Shall We Be Ruled By Libertarian Philosopher-Judges?
The founding generation had many reasons for wanting to form a ‘more perfect union.’
Having fought a long bloody war for freedom, many recognized the advantages the union offered in terms of mutual defense. At the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Along those same lines, many founders believed the states would fare better in international relations interacting with other world powers as a united entity. Even operating as a union, the Americans were at a significant power disadvantage when dealing with England, France, Spain and other European powers. Separately, they would have virtually no power.
Then there were the economic advantages of a union. In much the same way unity increased diplomatic power, it also increased the America’s economic power.
Alexander Hamilton even argued that a single general government would conserve American resources.
As CONNECTED with the subject of revenue, we may with propriety consider that of economy. The money saved from one object may be usefully applied to another, and there will be so much the less to be drawn from the pockets of the people. If the States are united under one government, there will be but one national civil list to support; if they are divided into several confederacies, there will be as many different national civil lists to be provided for–and each of them, as to the principal departments, coextensive with that which would be necessary for a government of the whole.
There were many reasons, for centralizing power and authority advanced by many parities. But during the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry cut through all of the rhetoric and focused on the most pressing question: will this new government threaten liberty?
During one fiery speech, Henry placed the entire constitutional debate in a nutshell.
You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.
Henry warned that the federal government would ultimately grow to exercise dangerous power. Supporters of the Constitution swore the new government was sufficiently constrained.
Henry’s warnings proved prophetic.
Some blame defects in the Constitution itself, but ultimately, the fault lies with we the people. The people of the states lacked the will to keep the federal government constrained within its enumerated powers. The states were intended to check federal power. As Madison put it, the states are duty bound “to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.”
The Constitution is not a self-exercising document.
For the most part, the states have failed to do their duty because the people failed to make them. But the people of the states can rise up today, and insist that their state governments step up and resist unconstitutional exercises of federal authority.
This is our last hope to secure our liberty.
For more information on how your state legislatures and local governments can stand up against federal overreach, click HERE.
About the author
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty/
Related posts
Why do we always make the states the authority for they are only a governing body of their own?
Decision and agreements make all things take place or end so WHO then are the deciding in your own body? Who is it that forms these agreements in states, the conforming or the independent?
Why is it we feel we must always play on their field?
Null and void any Government authority and BE your state and screw representing another, is there agreement for Liberty? What is that? To be free from Government authority plain and simple, so how do we achieve such a state? By learning to BE ourselves, the decision maker of your own body and state of BEing, the agreement maker with those who choose not to conform to authority but to LIVE as the life we are. I AM the authority of my choices and my agreements, now who the heck else is this state of BEing?
Now lets go out there and Nullify this made up false authority and stop playing on their field. States do not decide for ME, I decide for me and will only agree with those in states willing to decide for themselves and for all those who need and authority figure or representative you suck out loud and your agreements are poor at best.
Michael, perhaps there is another way to nullify unconstitutional laws if the state legislatures fail to act. The Tenth Amendment also includes the words “or to the people”. I believe this part of the amendment has not been carefully considered.
Suppose in Texas the Governor called for a state convention to decide the issue “is Obamacare constitutional?” State conventions were used to ratify the Constitution and once to ratify an amendment. The results of the convention would be beyond Supreme Court jurisdiction for they are the means for the people to exercise their superior authority concerning the meaning of the Constitution they created. Clearly decisions by the authority that created the SC cannot be overruled by that court.
All states have procedures for their governors to call for state conventions. The governor does not have to take sides on controversial issues, he can just leave it up to the people to decide so it might be relatively easy to obtain action. Further, the concurrence of gutless legislators fearful of SC override is not needed.
Seems to me there is something here that could be exploited.
Absolutely…nullification certainly isn’t just about the state government. My personal count is that there’s 6 main paths to nullify. Read about them here:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/01/six-steps-you-can-take-to-nullify-now/
Yours could be another, of course.