Contact
Subscribe
|
Tweet
| (5) |
This or these United States: an important question
Michael Swickard
“Our nation is the United States of America, not the United Government of America… Unlike the European countries, the United States was not founded on monarchs but on the people, not from the top down but from the bottom up.” – Jonathan Krohn
The above quote by 14-year-old author Jonathan Krohn points out two issues: What powers and rights do individual states have in contrast to federal power? And, what are the similarities between the Tea Party movement of 2010 and the independence movement of 1776?
First, throughout our history there has been a fundamental battle over states versus federal government power. Are individual citizens of one state only citizens of the whole country?
Two examples: Can Arizona have a law within the confines of its state that citizens elsewhere find offensive? Or, can New Mexico allow persons Without Legal Status in the United States to have identification documents (driver’s licenses) and have those documents be valid throughout the nation?
Second, the similarities of 2010 and 1776 are that while national leaders have influence and some guidance, the real fire in the belly for both now and then came from the bottom up. In our Revolutionary War and today in the Tea Party rallies there are people who otherwise never get involved with government issues. In both instances these people became mad at leaders who were not listening, and that anger propelled forward the bottom-up movement.
The founders of our country, both the intellectuals and the people on the street, were worried about tyranny. King George was not listening to the American colonists much like many people feel the United States Congress of the last two years ignores citizens.
Tyranny and anarchy
All government is on a continuum of tyranny at one end, where the government is all-powerful over citizens, or anarchy, where the government is so weak that citizens must take over roles of their personal defense, education, health and welfare. Neither complete tyranny nor anarchy is desirable; rather, somewhere between the two points is the question of each election.
The founders of our country wrote the Constitution to severely limit the power of the federal government. It is the rule book for the government, not the citizens. It tells the government what it can and cannot do. Over time power has concentrated in the federal government to where we are on the brink of tyranny with the government. In just the last year 60 percent of our economy has been taken from private control and put in government control.
Our Constitution has only been amended 27 times. However, the way government ran 200 years ago and now suggests that over the last 70 years our Constitution has become a constitution in name only. It has been “interpreted” rather than amended into something that our founders would not recognize.
I find this Tea Party Movement fascinating, though I am not a member, nor have I gone to any of their meetings. Still, I read and think carefully about the emotions that are prevalent now and were in the American colonies during the Revolutionary War. The Tea Party movement is an honest movement that is finding itself through local and state meetings. It is not a federal movement, yet.
A lesson
One lesson we can take from the Tea party: If I want to speak to my state and local leaders, I can do so almost any day. Often I see them in the local market. I sat with a local senator for several hours this last month discussing something important to me.
Contrast that with the five national leaders of our state of whom I have only met one. The power of the citizens is state-centered. New Mexico’s national delegation is unreachable. They have political “concerts” where you can go and shake hands but not really express your feeling at length. In fact, last summer the raw emotions expressed by some citizens confused and alarmed members of the national delegation so much that they limited contact with citizens.
Local leaders know that when they anger citizens they will see and talk to those people morning, noon and night. I support a more states-rights and less federal-power approach to our country.
Swickard is a weekly columnist for this site. You can reach him at michael@swickard.com.
Swickard bio │ Archives │ Feed
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
5 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One of the most outrageous findings, albeit by a unanimous Supreme Court of the U.S., is a case from 1942 called Wickard v. Filburn. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn argued however that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court held that, [to]“regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.”
This New Deal philosophy, under the FDR regime, ushered in a whole new era of over reaching federal power, crippling the ability of the independent states and their sovereignty.
It’s interesting how such nonsensical Constitutional fictions persist. They have nothing to do with the founders, of course, but rather the ideas of a certain John C. Calhoun of South Carolina who first dreamt them up way back in the 1830′s. James Madison however was still around to correct the record on this very account. In his letter to William C. Rives of March 12, 1833, Madison termed these ideas “erroneous,” and “preposterous.”
“The words of the Constitution,” Madison wrote, “are explicit that the Constitution and Laws of the U.S. are supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several states; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hand of a soldier without a sword in it.” On the issue and function of what we refer to as the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, Madison added, “One thing at least seems too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains part of the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution and the laws of the Union.”
As to Mr. Calhoun and his theories of constitutional intent, Madison specifically warned against “danger of inaccuracy.”
Hemingway has his fourth grade history correct. Try reading about it people.
Hemingway, you are so wrong. Adams and Hamilton wanted to strengthen the fedral government but, Madison and Jefferson wanted to severely restrict the power of the federal government. Madison so much that he actually wrote that if any sovereign state felt that they were being wronged by an increasing federal government that they could lawfully secede. I recommend the reading “The Report of 1800.”
All states were supposed to be independent sovereign states that depended on themselves and their own independent governments and allowed free and fair trade amongst themselves while relying on the federal government for very limited powers outlined in the Constitution. Somewhere in the misinterpretation of “interstate commerce,” and “general welfare” we lost most of those powers. The 10th Amend ment was specifically written to further limit the intrusion of the federal government by stating that “powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution was restricted to the states.
“The founders of our country wrote the Constitution to severely limit the power of the federal government” This statement is wrong. They were trying to strengthen the federal government after the disaster of the Articles of Confederation. I recommend the reading of the Federalist Papers!