Nashville newspaper considers state sovereignty resolutions "a waste of time"

The Tenneseean, a newspaper published in Nashville, doesn't think much of state sovereignty resolutions. Yesterday, it published both an editorial and a guest editorial critical of them.

In the editorial, entitled "'State sovereignty' movement distorts Constitution," The Tennesseean argues that the state sovereignty movement is only a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the current administration in Washington. The paper is embarrassed that Tennessee has become a "leader" in this movement, because, pursuant their HJR 108 (which was enacted), the sponsors have invited legislators in other states to "create a 'working group' to 'enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers.'''

The editors charge that these accusations have descended to the level of partisan attacks on President Obama. Instead, they see state sovereignty proponents as failing to acknowledge that "economic steps taken may have, in fact prevented a depression or acknowledging that these controls are not permanent." First of all, there is plenty of evidence, such as this report from the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Analysis, that the economic steps taken are likely to worsen a depression. Secondly, may we remind the editors that the federal income tax and the USA PATRIOT Act were sold to us as "temporary" provisions? Power taken by the federal government is not easily given up. Rather, the Federal Government finds justifications for making "temporary" measures permanent.

Of course, they say it is "unsettling" when the resolutions attempt "to paint the federal government as antagonistic to the average American when, in truth, it was the American electorate that put those federal officials in charge. If Tennessee voters are unhappy with Washington's attempts to come up with, for example, health-care reform, they can talk to, or vote out, the senators and representatives whom they elected to make these decisions. The key is to have a constructive, common-sense discussion, in which state and federal officials come together to hammer out what is best for their constituencies."

Apparently, it doesn't matter that President Obama has behaved in the opposite manner from what he promised in his campaign, particularly with respect to banking, defense, and foreign policy. And yes, we still need to talk to our Congressmen and U.S. Senators. But too often, Washington becomes a brick wall when we talk to it.

State sovereignty resolutions, while of limited value, do open up a "constructive, common-sense discussion." When Administrations of both parties, over a period of twenty years, fail to listen to the needs of the American people, we need to consider an alternative approach. State sovereignty is one such alternative. And if that fails, secession is yet another.

The guest editorial, "Movement a waste of time," is by Chip Forrester, chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party (consider the source):

How in the world can she [State Rep. Susan Lynn] justify such a lame-brained piece of legislation when the state's unemployment rate exceeds 10 percent and some hard-hit counties' jobless rates hover near 20 percent? Working Tennesseans fear they may be the next ones in the unemployment line. Accordingly, many of us are cutting back on our spending, which is having a drastically adverse impact on the state's revenue.

One would hope that Rep. Lynn and like-minded lawmakers would have matured beyond this divisive, meaningless grandstanding. But it's obvious that's not the case, as too many far-right politicians and pundits are spewing alienating rhetoric daily.

Maybe because federal taxation, mandates, and NAFTA have choked our corporations and entrepreneurs so much that they can't create jobs? And who is "spewing alienating rhetoric?" We have shown that state sovereignty has benefits and potential benefits for the Left, for example, in California. The 14 Democrats in the Michigan Senate didn't have a problem with it. The French Left and many non-Marxist socialists don't have a problem with it, either.

Mr. Forrester then asserts that "most scholars and legal experts have debunked the 10th Amendment/state sovereignty movement as nothing more than a fringe group of right-wing zealots who want to disband the Internal Revenue Service and severely curtail the powers of the federal government." Such as? Of course, his assertion cannot be disproven – after all, he would not consider Walter Williams or Thomas DiLorenzo to be scholars, nor Andrew Napolitano or Robert Bork to be legal experts.

I'm all in favor of putting aside partisan politics in times of crisis – but state sovereignty is non-partisan. So, Mr. Forrester, let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Traitors to the American Revolution

Thomas DiLorenzo, author of Hamilton's Curse, has posted a long, but very interesting article at the Tenth Amendment Center showing how some of the Founding Fathers desired the kind of centralized government we have today -- which ironically would have nearly duplicated that of Britain at the time of the American Revolution.

In it, he cites a long forgotten author, John Taylor, whose New Views of the Constitution of the United States (1823) was long considered an authoritative reference on the intent of the framers.

I encourage you to read it, to gain an better understanding of the truth, so you may better refute the claims of the "living Constitution" crowd.

Oklahoma's Governor vetoes State Sovereignty Resolution

The granddaddy of them all, Oklahoma's HJR1003, passed both houses of the Oklahoma legislature, only to run into a Governor who dismissed it with this veto message:

VETO MESSAGES
HJR1003
Without question, the state of Oklahoma and its leaders support the U.S. Constitution and the rights it guarantees to the states and their citizens, and there is no need to spend valuable legislative time on a resolution expressing support for any particular amendment or constitutional right. Furthermore, HJR 1003 alleges, without offering any evidence or explanation, that past and current U.S. leaders may have violated the Constitution and committed crimes against the states and the country. HJR 1003 also implies that the state should reject federal tax dollars paid to Washington, DC, by Oklahoma citizens, an act that would prevent our tax dollars from being used in Oklahoma to address critical needs in transportation, education, health care, law enforcement, veterans programs and many other vital services beneficial to our state. In short, HJR 1003 could be detrimental to Oklahoma and does not serve the state or its citizens in any positive manner.

Needless to say, we disagree. The history of the United States since 1861 has been an almost unbroken Federal attack on the rights of the States and the people, to the point where some Constitutional scholars have been concerned that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments have become a nullity. Past and current U.S. leaders have violated the Constitution -- read any book by Judge Andrew Napolitano or Thomas DiLorenzo, and you will get a thick catalogue of violations, from Abraham Lincoln's shutting down the Maryland legislature, to the April 7th Homeland Security advisory virtually declaring dissenters against Federal overreaching to be "right wing extremists" who should be treated as terrorist sympathizers.

The Governor makes a valid point about turning down Federal stimulus money -- but has he (or anyone else) looked into the cost of maintaining Federal programs to the State treasury? Is it possible that, at least for some programs, the States would be better off designing their own solutions to problems and telling the Feds, "No, thank you"? I am not suggesting that there are many instances where this would work, but no one, to my knowledge, is even exploring the possibility!

No, Governor, HJR1003 would have served the citizens of Oklahoma in a very positive manner by telling the Feds that we have been taxed enough for purposes that have nothing to do with perfecting the union, national defense (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually endangering the national defense by promoting terrorism against the U.S. in reaction to our presence there), general welfare, and certainly not the preservation of the blessings of liberty on ourselves or our posterity!

Rep. Charles Key, however, is not taking no for an answer. He has reintroduced HJR1003 as HCR1028, which focuses on removing the Homeland Security "fusion center" there, and would be a nullification of the Federal law authorizing it. HCR1028 is a concurrent resolution that does not require gubernatorial approval.

Game not over. Stay tuned.

Virtual buckeye to AxXiom for Liberty

Quotation of the day

A bit of history from Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse (2008). I could quote the whole book, but there are copyright issues...

"Despite all the Hamiltonians' efforts, the Jeffersonians more or less prevailed for decades. The government remained relatively small and decentralized. By the mid-1850s tariff rates were as low as they would be for the entire nineteenth century, and federal subsidies for 'internal improvements' were all but nonexistent. The Bank of the United States was dismantled in the 1830s. The American banking system was dominated by state-chartered banks that issued currency backed by gold and silver on demand and that therefore did not inflate their currency beyond what their specie reserves justified. It was not a perfect system, of course, but two highly reputable economic historians, Jeffrey Hummel and Richard Timberlake, have made compelling cases that it was the most stable banking system the United States has ever had. (Emphasis DiLorenzo's)

"In short, the Hamiltonian economic agenda had been resoundingly defeated time and again. The Hamiltonians had failed to persuade many of their fellow citizens of the alleged virtues of big, centralized government that would primarily benefit the wealthy and politically connected. There was a good deal of support for this agenda in New England and parts of New York, but it was viewed with great suspicion in most other regions of the country."

Keep in mind that it was during this period that the Ohio Constitution was written (1851). While heavily amended, it is still in effect.

All right now, Democrats, pay attention:

"This all changed in the first years of the War between the States. The Republican Party, which now controlled the government, had inherited the Hamiltonian agenda from the Whigs. No one was more committed to the Hamiltonian cause than President Abraham Lincoln..."

American politics has gone downhill ever since.