe the Constitution as it wills, whle only a sovereign state can override it.

"Most Libertarians I have run into are anarcho-capitalists"

ie. Utopia, the biggest fantasy of all. Stick with the real, not the impossible ideal.

And the reality, is that every state exists as a sovereign nation-- but this truth is suppressed by the pseudo-national establishment known as "the American national government." There IS no American national government, except the outright lie concocted by Republicans c. 1833, and enforced via coup d'etat in 1861.

However, that sovereignty was never changed-- merely suppressed; and therefore it still exists, if only ONE STATE would simply DECLARE it by popular majority, since that is every states legal ruling sovereign.

Rights are only viable under sovereignty. No sovereignty, no rights.
The problem with libertarians, is that they all live in a fantasy-world where liberty is possible under the Leviathan atate-- and so they address all of the individual destructions of liberty under Leviathan, while doing nothing about the Leviathan power-structure that enables it.

Ok, on what planet does this sound like a good idea? Not this one!

"They need to be sent a message"? Sorry but the threat is empty, and they know it; there's not a DAMNED thing you can do, short of voting them out of office-- and it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
It just don't work that way. The only way to curb Leviathan, is to END it outright.
And the only way THAT can happen, is to recognize each state's national sovereignty.
But that's a rational fact, so I don't expect anyone to pay heed.

The states have the right to assert their 10th amendment rights. I hope that all 50 states will move to pass their sovereign rights, because for the last few years, the corrupt politicians in Washington don't listen. They need to be sent a message. If they still don't listen, then they have right to nullify
national health care, cap-and-trade, etc. The tyrants in Washington better wake up.

Not only that, but each state i.e. be POPULARLY sovereign, so the people have the right to alter or abolish govrnment that becomes destructive to their rights.

Dave said

"I do not believe 50 tyrannies instead of 1 is posible. We would have 50 competeing governments. People will vote with their feet."

This is accurate.

Also look at the Swiss Canton system.

I highly doubt that people who speak different languages will be considered one nation. This "Tower of Babel principle" is the only thing stopping the UN from claiming the same national sovereignty over all member-states, that the US did in 1861.

I wonder at what point the European Union will be considered one country. Will the peoples of France, Germany and England one day be having this same argument? Instead of southern, northern and midwestern accents, they will speak with French, German and English "accents."

A primer for Americans regarding sovereignty:

The sole issue of the War Between the States, was whether the Union was a federal republic, or a national one.

The South claimed that it was a federal republic, in which each state was sovereign; meanwhile the Republicans claimed that it was a national republic, in which all states are under control of a single unifying sovereign.

Regarding this, there is no doubt that that Union was federal, not national; for the states were originally sovereign, and when federating themselves into the Union, they never expressly surrendered or conjoined their sovereignty in any way. This is why the central administration among them was called the FEDERAL government, not the NATIONAL government. James Madison was clear about this, both before and after the Constitution was ratified.

The Republicans, however, sought national power in order to usurp supreme rule; and so they began construing the Union as a national republic, twisting facts and logic alike in order to create a faux-history wherein the states formed a single nation rather than federal republic.

However, this would have required that the Peoples of the individual states, all expressly ceded and conjoined their sovereignty. But the states had done neither, and therefore this argument was vapid at best.

Therefore, the Republicans also claimed that the states were never sovereign unto themselves, as Lincoln claimed during his first inaugural address; rather, they claimed that the states declared and won their independence as a single sovereign state, despite that they were expressly thirteen states in name.

Since this was obviously ridiculous, later spin-doctors attempted to mend the gaping hole in this theory, by claiming that the states were originally sovereign, and that the Confederation was a federal republic; but that they later conjoined their sovereignty to form a single national republic via the Constitution.

Once again, this is ludicrous, in that the People of the respective states nowhere expressed any such intention to do this, either in or out of the Constitution; on the contrary, they ratified the Constitution only upon specific representations that they would each retain their exclusive sovereignty.

Rather, Lincoln's argument was no different from that made Mein Kampf, where Adolph Hitler stated that "the individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."

Obviously, the states DID form the constitutional Union, via each acting in their sovereign capacity.

Thereore, the Union IS a federal republic, and not a national one.

Paul the cab driver:

Enforcing the 10th Amendment is a bad idea, because it can't be done by the states-- only the federal government. Meanwhile, if the states are sovereign, then they can enforce the 10th Amendment by overruling the fed-- but if they can do that, then they can do ANYTHING including secede altogether, and the fed cannot STOP them on the basis of the 10th Amendment or anything else.

People are so bureaucratic-minded that they can't see the reality through the red tape.

Ok, sovereignty is NOT a "state of mind--" it's a state of STATE.

Specifically, sovereignty pertains to supreme national authority-- which the US government claimed to have had in the War Between the States, and which foolish people claim that it WON via that war.

However, both are wrong: the states are, and always were, sovereign nations unto themselves-- and only NATIONS can ever be sovereign, not subordinate states of a greater nation.

As I've stated time and time again, sovereignty does NOT come from the 10th Amendment, since the states were sovereign BEFORE the Constitution. Sovereignty comes from the fact that each state was mutually declared as a sovereign nation in 1776, and this sovereignty was recognized in 1783.
Meanwhile the 10th Amendment was written in 1789.

Likewise, NO state ever surrendered or compromised its national sovereignty via the Constitution, and the sovereign people of each state never expressed any such intent.

Each state is a sovereign nation, by law and history-- and anyone who says otherwise, is either misinformed or dishonest.

Paul,
I do not believe 50 tyrannies instead of 1 is posible. We would have 50 competeing governments. People will vote with their feet.

Enforcing the 10th Amendment is a bad idea for several reasons: First, if you are successful, who or what is to prevent the government from violating it again in the future? The Supreme Court? They're the ones who are supposed to decide on the Constitutionality of the laws. Even if they were on the side of limited government, which they are not, they only decide a few cases every year, and there are hundreds of new laws passed every year.
Second, the 10th amendment movement won't be successful, because it is operating within the channels the power elite have already established to consolidate their position. Limitations on their power are simply unacceptable to them. Furthermore they know that if a State is allowed to assert its sovereignty, than counties and cities will want to follow suit. That simply won't be allowed to happen.
Last, even if the 10th Amendment movement does succeed, you have done nothing but kick the can a little further down the road. Who now will control the States? Each one will become its own little political power center and we will end up with 50 tyrannies instead of one. Right now, it is the State governments that do the lion's share of the bullying. It isn't the Feds (usually) that kick in your door at 3 in the morning looking for "drugs". Its the State and local cops. It is not the Feds pulling people over for revenue enhancement, or raising your property taxes etc. Yes, the Fed Gov is wicked and evil and needs to be abolished, but the States are just as bad. And in the long run does it really matter if the jackbooted pig with his foot on your throat is wearing a US Government badge or a Commonwealth of Massachusetts badge?

That's a great point Monorprise! Nullification + information technology = Strong chance of success. That's why the "con"-solidationists hate decentralized, de-massified media like the internet.

This is the real point of the 10th amendment movement, it’s the revitalization of an old proven strategy to limit and reduce the cost, size and scope of the Federal government. From a from a rereading of our own history the words of our founders and the experience of the past generations in the failure to limit or reduce the size and scope of government thou electing federal politicians.

The point is theses strategies have yielded little to no fruit for the enormous amounts of effort and resources we have thon into them. Upon reflecting on the words of our founders it is clear it takes merely a rudimentarily knowledge of human nature to understand the inherently uphill battle in attempting to reduce the power of a government by using (relying upon) the discipline of the politicians that actually weld that same power. (a foolish strategy in hindsight)

Power corrupts and by nature tends drives those who weld such power to want to hold on to and expire their power, not give it up.

Our founders knew this, which is why they created a system of checks and balances Not just the 3 branches of government but the 3 levels of government. We are not to rely exclusively on the people we elect in any one of them to keep their own power within the bounds of the Constitution but rather all others to force such limitations upon them.

To that end, this original plain of attack is not to continue to attempt to reduce the size of government by continuing to go up that hill but liming that power by going down anther hill. (Using others to take that power from them.)

Although we are well aware of the numerous pitfalls and risks involved in this strategy, our early history is largely defined by their presents. We have learned at great cost thou trial and error that they are far more effective then that which we have tried since. We have also been bettered by that knowledge enabling us to carry out such a strategy far more effectively due to modern mass commutations technology then our founders had at their disposal.

No longer will it be so easy for a central government lie about the activities and conditions in other states in order to motivate more distant states to aid them in the oppression of other states rights, in favor of the Central Governments own greater power and control. (Example: arguments used by Lincoln supporters to get around the inalienable right calmed the southern state legislators had been hijacked and that secession was not the will of the people).