Navigation

Tag Archives | Decentralization

Left and Right Agree to Disagree

By on January 2, 2013 in Federalism 18

After an embittered presidential election, a never-ending kabuki on Washington finances, and now a fierce debate over property rights, many would be surprised to know that members from opposite sides of the political spectrum have found some common ground. Betsy Woodruf at National Review Online sure was. She was shocked to find agreement between the Republican Governor of Illinois, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Dickenson of Rolling Stone magazine regarding medical marijuana and federalism. Both, it seems, favor letting the states determine their own drug policy, even though they may not agree on what each state ultimately decides.

First, note that agreement between the two parties happens more often than not. In principle they all agree on war, debt, entitlements, taxation, police statism, drones, the central bank, socialistic healthcare, prohibition, and many other issues. Of course they disagree on just how much debt there should be; if the military ought to bomb the people of third-world countries or drop bombs and machine-gun them; and whether individuals should forfeit 35 percent of their income or only 33 percent. Some diversity of thought.

But what’s noteworthy about this particular case is that each can agree because neither is trying to force the other into submitting to a single policy. Here we see one of the great things about decentralized government: it tends to reduce conflict by allowing various groups to “live and let live.” This is isn’t possible when all policy decisions are made by one body, when a polity becomes too big. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 18

ACTION ALERT: Health Care Nullification Bill in New Jersey!

By on March 22, 2012 in Uncategorized 1

New Jersey A861 would render the federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”  null and void in the state.  Sponsored by Assemblywoman Alison L. McHose, this bill not only voids the insurance mandate,  it declares the entire act null and void within the state.

“This bill renders the federal “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Pub.L.111-148, as amended by the federal “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” Pub.L.111-152, and any federal rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto, null and void and of no force and effect in the State of New Jersey.”

A861 currently sits in the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee. Your help is needed to get it moving towards a floor vote (action steps below)

BASIS FOR THE BILL

The bill itself provides the rational for nullification, based on the Tenth Amendment: Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 1

New England Nullification Tradition Marches On

By on March 10, 2011 in Announcements, Big Brother, Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Drug War, Economics, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Judiciary, Law, Liberty, Nullification, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 1

Though many living in New England today might be loathe to admit it, there is a long history of nullification being used in the region to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. This week, the town of Sedgwick, Maine voted to carry on that proud tradition by nullifying certain federal agricultural regulations.

They did so through what might be the most legitimate form of democratic expression left in America: the New England town meeting. (Which have been held in the Sedgwick town hall since 1794.)

According to one report, the residents of Sedgwick voted to enact a law that not only permits

“Sedgwick citizens…to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,”

but declares that Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 1

Doing D.C.

By on May 21, 2010 in Big Government 3

If you’re one of the unfortunate Americans that live in fly-over country, I have bad news for you. Our nation’s capitol is now pretty much off-limits to you.

Last week I had business in Washington, D.C. and planned a few extra days to re-acquaint myself with our nation’s history. It turned out to be the week from hell.

My first mistake was driving my SUV. The beltway encircling D.C. resembles a scene from Dante’s Inferno. Fellow drivers inside the beltway were just plain rude. All of them. As a result of being unable to change lanes, I missed my exit and spent the next two hours wandering narrow streets rife with ‘No Left Turn’ and ‘One Way’ signs. I started getting a bit anxious.

I finally made it to my hotel, whereupon I found that there were no smoking rooms available, despite my specific reservation. I figured if I’m spending $300.00 for a room, plus an extra $30.00 for my car, I should be able to do what I want. Not so. Smoking in my room would incur a $300.00 fine.

I logged onto the Internet and found that there were no rooms available anywhere in D.C. Hotel rooms cost an average of $350.00 per night. Quite affordable if the government or lobbying firms foot the bill, but quite out of my league. Alas.

Having decided to shorten my stay, I ventured out the next day to get in as much sightseeing as I could. I quickly found myself wandering in a sea of bureaucrats. I was awed to be in the presence of so many important people (in DC, everyone is, or acts, important). The majority of them had furrowed brows as if the weight of the world was on their shoulders. And they were all focused intensely, on themselves. I was invisible.

D.C. is a beautiful city. Our monuments are awe-inspiring and the sense of history is overwhelming. Unfortunately, the culture in D.C. is not welcoming to regular Americans. Tourists are merely tolerated, unless they’re somebody.

D.C. has been taken over by those who seek power and influence. It has a very clear social hierarchy, as do most cities. Unless you’re rich, famous, powerful or an insider, you’re no-one. Just the poor sucker whose taxes pay for it. What sets this city apart, however, is that they make absolutely no effort to hide it. Egos have replaced good manners.

Tourists are barely tolerated and largely unacknowledged. The only smiles I received were from fellow diners as I committed the social sin of giving thanks to God for the meal I was about to receive. And those smiles were condescending sneers.

The city itself is imploding. The infrastructure is falling apart. Traffic is a nightmare, parking is non-existent and hotel accommodations are available only to those willing to spend their life savings. D.C. is no longer for the people. Its for power players jockeying to get close to the seat of power. The power culture is toxic and infectious.

As a conservative, I seldom criticize something without offering a solution. Here’s what I would suggest as a sure fire way to remake our nation’s capitol back into the people’s capitol.

Since Obama is into redistribution, I suggest we redistribute D.C. With the exception of the White House, Supreme Court and Congress, how about we take all the government agencies and parcel them out to the states. Hey, South Carolina would get a much needed shot in the economic arm if say, the CBO and the FDA moved here from D.C.

Other agencies like the FDA, the IRS, the CIA, etc. would immediately achieve tremendous cost savings by relocating their headquarters to fly-over country. Thus freeing up buildings that could be used to house people like myself who want to visit D.C. Call it affirmative action for tourists.

The benefits of redistributing D.C. to the states are enormous. The immediate results of this plan would mean thousands of government bureaucrats, instead of spending all their time jockeying to be close to the seat of power, might just be reduced to actually reading the bills they keep churning out.

Hey, the bureaucrats would even have to live under the rules they are imposing on everyone else. They would also be exposed to ‘diverse’ cultures (as in ‘outside the beltway’) with a good chance of adopting some cultural traits from their fellows. Traits like good manners, consideration for others and other multi-American traits.

Until and unless we’re successful in redistributing the power in D.C., I’m going to keep renewing my travel alert against travel to D.C. to all residents of flyover country. I suggest instead that you vacation in South Carolina, where residents smile naturally and people are the way they’re supposed to be. Besides that, we’ve got tons of parking, affordable hotels and a refreshing lack of very important people.

Continue Reading 3

A Not So Wacky Proposal

By on April 30, 2010 in Federalism 3

Jonah Goldberg, in the National Review, suggests what he calls a “wacky proposal” – one that readers of this website would likely find to be quite sane. I know I do.

So here’s where that wacky proposal I mentioned earlier comes in. Let’s throw it all back to the states. Arizona can be an illegal-immigrant-free zone and New York can hold an open house for everyone. The same goes for health care. States that want universal health care can provide it, including to illegal immigrants (or should I just say “immigrants”?). Other states can let the market rule. The feds would save piles of money that can go to paying off our credit cards (or to antiterrorism, to deal with undocumented New Yorkers/terrorists).

If it were up to me, the feds would still enforce basic civil rights, provide for the common defense and protect interstate commerce (sorry, nuke-free zones!), but beyond that, let freedom reign.

Click here to read the rest

Continue Reading 3

Rachel Maddow’s Blog Targets VA Tenthers

By on March 26, 2010 in Media, Tenthers, The Opposition 5

I guess we should be pleased; Rachel Maddow’s blog reads the Virginia Tenth Amendment Center.

It’s true, her blog linked to a picture we posted from the January 18th Lobby Day. Of course, it was done in the context of describing us tenthers as “out-there,” but when you’re as unappreciated as the Constitution is these days, any press is good press.

Later, Rachel Maddow’s blog weighed in on the audacity of Virginia’s very own Ken Cuccinelli:

At the head of the line of states planning to sue the federal government over health reform stands Virginia, where Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced Monday that he would file papers as soon as the Presidents “signs it into law.” …Cuccinelli thinks it’s unconstitutional for Americans to be told they have to buy something, an argument he’s been making for a while now.

As Rachel’s blog has brilliantly perceived, such “arguments” are merely partisan grandstanding. I mean, it’s the 21st Century; who has time to actually follow the Constitution anymore?

But then Rachel’s blog noticed something really interesting (read: seditious)

If you call the AG’s office to ask about all this, you first get Cuccinelli’s director of communication, Brian Gottstein… Gottstein is himself a veteran of the tenther and Tea Party circuit. The former Libertarian columnist, who joined Cuccinelli’s staff in February, was still listed last week as the VP for communications for Tertium Quids, whose president appeared at [a] 10th Amendment rally with Cuccinelli…

Unbelieveable. Not only does Virginia’s new Attorney General read the Constitution (including the 10th Amendment) and take it seriously, he hires people and appears at events with organizations that do the same!

This aggression will not stand, man.

Tune in next week as Rachel Maddow’s blog continues its quest to speak truth to power by bravely licking Joe Biden’s bootheel.

Continue Reading 5

Out of Control and Back Again

By on February 22, 2010 in Activism, Politicians 1

spinning_topThe prospect for a better future can never be realized if we continue to set our eyes on a central “authority” to fix this mess. This current economic and political mess was created because we took our collective “eye” off of the US Constitution and turned the focus on politicians in Washington DC. Since FDR we have ignored the wisdom of the founding principles of this nation and especially the Tenth Amendment, handing over the responsibility and accountability of our governance to a central bureaucracy in DC despite the warnings of our founders and the law of the land they so painstakingly deliberated to insure we wouldn’t end up in this exact predicament.

The first step is to stop asking our government to intervene in matters of individual or state business. The second step is to re-affirm our commitment to our US Constitution. The third step is to stop funding the federal government’s ability to borrow and spend against our children’s future.

We do that by getting involved and thinking differently about government. We need to look inside ourselves first, our family and communities next, and when appropriate we look to state solutions. But rarely should we look to a federal solution beyond national security or foreign affairs. As Jefferson and Madison believed; the federal government was to look to external considerations, all internal matters were to be handled by the state and individuals.

We need to go back again to the founding principles of limited government and individual freedom. Until we look in instead of up, the chaos will continue and our children’s future freedom and prosperity remains in jeopardy.

Continue Reading 1

Protecting Rights: D.C. is the Worst Choice for the Job

By on February 17, 2010 in Constitution, Federalism, Liberty 6

freedomYesterday, in response to the Kansas Senate passing SCR1615 (Sovereignty Resolution) a Kansas reporter asked me the following question:

the kansas senate has adopted a resolution affirming the state’s 10th amendment rights. the amendment supports the repeal of all federal laws that compel the state to do something. some legislators here say that means the proposal supports the repeal of voting rights and civil rights laws. is this the intent of these kinds of resolutions that the states have been considering? do you support the repeal of federal laws, including the voting and civil rights acts?? thank you.

Here’s my response:

As numerous articles and publications on the Tenth Amendment Center website make clear, following the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the best way to advance the cause of liberty. It’s the best way to protect minority interests. It’s the best way to build a society that lives in peace. Following the Constitution is, sadly, far from what the U.S. Federal Government has done for a long, long time.

With one-size-fits-all solutions forcing everyone in the country into the same lifestyle, economic choices, health care decisions, education systems, and the like, we only guarantee that the country will be divided into competing factions whose sole interest is to take over the entire federal apparatus. This is the opposite of what the founders and ratifiers gave us – a system where the most difficult and the most divisive issues would be kept close to home. That is a system unique in history – where widely differing political, economic and religious viewpoints can live in peace.

For decades and decades “We the People” have allowed the federal government to bend the rules of the Constitution – or violate them – with almost complete impunity. The result of allowing federal politicians this kind of power? Sooner or later you’ll end up with politicians who feel that the rules – the Constitution – don’t apply at all. After a couple decades of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama rule, I’d hope this would ring true to most Americans.

Those vehemently opposed to the strict limits that the Constitution places on the federal government (while Bush was in office, it was primarily R’s, and now with Obama in office, it’s primarily D’s), often resort to scare tactics as a way to deflect from these truths.

In fact, relying on a federal government whose unconstitutional expansion of the interstate commerce clause (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) has resulted in the arrest of hundreds of thousands of people each year – disproportionately minorities – for owning a plant – might be the worst organization in America to protect the Constitution and the natural rights of the People. HB2610, currently in Health and Human Services Committee in the Kansas House, is one attempt to right these wrongs on a state level.

The Kansas constitution has been amended many times, including an amendment in 1912 affirming the right to universal suffrage. The Bill of Rights to the Kansas Constitution is also quite explicit – “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thus, it’s my opinion that such concerned talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is little more than hyperbole and rhetoric intentionally designed to change the debate from the fact that we live in a nation where the constitution is rarely followed.

I recommend that those in the Kansas Senate concerned about the rights of their constituents introduce and work to pass strict state legislation or state constitutional amendments protecting those rights if they feel the State Constitution is not sufficient to protect those rights.

Continue Reading 6

What the heck is Federalism?

By on February 15, 2010 in Federalism 1

Americans have discovered or invented many significant things, but by far, the most significant is federalism. It is uniquely American and it has led to the most free and prosperous society in the history of civilization.

The single most important principle of government that sets America apart from the rest of the world, is federalism. It is the founding principle of the form of government that the framers constructed. Before digging into what federalism is, maybe we should first say what it’s not.

Federalism is not a doctrine of centralized government. Federalism is not about “states rights”. By the way, do states have rights? Or is it the people that have rights? Just a thought. Finally, federalism is not just about the interaction between the federal (national) government and the state government.

Alexis de Tocqueville (a mid-17th century French political thinker) wrote in his book, Democracy in America:

The human understanding more easily invents new things than new words, and we are hence constrained to employ many improper and inadequate expressions. When several nations form a permanent league and establish a supreme authority, which, although it cannot act upon private individuals like a national government, still acts upon each of the confederate states in a body, this government, which is so essentially different from all others, is called Federal

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Continue Reading 1

Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order

By on February 8, 2010 in Big Government, Federalism, History 9

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

Logo of the Abbeville Institute

For three days last week, on the third floor of the Francis Marion Hotel in downtown Charleston, SC, a group of scholars have been meeting to discuss the history of nullification and secession in American law and politics, and the continued relevance of those concepts today.

I had the privilege of joining them for the weekend-long event, hosted by the Abbeville Institute, entitled Nullification, Secession, and the Human Scale of Political Order, and it has been an amazing learning experience.

Accomplished scholars such as Abbeville founder Donald Livingston, Thomas DiLorenzo, Thomas Naylor, Marshall DeRosa, Kirkpatrick Sale, Yuri Maltsev, and Kent Masterson Brown all addressed the gathering of well over 100 attendees during the course of the weekend.

We learned that, in politics at least, size does matter, and smaller is better. Fifty percent of countries have populations of less than 5.5 million people, including nine of the top ten in terms of wealth per capita, and nine of the fourteen freest states on the planet.

Which would come as no surprise to political philosophers throughout history, from Aristotle to David Hume, who have long argued that, like a metastasizing cancer cell, there is a point at which (republican pretensions notwithstanding) a centralized nation’s growth can render it dangerous and ungovernable.

The Soviet Union learned this fact in the latter half of the Twentieth Century, as Yuri Maltsev, a former adviser to Boris Yeltsin and senior scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, reminded the group. Though the Soviet leaders had no interest in republican pretensions, to stay in power, they were forced to control the lives of hundreds of millions of people spread across eleven time zones and one sixth of the Earth’s surface. Unfortunately, Yuri noted, the only way to do this was through mass murder, and even that eventually failed when the regime literally ran out of bullets.

Which is largely why those in America who understand history’s lessons, and value individual rights as they were enshrined by our Declaration of Independence, have begun to look seriously for ways to reestablish a society that values rights over might. The founder of the Second Vermont Republic, Thomas Naylor, believes his state can serve as the model for such a society one day.

First though, we have to convince fellow Americans that our nation has in fact transitioned from republic to empire, and that the only way to regain our prosperity and moral standing as a nation of free men and women is to resist the illegal and unconstitutional activities of our government.

Which is where the Tenth Amendment comes in. By pursuing a strategic decentralization of power through the vehicle of state and local nullification and interposition, we as Americans have the power to withdraw our consent peacefully and permanently from a federal government that no longer respects the rule of law.

The agents of that government may or may not then choose to recognize our right to make such a determination for ourselves. That is up to them.

But understanding that self-government is by definition the right of all free people, and then acting on that knowledge, is up to us.

Continue Reading 9