Political WWJD

I have often written that my rule is "WWJD?" In spiritual matters, what would Jesus do, and in political what would Jefferson do. Here is an excellent example of an issue where I stand with Thomas Jefferson:

Here is the context:

It should be our endeavour to cultivate the peace and friendship of every nation, even of that which has injured us most, when we shall have carried our point against her. Our interest will be to throw open the doors of commerce, and to knock off all its shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the vent of whatever they may chuse to bring into our ports, and asking the same in theirs. Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is their interest to go to war. Were the money which it has cost to gain, at the close of a long war, a little town, or a little territory, the right to cut wood here, or to catch fish there, expended in improving what they already possess, in making roads, opening rivers, building ports, improving the arts, and finding employment for their idle poor, it would render them much stronger, much wealthier and happier. This I hope will be our wisdom. --- Notes on the State of Virginia (1784), chapter 22.

Virtual buckeye to Paul Attridge in Facebook, and to Kevin Puffer, his commentor, who supplied the context above.

The importance of Issue 3

Thomas Jefferson, father of nullification

I have a running argument with a friend on Facebook who sees no value to nullification; and I admit, his arguments are impressive and, from a legal standpoint, persuasive. He sent this letter to the Columbus Dispatch, which as far as I know, was not published:

Economically, Constitutionally, and Logically, Issue 3 is a lose-lose:

Regardless of your political leanings and view of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Issue 3 is a bad proposition for Ohio. The amendment would cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, result in needless litigation, and, in the end, leave us in the exact same place as now.

Throughout our 200 year history, state-level nullification of a federal law has been attempted on numerous occasions, always with the same results. The Supreme Court consistently has found that states do not have a right to ignore or override a law enacted by the federal government. (e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, Osborn v. Bank of the United States, Cooper v. Aaron). With 200 years of precedent against nullification, what makes us think that this will be any different?

This time, it won't be any different – Ohio will not be allowed to nullify the ACA. The state will spend tens of thousands of dollars, and countless man-hours, defending a losing battle. Instead of being able to 'opt out' of the ACA, we will be back where we are now, only with a loss of money and time. Issue 3, in the end, will change nothing. 

If Ohioans see Issue 3 as the end of the matter, it will change nothing; because, as my friend writes, it has no legal standing. Nullification does not repeal a federal law, no matter how unconstitutional that law may be. Whether it can stop an unconstitutional federal law within its own state depends on how the battle of wills between the people of Ohio and the federal government plays out, as I shall explain presently.

In 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which greatly restricted freedom of speech. Because of the First Amendment, the Acts were grossly unconstitutional; but there was no case to bring before the Supreme Court (before it was generally acknowledged that the Supreme Court could rule on the constitutionality of a law). Thomas Jefferson and James Madison held, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, that when all else had failed, the states had a right to prevent enforcement of an unconstitutional federal law within its boundaries. The nullification resolutions started a political uproar that led to a new President and Congress in 1800, and the prompt repeal of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In 1832, South Carolina passed a nullification ordinance against the federal tariff. President Jackson threatened force against the State of South Carolina if it attempted to block federal enforcement of the tariff. The resulting battle of wills led to a compromise, in which Congress repealed the provisions of the tariff that were most harmful to South Carolina, and South Carolina agreed to accept the amended law. 

These were two examples in which nullification succeeded, not as a legal act, but because it sent a clear signal to Congress that the acts being nullified were intolerable to the people of an entire state. In other words, nullification is not a legal act, it is a political one. There are also plenty of examples in which nullification attempts failed – because the issue being nullified was not compelling, or because the cost of upholding the nullification was greater than what the people of that state were willing to pay.

Normally, people will uphold the rule of law and use the court system when they collectively feel that the system is just and fair. In such times, nullification efforts will fail. However, when the people find that the law has become merely "an instrument of the tyrant's will" (as Thomas Jefferson wrote), then they will resort to extraordinary measures.

In American political theory, there are three political steps that can be taken when the people find that the law has turned against them:

1. They can vote the enactors of that law out in the next election, and elect a Congress that will repeal that law. But what happens when people perceive that system to be unjust, not just in the last few years, but over a generation or more?
2. They can, as Ohio's voters just did, turn to nullification, to send a strong message to the Congress that the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 is infringing on the rights of the people to make their own health care decisions. Nine other states have made the same statement. But what happens if the federal government is determined to enforce its laws over repeated nullifications, or Congress is simply tone-deaf to the people it purports to represent?
3. A state has the right to secede. Secession, like nullification, is not a legal act even though it observes a legal process. Our Founding Fathers declared independence when it found a British Parliament that was tone-deaf to the pleas of the colonists. We may be approaching a time when, having tried and failed to repeal offensive legislation or to nullify it within the states; that separating ourselves becomes the only recourse that can be initiated peacefully. We have seen instances in the last twenty years in which secession abroad has been carried out in peace; but that does not mean that any such act can be done peacefully here.

I assert the right of secession as a natural right. A good argument can also be made, based on contract law, that the Constitution of the United States is a compact between the fifty sovereign (really, sovereign) states to provide for a common defense and agreed-upon services from a servant federal government. When the federal government rejects the authority of that Constitution, the compact is broken, and the states have the right to repeal their ratification of it. 

Failing all three, there is nothing that can be done within the legal process. If the federal government is determined to suppress secession by force, then we face a situation when (again quoting Jefferson) "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants."  In other words, we would have to resort to the natural right of revolution, just as thirteen Southern states found themselves having to do 150 years ago.

The best solution is for Congress to heed the calls of the several states to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, Real ID, the USA Patriot Act, and other offensive legislation; and if it fails to do so, for the people to enact nullification ordinances all over the place until it does. But if the federal government is intent upon establishing a tyranny over us, we have the right to secede, before any of us resort to violence.

"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary…"  -- Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 2.

Update Nov. 10: This is 213th anniversary of the adoption of the Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson, against the Alien & Sedition Acts mentioned above.

Is secession legal?

This issue was posed to opposing teams of British and American lawyers, asking whether America acted legally to use the Declaration of Independence to separate from the British Empire. According to BBC Magazine, the judges found in favor of the Americans, because of the American argument that the reasoning behind the Declaration of Independence already appeared in a British document in 1688: "The English had used their own Declaration of Rights to depose James II and these acts were deemed completely lawful and justified."

I still have to wonder why, if secession was so amply justified in 1776; that the same act, under similar circumstances, has been deemed illegal and reprehensible both in 1861 and today. To me, it seems logically inconsistent.

Secession will take place in the near future, because nothing really unites the country that has taken diversity to an extreme. There are no unifying principles, religion, or language. As Patrick Buchanan wrote recently (article in the Tampa Tribune, but published nationally), we will face a "secession of the heart." We need to think about this now, while it is still possible to do so in an orderly manner.

9-11

Today marks the tenth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the crash of Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

There is only so much one can say on 9-11, so this will probably be my last post on the subject, unless something new emerges that calls for comment.

The most appropriate way to observe 9-11 is to make it a day:

• To remember the 3,100 people who died in the attacks.
• To thank the first responders in New York and Washington for risking their lives to save so many others, and to bring closure to the families of those who perished.
• To remind ourselves of the threat of terrorism, at least as long as we maintain a military presence in the far reaches of the globe. Many people scoff at the idea of "Fortress America" -- keeping our troops entirely (or almost entirely) within our own borders; but no military presence abroad can really respect the sovereignty of other nations. Those who doubt this should consider how we would react if foreign troops were stationed on our soil. Justifying our presence abroad in the face of the Golden Rule (for example, by justifying it as "American exceptionalism") is nothing more than pure arrogance on our part. Our presence abroad provides terrorists with the motivation to attack us. We have no moral obligation to protect any country except our own. Europe is (or should be) perfectly capable of defending Europe. Israel and South Korea can likewise defend themselves against any likely attackers. The simplest and most effective antidote to terrorism is to remove their motivation to attack us.
• To mourn for the lost liberty that we allowed to occur, in the false belief that it was necessary to preserve our national security. Americans need to remember that the Fourth Amendment (against unreasonable searches and seizures), the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional protections of habeas corpus*, and against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws** are absolutes. The best security for Americans is to jealously guard our liberties from our own governments, which by their nature will attack personal liberties for their convenience, or to protect favored interests.

As in past years, I refuse to be drawn into the "truther" arguments. I am not saying that the truthers are wrong -- I am saying that evidence to prove the truth either does not exist, or will remain hidden until this country experiences a revoluton, or years after most of us are dead.

Two of our Founding Fathers have given us the admonitions we most need to heed whenever we remember 9-11:

"Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty"

-- Thomas Jefferson

"The man who would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

Americans lost their liberty because the people were not vigilant; and the experience of the last ten years should show us why we are today neither free nor safe.

* Habeas corpus is the legal principle that one should not be detained by the state, except according to law -- specifically, pursuant to a court order.

** Definitions and examples of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws (scroll down just past the sentence in bold).

Platform of The Ohio Republic

Readers who have followed The Ohio Republic through more than a few posts understand the principles that guide it, but I thought it might be helpful to state it as a platform:

1. The Ohio Republic is committed to individual freedom: spiritual, political, and economic. When considering policy positions, we keep this end in mind. Our most general rule is WWJD? In spiritual matters, “what would Jesus do?” in political and economic matters, “what would Jefferson do?”
2. The Ohio Republic seeks government that is decentralist, which may be loosely defined as a system in which there is little or no federal government, little state government, and as much local government as the people desire; but accountable to the state for corruption and violations of basic human and political rights by local officials.
3. The Ohio Republic being, of course, Ohioan, seeks practical approaches to problem solving. Too often, libertarian thinkers get lost in a fantasy world created by the ideology. Solutions are not practical if they ignore political and economic realities, or if they fail to take the dark side of human nature into account.
4. The Ohio Republic specifically rejects anarchism. While government must be strictly limited, it remains necessary to protect the people from criminal use of force and from fraud. Government can promote the liberties of the people effectively and efficiently, by returning to Constitutional principles and by replacing the proactive (administrative) compliance model with a passive (judicial) model. (I shall explain this principle further in my book, Governing Ourselves, to be published later this year).
5. The Ohio Republic, consistent with its commitment to decentralism, presses the Ohio General Assembly to assert the rights of Ohioans and of our state government against unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government. If we are to protect our rights and remain in the union, we must demand that our Ohio General Assembly interpose in those instances where federal law exceeds the limits set in the United States Constitution. (This is more commonly called nullification)
6. The Ohio Republic advocates Ohio’s independence from the United States as a last resort, when all efforts to reason with the federal government through the standard political process and nullification have failed. There is no question in our mind, based on the experience of other nations, that Ohio is perfectly viable as an independent Republic; provided that its government and people have taken certain preparatory steps prior to the declaration of independence. Prominent among these are the revitalization of the organized state militia, and the establishment of a currency based on silver or gold.
7. The Ohio Republic draws on our Judeo-Christian tradition to support its emphasis on personal freedom, not to proselytize for any religious belief; but because the Bible has documented a way for a people to live in political and economic freedom, as long as the people accept individual responsibility for their own actions.

Thomas Jefferson on the Constitution

Wilton Strickland, writing for the Liberty Defense League (quoted in DumpDC), writes some observations on my favorite Founding Father writing about my favorite document. I thought it would be appropriate to share this on Constitution Day.

Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time the Constitution was being ratified. He technically could be called a Federalist to the extent that he favored ratification, in contrast with his fellow Virginians George Mason and Patrick Henry. However, he always stressed that the Constitution provided opportunities for the growth of federal power, which the people must be vigilant to prevent.

Mr. Strickland excerpts some of Mr. Jefferson's writings on the Constitution and the growth of federal government in Jefferson's lifetime. I encourage you to read the article. Here are two quotations I found particularly appropriate:

First, Mr. Jefferson calling for vigilance, and observing that secession might be the only way to preserve the liberties of the people:

[T]he States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to a lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. [Emphasis added]

And on the correct way to interpret the Constitution:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the [C]onstitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Let us pray that his observations still have some value, since the Constitution is appearing more and more to be a dead letter to the federal government. If the federal government has in fact rendered the Constitution meaningless, it has broken its compact with the states; which is, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, a sufficient reason for a state to call for secession.

Thomas Jefferson

Today is Thomas Jefferson's birthday. He, more than any other Founding Father, was jealous for the rights of the people; and his legacy has paid for that conviction. Our Establishment squirms at the thought of him. Since he did write the Declaration of Independence, he has to be honored, but those who have imperial ambitions would like to shove him over to the side. Thus, his birthday is not widely observed, and his memorial in Washington is kind of set over to the side -- not set in the Mall like those of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Those who value their liberty, however, honor his memory; because in his heart raged the fires of revolution. "I swear eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of men." Yet, his was a constructive activism. He had nothing to do with writing the Constitution (he was ambassador to France at the time) but while he had serious reservations about the Constitution, he was not an Anti-Federalist. In later years, he vocally supported the Constitution against those who would subvert it.

He didn't even want to be remembered for the fact that he was the third President of the United States; perhaps because the Louisiana Purchase and other actions tested his values.

Thomas Jefferson will not be widely honored today, but he will be two days from now, for surely his spirit infuses all of the Tea Party rallies and protests against a federal government spun out of control. He wanted that the government be afraid of the people, not the people of the government. "Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty."

Who is our role model, Jefferson or Lincoln?

Jeff Eboch at the Tenth Amendment Center explains why we can't have it both ways. Either we admire Thomas Jefferson's defense of the rights of the people, or Abraham Lincoln's defense of a union by force:

In light of these facts, no serious student of history or politics could believe that Jefferson and Lincoln possessed similar visions for America. Or that Jefferson would have condoned the violent subjugation of a single sovereign state (let alone 11 of them), or thought Lincoln’s disregard for the Constitution in any way legal or justified.

Rather, he would have known at once that what Lincoln spawned through his belligerence was a government capable of violating its own fundamental law at will; of using illegal force to prevent the governed from withdrawing voluntary consent (regardless of their motivation), and thereby destroying consent altogether. Such a government is incapable of liberty, and antithetical to the very existence of efferson’s America.

For that reason, it is not possible to truly understand, and yet still admire, the words and deeds of both men. Despite his occasional use of the Declaration’s language, Lincoln himself despised Jefferson; demonstrating by his policies that they occupied polar opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, as do their political descendants today.

Critics are coming out of the woodwork

The unionists are getting scared. I have seen a growing number of blog posts and articles sharply critical of secession and nullification. For some reason, they came out in force today. Here is a sampling from today’s Google alerts on secession:

“Secessionist talk is unpatriotic”

Here’s one for you, Old Rebel: The Crimson White, student newspaper at the University of Alabama, asserts that “secessionist talk is unpatriotic.” The writer, Jonathan Reed, took a look at the secessionist discussions taking place in the Texas gubernatorial campaign, and called them “frightening.” When Debra Medina quoted Thomas Jefferson’s “the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots,” Mr. Reed concluded that the “tyrants” were all of us as Americans. “They’re our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. They’re people who work 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., watch college football and go to church.” Mr. Reed characterizes “patriots” as “people who believe in America until it raises their taxes.”

He adds:

There was once a day when patriots fought and died for one America. Not just for the land and the people, but for the idea that democracy, despite its occasional faults, can make the nation as a whole work for everyone. When we think of patriots dying in a bloody war, we don’t think of them as fighting for freedom from a government that was fairly elected by a majority of the people, we think of them as fighting against tyrants who threaten people’s essential life and liberties and who offer the people no other recourse.

Mr. Reed, everyone I know in the liberty movement also believes that we should work to make the nation as a whole work for everyone; but, as Sebastian Ronin says, "The free election of the masters by the slaves does not eliminate the master-slave relationship." The federal government is not democratic; it is kleptocratic (best government money can buy) with a thin democratic veneer.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is knowing when loyalty to the nation becomes contrary to loyalty to the principles on which that nation was founded. We have tried reform for 40 years, and we have failed. The disease of tyranny calls for stronger medicine, so we are working on nullification, and if that fails, secession.

“The Lefty Republic of Vermont”

This one is unusual, in that the writer does not object to secession per se, but to the fact that secession can promote liberal ideals as well as conservative ones. The blog, Thoughtcrime, sounds a little too Justus Twp. white supremacist and anti-Semitic to suit me, and the writer admits that he is a bit envious of the recent article in Time about Vermont's secessionist slate. Unfortunately, he adopts the liberal tactic of namecalling:

The Vermont secession campaign is run by a bunch of hippie-dippy 60s retreads, Jewish and liberal academic types in turtle-neck sweaters and sports jackets with patches on the elbows who drink glasses of Chardonnay in lefty natters at cocktail parties in Burlington and Montpelier… The Northwest Front is frozen out, as for that matter are the libertarian secessionists in New Hampshire and the Christian fundamentalists in South Carolina. Nonetheless, when the topic of secession is found in the pages of Time, truly one of the pillars of the mainstream media, it means that secession is being taken seriously.

I have my differences with the Second Vermont Republic, but if I cannot live in a Republic of Ohio, I would rather cast my lot with the “hippy-dippy 60s retreads” than with the mountain men in the “Northwest Front.” I guess it’s a cultural thing. Or maybe because I have lived in a state that has had an ethnically and racially diverse population for many years, I don’t feel threatened by it.


"The Palin Doctrine: Lie"

Okay, here we go again. The blog What They’re Feeding Me is pulling out the old Todd Palin was a secessionist, therefore we can’t trust Sarah argument. I'm not sure I can trust Sarah, either, but not for this reason. The author, Shawn Gray-Fleek, begins by asserting “Todd Palin, known secessionist, was the real governor of Alaska…” He accuses Sarah of trying, and failing, to cover up the fact that Todd was a secessionist. Now if Sarah was so embarrassed by Todd’s secessionism, why did she speak to the Alaska Independence Party?

Anyway, Mr. Gray-Fleek has nothing but contempt for secessionism, calling it “an utmost disrespect for the law of the land” (emphasis his). For him, secessionism is based on what he calls The Big Lie:

The Big Lie is that the “government is the problem.” Why would you elect a person to an office they [you?] don’t respect? Reagan will [will? President Reagan died in 2004, or didn’t he get the memo?] project annoyance at a nation left to us by wiser folks than any of us dummies. Reagan will claim a down-home attitude, at its heart the nationalist impulse. It will be the crucial test of Sarah Palin’s Shadow Presidency if she makes any sort of "decisions,” in her Shadow State of the Union, since she holds no office currently. If she says “we should destroy the government” who is she suggesting do this? Teabaggers in the room, people watching aghast on Fox News? Sponsors are paying her $100,000. She’s helping the wealthy keep so much more. Perhaps they will “secede” in name only, simply start their own social contract and move to Texas or something. They want to destroy a democracy that the world admires for the selfish interests of the wealthy. [Emphasis in the original]

Now, the truth is coming out. Mr. Gray-Fleek’s animus against secession is deeply rooted in socialist rhetoric, as evidenced by his last sentence. The liberty movement, which includes, but is not limited to the Tea Parties, is more united on the reverse of what he wrote. That is, we want to destroy an empire that has catered to the selfish interests of the wealthy in order to restore democracies that the world will come to admire. Secessionism is not the same as anarchy (and believe me, I am no anarchist, to the consternation of some of my Libertarian friends). Most secessionists do not seek to abolish government, but to make it more accountable to the people by reducing government to a human scale.

Mr. Gray-Fleek does raise some legitimate concerns, particularly about the environment. If we believe that government exists to protect us, then environmental protection is part of the package – but there are right and wrong ways to protect the environment. Without bringing up that whole can of worms again, let me just suggest two ways the environment can be much more efficiently protected: (1) Develop and apply an accounting model to ensure that environmental costs are paid by those who make the messes; and (2) in place of an activist model where the government insists on compliance reporting, develop a more passive model that facilitates lawsuits against polluters.

Mr. Gray-Fleek continues:

The big lie will be repeated endlessly: the government is your enemy. This is primarily why people don’t vote, is the Big Lie. They are scared of government. If only the people would realize they could get the government they all secretly agree they want, a fiscally conservative but socially liberal one where all of us can be our religion or sexuality and smoke our dope and stroke our gun. If
all of us voted, we’d have that government. [Emphasis in the original]

People aren’t scared of government, they’re frustrated with it. We realize now that we can’t get the federal government we “secretly all want” for two reasons – the moneyed interests that control the Congress and the Presidency won’t let us, and what we “secretly all want” varies from state to state. Vermonters want to be “localvores” (supporters of local agriculture and simple living), the Confederates want to restore their Southern culture, and the mountain men just want to be left alone as mountain men have always wanted to be left alone. Here in Ohio, we just want to regain control of our state government and have the ability to budget our resources in the most rational way, free from federal interference. We are convinced that we can run state government much more efficiently than the feds can, with lower taxes and better services.

Mr. Gray-Fleek continues, "Health care saves money and makes sense to everyone but the Teabaggers, who believe the lie." Then why does a recent poll (Jan. 29-31) show that only 36% of Americans favor the health care proposal? Or is democracy only valid when it supports Mr. Gray-Fleek’s agenda?

The big lie turns the people into cynics. 'What’s the point of voting?' they will say. Then Reagan will come along and inspire them to do something stupid, like vote in favor of the lie.

The point of voting is to steer government in the direction that the people want. When government repeatedly ignores the will of the people by bailing out banks that should have been allowed to collapse, engaging in foreign wars that have nothing to do with our national security, and spending trillions of dollars we don’t have in a way that threatens to wipe out our life savings through hyperinflation and cause the collapse of Social Security and Medicare, the people have the right – in fact, the moral obligation to themselves and their posterity – to correct the evil that is confronting them.’’

Thomas Jefferson would have accepted nothing less.

Secession rally held in South Carolina

This Freedom Rally, held in Columbia Jan. 9, even passed under the radar screen of the usually-alert Rebellion. According to the source, It's My Blog, about 2,000 people attended in the unusually cold weather that battered the South earlier this month.

The photos taken are particularly interesting. Here's my favorite, with It's My Blog's comment:

These guys have the right idea. A lot of the speeches today were about state sovereignty and the fact that the federal government has overstepped its bounds, so we need to "pass resolutions to assert the 10th Amendment." Well, I have news for those people: the tyrant Abraham Lincoln nullified the 10th Amendment. The only way we are going to get out form under the oppressive burden of the federal government is to secede. As Thomas Jefferson said, it is both our right and our obligation to do so.

Quotation of the day

"Thoroughly vet those who preach conservatism this election year. Are they walking the walk? Does their record match their rhetoric? Are they merely trying to ride the coattails of a popular mass opposition to socialism? If so call them out, no matter who they are."

-- Michael Wolfe, Jefferson Democrat for Congress in the 15th District Ohio

Virtual buckeye to Terri Cain Owens.

Secession: Freedom's Greatest Ally

David Kretzmann at Freedom Chatter has been reading a subversive book by Thomas Woods: 33 Questions About American History That You're Not Supposed to Ask. He comes up with a stunning revelation -- the War between the States was not about slavery!

He quotes a letter from British Lord Acton, who was the leading libertarian of his day, to Robert E. Lee:

I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy.

I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our
progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo. — Lord Acton (Emphasis added by Mr. Kretzmann.)

Mr. Kretzmann includes quotations of Abraham Lincoln, familiar to most readers of this blog, about the purpose of that war being the preservation of the Union at all costs.

He then observes:

Today many find the idea of secession immoral and totally unacceptable largely based on what they learn about the Civil War in school. Textbooks and teachers are quick to blast the South’s secession, yet they omit the fact that the U.S. itself exists because we attempted to peacefully secede from Great Britain.

Secession is perhaps the greatest weapon of peace against a tyrannical, centralized authority. Without the possibility of state secession or nullification, what does the federal government have working against its power? As Thomas Jefferson stated, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” How can the states, and the people thereof, possibly resist that “natural progress” of government expansion if they are forcefully bound within a central government that may not serve their interests, and possibly even works against them?

How, indeed? Recently, I have been emphasizing that secession is a last resort. The legislative program I recommended yesterday has two purposes: First and foremost, to preserve the Union as it was intended by our Founding Fathers -- but failing that, to help prepare Ohio for life as an independent nation.

Daniel Webster, in his Second Reply to Hayne (1830), called for "liberty and union, now and forevermore, one and inseparable." That's fine, but when liberty and union work to cross-purposes, liberty must prevail.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself

Restoring Freedom to Ohio: Part 1 of 3

I am no admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His approach to resolving the Great Depression compounded the damage to the Constitution that Abraham Lincoln began, and the events of 1913 worsened. However, as with Abraham Lincoln, President Roosevelt made some valid observations about the conditions in the country in 1933, which apply to us as well. The following is a large excerpt from his first inaugural address:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers
her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated.

Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.

True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.*

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must
be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men. Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Unfortunately, the remainder of the speech outlines the approach he would use – further centralization of power – which has come to exacerbate the very problems President Roosevelt was purporting to resolve.

His diagnosis of the problem, however, is spot on. We are afraid. We have been manipulated into fear by those who have built a mighty military and the foundations for a future police state, scaring us with ghosts of their own making. Through materialism, they have made us dependent on that which can never satisfy, and they expand their power by threatening to take our stuff and our savings away from us. The threat is not idle. Within the next year, a hyperinflation is likely to begin that will reduce our life's savings to almost nothing. If you do not now hold any gold or silver, buy some now, even if you have to sell something to get it!

We have lost our sense of thrill in creative effort and in our relationships with our communities. Deep down, most of us are lonely and unhappy, and don't understand why. Part of our unhappiness is the spiritual void I discussed last Thursday, but the roots of our discontent are much broader than that.

We are beginning to realize that, like Esau in the Bible, we have traded our birthright for a bowl of soup.** We have traded our essential liberties for a little temporary safety,*** and now, finally, we see that we've been had. The Nation asks for action, and action now; but Washington is so corrupt that they no longer care what action we want; and the game is so fixed that it doesn't matter whether the winners du jour are Democrats or Republicans.

Our nation has already educated a generation to be compliant slaves to the collectivist handlers, and is refining its techniques to further enslave the following generation, even to the point of burdening college graduates with debts in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, at a time when they are least able to pay them back. In so doing, we have committed adultery: not only in the usual sense of sexually corrupting ourselves and our families; but by accepting adulterated food and debased money. We have replaced education – learning how to think – with indoctrination – teaching what to think. We have even allowed science, once the bedrock of independent inquiry, to become a prostitute to service the favored political classes.

In an earlier day, we could have relied on a free press to expose this corruption and advocate for reform – but today's purveyors of mass media have bought into the corrupt system. Oh, a few brave souls continue to speak out – the Glenn Becks, the Mark Levins, the Lou Dobbs; and on the Internet the Lew Rockwells, but the corrupted easily persuade the compliant that those who speak the truth are rightist wingnuts.

Is there really no way out? Has the circle closed around us? In 1974, Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn asked himself the same question. He diagnosed his problem, and our problem, as a willingness to participate in lies. He reached deeply within himself to discover that those who will take the risks to stand out and expose those lies will eventually destroy them. If you have not read his essay "Live Not by Lies," I urge you to do so! The tone of the essay is gloomy, but the end is inspiring:

A great people of Europe, the Czechoslovaks, whom [the Soviets] betrayed and deceived: Haven't they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it? [Solzhenitsyn is referring to the Soviet invasion ending the "Prague Spring," August 21, 1968.]

You say it will not be easy [to live the truth]? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. No, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wait, and our
brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read [that] our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of [Russian poet Alexander] Pushkin should be directed to us:

"Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom? Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash."

In Part 2 on Wednesday, I shall discuss the challenge facing the liberty movement.

* Proverbs 29:15 – one of my favorite Bible verses.
** Genesis 25:29-34.
*** "Those who would exchange essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Thomas Jefferson.

Top ten reasons the Founding Fathers would do it over again today

From Matt Bianco's blog, The Bound Dragon:

Some of the same reasons Thomas Jefferson enumerated in his Declaration of Independence and for which the Founding Fathers who signed it declared independence from Great Britain and King George III’s rule in 1776 apply today to the current United States Government. And for these, the Founding Fathers would again declare independence, they are: [The Declaration of Independence is shown in roman, Matt's comments in italic.]

1. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. The U.S. government has forbidden the States to govern as their citizens demand by withholding Federal funding which was unnecessarily taken from the States to begin with.

2. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. It passes the laws it wants, against the desires of the people and the mandates of the Constitution, and it does so by promising money to specific bodies of people at the expense of the rest.

3. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. It has attempted to manipulate the employment market by preventing Foreigners from migrating hither and competing for jobs; thereby preventing Employers, in the employment of their private property, from freely entering into contract with Employees as they choose. [I partially disagree with Matt here. Society has the right to protect its institutions from cultural change resulting from immigration of persons having contrary values].

4. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. We have a multitude of Offices that are unconstitutional and used to harass our people, including but not limited to the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, and the Internal Revenue Service.

5. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. Standing Armies are a natural part of our society since World War II, and the result, predicted by the Founding Fathers, is that we have troops stationed in over 150 countries without the Consent of their legislatures in some, and have been involved in numerous wars, conflicts, nation-building projects, and peacekeeping missions since then.

6. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation. We find ourselves subject to the whims of the United Nations, NATO, and a variety of other treaties; not yet among them but coming soon: Copenhagen.

7. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world. American free trade is hampered, not helped, by treaties like GATT and NAFTA; additionally, we find our government furthering harming our trade with protective tariffs against items like sugar and Chinese tires.

8. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. Taxes aren’t just imposed on us without our consent, like the up and coming Cap and Trade tax, but hidden from us through inflation and raised without our consent.

9. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. This is especially true as the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended, and not only foreigners but Americans with them have been held without a trial in the name of national defense.

10. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Americans, upset with the current course of his nation, have petitioned our government through signatures, rallies, protests, telephone communications, e-mails, faxes, and most recently through their own state legislatures with the passage of tenth amendment resolutions only to be answered by repeated injury: acts which define a Tyrant.

Smoke and mirrors

Has anyone else noticed how the mainstream media have been running cycles of news around the topics of the H1N1 virus, health care, Afghanistan, and the economy? Several writers in the libertarian blogosphere have been warning that when the media hypes up one topic, we need to pay attention to what is really going on with the others.

While we talked about the H1N1 virus, Congress was marking up the health care bills. While the media hyped the health care crisis, President Obama was considering troop increases in Afghanistan. While the media hyped Afghanistan/Pakistan, the stock market rose (which I believe will be only temporary). And when the stock market hit 10,000 -- who knows what's going on in one of the other fronts?

Obviously, there is movement on all four fronts, and news will be reported as it occurs. My point is that the media do not care to investigate or analyze anything. Instead, it seems to be more in their interest to use one topic to conceal what is going on in another.

Since we cannot trust the mainstream media, we have to put more effort into understanding what is really going on.

"Eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

Liberty and Union?

Dan Woodard at Fort Worth Business Press doesn’t think much of secession:

“I can think of no more un-American act or deed than for a governor to utter the word ‘secession.’ I would urge any Governor or any citizen with secession on his/her mind to read Daniel Webster’s stirring speech to the United States Senate on March 7, 1850. That’s when orators made great speeches – and without teleprompters.”

Now, I respect Daniel Webster as a great Senator and great orator. When I was in high school, I entered speech contests reciting his Second Reply to Hayne (1830), which ends with the famous words, “Liberty and Union, now and forevermore, one and inseparable! I have great respect for the lessons of history; but lessons are meant to be applied to the present reality. When Sen. Webster delivered this speech, the United States was in its golden age. Except for the slaves in the South, the people were free. The Federal Government generally did not interfere in the government of the States. Enterprise was truly free – if you had a good idea, there were few barriers to carrying it out. The year after Sen. Webster’s speech, Ohio adopted its second, and present, Constitution, which contains a bill of rights far superior even to that of the United States Constitution.

Let’s take a look at part of the speech Mr. Woodard quotes:

“Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers and our grandfathers would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is every day felt among us with
so much joy and gratitude…”

Why, Mr. Woodard, our ancestors would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation persisted in honoring an ensign of the power of a government that has forgotten its principal purpose -- the preservation of our liberties! Surely, Thomas Jefferson would not approve of a Federal Government that continues to expand its control over every State and every individual! Perhaps Mr. Woodard should re-read the Declaration of Independence and compare the grievances the American colonists had with King George III with those we have against the Federal Government today.

“No monarchical throne presses these States together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last for ever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man’s liberty; it has crushed no State. Its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism.”

What presses these States together is not a monarchical throne, but an imperial Presidency. A chain of military power does encircle us (ever hear of the Northern Command?). The Federal Government may remain “popular in its form,” but it represents only those who can afford to buy their elected officials with campaign donations. In recent history, it has ceased to benefit those who support it (or agree to be robbed) with their taxes; since 9/11 it is systematically trodding down every man’s liberty. It is crushing the States with unfunded mandates and false promises of “stimulus” funds.

If we can again join Liberty with Union, I will cheerfully put down my secessionist mantle. I support the State sovereignty resolutions in the faint hope that an awakened public will restore that which we have lost; but with each new pronouncement of the President and each new Act of Congress, I lose confidence that this can occur.

How can we invoke Sen. Webster’s memory at a time when liberty and union are turning into contradictory notions? This Saturday, we honor the secession of the thirteen United States from the British Empire. Now, pray tell me, how would we honor our Founding Fathers if we insist on maintaining the American Empire at the expense of the liberty they fought for?

Ohio House committee holds first hearing on HCR 11

The Ohio House State Government Committee held its first hearing on the Ohio State sovereignty resolution (HCR 11) Wednesday afternoon. By custom, the first hearing is usually reserved for testimony from the cosponsors. HCR 11's cosponsors, Reps. Kris Jordan (R-Delaware) and Jarrod Martin (R-Beavercreek) gave testimony in support of the resolution.

Rep. Martin discussed the Constitutional basis for the Tenth Amendment, and cited the No Child Left Behind Act, REAL ID, and a proposed transfer of terrorists from Guantánamo to Ohio as examples of how the Federal government has ignored the Tenth Amendment. He emphasized the non-partisan, non-secessionist nature of the resolution. Kris Jordan followed by noting that 35 other states have done the same, and by discussing a quotation of Thomas Jefferson, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Rep. Matt Lundy (D-Avon Lake) asked both Representatives how Ohioans fear the Federal government, how liberties have been chipped away. The essence of Rep. Martin's answer was that Americans are fearful due to economic concerns, and that rights have been chipped away by Federal planning.

Rep. Lundy asked what Ohioans should do. Rep. Jordan answered that we should support HCR 11 and other language in support of sovereignty, then adopt State policies that implement these.

Rep. Lundy noted that Texas had put in stronger language -- why did we leave the secessionist language out? If there is greater Federal intervention, would Rep. Martin entertain the idea of secession? Rep. Martin's reply: "People aren't carrying pitchforks -- that kind of talk takes us out of serious debate, and we need serious debate on this issue."

Then Rep. Dale Mallory (D-Cincinnati), noting that Reps. Jordan and Martin had appealed so much to history, asked who George Washington's troops were fighting when they crossed the Delaware. The answer was that both Representatives were educated in the public schools and did not know the answer. (It was a trick question: the Hessians, British allies, were across the river).

It is hard to tell whether the testimony had any influence on the Democratic majority on the committee. On the one hand, the questions were more neutral than I expected. I thought that Rep. Lundy's question on secession was an effective ploy, brilliantly countered by Rep. Martin.

It will take considerable pressure by supporters of HCR 11, particularly in the districts held by the Democratic members, to secure a second hearing. Supporters (regardless of district) need to flood the Committee members with e-mails, letters, and phone calls in support of the resolution! Here is contact information for the House State Government Committee.

When ideology supersedes country...

... there may be a good reason.

I am completing a bit of unfinished business following the April 15 Tea Parties and the fallout from Texas Gov. Rick Perry's statements on secession. Specifically, I would like to help Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., deal with his "jolt of unrecognition, that instant of worry for the state -- and future -- of the Union." Mr. Pitts' writing is worthy of respect. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2004, and his concerns for the Union reflect those of many Americans today. He deserves a thoughtful response, which I hope this post will provide.

Gov. Perry, at a Texas Tea Party said,

"When we [Texas] came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we should be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pay attention. We've got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?"

That remark struck Mr. Pitts as "surreal." He considers it "borderline traitorous" that a Governor of Texas (as opposed to a "yahoo from some group of gun-toting goobers") would make such a statement. From his perspective, it appears to be a case of the losing party in an election wanting out for ideological reasons.

"Country, after all," he writes, "is supposed to be that which pulls us together after everything else -- politics, race, religion -- has pulled us apart." This is a noble sentiment, and in different times, I would agree with him; but the issues raised at the Tea Parties, and which Gov. Perry is addressing, run much deeper than mere political posturing. They run to the very core of our being as a nation.

The title of this post is the one originally assigned to Mr. Pitts' column by the Miami Herald. The Columbus Dispatch attached a different headline, "Whatever happened to putting one's country first?" Secessionism is gaining strength, because the United States of America no longer has a Federal government dedicated to the purpose established for it in the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Forming a more perfect union" was achieved with the ratification of the Constitution by nine States. Consolidation into a single national government is not perfecting the union, it is abolishing it from the top.

"Establish justice"? This blog is full of reports of Federal abuse of the justice system.

"Insure domestic tranquility"? You may establish law and order at the end of a gun, but domestic tranquility means more than that. Domestic tranquility is the ability to go about your business secure in your knowledge of what is right and wrong according to the law.

"Provide for the common defense"? Can you honestly say that terrorism would be a threat if the United States did not have a military presence in the Middle East? Even if you wish to be so crude as to suggest that oil is indispensible to us we can stop purchasing it from the Arabs. There are fields we can still develop, and there are alternative sources of supply. My point is, were it not for our presence in the Middle East, radical terrorists would have no motivation to attack us. Eliminating their motivation strikes me as a much more effective defense strategy than the one we are currently pursuing.

"Promote the general welfare"? Dependence on government is not welfare. Enabling the economy to work with minimal governmental regulation lets the free market do the heavy lifting to ensure the prosperity of all of us.

"Secure the blessings of liberty"? Clearly, the record since at least 2001 has shown the Feds moving in the opposite direction.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from consent of the governed -- that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, 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." (Emphasis added).

Mr. Pitts, there are times in history when unconditional loyalty is dangerous. Consider where we would be if the Thirteen Colonies decided to put King and Country first. Consider how different the world might have been if the Germans in the 1930s had decided that there were values higher than country.

Our founding fathers taught us that loyalty should be conditional. If the Federal government acts in our interest, we will respond with deep and enthusiastic loyalty. If it does not, and all other means of asserting our will fail, then we have an obligation to ourselves and our posterity to institute new government. We may decide that the problem was that governmental power is too big and too distant to keep us safe and happy, and if that is the case -- and many of us are convinced it is the case -- then secession is a peaceful remedy that gives the greatest respect to the rule of law. The only alternative is violent revolution. I, for one, would prefer not to annihilate myself and a large percentage of my countrymen in its pursuit.

Attend the April 15 Tea Party in your area!

For the uninitiated, a “tea party” is a protest against excessive taxation and government. It is usually advisable to bring tea bags as part of the protest.

Cleveland
4-6 pm (note corrected time) – Mall C, downtown Cleveland.

Columbus
9:00-12:30 – Tea Party and March, in support of HCR 11 and the Honest Money Initiative; beginning at Columbus Metropolitan Library, 90 S. Grant St., March to Statehouse. Bring lunch, signs, and tea bags.

6 pm – Americans for Prosperity Tea Party Tax Protest, Statehouse.

Findlay
8-5 – Tea Party in front of the Post Office.

Jefferson
11 am – Ron Paul Campaign for Liberty Tea Party, Ashtabula County Courthouse.

Medina
4-6 – American Voices for Liberty Tea Party and Tax Protest, Medina Public Square

Steubenville
3-4 – Jefferson County Courthouse.

Here are lots more! Attend one in your area, and let everyone know where you stand!

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 4/2

Rep. Jonathan Miller (R) introduced HCR 49 to the West Virginia Legislature Mar. 27. While generally modeled on Oklahoma's, it includes three unique paragraphs in the Whereases:

"Whereas, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as one of America's most valuable contributions to political science; and

"Whereas, James Madison, 'The father of the Constitution,' said, 'The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people'; and

Whereas, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not 'subordinate' to the national government, but rather the two are 'coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government';"