Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Independent site says "States' rights movement sweeping across America"

Submitted by rjforpaul on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 07:54
in
0 votes

http://caivn.org/article/2010/03/19/states-rights-movement-s...

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

States and Nations

Submitted by rlcmcallen on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:23.

STATE properly understood, especially in the context of our founding documents, is synonymous with NATION.

When the Declaration of Independence says that the colonies ought to be "free and independent states" it meant national sovereignty for each one.

When the British Crown made its peace treaty ending the War of Independence, it made it with each state, separately.

Young people today do not understand the historical, and still valid meaning of the word STATE. The current usage as defining a political subdivision of a national government is a result of the erosion of the powers of individual U.S. states over the years.

If you read libertarian books, you will learn quickly that when they talk about "state socialism" for instance, they mean it in the context of the U.S. Federal Government, or some other national government.

Also, we have a Federal Government, not a national government for the same reason. We were founded as a federation of sovereign states, not as a homogenized single nation. That came later, starting with Lincoln.

The ultimate States' rights movement would be abolition of the

Submitted by Henry on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 15:40.

federal government.

I'd vote for that.

Only problem is that we would still have too much government at the State and local level, but at least the fight for freedom would have a better chance.

—

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley

That is impossible

Submitted by Mohusk on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 16:21.

To do that, the states would all need to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Thus, they would no longer be "states" of the union. If you want each state to become a nation on its own, or to form new federations, that is possible and I can't argue with the logic.

I personally think that if the federal government was put back in its Constitutional form, we would have a kick-ass nation to be proud of.

—

www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."

Independent states can

Submitted by R_Michael on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 17:58.

Independent states can regroup (in some sizable number, I would imagine) and re-assert Constitutional limits on the Federal Government.

All this talk about the state laws not standing in federal court is a bunch of crap from the get go. If the states, based on Constitutional parameters, reject Federal laws that usurp the Constitution, then there is no reason for them to accept federal court rulings that also usurp the Constitution. Of course there is the thorny issue of who is supposed to have the authority to interpret the Constitution.. which, according to the constitution, is the federal courts. Still, there is no way the federal government can stem the tide of 10 or more states which reject their proclaimed authority, and refuse to cooperate.

At least the first 13 were States before the Articles.

Submitted by Henry on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 16:58.

It was they who wrote and ratified the Articles. The Articles could not be amended without a unanimous vote of these 13 States.

Interestingly the State governments did NOT ratify the Constitution. Rhode Island did not even send a delegate to the Convention. In violation of the Articles, the Convention created a document which only required 9 of the 13 to ratify it. And even more important, they did not send the Constitution to the State governments for ratification. Rather they called for Conventions in each State to ratify it, and the delegates to these Conventions were not elected themselves. In other words, the lawful authority of the States was circumvented.

So for the existing States or some number of them to abandon the federal government would be at least as possible as was the questionable creation of the Constitution.

It certainly would be a better result for the States to abandon the federal government in a peaceful manner (like the USSR came to an end) than for us to fight a revolution against the federal government, which is the only other viable solution I see. Certainly freedom is not going to be restored at the ballot box or by begging our masters to give up their headlong rush into totalitarianism.

When Americans of ALL stripes come to believe that their nation is corrupt/evil without the possibility of redemption many things now thought impossible will come.

—

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley

Bump

Submitted by bravoseis on Sun, 03/21/2010 - 15:25.

For the 10th

—

“The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had." - Eric Schmidt

Bump

Submitted by rjforpaul on Fri, 03/19/2010 - 10:26.

for liberty