Time after time I see this:
“Sovereignty resolutions are a pointless waste of time. The Federal Government has yet to acknowledge one and they aren’t even legally binding.”
Such a statement can only come from a very narrow view of our current reality.
Sovereignty, above all else legal and otherwise, is a state of mind. Sovereignty is a way of going about things, from the guy sweeping the parking lot to the lawmakers in the statehouse that says to DC “You don’t control us and you don’t make decisions for us!”. No legal precedent is required, only a shift in viewpoint and that’s exactly what the numerous sovereignty resolutions have already brought to the people of several states.
Required for any substantial resistance to the runaway train that is the Federal Government is the will of the people to restore the limits so carefully designed by our founding fathers. Tennessee and Montana are two states who are leading the sovereignty movement and though the Federal Government hasn’t responded to their assertions of sovereignty, one effect is certain and that is the effect on other states.
In January a symposium will be held in Omaha, a gathering of state lawmakers from across our republic assembling to discuss just one thing: state sovereignty. Many will be speaking at the event, but the symposium’s organizers were surprised by a whole host of legislators who wanted to attend, not to make a speech but rather to listen and get ideas.
You see, no response from DC is required for the sovereignty movement to gain ground. No acknowledgement from the Federal Government is essential for states to band together in resistance to tyranny.
In the spirit of the 10th Amendment, people from across the 50 states are already massing, without encouragement from Federal courts or agencies. The message of the 10th may not have been heeded by Washington DC, but the people and the states have heard it loud and clear.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
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.
Amndment, shmemendment. You can't possibly get 3/4 of the states' delegates to pass an amendment against certain types of federal laws, if you can't even get HALF of their FEDERAL delegates to resist or repeal them!
Think about it: a state's federal delegates are elected by the same voters as its STATE delegates-- and they vote based on the same policies
Also, changing the Constitution is useless, if the federal government is ignoring the Constitution anyway!
What are you going to say: "this time we REALLY MEAN IT!"???
The ONLY way to accomplish anything, is for the people of ONE state to take back their rightful status as sovereign nations.
Would not delegates to a constitutional convention be selected by state legislatures (as should be the case for senators -- there's one that needs repealed #17)...
In any case, the language is as follows:
The Congress...on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which...shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
Sounds as if although it takes 3/4 approval either way, 1) it's not clear who determines delegates to the convention -- historically the state legislatures determined -- and 2) congress seems to have the option of requiring either legislatures OR state conventions for ratification.
Has anyone done a detailed study on the mechanisms of a constitutional convention?
Personally, I see that as a last resort and actually quite dangerous -- as everything goes out the window, and you could end up with something completely different than our current constitution -- as misinterpreted as it is. Much better a combination of forcing a single amendment (or series of amendments) through the 'normal' process -- and nullification by the several States.
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.
Dave, I didn't write "republican," but "Republican." The first is an adjective, while the second is a nationalist political party-- to which the first applies in name only. There's nothing "republican" about the Republican party-- but rather Leviathan.
"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.
I'm talking about the UNITED STATES of America, not quibbling over the parts vs. the whole.
The ones who "need wars", are the special interests who BENEFIT from it-- like the War of 1812, in which special interests in certain states, took advantage of their union with the other states, as their "bodyguard" in order to protect them while they provoked Great Britain in their questionable business-dealings. Naturally this erupted in the war of 1812; and so the innocent states then protested via the Hartford Convention of 1814, in order to let the others know that the Union was NOT for the safety of provocateurs, but for DEFENSE ONLY.
Of course, Lincoln changed all that; and in 1813, Wilson thus felt safe in not only provoking the HELL out of Germany to benefit special interests, but in drafing Americans to FIGHT them, leading to global communism and depression--- and FDR followed suit with JAPAN as well; and as thanks, the Soviets pointed 20 gigatons of NUKES at us, while humans were butchered by the tens of millions, leading to 9/11.
Now we have a $12 trillion national debt too-- ready for sovereignty yet?
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
No, "they" as in the right-wing's word for "terrorists."
If you understand the difference to offense, then you'll realize that America has never been in a war it didn't start-- other than maybe lliberating Kuwait from Iraq; and even then, it's pretty stupid to go defending a nation that got invaded because they spent all their money on social welfare --- while our own people do without, The US is policeman of the world, in order to benefit special interests-- and that's why the fed conquered ithe very states that it was supposed to protect in the first place, back under the Lincoln admnstration.
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.
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?
it's not "defense," if we started it. This was the deal with the Hartford Convention of 1814, in response to the War of 1812; the states that threatened secession, were making it clear that the Union was NOT an unconditional agreement to be dragged into wars that other states provoked, so that they could be taken advantage of in order to maraud against other nations.
However with the suppression of state sovereignty in the War Betwen the States, this message went by the wayside, and the Union became a Mafia of organized crime and provocation of war around the world. WWI, WWII, the Cold War, and now the "War on Terror" were all due to US special-interests using the Union in order to better themselves at public expense; and now "we has met the enemy, and they is us."
However those who swallow the federal dogma that "we're a nation," will also swallow that it was all about democracy, Hitler, communism and "they hate us because we're free."
Unfortunately, too many still do.
The need to be safe from invaders is a legitimate human need. But let's take your assumption about defense, and apply it to other human needs: "I would tend to be one who agrees, except at what level to we provide for everyone's need to eat?" "I would tend to be one who agrees with you, except at what level do we provide for everyone's housing?" etc.
The myth of common defense is one of the biggest excuses for a coercive State. But like any other human need or want, when the State collectivizes it and usurps complete control over it, it becomes inefficient, counter productive, and destructive of liberty. With no central government (or state governments either) there would be no aggressive foreign policy, and thus far less threat of conflict with other countries. And if another country did invade, a well armed populace would quickly teach the invaders a lesson. Think of Napoleon's invasion of Switzerland, or the exceeding difficulty the US Army has had in Afghanistan and Iraq. As Yamamoto said, anyone who invaded the USA would "find a gun behind every blade of grass." National defense is simply an excuse to maintain a huge Army abroad, to enforce the imperialism of the United States government.
No one really knows how free market defense would work, and we won't know until we try it. However, it will be better in several ways: It won't be coercive, it won't be nearly as expensive, and it sure would not be aggressive. that by itself makes it infinitely superior to the US Army.
"The need to be safe from invaders is a legitimate human need."
Again, not if we STARTED it-- as with the War of 1812; this was the message of the Hartford Convention, i.e. that special interests could not use the Union as a shield to protect them from enemies they provoke, at Union expense; and the New England states threatened to secede because of it.
However this right of secession ended with the War Between the States, and the LIE that that the Union was a single nation; after this, special interests bankrupted the economy, and so began provoking wars in Europe, into which the US was soon dragged... leading to the World and Cold Wars. Likewise the Oil and religious lobbies dragged us into war in the Middle East, which we're still fighting now.
Sorry if you can't connect the dots, but that's the big picture they form: without the right of every state to say "no" to war, then war is inevitable as the special-interest lobby cashes in on U.S. security and neutrality. State sovereignty is the lynch-pin of freedom: when you lose it, you lose both.
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.
the Whiskey Rebellion wasn't the act of a sovereign state, so it doesn't count. The Constitution didn't ever "die--" it was just silenced, when when Lincoln used force to coerce state obedience to federal dictates, since the Constitution was a PACT beteween states-- and a forcedly violated pact, is NO pact at all.
However, the states were not stripped of their sovereignty, simply because it was denied and violated; on the contrary, Lincoln denied soveregnty under a FALSE CLAIM of historical fact-- and thus sovereigntyt remains in effect, by VIRTUE of the TRUE historical fact; once the fact is proven, so the claim to SOVEREIGNTY is proven... and valid.
It only needs to be ASSERTED by the people of ONE STATE.
"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 problem with libertarians, is that they all live in a fantasy-world where liberty is possible under the Leviathan atate--
I know of few or no Libertarians who think freedom is possible under the Leviathan. Most Libertarians I have run into are anarcho-capitalists. They believe freedom is truly possible under only a tiny voluntary government, or no government at all.
I personally believe this is the case: we will only be free when we can eliminate the US Fed Gov ENTIRELY. Trying to "limit" the state by reapplying the Constitution is an exercise in futility. If we are to have any government at all, it should be only the size of a city government, and should be strictly limited to adjudicating court cases.
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.
"The states have the right to assert their 10th amendment rights."
How? The US Supreme Court? There's not enough time or money to appeal 1/100th unconstitutional federal law there is-- and even IF the Supreme Court grants certiorari to review the law in question, the Supreme Court can always rubber-stamp the law, and the state's out of luck.
And Congress KNOWS it-- which is why they laugh at these "10th Amendment" movements, just like the "militia" movements who write their own passports..
THIS was Madison's point in the Virginia Resolutions that the states can overrule the federal government-- and that "On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve."
And that's exactly what happened: when the states lost their sovereignty, the people lost their LIBERTY.
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.
"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 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.""
Or Ca-li-fah-nia. Or Michigan. Or any other state whose offials think that taxation = revenue, and legislate more government-privileges for special-interests. They idiotically kill the goose, and then dumbfoundedly wonder where all the golden eggs are... before beginning a wild goose-chase for new and better government "programs." Either way, their goose is cooked.
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.
Wow, Brian. Ever dealt with anyone from India? More than 40 languages there. and they have just as strong a central government as ours. The old Soviet Union had dozens of languages contained in it, and it was one of the most brutal in history. China has dozens of languages, Canada has two. United States has no official language, and most of us speak English, but almost a quarter have Spanish as their birth tongue. Nationality isn't a function of language per se. it is a function of political power. And political power, as Mao once said, flows from the barrel of a gun.
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.
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?
The States governments are awful, true - but to claim they are "just as bad" is absurd.
Much of the drug war done by states is through funding from the feds, or in partnership with them. Much of what they do in general is due to backing, financially, from the feds, or horrible decisions from the federal courts.
And, when was the last time that you saw state governments invading places like...say...Iraq or Afghanistan?
To claim that the abuse of power is on par is absurd.
Decentralization is always better than centralization. Unless, of course, you think the feds are doing a good job - or the USSR was a success. Or, maybe, you think a national health care plan is a good idea....
And on top if it - are you just saying that you prefer the constitution to be violated? Enforcing the 10th is nothing more than saying the Constitution should be followed.
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).