Line in the Stand: The State Sovereignty Movement

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

From Chuck
Baldwin:
My son, Tim, writes today’s column. He is an
attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School
of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the
Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private
law practice. He is married to the former Miss Jennifer Hanssen.

On July 10,
2009, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin became the second governor in
these States United (Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee is the
other one) to sign
into effect a State Sovereignty Resolution
. These Sovereignty-type
bills, resolutions and laws are an obvious and rightful response
that the super-majority of the States in the Union are expressing
to and against the usurping powers of the federal government. While
the effects of federal tyranny are being felt more seriously than
ever, history and human nature prove that the people of a society
do not respond or revolt immediately against tyranny – though
they have a right to. America’s resistance is no different.
Fortunately, the sleeping giant is being awakened, to the dismay
of our Centralist-worshipers today.

An observer
of history and these current events cannot help but draw strikingly
similar comparisons to America’s political struggles during
the early to mid-1800s, where there was a serious threat to our
original form of constitutional government by the Centralists of
that day. During the presidency of John Adams, the people of the
States realized and rejected the pro-centralist view of Adams and
his ilk (e.g., Alexander Hamilton), and a battle between the ideology
of centralism and federalism thrust itself into the forefront of
political concern.

On the heels
of the Adams administration, the people of the States United spoke
clearly and loudly through their election of Presidents Thomas Jefferson
in 1801 through James Buchanan in 1857. All of these Presidents
(through either political expediency or conviction) rejected the
centralists’ philosophy and confirmed the fundamental political
ideology that the Constitution of the United States of America was
a compact assented to by the individual States of America, and that
the Federal government’s authority only extended to the specific
and enumerated grants acceded to it by the sovereign people of each
State. It was not until 1861 that this understanding of Constitutional
government and State Sovereignty was seriously challenged.

Since the Reconstruction
period after the War Between the States, the philosophical acknowledgments
of what State Sovereignty means, implies and mandates has been flipped
on its head, to where the States seem to believe that they are powerless
over the demands of the federal government. This concept is completely
contrary to the original principles of our Confederated Republic,
which was overwhelmingly acknowledged from 1787 to 1860.

Those who adopted
the views of the Centralists during the twentieth century, of course,
had their heyday: from the implementation of the sixteenth and seventeenth
amendments, to the implementation of our fiat currency system; from
the assumption of all federal laws as superior to all state laws,
to the Federal Supreme Court being considered the only arbitrator
of issues regarding political sovereignty; from excessive federal
borrowing and spending, to tyrannical federal mandates and directives
imposed on the people of the States. Now, their heyday is turning
into our payday and we the people are fronting the bill.

What Governor
Palin acknowledged on July 10, 2009 – as have thousands of men
and women in their State government capacities across these States
United – is what America’s Founding Fathers and statesmen
pre-1861 accepted, acknowledged and proclaimed: (1) that each of
the States is independent and possessing a natural right to govern
itself according to the will of its sovereign people reflected in
its own constitution; (2) that each of those States has a natural
and compactually agreed-upon right to defend, secure and protect
the freedoms and liberties of its own people; and (3) that any powers
not delegated by those people through their States to the Federal
government by the expressed intent and purposes understood and explained
in the US Constitution are void and unenforceable. Indeed, most
would have argued that each Sovereign State had all powers of nationhood
(pursuant to the natural laws of nations, as understood by philosophical
and political statesmen), with exception of those powers delegated
to the federal government in the United States Constitution, which
was ratified and acceded to only for the WELL-BEING – not the
suppression – of those sovereign peoples and those Sovereign
States.

Read
the rest of the article

August
14, 2009

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts