Great, but a century late.
10th Amendment, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, America, Cicero, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Courts, evil, freedom, government, Greg Abbott, Jonathan the Tortiose, law, States, The People, Washington
About twenty years ago Newt Gingrich and the Republican party foisted upon the people something called “the contact with America.” It was a typical hollow pledge to do great things – cut the budget, reduce debt, make life freer and happier, etc. It was a gimmick and for that purpose only it was a success. I think every single provision failed. In fact, we got the exact opposite – less freedom but more of everything else government.
The masses love a good gimmick. They also have short memories. This makes for good political sport. As carnival goers flock to one rigged, losing game after another so do the people cheerfully fall for a never-ending assortment of grandiose election schemes.
All this leads me to Jonathan the Tortoise. At age 183 this remarkable reptile is the world’s oldest living animal. Over the long-span of his blissful, apple eating life Jonathan has outlasted dozens or scores of Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congresses, Kings, Queens and various other con artists and criminals. Maybe by the time the spry, jolly turtle turns 283 the world will have outgrown the foolishness of the state.
All this leads me, back around from Jonathan, to the current governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. Greg has proposed the nuclear option of the political gimmick world – a Constitutional Convention.
Actually he has called for a convention of the states which is really the same thing but substitutes idiots in Congress with idiots in state capitals. It’s in Article Five of the old parchment.
“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Greg said to a gathering of policy hacks in the Lone Star State. He proposed to restore that rule of law by adding yet more laws. (What’s a little more sand on the beach?)
His proposal itself ran on for 70 pages and outlined a host of new Constitutional Amendments (more laws). Tully once reminded us that more laws mean less justice. Truly, it only ever results in more government. Fuel on the fire and such.
I would happily support, even participate in, a convention if its sole purpose was to abolish the United States. Of course, even that would only buy a few generations of liberty. People like government and heaps of it. Anyway, here’s a look at Greg’s potential amendments and what they would and wouldn’t do. (All following proposals taken from Dallasnews.com; my remarks italicized).
Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state. We already have this protection; it just doesn’t work. Congress can only regulate activities affecting interstate commerce which, over the past century, has been defined as anything. Stating something twice does not deter tyranny.
Require Congress to balance its budget. I almost like this one but I imagine there would be no controls on the amount of the budget nor on how the balancing might be achieved. The thieves could always print money or pile on more taxes as necessary and without end. If the current state system must be maintained, then a better limit would be to ban debt, establish a private gold currency, and abolish taxation completely. In other words, and as it once was, Washington would be left to beg the states or the people for funding without guaranteed results.
Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.
Prohibit administrative agencies from preempting state law. These agencies are not allowed under the Constitution in the first place. Better to put an end to them and their Byzantine rules altogether.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Congress has the power to override the Court or even preempt it as is. It just doesn’t use the power. The States gave up their claim on Congress via the 17th Amendment. States would be free to ignore Court decisions but that might endanger their federal funding. They gave up their money with the 16th Amendment. Almost like a plan or something.
Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law. See my answer immediately above. Also, every once in a while the Supreme Court needs to rule on important Constitutional issues, democratic or not. Democracy, mob-rule with a fancy name, should be shunned in civilized places.
Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution. This might mean repealing 16 and 17 Amendments. It might also mean the exact same as the 10th. The Empire is already so limited on paper, by law. Again, there is no magic in redundancy.
Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds. Proper redress under the existing law is carried out in Congress. On paper, that is. In reality, there is no redress. Given the self-imposed legal interference I noted previously, I do not see the value in shifting venue between the branches. Also, as Greg seems to have an aversion to federal courts, this one seems self-defeating.
Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation. I think I’ve covered this already. Those states have essentially given up their authority for cheap federal fiat money. It’s called getting what you pay for. Any state is free to override or ignore any act of Congress it finds offensive. However, the cost is generally prohibitive, monetarily speaking. A really offended state is free to leave the union. But, then, there was the long, painful lesson of 1861-1865.
Another thing to consider is the woeful quality of the people who might attend and vote in the convention. The men who debated the Constitution of old may just as well done so eons ago on a planet long destroyed in some celestial cataclysm. People today obtain their worldview from babbling, paid for nitwits on television. Their “representatives” are the most loathsome, self-absorbed, and corrupt rodents to emerge from the political sewer since Roman times. Knowing who these people are there is no knowing what evil they might do given the chance.
As I have repeated here, repeatedly, repeating laws and policies does not make them stick. It just gives the vampire class more to feed on. One hundred years hence some other governor would likely call, again, for the same failed limitations already set forth in the failed Constitution. Einstein and insanity or something similar.
It would be refreshing if this turned out to be an honest effort, misguided as it seems. I judge this a gimmick and unlikely to survive November’s slave suggestion box election. But for my reminder who would remember the GOP’s Contract? At any rate, these conventions move at a snail’s pace. It’s more likely than not the next big change in American law will be the implementation of Sharia.
Long live Jonathan!
Jonathan and friend. Dailymail. I would trust this dinosaur with my government more than any current politician.
14th Amendment, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, 1913, 1986, 19th Century, 20th Century, Adolph Hitler, America, ATF, bigots, blacks, British, Browning, citizens, Civil Rights Act, Class III, colonial, Constitution, crime, Europeans, Federal Reserve, firearms, Founders, government, gun control, guns, history, indians, jews, King George, KKK, LBJ, Liberty, machine guns, military, militia, murder, National Firearms Act, National Gun Control Act, Natural Law, Nazi Gun Law, New York City, news, plantation, police, poor, Posse Comitatus, racists, Revolutionary War, Ronald Reagan, Second Amendment, self-defense, slaves, standing army, Tammany Hall, tax slaves, taxes, theives, Thomas Jefferson, tyrants
Guns have been in the news again and again lately. The guns I am writing about are the privately owned guns of our citizens. Sadly, these patriotic men and women have not glorified for the millions of lives they save every year, usually without firing a shot. Rather, the entire institution of gun-ownership has been demonized by the media and the lowlifes of the political class based on a tiny number of sensationalized murder cases. This phenomenon happens from time to time and is always accompanied by a call for more gun control.
Before I get to control and its history, I want to address the most dangerous guns in America and elsewhere – publically owned or government guns. These weapons pose a true threat to the health and security of our citizens and potentially pose a dire threat to our civil liberties and freedom. Governments throughout history have proven themselves to be the least trustworthy possessors of weaponry. In the 20th century alone governments murdered more than 200 million innocent victims with their military weapons. I cannot speak for the rest of the world, but in America we need to seriously confront this lethal problem.
The Founder’s were naturally distrustful of an armed government, particularly a standing government army. That is why they placed stringent restrictions on the army and, at the same time, embedded the right of the people to possess arms as a check against government tyranny. I am working on a series of columns along these lines which will compliment my previous article Posse Comitatus, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/.
Ultimately, I will reach the conclusions that we need to abolish all control laws which are directed against private citizens, we need to return to the militia model of defense, we should abolish our standing armies (this is a rather unpopular idea, for all the wrong reasons), and we need to disband or disarm the most of the police forces in America. Those remaining law enforcement officers which might survive should return to their Natural Law function – protecting the rights of the people, as opposed to carrying out the edicts of the state. For now, I will concern myself with giving you a brief education about gun control in the United States.
Where did the idea of gun control come from? I’m not sure when and where it first originated, though I have an idea the concept has been around longer than firearms themselves. A few gun control advocates are earnestly interested in stopping crime and helping people. Most are not. Essentially, the majority of gun controllers are the same breed of would-be tyrants who have plagued mankind for eons. First I imagine they demanded rock control, then sword control and now, gun control. It is really all a scheme to deprive people of their natural rights of self-defense and self-preservation. Tyrants do not like armed people. Armed people are dangerous to tyrants. Personally, I like the idea of endangered tyrants. Perhaps we could, in the near future, save a couple and place them on display at zoos. To hell with the rest. “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson.
Gun control was present during the colonial period of American history. White Europeans attempted to limit the availability of firearms to groups like slaves and native American indians. Just before and during the Revolutionary War, the British attempted to disarm the entire rebellious population. Their theory was that unarmed people would have a much harder time ousting the red-coat armies.
Independent American gun control first began after the nation was freed of King George. In early America gun control was first initiated in against blacks, both slaves and free men. Racist tyrannical whites did not want the downtrodden slaves or free blacks to defend themselves. Armed slaves might just free themselves, after all. This process derived from various State laws which outright forbid blacks from owning guns. The KKK was an early gun-control advocacy organization (a fomer-day Brady campaign, if you will). The injustice was nominally cured by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1868). I say nominally, because the States found clever ways to circumvent the new Acts. The favored trick was to tax gun sales so as to price the poor (which usually included blacks) out of the gun market. As I will demonstrate shortly, rather than stamp out this hideous policy, the feds later adopted it.
So far in our history gun control has only affected “undesirable” populations – slaves, blacks, and the poor. In the late 19th Century New York City enacted a ban on the concealed carry of firearms by just about everyone. This new law was designed to protect pick-pockets and thieves, key constituents of Tammany Hall and the Democrats of the city (birds of a feather…). It seems Boss Tweed’s cronies got too many complaints from their thieving electorate about people with concealed weapons thwarting robberies. As far as I know, this was the first color-blind ban on concealed weapons. New York has ever been a nest of nobility.
In the early 20th Century most Americans (except blacks and the poor here and there) were free to own whatever type of weapons they both desired and could afford to purchase. I have read the true statement that any child who wanted one and had the money to pay for it, could mail-order a Browning .50-caliber machine gun and have it delivered to their home. Yet, mysteriously, there was little crime in this far away “wild west” America. Crime seemed to come along later with heavy federal regulation of firearms. Numerous studies have definitively linked the two.
As I noted earlier, the federal government enacted legislation which imposed a tax and registration on the ownership of certain types of firearms. This first occurred with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, 26 U.S.C. 53. This law was part of the overall scheme to deprive Americans of fundamental civil liberties. I have previously noted the dread year of 1913, with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Like plantation slaves, tax slaves with weapons pose a risk to their masters. Americans may have seen a rise in violent crime through the 20th Century because their “leaders” emulated the gun laws of well-known criminals.
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.” – Adolph Hitler.
(Adolph Hitler, gun control proponent. Google Images.)
On November 11, 1938 Hitler and his government enacted sweeping gun-control legislation, the Weapons Act of 1938. This Act was aimed at a particular subject “race” – jews. “Jews … are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.” 1938 Nazi Act, Section One. The rest of the Act made possession of weapons by jews criminal, with proscribed punishments.
On October 22, 1968 President Lyndon “Bane of Freedom” Johnson signed into law the National Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 44. This Act imposed additional infringements on the ownership of guns. It was allegedly imposed as a crime-fighting measure however, it was obviously intended to further limit the availability of weapons to the law-abiding members of society. Crime exploded in tis aftermath. Many scholars have properly analogized the GCA to the Nazi Act of 1938, with “Jews” being removed. The GCA was also pushed into law by racists who wanted to further discriminate against blacks. By this time, the bigots knew better than to simply switch the word “black” in place of “jew.” The result was the same – more disarmed Americans.
Both the NFA and the GCA are policed by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (the AFT). Both are blatant violations of the Second Amendment. Every year, when not supplying military weapons to the Mexican drug cartels, the ATF wasted millions or billions of taxpayer dollars setting up sting operations in order to oppress otherwise innocent Americans through enforcement of these illegal laws. I have represented several of these poor persons in court.
Of course, gun control has grown by leaps and bounds in and out of the federal government in the ensuing decades. There has been a great deal of push-back against these laws, but the main pillars of disarmament still stand. Things keep getting worse. In 1986, arch-“conservative” Ronald Reagan signed into law a tax reform bill which, among other things, capped the supply of “class III” firearms. Class III weapons are those such as fully automatic guns and destructive devises (military-grade weapons). This, again, has had the effect of pricing these weapons beyond the means of most people. It also deprives us access to modern weaponry. It is virtually impossible to obtain a post-1986 weapon without spending hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars (one must become a dealer or a manufacturer to do so).
Thus, Americans are denied access to the very weapons we need the most, those which can be effectively used to thwart government aggression, including mis-use of the standing army. The Founders were on to something.
(The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. Google Images.)
I could run on for another 1500 words or more with this subject. Instead I will stop here and provide more information in my upcoming columns on the Second Amendment and related articles. In the meantime, do not heed the siren’s call for more gun controll, we need a good deal less. Guns Up!
16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, America, Amerika, Augustus Caesar, Brutus, Caesar, Casca, Cassius, Cato, Cicero, Cincinnatus, civil liberties, Congress, Constitution, Consul, debt, decline, dictator, drones, due process, economics, emergency, Emperor, Federal Reserve, government, history, humility, lawlessness, Marius, Mark Anthony, murder, National Guard, Plutarch, politics, Posse Comitatus, President, republics, Roman Empire, Roman Republic, Ron Paul, Senate, serfdom, slavery, States, Sulla, Tacitus, Triumvirates, War, Washington
In my popular Posse Comitatus column, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2013/02/20/posse-comitatus/, I made a possibly confusing and unfair allusion to Caesar bringing about the demise of the Roman Republic and ushering in the Empire. It seems that “crossing the Rubicon” is too simply of an explanation for what really happened. The actual process from republic to empire lasted for decades and involved many actors in addition to Caesar.
The Roman Republic existed from roughly 500 B.C. until 27 B.C. Most republics do not make it that long. Ours, if it can still be credibly called a republic, is coming apart at the seams after only 237 years. The Roman Republic replaced the line of monarchs who had ruled Rome for over two and a half centuries. It was succeeded by the Empire, which lasted from 27 B.C. until the German Odoacer set himself up as the first King of Italy in 476 A.D.
During the Republic the government was operated by a Senate (congress) and one or two Consuls (presidents). Most public officials were limited to one-year terms. Many of these public offices, including the Consuls, survived into the Empire, though with greatly reduced authority. There had been a tremendous amount of political strife for over 100 years before Augustus Caesar (Caesar Divi F. Augustus) became the First Emperor.
Caesar (Julius Caesar of the first Triumvirate) returned from war and was expected or feared to take dictatorial control of the Republic. He became a dictator of sorts, but he never got the chance to fully dominate the Senate, being assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C. His murder at the hands of Casca, Brutus, and Cassius is one of the better known events of ancient history. However, the conspiracy included dozens of Senators. Allegedly (according to Tacitus?), once Caesar was killed, the chief leaders of the conspiracy called out repeatedly to Cicero by name, as if to showcase their good works. It is also alleged Cicero waved off the acts and attention in disgust.
(Cicero, champion of Constitutional republicanism. Google Images).
Many have theorized Cicero was a co-conspirator. I don’t think so. Marcus Tullius Cicero was a lawyer, statesman, Senator, and former Consul (63 B.C.) and is widely considered one of antiquities foremost figures. His influence on Latin language is still felt with prominence today. I quote he frequently as he was one of the most critical opponents of the Constitutional demise and all dictatorial actions. He would be one of my two picks as the Ron Paul of his day, the other being the black-robed Cato. Despite his constant opposition to totalitarianism, I do not think he would have sanctioned murder as a means to eliminate the practice. I think his morals, nobility, and steadfast dedication to the law would have prevented his involvement.
Heedless of his own peril Cicero kept up his criticism of Mark Anthony and Company (the Second Triumvirate) and was, in 43 B.C., labeled an enemy of the state and hunted down mercilessly. He was captured on December 7, 43 B.C. and immediately murdered by Anthony’s troops. His last words (according to Plutarch?) were allegedly: “There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but do try to kill me properly.” He was decapitated and his head and hands displayed publicly in Rome.
This brutal display of lawlessness and savagery was formerly utilized by would-be or quasi dictators. Gauis Marius and Lucius Sulla had used similar tactics against their enemies. Such horrific treatment was the most high-tech form of intimidation at the time, drones were still more than 2000 years away.
Marius served seven terms (at intervals from 107 – 86 B.C.) as Consul despite laws enacting terms limits. His power was derived from constant warfare and the need for “emergency” powers from the Senate. War and “emergency” powers go hand in hand with dictatorship. If you haven’t watched the news in the past 12 years, perhaps you did, at least, see the three Star Wars prequel movies.
Sulla served two terms as Consul (82 – 81 B.C.) and, like Marius, gained much power as a petty dictator through war powers. Sulla’s wars were not confined to foreign enemies, marching on Rome itself in 82 B.C. The Senate foolishly conferred upon him dictatorial powers for life. These he immediately began to use, murdering 1,000s of enemies, with no semblance of Due Process. Previously, the Republic had prided itself on justice and faithful execution of the laws, rather than of citizens and nobles.
So, you see, Caesar has a product of his times as much as a dictator. His short reign came in the middle of a century marked by Constitutional decline. Caesar is the best remembered name from the period though his actual power differed little from that of his predecessors and successors. He could have done eternally great service to the Republic and perhaps changed centuries of history if he had followed in the footsteps of one of his ancient precursors.
History also remembers Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, mostly out of awe for his humility in power. Cincinnatus was Consul and was granted dictatorial powers during a time of war twice, in 458 B.C. and again in 439 B.C. Unlike 99% of historical figures granted such rare authority, Cincinnatus immediately abandoned his high position once crises abated. Perhaps Caesar had such intention but was not allowed time to exercise it. Perhaps not.
I hope you have seen, within this column, parallels to modern America. To me they seem both unmistakable and also unmistakably dire in their warnings to us.
We currently have a President who, unchallenged essentially, claims the right to murder American citizens without Due Process. At the same time, we have a craven opposition party which, rather than impeach and remove the usurper, propose to give him Constitutional powers beyond his office. All of this, consequently, stems from “emergencies” whether martial or economic. This has become an established pattern since 2001 though it has roots much older.
This year we mark the 100th anniversary of some of the most destructive Acts in our history. In 1913 the 16th and 17th Amendments killed the States’ fading power against the central government and the Federal Reserve began it’s mission to enslave the nation (publicly and privately) in debt while enabling Washington to potentially spend without limit. Around the same time the National Guard was formalized and strengthened, giving Washington military control over the entire nation.
The ensuing 100 years saw an exponential growth in government, the decline of civil liberties, constant foolish wars, and the nationalization of serfdom.
Having recently lost our Cicero and Cato figures to retirement, we can only pray for a latter-day Cincinnatus.
10th Amendment, 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, 1984, 19th Century, Act, America, collapse, Congress, Constitution, Constitutional Convention, Constitutional Law, Courts, D.C., Declaration of Independence, Farenheit 451, Free Vermont Republic, George W. Bush, Georgia, government, history, interposition, judicial review, Kentucky Resolution, King George, law, Liberty, Lincoln, Marbury v. Madison, McCain-Feingold, military, Mittens, Montana, morons, murder, Nazi germany, nullification, ObamaCare. Supreme Court, politics, Republicans, Romney, secession, Soviet Union, States, stupidity, tax, The People, Thomas Woods, tyranny, U.S.A., Union, Virginia Resolution, voting, War
Last year I started this humble blog with a short column on the unGodly ObamaCare decision from the Supreme Court, https://perrinlovett.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/the-shared-responsibility-tax-obamacare-a-hit-with-the-supremes-4/. ObamaCare is not about healthcare for anyone. It is merely an Insurance Company welfare scheme with taxes that no-one knew were taxes (not even Obama) and bankruptcy-inducing mandates.
At the end of that early missive I promised to cover possible solutions to the mounting problem of federal tyranny. Specifically, I named interposition, nullification, and secession as possibilities. Let’s talk about those now, briefly.
Well, first let’s see how the Republicans did with reversing the law as they boasted they would. I recall some GOPer saying they would overturn the nightmarish law before the Supremes even got to rule on it. Didn’t happen. After the ruling they said they would eliminate the massive tax act before their chosen man, Mittens Romney, the founder of the ObamaCare School of Medicine, won the election. None of that happened either. With the nation staring down the barrel of a potentially economy-wrecking gun, they said they would stop the law before it took effect on January 1st of this year. Having proven themselves to be lying, delusional idiots, we can write off the buffoons of the Elaphantitis party.
Back to my proposals – I’ll take them in the order I first set forth, as that seems to be the hierarchy from least to most extreme.
Interposition is a process whereby a State of the American Union declares an Act of Congress or some other federal action to be UnConstitutional and positions itself as a shield between the feds and the citizens of the State. Wikipedia says that the federal courts have held this an illegitimate theory and that only they have the power of Constitutional review – “Judicial Review.” See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition. Wiki doesn’t mention it by name, but the theory of Judicial Review originated, federally speaking, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Maybe you’ve heard of this landmark case, students of “Constitutional Law” are taught to revere it. I was never impressed.
First, this was one of a shady series of early Supreme Court cases concerning personal profits unfit for court review at all. Second, if this case did deserve formal investigation and resolution, then such should have been undertaken by the political branches whom the matter concerned anyway. Third, and most importantly, judicial review by the federal courts is a legal fiction. Nowhere in the Constitution is the right granted the courts to rule so authoritatively on our laws. Had the Framers intended such power, they would have written it in; several State Constitutions do grant this power to State Courts (Georgia, for example).
I do not withhold the ability of any court to say a law is UnConstitutional. Courts should point such out when discovered. In fact, any branch may make that determination. President Bush, the Dimmer, said that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law was UnConstitutional, then signed it anyway. Before that, obviously, Congress had deliberated on the law and must have sensed its illegality. Bush remarked that the Supreme Court would have to make the ultimate determination. They did. Ironically, the Court essentially said (and rightly) the law concerned only the political branches and since both had approved the measure, they would too out of deference. I had an outrageously humorous “discussion” about this fiasco with a political celebrity in 2004; I’ll relate that in a future post. This was a case of government gone wild. Of the three branches, law-making is the art of Congress; correcting bad laws is also.
Anyone who can read and think can declare a law within or without the bounds of the Constitution. I do it all the time. However, my power of enforcement is rather weak to say the least. The theory of interposition, and that of nullification, comes from the ability of the States to so declare a law. Their power is greater than mine and their authority is a bit more grounded than that of the Courts. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const., Amendment 10. UnConstitutional laws are those based in authority which is not among those very few expressly Constitutionally delegated powers of the national government ,and thus, are within the purview of the States to affect. The Tenth Amendment’s reference to “the people” is as fuzzy a concept as anything else in man’s law. Ultimately, under our form of republican government, the people have the final say on authority as exercised by their voting. The people prove time and again to be useless guardians of their own liberties.
Interposition was made famous long ago by the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798), which declared the States’ ability to invalidate federal law. The practice was used to various effect in the 1800’s. Times have changed dramatically (for the worse) since that Century, with the States giving away a great deal of their former power. There was also the matter of the war between the States which decided by force and murder, rather than by law, some of these issues.
Nullification is essentially Interposition but with an added declaration by a State or States they will not enforce a federal law or allow enforcement within their territory. This theory was set forth also by the afore-noted Resolutions. It has been erroneously dismissed by the courts. And, it would seem to reside in a previous time. The theory has raised its head recently though, as it does from time to time. A few States have begun to void federal laws in principle at least. Montana, for example, has decided that certain federal firearms laws do not apply within the Montana state lines. It remains to be seen whether Montana or other modern States will actually take any action necessary to give life to their declarations.
In the old days, States did just that. The 19th Century was repeat with State and local agents boldly denying the federal government on certain matters. When a federal agent or officer appeared to enforce a particular objectionable action, the locals would run the fellow out of town on a rail, literally sometimes. A great read on the subject is Thomas Woods’s Nullification (2010), http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/1596981490.
Again, with the demise of State power and authority in general (see the 16th and 17th Amendments, etc.) the plausibility of nullification seems a dim prospect.
Dimmer still, is the ultimate practice of State dissent. The original 13 colonies of England, once they had declared their independence from the King, became 13 independent nations. They joined together to fight the Revolutionary War and then entered into a Federation for mutual benefit. A federation is a group of sovereign entities which come together for some purpose; they remain sovereign. The Constitution changed none of this. No language therein makes the federal union permanent and eternally binding upon the member States.
Should a State find itself at unacceptable odds with the central government, it has the power to dissolve its connections and become a completely separate nation again. Several State assemblies expressly said so when they ratified the Constitution. This is in complete keeping with the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, just substitute U.S.A. for King George, III.
Again, and again and again, the States have not only given up power to Washington over the years, they have also become somewhat dependent on D.C. and tend to exhibit a slavish loyalty thereto. This all renders the prospect of a State succeeding in the 21st Century remote. There are secessionist movements in some States, like the Free Vermont Republic. The FVR even has its own flag, but little chance of success.
There is also the specter of Mr. Lincoln’s illegal war. The war decided nothing formally or legally. Wars are not rational undertaking, just pure contests of military power. Since 1865 the several States have all but abandoned their military power while Washington has assembled the most awesome and dreaded arsenal in the history of mankind. While secession remains a perfectly legal option, the odds of success do not favor the States.
Where We Are
In today’s political climate none of these three solutions are likely to receive formal discussion by the several States, let alone action. Deprived of legal and political solutions, what then are we to do?
Some people with means are beginning to leave the United States for smaller, freer countries. I do not begrudge them their decisions. However, I do not like the idea of being run out of my homeland and into a foreign country where, as history dictates, anything can and will happen. In a way, I would rather stay and face the devil I know here.
There is always the ability of the States or of Congress to call for a new Constitutional Amendment or even a Convention wherein objectionable laws might be remedied. Amendments are hard to pass these days. It’s hard to get Congress or the legislature of any State to act productively or intelligently. Honestly, the idea of a new Constitutional Convention scares me. While one could hypothetically end with great advances in Liberty, such as returning to the Articles of Confederation or just eliminating the national government completely, I fear, given the weakness of the people and their representatives, we could end up with something far worse. Imagine 1984, Farenheit 451, Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union all rolled into one!
Every two years or so the citizens of the States have the opportunity to turn out at least a third of the federal government’s elected morons. The power to change the government lies with the people by their dismissing representatives who do not do their bidding. The people must not be aware of this authority or else, they must approve of their government as is. Options grow thin.
Time will eventually change everything. 5,000 years from now most people living won’t remember the United States. Given the self-destructive tendencies of our government, it is likely we need not wait that long. Either way, awaiting the inevitable collapse of leviathan, like expectations of the end of days, is tedious at best.
I’ll see if I can come up with something else more actionable. You work on it too.