original article here.

Today, on its 3rd reading, the Utah Senate passed SB11, the Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 19-10. The bill states:

A personal firearm, a firearm action or receiver, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce.

The Utah Senate is the first legislative body to pass a Firearms Freedom Act in the 2010 legislative session. In 2009, both Tennessee and Montana passed the Act into state law.

Read more here.

by Sheriff Richard Mack
January 25, 2010
original article here.

By now we have all heard the cliches and seen the posters from the “Tea Parties” espousing freedom, less government, and perhaps most of all, how the federal government had better back off trying to shove their national health care down our otherwise healthy throats. The truth
of the matter is all the slogans of “Don’t Tread On Me” or “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” or “We’re Mad As Hell And We’re Not Taking It Anymore,” don’t mean a thing when compared to the real and actual answer to all the protests, marches, and outrage.

The answer is in our own backyards! The States can stop every bit of it! That’s right, the individual States can stop “Obamacare” and all other forms of out-of-control federal government mandates and “big brother” tactics. If Arizona, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Texas, etc. want nothing to do with National Health care as proposed by Barack Obama or Congress, then all they have to do is say “No!”

For you skeptics…let’s look at the law. First, the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate and supreme law of the land. More specifically, the Bill of Rights was established, because some of our Founding Fathers, feared that the Constitution did not go far enough in restricting or limiting the central government.

Hamilton was one of a select few who wanted a bigger and powerful federal government. However, several key states and powerful delegates such as Patrick Henry, said they would not support the formation of a new government if the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights, a supreme law to establish basic and fundamental human rights that could never, for all future American generations, be violated, altered or encroached upon by government. So the Framers of our Constitution came up with ten; ten God-given freedoms that would forever be held inviolable by our own governments.

The last of these basic foundational principles was the one to protect the power, sovereignty, and the autonomy of the States; the Tenth Amendment. This amendment and law underscores the entire purpose of the Constitution to limit government and forbids the federal government from becoming more powerful than the “creator.”

Let’s be very clear here; the States in this case were the creator. They formed the federal government, not the other way around. Does anyone believe rationally that the States intended to form a new central government to control and command the States at will? Nothing could be further from the truth. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution details what duties the federal government will be responsible for under our new system of “balanced power.” Anything not mentioned in Article 1, Sec. 8, is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment)

Hence, the federal government was not allowed creativity or carte blanche to expand or assume power wherever and whenever they felt like it. The feds had only discrete and enumerated and very limited powers. Omnipotency was the last thing the Founding Fathers intended to award the newly formed federal government. They had just fought the Revolutionary War to stop such from Britain and their main concern was to prevent a recurrence here in America.

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that “States are not subject to federal direction.” But today’s federal Tories argue that the “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing “supreme” is the constitution itself. Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that “Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other.”

So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare “incursion.” To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The point to remember here is; where do we define the “sphere” of the federal government? That’s right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People.

So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress. It is NOT their responsibility and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority.

Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let’s take one more look at Mack/Printz. “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other…” What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a “structural protection of liberty” that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of “checks and balances.”

The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere. So do the States have to take the bullying of the federal government? Not hardly! The States do not have to take or support or pay for Obamacare or anything else from Washington DC.

The States are not subject to federal direction. They are sovereign and “The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions.” (Mack/Printz) Which means the States can tell national health care proposals or laws to take a flying leap off the Washington monument. We are not subject to federal direction!

In the final order pursuant to the Mack/Printz ruling Scalia warned, “The federal government may neither, issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” It is rather obvious that nationalized health care definitely qualifies as a “federal regulatory program.”

Thus, the marching on Washington and pleas and protests to our DC politicians are misdirected. Such actions are “pie in the sky” dreaming that somehow expects the tyrants who created the tyranny, will miraculously put a stop to it. Throughout the history of the world such has never been the case. Tyrants have never stopped their own corrupt ways. However, in our system of “dual sovereignty,” the States can do it. If we are to take back America and keep this process peaceful, then state and local officials will have to step up to the plate.

Doing so is what States’ Rights and State Sovereignty are all about.

by Timothy Baldwin
January 20, 2010

The sentiment is brewing, the consensus is collecting and the solution is becoming more apparent: the States of America must reclaim their sovereignty and independence to protect our God-given liberty and freedom. At this point in our country’s existence, I dare say that the time for persuading others to “join their side” is over. For the most part, the people of the states have chosen what type of government they want, how they relate to that government and what they are willing to do to effectuate it.

American history reveals the same categorical beliefs concerning freedom and government have existed since 1776 (as human nature never changes): a small percentage (say, 10%) fight for freedom and independence; a small percentage (say, 10%) fight for imperialism; a large majority (say 40%) care nothing about getting involved; and the remaining percentage follow whomever they believe will win at the end of the day, to merely be treated as favorably as possible by the victors. These choices become more revealed as oppression becomes harsher and more intense, for with every action there is a reaction.

As the oppression from the federal government has become increasingly known and felt over the past one hundred years, those who have attempted to remedy the situation have explored solutions, most of which involved merely voting. Unfortunately, the solutions used during the twentieth century have proven ineffectual to protect freedom, and perhaps worse: they have aided the oppression of the federal government. Many are saying, enough is enough. Thus, now in 2010, real solutions are being seriously considered, not the least of which is an individual state’s DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE, just as the colonies did in 1776. This Declaration of Independence is commonly referred to as Secession.

Perhaps there is not a single issue that cuts to the heart of American principles more than the matter of declaring independence from all others, as secession does. The principles in support of or against secession are literally a dividing line that cannot be resolved by a (supposed) “common court” or “final arbiter,” such as the federal supreme court. A court can no more dictate to a body-politic (i.e. state) regarding the principles of self-government, consent of the governed, sovereignty, statehood, natural law, or breach-of-compact remedies than it can dictate an individual’s ability to defend his home from unlawful invaders.

Indeed, the States have never given up this natural right to govern and defend themselves, especially where the compact (i.e. the constitution) has been violated (e.g. “long train of abuses [evincing] a design to reduce them under absolute despotism”) by the entity created to be bound to its terms (i.e. the federal government). How do we know this? First, because there is nothing in the terms of the US Constitution itself which even implies that the states gave up their right to dissolve their part in the compact, which was formed by their voluntary assent to begin with. To the contrary, the US Constitution confirms that sovereignty of states in the tenth amendment. Second, because all of the most influential freedom documents used by our founding generation giving political, moral and legal grounds to secede from Great Britain confirm the right of a body-politic to disassociate itself with other states where the compact between them is violated. Third, because the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” reveal that a body-politic has the right “to alter or to abolish [government], and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Fourth, because the very principles used to empower the federal government, contrary to the true meaning of the constitution, confirm that if the federal government’s powers can change with circumstances, so can the States’ powers, “to secure these rights [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

You may not like the fact that all the States in America have this right of self-government. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But your opinion on the matter does not change their right given by God Himself. You may wish that the States would be perpetually bound to a union enslaving them. You may say that the States MUST pass a constitutional amendment to “reinstitute freedom.” You may opine that three-fourths of the States are the only means of preserving freedom. You may believe that each State could not “make it on its own.” But your opinions does not change the laws of nature, the rights and powers of an individual state, the authority of an individual body-politic and the obligations of all external subjects and objects (e.g. the federal government) relevant to the sovereign political decision of each state.

When the US Constitution was being publically discussed, it was never proposed that the union would thrive because of government FORCE holding them together. Rather, a moral bond was presupposed to hold the states together; namely, the principles of freedom revealed through the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Moreover, the States rested their ratification of the compact in 1787 upon the assumption that all the states and the federal government (their creation) would maintain the requisite element of GOOD FAITH to “uphold, defend and support the Constitution of the United States of America.” Without this assumption of good faith, “they would never [have] coalesce[d] into one body.” Samuel Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2009), 127. Those individual bodies-politic understood that “men who violate those pacts are sinning against the same law.” Ibid., 126. Therefore, where the necessary and requisite element of GOOD FAITH does not exist in that society, there will necessarily exist a valid fear that the compact will continually be breached. See, Ibid., at 127. When continuing fears of such breaches exist, “no civil society [can] be…preserved.” Ibid.

To many, this reality is all too clear. The federal government has demonstrated its continual and intended breach of the compact formed in 1787. To them, the shame they should feel for violating this compact apparently does not furnish enough restraint to limit their actions within the lines and bounds of delegated authority. Bad faith is evident and obvious. As a result, the people of the states are reviving their rights under the rule of law, which states, “if one party has broken its pledged good faith the other party is no longer bound.” Ibid., 122. From this rule of law, a truth follows: “he who does not stand by pacts already violated by the other party is not perfidious.” Ibid. In other words, where the non-breaching party of a compact no longer recognizes its obligations under the original compact, that non-breaching party is within its rights in doing so, viz-a-viz, secession.

In 2010, freedom-loving people in America are taking these principles seriously and have decided to lead their community and state in this regard. Many are running for state political office and are literally campaigning on the principles of state sovereignty, independence and/or secession. You can visit the this site to see which candidates have so far signed what is called the “Ten-Four Pledge,” sponsored by Michael Boldin, creator of www.tenthamendmentcenter.com. These candidates are doing what no generation of candidates have done in a long time: they are standing on the principles of true federalism, wherein the states have the power and even the duty to resist federal tyranny. Consider their “Ten-Four Pledge” in part:

“As a public office holder, or a candidate for public office, I promise that, as long as I hold office:
1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.

2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.

3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.

4. I will introduce, sponsor and support resolutions affirming the sovereignty of the People of this State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that nullifies, within my state, actions of the federal government which exceed its Constitutional authority.

6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.

7. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation which refuses federal funding made on condition that my State comply with federal mandates not authorized by the Constitution.

8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.

9. I will be accountable to voters. Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.

10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.”

Candidates like these will only continue to grow. This is not going away.

Whether you like it or not, a revolution is taking place in America. It is a revolution standing firm on the principles that our founding generation fought and died for: self-government, consent of the governed, constitutional government, limited government, separation of powers, lines of sovereignty, natural laws of God, freedom and all that implies. A constitution itself may be virtually ignored by the government it created, but the principles and power of freedom never leave a body of people who are willing to take action and yes, sacrifice for these principles’ preeminence.
Indeed, were it not for those men and women who truly believed (“faith without works is dead”) that duty to God required resistance to tyranny, it is likely that the “experiment” in freedom would never have gotten to the laboratory of a constitution in 1781 or 1787. The colonies would have remained dependent on Great Britain. The colonies would have never become sovereign and independent states. The checks and balances, limitations and bounds of delegation within a written constitution, based upon the natural laws of God, would have never been incorporated into American governmental fabric.

Face the facts: the train of abuses is not slowing down. Just the opposite, it is gaining speed and adding more carts to its momentum every day. The time for choosing sides has just about expired. When the hammer falls, knowing where to stand and why will be crucial to you and your posterity’s freedom. Make the right decision: choose freedom.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin 2010

by Timothy Baldwin

The financial system our federal government created in 1913 and thereafter maintained has created nothing but iron chains around the hands, feet and necks of the states of America. Unfortunately, most Americans do not understand the unconstitutionality and dangers of this system (mostly because of a lot of brainwashing over the years). When politics begin to affect the wallet, however, many Americans all of a sudden become politically active and “righteously” indignant. This sadly reveals that principles of truth are not priority. But if a person even cares about America’s history, principles of freedom as accepted by our forefathers or the natural and revealed laws of God, he has to admit that one of the most fundamental elements of freedom is financial freedom. These fundamentals confirm the right of individuals to work in exchange for other items contracted for by the engaged parties, to reap all the benefits and rewards of his labor, skill and intellect without the unjust or unauthorized interference of anyone else, including government. Our Declaration of Independence categorizes this natural right as the “pursuit of happiness,” meaning property, which money certainly is.

Despite financial freedom being considered a natural right, our federal government has ignored this right and principle of freedom; and today, it controls virtually every aspect of money, starting with money’s very creation (i.e. printing) through the inaptly-named, Federal Reserve System (created in 1913 by Congress). But the idea of this system did not come from our forefathers. In fact, based upon the principles of individual freedom, self-government and limited government, our founders rejected the federal government’s power to print money by giving only this power to Congress in Article 1, Section 8: “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.” Moreover, States agreed (by ratification of the U.S. Constitution) that they would only be limited as follows relevant to money and currency: “No State shall…make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Since 1913, the federal government has been perpetually acting unconstitutionally; and today, States are forced to violate the U.S. Constitution and accept fiat money as tender in payments of debts.

Even a shallow scan of America’s history reveals that our founders and ratifiers considered the constitution to be worth nothing more than fire starter if Congress had the power to print money and create a fiat monetary system. Consider of a few of our founders’ position on the money system we have had since 1913 (citing from, George Bancroft, History of the United States of America: From the Discovery of the Continent [to 1789], Volume 6, [New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1890], 301–303) (Emphasis added):

“[George] Mason of Virginia had a MORTAL HATRED TO PAPER MONEY.”

“[The ratification of the U.S. Constitution] is a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money, which can in no case be necessary. THE POWER MAY DO HARM, NEVER GOOD. Give the government credit, and other resources will offer. “(Oliver Ellsworth)

“PAPER MONEY CAN NEVER SUCCEED WHILE ITS MISCHIEFS ARE REMEMBERED; and, as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources.” (James Wilson).

“Rather than give the power [to congress to emit bills] I WOULD REJECT THE WHOLE PLAN [of the Constitution].” (John Langdon)

“[Under the ratified version of the U.S. Constitution], THE PRETEXT FOR A PAPER CURRENCY, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, WAS CUT OFF.” (James Madison)

“[Nathanial] Gorham favored STRIKING THE WORDS [in the Constitution, allowing Congress to “EMIT BILLS”] without a prohibition inserted in the document, feeling that if the words were to stand, this could lead to the issuance of paper money.”

“Pierce Butler remarked that paper money was a legal tender in no other country in Europe, and he wanted to DISARM THE GOVERNMENT OF SUCH POWER.”

“George Read stated that if the words [and emit bills] were not struck, IT WOULD BE AS ALARMING AS THE MARK OF THE BEAST IN REVELATION.”

“This is the interpretation of the [Article 1, Section 8] clause…History cannot name a man who has gained enduring honor by causing the issue of paper money.” Ibid., 303. Contradicting these sound lessons and mandates of human history, the U.S. Constitution and natural law (meaning, the value of commercial exchange should have actual value, not pretend value), the federal government has for nearly 100 years operated under a fiat financial system, printing money out of thin air, being backed by nothing of substance, increasing the federal debt, causing inflation, decreasing the value of our contracted-for work, diminishing our future investments, and jeopardizing the lives of millions (just to name a few). Do you think that a country is living in freedom when this takes place?!

The very implementation and structure of the Federal Reserve System is corrupt, considering the most basic principles of a free society, as it puts the power of the fiat money market into the control of a few unelected and uncontrolled people. The danger of this system was recognized immediately by financial experts after its implementation. Consider what Professor John Holdsworth observes in 1914: “It is obvious that a board clothed with such powers can exercise an enormous influence either for good or ill upon the new system. Success or failure…will depend largely upon their ability, wisdom, and tact.” John Thom Holdsworth, Money and Banking, 6th Edition, (New York: Appleton, 1914), 353. Is the definition of “oligarchy” coming to mind?

The creation of our Constitutional Republic was to place the power of securing individual natural rights under the constraints of a fixed constitution into the hands of many who would be affected by its abuse: that is, the people and their agents! The federal system was entirely a check and balance upon all powers in the federal government: checks by the people directly, checks by the other branches of federal government, checks by time itself and checks by the state governments. Yet, the Federal Reserve System literally removes one of the most fundamental natural rights (property) from the control, oversight and power of the people and of their closest representatives (Congress and the State governments). America’s monetary system is without a doubt despicable, unnatural, fraudulent and dangerous.

So, what is our federal government going to do about it? What have they done since 1913? Nothing! I believe we can say with certainty they will continue their legacy. Sure, we know Congressman Ron Paul (and maybe a few others) has attempted to make a difference in this area (See, H.R. 4683, The Free Competition in Currency Act of 2007). God bless him for his lone-wolf efforts. However, even with a Republican-controlled federal government from 2000 to 2008, nothing has been done to bring the Federal Reserve into accountability and responsibility, much less to termination–all this after nearly 100 years of this corrupt system being woven into the fabric of our states and even the entire world. We can say with assurance that putting our hope in the federal government to control the monster it has created is misplaced. It is disgusting how the federal government usurps the delegations and trusts of its power, violates the principles and limitations of the constitution, does nothing to reverse the usurpations and expressly revert these powers back to the states and the people. Still, every year, they expect that we vote for them and look to Washington D.C. for the answers to our problems. What a racket of tyranny! Yet, most take the bait. I would not trust them with taking caring for my dog.

There is, however, an alternative solution–one that our founders expected in cases of federal usurpations: the STATES. What has to be concluded here is that since the federal government does not possess the power to create this fiat system, it of course has acted unconstitutionally since 1913, depriving individuals, the people and the states of the powers they retained under the ninth and tenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Being sovereign, the states have the power to do what their constitutions give them power to do in this regard. As a result, the States must take courage to use of their inherent sovereignty: they must be energized by the force of truth, the fire of freedom and the passion of the people. The state governments must recognize this: we, who demand justice, demand that our states retake powers that rightly belong to us, terminate powers that have wrongly been usurped by tyrants, and create within our borders a free and independent system of finance and commerce.

The States must recognize and proclaim once again that,

“Paper money has no hold, and from its very nature can acquire no hold, on the conscience or affections of the people. It impairs all certainty of possession, and taxes none so heavily as the class who earn their scant possession by daily labor. It injures the husbandman by a twofold diminution of the exchangeable value of his harvest. It is the favorite of those who seek gain without willingness to toil; it is the deadly foe of industry. No powerful political party ever permanently rested for support on the theory that it is wise and right. No statesman has been thought well of by his kind in a succeeding generation for having been its promoter.” Bancroft, History of the United States of America, 304.

Until the States become capable of monetarily sustaining themselves as sovereign states are supposed to, the federal government has nothing but incentive to keep the States enslaved to a worthless, fiat system of slavery, which only feeds the power of the federal government with each print of a fiat dollar bill. When the States become monetarily strong and independent, hope for financial freedom will once again return to our States. The question is, which States are willing to protect freedom for their citizens.

by Timothy Baldwin

After my latest article, Our Dead Constitution, was released, I received much response, many from those who understood and agreed, and some by those who were opposed to my statement, “Our constitution is dead.” This leads me to reasonably believe that many of us need to be educated about what a constitution actually is before constitutional law and freedom can be restored throughout the states.

1. A constitution does not create freedom. A constitution is created only to protect and secure freedom which already exists, through forms, structure and limitations of government. This is what our founders said in the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Therefore, if one’s perspective about the U.S. Constitution is that it statically creates freedom for all the people of the states, then I could understand how he would be shocked or angered at the suggestion that the U.S. Constitution is dead. To the contrary, we know that freedom exists in a state of nature, created by God, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These natural laws and rights never die. They existed prior to 1787 and they will exist after we are gone. Thus, a distinction must be made between natural freedom (which never dies) and a constitution (which can die).

2. A constitution may be worthless to secure freedom. History proves this–even America’s history. A constitution rests upon a serious distrust of human nature, and simultaneously upon the skeptical and temporary trust placed in delegated power, which supposedly will “be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the prerogatives of their governments.” James Madison, Federalist Paper (FP) 46. These principles determine the constitution’s nature, character, form, and function. This necessarily means that a constitution itself is to be contrasted to the eternal principles that formed the constitution, and where government does not conform its actions and intentions to the principles of the constitution, the constitution itself is practically meaningless and dead. American jurist, William Rawle, expresses the same: “By a constitution we mean the principles on which a government is formed and conducted.” William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 2.

That our government must conform its actions and intentions to these principles is confirmed by the United States Supreme Court, by those who formed our constitutions, and by those who helped form the very fundamental thoughts of American jurisprudence: (1) “Let the nature and objects of our Union be considered; let the great fundamental principles on which the fabric stands be examined.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264, 423 (1821). (2) “[N]o free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but…by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” Benjamin Kidd, Principles of Western Civilisation, citing Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776, (London, The Macmillan Co., 1902), 511. (3) “Once the principles of government are corrupted, the very best laws become bad and turn against the [people of the] state.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 116.

Thus, a maxim must be admitted: where the principles of freedom are abandoned, the constitution no longer serves its constituted purpose; that is, to limit the government as the consent of the governed demanded at its creation. And once the constituted purposes and principles are abandoned, how could it be argued that the constitution has life? Is the form (the constitution) greater than the substance (the principles)? Certainly not.

3. When a government breaches its limitations placed upon it by a constitution, (a) the government agent loses its trust to rule, (b) the powers delegated to it are reverted back to the creators of the constitution, and (c) the constitution becomes non-binding on those who created it. This is the natural law concept of “the consent of the government,” as expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is further a concept regarding the rights of the parties who enter into a compact. As noted by our founders, we do not normally exercise this natural and compact right over “light and transient causes,” but in cases where a “long train of abuses” are evident. European forefather, Hugo Grotius, recognizes that when a government contradicts the principles that created its power, that creation (i.e. kingdom/constitution) dies and the people have the right to institute new government:

“[I]f the king act, with a really hostile mind, with a new to the destruction of the whole people…that the kingdom is forfeited; for the purpose of governing and the purpose of destroying cannot subsist together.” Hugo Grotius and William Whewell, trans., Hugo Grotius on the Rights of War and Peace, Book II, (Cambridge: University Press, 1853), 57–58.

A constitution that has been continually breached by the government is no longer a constitution at all, because the very purpose of a constitution is to limit the government by the will of the people who created it. Thus, a people who continually live under an abandoned constitution do not live under a constitution at all; but rather, they live in voluntary slavery, and the constitution is dead to those people and that government. It is literally time “to alter or to abolish” that constitution before the people’s lack of resistance is deemed to be “the consent of the governed.” (See, Thomas Jefferson and John P. Foley, ed., The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1900), 185. “[T]o conquer [the existing constitution’s] will, so as to rest the right on that, the only legitimate basis, requires long acquiescence and cessation of all opposition.”)

4. Particular to the United States, the U.S. Constitution was voluntarily formed as a compact by existing sovereign states with existing state constitutions. See FP 39. Despite the deceptive proposition that the States were created by Congress, the States existed prior to and independent of any Congress, as confirmed by the Treaty of Paris in 1783 (which, by the way, was not overturned by any subsequent legal action of the states). “The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 31. And, “Each State, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.” James Madison, FP 39.

Today, there is a fraudulent notion in America which places the U.S. Constitution above the importance and relevance of the state constitutions and state sovereignty, despite the fact that we were told (in efforts to get us to ratify the U.S. Constitution) that “the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 32. The authoritative advocates of the U.S. Constitution confirm that even with the U.S. Constitution ratified or with the U.S. Constitution dissolved, the states would have their own constitutions to protect freedom and secure the blessings of liberty within that state.

It was even proposed during the 1780s that instead of one confederacy being created through the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, several confederacies be ratified instead. See FP 2. So, it cannot be accurately stated that the U.S. Constitution was the sole form of convenience of the states. The U.S. Constitution was in fact an “experiment” of union, which admittedly may not work. James Madison, FP 14. Many notable American patriots, of course, (prophetically and correctly) believed the U.S. Constitution would in time, by constitutional construction, become destructive to the natural rights and sovereignty of the people of the states. Even pro-U.S. Constitution advocates warned us of the tyrannical tendency of central governments and implored the State governments to “afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.” Alexander Hamilton, FP 28.

Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution no more creates freedom than any other government creates freedom; and that the U.S. Constitution was simply a union of states for very limited purposes, all of which were and can be handled by the states themselves without the existence of the U.S. Constitution or federal government.

5. Constitutions can be destructive to freedom where the document itself is used against the people. Montesquieu expounded upon this, as I cited in, Our Dead Constitution. If you disagree, pray tell, how is it that Congress can regulate virtually anything it desires under the Commerce Clause of the constitution? How can the United States Supreme Court “constitutionally” uphold those unconstitutional acts by its rulings, which are supposedly made impartially “according to the rules of the Constitution” (FP 39)? How can the bill of rights be used against the retained powers and sovereignty of the states, when the U.S. Constitution was never intended to limit the states whatsoever? How can a federation be turned into a nation without the consent of the people? How can the first amendment, designed to restrict the federal government in all regards (“Congress shall make no law…”), be used to not only make law through the federal courts but also restrict individuals and states from exercising their natural rights within their own jurisdictions?

How can the constitutional limitations of the federal courts to apply the Supreme Law of the Land be used to justify “federal supremacy” in un-enumerated powers over the states, contrary to the principles of the constitution? How can the constitution’s general welfare clause be a legal justification to the federal government socializing healthcare, economics, banks, manufacturing, and education, despite the clear intention of the ratifiers to the contrary? How can Congress create a fiat money system without any constitutional power whatsoever to do so? How can the President engage in an eight year war with no declaration from Congress? How can Obama supposedly not be eligible to be President while absolutely no one in the federal system cares? You call that a constitution alive and well!? I could go on and on, as many authors have already well documented for generations now. The long train of abuses is clear: the constitution has been and is being used every day against the freedoms and rights it is supposed to protect and against the principles and trust that created it.

6. Constitutions can be dissolved by those who created it. Our Declaration of Independence confirms this natural right, which is inherent in all sovereigns. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by the voluntary assent of the sovereigns of the states, in their capacity as states. FP 39. The states created the U.S. Constitution not to create freedom, not to create powers they did not already possess individually, and not to create union for union’s sake. They created it for certain benefits that union provided (at that time). If this union were ever destructive to these ends, the states would most certainly have the right to dissolve their part of the union to preserve freedom for that state. (James Madison, FP 39, “dissolution of the compact”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 28, “original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government”; Alexander Hamilton, FP 26, “people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.”)

Thus, a political maxim must be admitted: union, through the U.S. Constitution, does not equal freedom and can actually be destructive to freedom. Given the natural laws of sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation and self-government, the States may in fact be better off not to be a part of a union that is causing their demise. More pointedly put, the States may in fact be better off to declare the compact (the U.S. Constitution) or at least, the federal laws creating their demise, null and void within their sovereign borders. Naturally, this sovereign power can come in different forms, through nullification, active resistance to federal usurpations, controlling the mechanisms used against the states, and secession.

Regardless of your agreement with these truths, the information provided is all based upon the natural law and political discussions of those who formed the foundation of our Republic. The fact that we do not understand them only causes tyranny to tighten its grip on us. Before freedom will ever be restored, government will be limited, and the people will govern themselves, the sovereigns of the states must recognize that the U.S. Constitution is not the answer to our political and societal plight. Rather, it is the principles of freedom that provide the answer. The time has come in America when to restore constitutional law and freedom in the STATES, the people of the states must begin looking internally to their own powers, sovereignty, self-defense, self-preservation, self-reliance and constitutions.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.

by Brion McClanahan, Ph.D.
November 26, 2009

I have often required my students on the first day or two of class to use the Oxford English Dictionary and define the following words: nation and state. Most do not follow my directions and submit a modern Webster’s or online distortion of the word, and those who use the Oxford often fail to provide the etymology of either word. I can’t fault them for that, because they have probably been taught since first grade in the public “school” system to submit the first definition they find. Thus, the common results of the activity are similar to the following:

Nation – noun: a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. (from dictionary.com)

State – noun: the territory, or one of the territories, of a government. (from dictionary.com)

How profound, statist…and completely absurd! If both are true, than the United States should simply be the “United State.” A state is simply a “territory…of a government”? A nation is simply a large body of people that occupy a territory? That would be news to the founding generation. Of course, a careful reading of the history of both words could correct this mess and place the Union of the States within its proper historical context.

The word “nation” found its way into the English language around the 14th century. Under the old definition, a nation was a group of people who shared a similar racial, cultural, or religious background that often included elements such as a common language. A State was a sovereign political entity, not simply a “territory…of a government.” By viewing the United States through that lens it becomes clear that modern definitions of nation and state are the product of centralization and the mischaracterization of the federal government as a “national government.”

Certainly no one in the founding generation would have argued that Virginia and Massachusetts possessed the same cultural heritage. Virginia, with its strong Cavalier tradition, and Massachusetts, with its Puritan or roundhead foundations, were clearly at odds during the seventeenth century and beyond. The two colonies may have been populated by white, English Christians and who shared a common language, “English,” but as David Hackett Fischer beautifully explained in his Albion’s Seed, the two cultures were diametrically opposed in almost every conceivable way. From dress to food to speech, Virginia Cavaliers and Massachusetts Yankees were in many ways two separate nations, not simply separate cultures. The “shining city upon a hill” Puritans and their decedents never let Southerners forget their differences, nor did Southerners want to be lumped together with self-righteous Yankees. William Berkeley, the dominant figure in Virginia during the seventeenth century, despised Puritans and fought against them in the English Civil War. Later American sectionalism was little more than an explicit recognition of cultural differences and the existence of separate nations in North America dating to the early days of English settlement.

Adding to this American cultural cornucopia were the Celts, the Quakers, American Indian tribes, and African slaves, groups that had interesting and culturally significant contributions to the fabric of their respective regions as well. Thus, America in the colonial period was “multicultural” in a way that extended beyond race or religion. Western civilization and the English tradition dominated, but separate nations blotted the North American landscape. One of the most respected American historians on slavery, Eugene Genovese, wrote this about American culture in his Roll, Jordan, Roll: “Blacks and whites in America may be viewed as one nation or two, or as a nation within a nation, but their common history guarantees that, one way or another, they are both American.” This statement accentuates the point that the phrase “American nation” is a rhetorical fabrication of the last 150 years of American history.

This was not lost on the founding generation. John Adams once wrote that, “I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States….” Each state had its own political and cultural life and each was “sovereign.” Robert Yates, writing as Brutus in 1787, observed that “In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this not be the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other.” If applied to the United States, Yates concluded that:

The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care of decision, but would be composed of such heterogeneous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

Of course, there were “nationalists” in the early federal period, but even they often understood that if the United States contained several nations rather than one, it would be better to separate than to consolidate. Gouverneur Morris, one of the most important “nationalists” (and womanizers) of this era, made the following statement during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787,

“But, to come more to the point – either this distinction [between the Northern and Southern States] is fictitious or real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for security, if every particular interest is to be entitled to it.”

And George Washington, often showcased as a fine example of the early “nationalists” and the glue that held the States together, said this about the people of Massachusetts in the early days of the War for Independence, “There is no nation under the sun that pays more adoration to money than they do.”

States’ rights and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution were intended to protect this cultural distinctiveness, and secession was often seen as the only hedge against aggression from other States or sections. This is why the three most powerful States in 1788, Virginia in the South, New York in the mid-Atlantic, and Massachusetts in the North, considered an explicit recognition of States’ rights an essential condition for ratification of the Constitution. Of course, those who champion States’ rights and decentralization are often accused of preferring “Balkanization” over the blessings and security of “one nation.” If the federal government followed its limited, constituted authority, such “Balkanization” would not be necessary, but hardly anyone in the founding generation would have agreed to a system of central government that currently exists in the United States. As Morris said in 1787, it would be better to separate than to subject one nation to the cultural imperialism of another State, section, or nation. Modern Americans have never been taught that lesson.

Brion McClanahan, Ph.D. is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers and a history professor at Chattahoochee Valley Community College in Phenix City, AL.

by Timothy Baldwin

Our Constitution is dead. Rigor mortis set in a long time ago. Peculiar enough, many Americans who claim to love our constitution believe it is alive and well with hot red blood running through its vein. Plainly put: they are naïve, deceived or ignorant. Those who killed the constitution (and their posterity, with whom we are living today) pick up the dead corpse, move it around like a puppet on strings, put make up on it to make it look pretty, prop it up against a wall to stand on its own, and proclaim and swear an oath to us and God that they will preserve, defend and protect what they know to be dead. Ironically, they accomplish this, in part, through what they term a “living constitution”, which has bled the life’s blood from our constitution. Unfortunately, most Americans fail to see that our political circumstances are very similar and parallel to those which our founders considered to be a line in the sand.

Claude Halstead Van Tyne, in his book, The Causes of the War of Independence, describes the circumstances which caused America’s War for Independence. The cause was not “taxation without representation” per se. It was not “the government is too big” per se. It was not “taxes are too high” per se. It was the concept that government is limited by the principles of freedom found in the laws of Nature and Nature’s God and secured by their constitution; and government actions taken beyond those limitations are to be met with resistance. In Van Tyne’s description of this causation, what is strikingly similar to our current situation is that Great Britain considered their constitution to be “living” and to give Parliament and King George the power, authority and right to essentially act in whatever manner it deemed appropriate. Van Tyne observes,

“The contrast cannot be too strongly insisted upon. Samuel Adams and many of his fellow countrymen, on the one hand, believed that the British Constitution was fixed by ‘the law of God and nature,’ and founded in the principles of law and reason so that Parliament could not alter it, but Lord Mansfield and his followers, on the other hand, asserted rightly that ‘the constitution of this country has been always in a moving state, either gaining or losing something,’ and ‘there are things even in Magna Charta which are not constitutional now’ and others which an act of Parliament might change. Between two such conceptions of the powers of government compromise was difficult to attain… Such differences in ideals were as important causes of a breaking up of the empire [of Great Britain] as more concrete matters like oppressive taxation.” The Causes of the War of Independence, Volume 1, (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), 235, 237.

Great Britain’s political ideology is the same ideology that 99% of our federal politicians demonstrate today! This is just what Congressman Henry Hyde (R) expressed in 2006, when he responded to Congressman Ron Paul’s claim that Congress must declare war before G.W. Bush can constitutionally launch (what is now) an eight year and growing war half way across the world, sending hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to risk their lives and die and spending hundreds of billions of tax payer monies to support the same. Hyde says, “There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.” James T. Bennett, Homeland Security Scams, (Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2006), 133. Did the vast majority of Congressmen (Republican and Democrat, House and Senate) believe the same as Hyde? We know they did because they continued to shirk and even ignore their constitutional obligation to declare war, while funding the same with our money and with our lives–all contrary to the constitution, to the lessons of human history and to the principles of self-government and limited government.

Many thousands of persons all across America repeatedly and continually scream the voice of discontent of unconstitutional government. Thousands of books have been written on how the constitution has been ignored, trampled, despised, and even laughed at by those we elect to uphold that very document and the principles founding it. I do not need delineate the (not so “light and transient”) abuses, encroachments, and usurpations upon our constitution. It is a known fact. It is admitted. There is no hiding it. The long train of abuses is evident, established and provable. Our federal government has, through fraud, deceit, force and bribe, converted our once Constitutional Federal Republic into a Despotic National Oligarchy. We now have the same (if not worse) form and type of government that we seceded from in 1776. Yet, many people who claim to love the constitution will criticize those who recommend a different course of action other than voting for a President who will hopefully appoint a “conservative” judge to the supreme court; other than focusing our solutions on Washington D.C.; other than playing political games with those causing and controlling all that we claim to despise; or other than confining our redress to federal courts and two political parties.

Thomas Paine witnessed those during his living-constitution/government-despot days whose only method of redress was to send correspondence and complaint to King George and Parliament, hoping for reclamation of freedom through the very system that was enslaving them. To these plans of action, Thomas Paine says, “There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease.” Thomas Paine and Mark Philip, ed., Oxford World’s Classics: Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, Common Sense and other Political Writings, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 27. To Thomas Paine, changing the plan of action to resist and arrest tyranny was simply Common Sense. Thankfully, our founders agreed. Thankfully, this change meant truly standing for freedom, natural rights, limited government, self-government, federalism and constitutional government. This change necessarily meant putting off the old man and putting on the new. It necessarily meant burying the dead and quickening the fetus of freedom.

The United States Constitution was formed and framed on certain immutable principles: principles which acknowledge that God is the Source of all rights; the Definer of all authority; the Judge of all actions and laws; the Giver of life, property and pursuit of happiness. Those principles never die. They live forever. However, as our founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence, governments can become destructive to these ends. Indeed, they can. Understand: Great Britain’s history was similar to America’s. It contained men and women of principle and courage who were catalysts to providing freedom throughout Europe. Europe indeed is the home of the forefathers which our founders studied and adored. Great Britain’s constitution was formed and framed upon the principles expounded upon by Enlightenment philosophers, jurists, lawyers, judges, and theologians. Yet, their constitution died–not because of natural causes, but because those who were constrained by it killed it.

History proves this: not even a (free) constitution can secure freedom where the principles of it are abandoned and the applications of it are ignored. French philosopher Charles Montesquieu (whom our founders relied upon heavily in political thought) confirms this in his book, Spirit of Laws, when he says, “The constitution may happen to be free, and the subject not…It is the disposition only of the laws, and even of the fundamental laws, that constitutes liberty in relation to the constitution.” Charles de Baron Montesquieu and Julian Hawthorne, ed., The Spirit of Laws: The World’s Great Classics, vol. 1 (London: The London Press), 183. How observant he was.

Why is America not free? Is it because we do not have a free constitution? No. Is it because the principles that formed our constitution do not create freedom? No. Is it because Obama is in the White House? No. Is it because Democrats are evil? No. Is it because God was “kicked out” of our public schools? No. Is it because abortion was made “legal”? No. Is it because America engages in unjust wars? No. Is it because America’s presidents have entangled in foreign affairs? No. Those are simply fruits of the root of our dead constitution. Our constitution is dead because our agents, the government, have created a matrix, a system whereby our original constitution and its principles have no application to their power. They are merely bound by their arbitrary discretion–the very definition of tyranny. Even worse, our constitution is dead because the people and the states have consented to its murder.

Like a loved-one who has passed on, I love and miss our constitution (not that it has been alive since I was born in 1979). Yet, while I love the constitution, I love the freedom it was designed to protect much more, and I put freedom and its principles above and beyond the document and words of our constitution. Indeed, the words of the constitution do not create freedom. History and common sense teach us this (which is why America cannot “spread democracy” to the world). Thus, I do not love the words contained in the constitution. Rather, I love the principles of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God which formed the words. I do not love the three separate branches of the federal government: I love the limits of power and authority they were instituted to secure. I do not love federalism: rather, I love the security it brings to ensure that my children live in freedom.

Thankfully, since principles derived from the laws of God never die, we the people of the states continue to have the power of truth to reestablish and reinstitute forms of government to secure our freedom. Thankfully, we have fifty sovereign and independent states to activate the principles of free government within those political borders, resisting and arresting any attempts from outsiders who would attempt to enslave their citizens. Thankfully, our forefathers bequeathed to us a framework, legacy, heritage, and foundation of hope and freedom. They bequeathed to us truths we hold to be self-evident.

We all have fond memories of our constitution when it was alive and well, but the time has come when we who love the freedom it protected must admit that those who are supposed to be bound by its mandates, principles and limitations have killed it, and they need to be treated like the murderers they are, just as Thomas Paine said about his government: “A common murderer, a highwayman, or a housebreaker, has as good a pretence as he.” Paine and Philip, ed., American Crisis I, 64. These murderers have put us into a place in nature before the constitution was quickened and made alive by the people of the sovereign states of America. See, Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 14–15. We are literally better off not having made alive this document that is literally being used against us, our posterity and our freedom. They are forcing us to consider recalling and retaking all the powers we gave them (as our agents) for the protection of our and our posterity’s life, liberty and pursuit of happiness–our natural rights from God. In fact, this is what John Locke confirms about our natural right:

“Absolute arbitrary power, or governing without settled standing laws, can neither of them consist with the ends of society and government, which men would not quit the freedom of the state of nature for, and tie themselves up under, were it not to preserve their lives, liberties and fortunes, and by stated rules of right and property to secure their peace and quiet. It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give to any one, or more, an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate’s hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them. This were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man, or many in combination.” Locke and Macpherson, ed., Second Treatise of Government, 72.

The people of the states must get serious about this matter. We must put the fear of God and the fear of the people before the eyes of tyrants. Otherwise, they will be like those described in Romans 3:16-18 (KJV) and we will continue to suffer for it: “Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.” When the people of the states of America recognize our natural power to abolish, alter and institute new forms of government to secure the ends of freedom, we will have a free constitution alive and well and a free people benefiting from its life. We will once again have government (of, by and for the people) that has the fear of God and the people before their eyes and that will act accordingly.

Copyright (c) Timothy Baldwin, 2009.

By Timothy Baldwin.

After the release of my column “Freedom’s Destruction by Constitutional De-Construction,” I received so many responses to my statement, “The people of the states [must] once again reject this national form of government and assert and defend the principles of federalism,” that I felt the need to develop this subject more thoroughly. The question I received was: “How can I choose federalism once again?” Indeed, answering this question is crucial to injecting a cure for the sickness and illness of tyrannical, national control over the people of the states. Undoubtedly, we are going to need an acute dosage to even begin ridding ourselves of the disease destroying the body of our once-great federation.

The reality is, the answer is not complicated. The more relevant question will likely be, what portion of the cure(s) must we implement. This will require a diagnosis of the degree and seriousness of the disease’s attack on our Confederate Republic. Let us analyze briefly the seriousness of the attack so that we may proportionally and accordingly respond and defend against the encroachments on our constitutional freedoms, guarantees and powers.

Keeping in line with my last article and the position that the national system of government (under which the United States currently operates) is completely contrary to the federal system that our founders and Constitution’s ratifiers bequeathed to us, a fact is established: We the People of the United States of America have been denied our natural and compactual rights under God and the Constitution. Again, how can it be argued that it is now legally and morally right and proper to do what our Constitution did not create or authorize? How can freedom exist in a country where we supposedly believe in the “consent of the governed” when that consent has been usurped by force? Consequently, our right of defense is activated.

Make no mistake about this: the US Constitution did NOT create a national government, but rather created a federal government whereby the states were coequal with the federal government in the exercise and defense of the powers granted to them by the people of each State. The founders and ratifiers of the Constitution expressly rejected the notion that the federal government has supreme sovereignty. The issue here is not whether there are “national components” of the procedures in the system, such as voting for the House of Representatives by the people. We know that the founders implemented a few elements of national-type procedure in the US Constitution, just as they did even in the Articles of Confederation.

Rather, the bottom-line issue is, whether the states have coequal power to exercise and defend their powers–and their citizens–and whether the Federal government has the power to force the states to accept its own interpretation and (de)construction of the Constitution. If the union of the United States was formed by the people of the states in their capacities as the sovereign of each State, creating a FEDERAL government, then the states are coequal in power and do have the right to exercise and defend their powers. If the union of the United States was formed by the whole of the people as a mass body politic, without regard to the sovereign states, creating a NATIONAL government, then the states are mere corporations of the parent company, called the Federal government.

I need not expound the answer to this question here, because I have done so in numerous other articles before, proving that the union was formed by the states as states, and not by the people as one nation. The conclusion is more than provable that the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution did not create a nation, but created a federation, and actually expected the states to be the active guardians of freedom for their own people. Thus, what methods can we use today to once again choose federalism over nationalism?

There are five basic methods by which the people of the states can counter the attacks of the federal government’s prolonged tyrannical usurpations of power. They are: (1) Change of Politicians; (2) Checks and Balances; (3) Constitutional Amendment; (4) Constitutional Convention; and (5) Revolution.

1. Change of Politicians. Alexander Hamilton notes in Federalist Paper 21, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” This method of cure is no mystery, and has been the mode of “change” in the US for the past 50 years. Dare I say, this method has proven to be anything but effectual? Please show me how changing the Federal government from Republican to Democrat and vice versa has done ANYTHING to reinstitute our federal form of government, provided by the Constitution. Both parties in the federal government do absolutely nothing to revert rightful power to the people of the states. I shall not waste any more valuable time or words on this ineffectual method. (Then again, if we had a majority of congressmen such as Ron Paul in Washington, D.C., we wouldn’t be having this discussion to begin with.)

2. Checks and Balances. There are two types of checks and balances: (a) federal against federal, and (b) State against federal. Since the early 1900s, the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government have usurped power from the states. To say that the people of the states can count on the three branches of the federal government to check each other in this regard and to maintain a Federal form of government is a joke. All three branches maintain that they possess the sole power (through the judiciary) to interpret and construe the Constitution, and that all others (i.e., the states) must submit thereto. This is in fact the very definition of nationalism, which the Constitution’s ratifiers rejected.

As for the states’ check against federal usurpations of power, most ignorant or disillusioned people would say that they lost that right when the Confederate States of America lost the Civil War in 1865, and from that point onward, the states could not check the federal government through arresting action. They suggest that to conquer equals the right to rule: a notion completely rejected in American jurisprudence. Time does not allow me to expand on this erroneous doctrine, so I will simply say, How ludicrous!

The fact is, the Federalist Paper writers expected the states to be the guardians against federal tyranny. This necessarily meant (as they expressed) that the states develop actual arms of resistance to such encroachments. This, of course, shows, once again, the FEDERAL character and nature of our form of government: the states were not subservient to the federal government’s dictates, but were coequal in power to protect their own authority and freedoms through their State Constitutions.

Thankfully, we are seeing a current resurgence of State activism to be the voice and arm of the people to protect and perpetuate the US Constitution. While the federal v. federal checks and balances have proven to be less than fruitful, the states today are taking their role more seriously in this regard, just as our founders and ratifiers demanded. It is this State power of active and passive nullification and resistance that will once again protect federalism and freedom in America. Therefore, it is this State power that affords us the best opportunity to defend liberty and restore constitutional government, and that we should expend most our energies to revive.

3. Constitutional Amendment. The US Constitution requires three-fourths of the STATES to amend the Constitution. Most certainly this is an effective tool to reverse and prevent evils in government. Our founders expected that this process would protect freedom and the principles of freedom. However, as we have seen since 1865, the amendment process has been used only to increase national power and decrease State power. From the states being denied power in the Senate, to the income tax and “privileges and immunities” clause of the fourteenth amendment, the nationalists of the twentieth century have had their heyday by deepening their squeeze of national ideals over federal. Ironically, the attack on federalism has come through the same document protecting our federation: the Constitution. (The illegality of amendments being used to propagate principles contrary to freedom and federalism is for another article and discussion.)

That being said: if there were enough states to amend the Constitution to clarify federal doctrines, limit federal government power, and reinstitute original State powers, then it most certainly would be beneficial. Praise the day when such amendments would be ratified.

4. Constitutional Convention. I have heard this method suggested by some in certain circles of the “patriot movement,” and while I understand the suggestion of calling a constitutional convention to rewrite the Constitution, I believe that to do so would likely create more problems than what we are dealing with today. However, there is a caveat, as explained below.

To convene a constitutional convention, states would have to send delegates (just as in 1787) for the purpose of discussing and drafting a Constitution. Not even getting into the legal issues and ramifications inherent in such a method, a very practical question is raised: Would a majority of the people convening at such a monumental event even possess the understanding, knowledge and belief needed to perpetuate and protect the principles of freedom and federalism? By virtue of what I see throughout the US today, I venture to say, No. I believe one of the greatest contributions to national ideals defeating federal ideals is that the people (including on State
levels) do not understand, know or believe in the principles expressed by our founders and their forefathers.

Thus, to call a constitutional convention would most certainly place us in a worse situation. That said, there is one positive that could result from this. If the Constitution were re-written, it would require the ratification of the states that wanted to join a new union under a new contract (Constitution). In this case, it very well may provide a way for the people of the states to decide which path they wanted to take: national or federal.

In other words, those states that yet wanted to live under Federalism and not Nationalism could reject the new compact and could declare themselves independent or seek to form yet another compact among like-minded states. (Of course, this could happen anyway, per number 2 above–even without a constitutional convention–making any proposed Con Con a dangerous and unnecessary action.)

5. Revolution. Revolution simply means a change of power. For those who perceive such a term as being a bad thing, why do they not then demonize the current illegitimate system of national government, because this current system is not the one the states ratified back in 1787? If a squatter turns your property into his, are you not within your rights to remove him, his family, his friends and his belongings completely from your property?

It is a fact that Americans (nationalists, federalists and even monarchists) believed in the natural right of revolution–that every generation has the God-given right to effect change by revolution when change cannot be reasonably expected and effected through other more peaceful means.

Coming full circle, then: To what degree has the federal government usurped its powers? This question is crucial because, as our forefathers expressed, resistance should be enacted proportionally to the usurpation. While there may be some who think that “it’s not all that bad,” I suggest that it is much worse than we think it is. We are at a point today when we are not only fighting for State sovereignty and a federal system, but we are fighting for national sovereignty (according to the LAWS OF NATIONS as expressed by enlightenment philosophers and jurists), against those who desire that the US become part of the global community.

The evidence around us is beyond reasonable doubt: we the people of the United States have been fraudulently denied our rights under the laws of Nature and Nature’s God, and under the US Constitution. The rights to resist this tyranny already exist. The methods to choose federalism and freedom have their hands out, offering to help us. It is time we choose which method or methods will best reach the ultimate goal of freedom. And as I said, I believe a revival of State sovereignty–whereby states are resolved to exercise the authority they have per the terms of their charter (Constitution)–is the most attractive and effective method currently feasible to reclaim federalism and freedom in America.

Copyright ©Timothy Baldwin 2009