Faced with runaway deficit spending and a potentially abusive federal government, states are finally trying to assert their rights.
You may not have heard much about it, but there's a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty in America and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Jason J. Campbell
Thanks Cindy :) I couldn't resist the state sovereignty argument...too intriguing to pass on.
27 - Mooja
I read the article twice and can't find a link to the NH so though i'd add it here.
I couldn't agree more with the intent of the bill.
28 - Baritone
Dave,
Yeah, the nuts and bolts. Many of those services are provided in whole or in part via Federal funding, without which many of them would be severely curtailed or disappear entirely. A few years ago Indianapolis received money via a federal grant to hire 200 additional police personnel. About 3 years later, the grant had run its course, but the state failed to pick up the slack. The result being that most of those 200 were summarily laid off.
State, city and other local government entities have long been targets of and vehicles for fraud and corruption that put most of the shenanigans at the Federal level to shame. The "good ole boy" network remains alive and well in many states, cities and towns across the country.
B
29 - Dave Nalle
A few years ago Indianapolis received money via a federal grant to hire 200 additional police personnel. About 3 years later, the grant had run its course, but the state failed to pick up the slack. The result being that most of those 200 were summarily laid off.
This is exactly the problem. The federal government pushes these programs on the states and then the states are stuck with them and can't afford to maintain them. In many cases they can't cut the program and are forced to find money somewhere to pay for programs they can't afford.
Dave
30 - Baritone
Well, wait a minute. It is the city of Indianapolis that sought this grant from the Feds. The city knew it was not a permanent deal, that they would have to find the funds to continue it after the 3 years the grant covered. Neither the city nor the state had the wherewithal to fund the additional boys (and girls) in blue. So who dropped the ball here?
B
31 - Dave Nalle
Hey, I never said local government was without fault. You would think that if they knew the money was going to run out they would have hired fewer cops for a longer period for the same money, but then I'm not a 6-figure a year city manager.
Dave
32 - Deborah
I really liked your article, and find that many of the negative comments on here are silly and resort to name-calling instead of logic.
Thank you for posting this!
33 - Cindy D
Dave,
They are sensible in that they realize that if we don't protect the rights of the rich, we will not protect their right to become rich or to generally profit from the fruits of their labor.
They don't need to become rich Dave. And likely they won't. That is nothing but a carrot dangled to keep everyone believing in the American dream.
And, by the way, what does that have to do with the landowners having a share in the government--to support the interests of the rich and check the interests of everyone else. That is what Madison said.
34 - Brunelleschi
I am so good, I shall quote myself-
"The right sees problems coming from people making less than they do. It's always the fault of the people they perceive as below them on food chain.
The left sees problems coming from people making more than they do. It's always the fault of people they perceive as above them on the food chain."
I think this explains where Dave is always coming from.
35 - Dave Nalle
Gibberish as usual, Bruni. I don't see the poor or the rich as problems. I see them as people. I don't think in terms of groups. I try to look for answers to problems which will address the needs of all people regardless of race, religion, wealth or poverty.
As I alluded to earlier with Cindy, policies which are designed to benefit everyone in society will inevitably benefit the rich as well as the poor and those of moderate means, but I'd rather have equitable policies which can benefit all than policies which single out one group for punishment and another for special privileges.
And Cindy, as far as landowners say in government, Madison's argument makes perfect sense. Those who contribute to government and who are more subject to the dictates of government ought to have more of a say in how that government operates. If you are poor and pay no taxes and own no property you have very little at risk when government makes decisions. Thus, you should have little say in government. But if you own property and have wealth and are likely to be the main target of taxation and government regulation, then you ought to have a voice in how that government sets policy.
Dave
36 - pablo
A much more cogent and articulate article on this subject can be found here:
Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty
Interestingly this article is written by Kurt Nimmo who works for Alex Jones and is hosted on infowars.com. Note also that the author did not mention the ninth amendment as Nalle did, which is a red herring.
37 - Brunelleschi
Dave-
Your posts and your defense above are contradictory, you just don't realize it due to "I am right" syndrome.
Nice speech though.
38 - Clavos
From Pablito's paranoia link:
Sadly, far too many Americans are woefully ignorant when it comes to understanding their rights and the Constitution. As Gary Alder notes in his “15 Key Principles of the Founding Fathers,” the “9th and 10th Amendments are the keystones to preserving Freedom.”
Hm...
39 - Dave Nalle
Pablo, not only is the article you cite linked to in my article as an example of one of those who is overstating the extent of this movement, but as Clavos points out, he makes the exact same reference to the 9th amendment, based on a quote from Adler, rather than on a quote from Madison and one of the bills, as I do. So I guess "red herrings" are everywhere.
And Bruni, my comment is on a different subject from the article. Reconciling them is going to be challenging, but feel free to fret about it until you go mad.
Dave
40 - pablo
38 and 39
Yes I goofed, jumped the gun as it were.
41 - Roger Nowosielski
That's my man, Pablo. I wonder how many others in the BC community would openly admit to having made a mistake.
42 - zingzing
dave: "If you are poor and pay no taxes and own no property you have very little at risk when government makes decisions. Thus, you should have little say in government. But if you own property and have wealth and are likely to be the main target of taxation and government regulation, then you ought to have a voice in how that government sets policy."
ahh, you mean like how we used to treat slaves and women... righto.
what you describe is just how it works already, really. and that's how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. the rich set the policy, fucking over the poor and there ya go.
lovely, isn't it.
43 - Roger Nowosielski
"If you are poor and pay no taxes and own no property you have very little at risk when government makes decisions. Thus, you should have little say in government. But if you own property and have wealth and are likely to be the main target of taxation and government regulation, then you ought to have a voice in how that government sets policy."
This brings us back to 1787. Which explains many people's thinking.
44 - Brunelleschi
#43-
No kidding. Dave is still writing 6th grade term papers, and the teacher and the rest of the class are laughing their asses off.
That was just unfuckingbelievable.
I really would pay money to see the GOP post that as policy!
45 - Roger Nowosielski
I don't think they'd dare to. Of course our good ole friend Rush would jump at the opportunity.
46 - Brunelleschi
If you could teach a parrot to say that, what would you call it?
:)
47 - Roger Nowosielski
I think our Founding Fathers - bless their soul - would turn in their grave. I sincerely believe they were allowing for openneess when they drafted the document. Little did they know that 250 years later they'd be held to the exact form of their words and meaning.
48 - Dave Nalle
Roger, you can make up anything you like about the founding fathers. Lots of people are already engaged in that sort of historical revisionism. I'm sure you'll enjoy being in the company of the "christian nation" theorists of the religious right.
Fortunately the founding fathers left behind lots and lots of documentation beyond just the Constitution itself to tell us exactly what they were thinking at the time, and my interpretation, which Bruni would like to dismiss because he has no real response to it [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] is supported by their writings.
You should read Madison's account of the debates at the Constitutional Convention. It's a revelation.
To quote one of the delegates:
Dave
49 - Roger Nowosielski
Stand corrected, then, until further notice.
50 - Cindy D
what you describe is just how it works already, really. and that's how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. the rich set the policy, fucking over the poor and there ya go.
I though Dave was for freedom and liberty. Dave is for freedom and liberty for the rich. If you don't own property you don't count.
51 - Roger Nowosielski
Or that the Constitutional Amendments we had had since - regarding universal suffrage and the like - were grossly misguided.
52 - Mark Ed(en)
We all own property these days - our labor...therefore the necessary inconvenience of universal suffrage.
53 - Cindy D
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government to support these invaluable interests and check the other many. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." -James Madison
And check the other many. That is saying what you value Dave is more important than what another human being values. That's not liberty Dave.
If you don't say all human beings all have a right to liberty. Then you can't be for freedom.
54 - Cindy D
Some people don't own the right kind of property, I guess, Mark.
55 - Roger Nowosielski
Fortunately, we have effectively transcended the narrow interpretation and Dave's longing for the good ole past is no longer advocated in the open (only in the secret corridors of power).
However minimally, it is progress.
56 - Brunelleschi
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] I may make fun of your arguments because I think they are primitive and poorly thought out, but I have not attacked you personally.
As a representative of this site, you should have some dignity and stop arguing with people like that.
57 - Dave Nalle
I though Dave was for freedom and liberty. Dave is for freedom and liberty for the rich. If you don't own property you don't count.
No. Freedom and liberty for all means protecting the right to hold property.
And check the other many. That is saying what you value Dave is more important than what another human being values.
No. We all value the same basic things. But valuing them is meaningless without protecting the right to keep what you have and the right to legitimately obtain what you want.
Fortunately, we have effectively transcended the narrow interpretation and Dave's longing for the good ole past is no longer advocated in the open (only in the secret corridors of power).
Hey, good paraphrase of Mussolini's "We have buried the putrid corpse of liberty" speech.
Dave
58 - Cindy D
No. Freedom and liberty for all means protecting the right to hold property.
Even if you are Palestinian?
59 - Roger Nowosielski
I wasn't criticizing your right to speech, Dave, only commenting that that these views (believed some as they still may be by some), are no longer expressed in public with much success.
As to the comparison with Mussolini, what else is new. I've already been accused of Hitlerism by some, so I may as well wear the shoe if it fits.
60 - bliffle
Dave is a Royalist.
He admires the 'opulent', and struggles to join them.
61 - Roger Nowosielski
I didn't know that Party still had a political standing.
62 - Dave Nalle
Even if you are Palestinian?
Didn't we already have that discussion, Cindy? Of course Palestinians have a right to own property.
I wasn't criticizing your right to speech, Dave, only commenting that that these views (believed some as they still may be by some), are no longer expressed in public with much success.
Then we've become a depressingly dishonest society.
As to the comparison with Mussolini, what else is new. I've already been accused of Hitlerism by some, so I may as well wear the shoe if it fits.
You're not blogging properly unless someone is comparing you to Hitler.
Dave is a Royalist.
Your spellchecker seems to be off. That's spelled Realist.
Bruni, go reread #44.
Dave
63 - Cannonshop
Hmmm...let's see... A state passing a resolution/bill asserting their sovereignty, or a Federal Government that ignores the stated will of the people to pass a trillion-dollar bailout of their closest donors?
Do I trust a state legislature that at least lives in the same geographic region I do, and therefore on the same economy I do, or do I trust the selected contributors to a bloated, corrupt, and inefficient National Government, one where even my "Representatives" live more and have more invested in the area around D.C. than they do back here?
gee, let me think about that...
Thinking done. I'm in favour of the Sovereignty thing.
64 - lone_dragon
I just read your writings tonight.
Thank you for the information.
Here are my tactics for breaking Big Brother, the NWO and the Police
State in 2009.
Each of the United States must immediately begin secession movements.
Everyone with a landline (copper) should pick up their telephone and dial a number at a pre-designated date and time.
On a pre-designated date and time, everyone should go to their bank and make a full cash withdrawal of their funds. The banks do not
have enough paper money to cover their Virtual Wealth.
Every resident of the US should write to get their personal records under the Privacy Act from the National Security Administration. When denied, each US resident should file a lawsuit in their Federal Court.
Use of the US Dollar should cease immediately. Bartering should be used for all transactions.
I have a lot more methods.
Thomas Jefferson was right.
This is the Lone Dragon signing off deep within Enemy territory.
When a Scorpion is provoked stay clear.
May the Force Be With You.
65 - lominac
In order to survive, groups of states or one mega-state could defend itself. Smaller states would seek to join with some larger groups. Virginia would be in a tug of war because of their potential plum asset - largest navy base in the world in Norfolk. Of course, it can all be divvied up. The old Soviet Union split up fairly amicably.
66 - Ruvy
I've been off-line for a while and so I'm late to the party here....
When I lived in the States, I was always for states' rights, believing that 50 different routes to "truth, justice and the American way" were better than one.
Those of you who have been following our friend Dave Nalle here carefully may note the possibilities he raises of the United States falling apart. This article is a variant of the theme. It should be borne in mind that he does entertain dark visions as well as allegedly reasonable ones, and these dark visions seem to influence his pessimistic outlook. In all of these articles, he is not a rabid enthusiast at all; he merely notes events and markets them in such a way as to make them convincing. He's good at that - if you do not believe me, go look at his article on "the Other Iraq", essentially a marketing piece on Kurdistan.
While I agree with the general aim of the bills highlighted in this article, I do not foresee them getting anywhere - even if they pass. Once you federalize the State National Guard, you have stripped the governor of any sovereign authority he might be able to exercise, and I suspect that Obama, one who does not allow "moss to grow fat under a rolling stone", will take just such actions in the states that pass these sovereignty bills....
67 - Roger Nowosielski
Ruvy,
Good to see you back. By the way, interesting assessment of Dave. Perhaps I should take another look at his pieces and style. I hope you have something there.
Personally, I'm rather skeptical of this sovereignty movement: it's not exactly like the old Soviets or Yugoslavia with ethnic and cultural differences tearing us apart. Plus, we're too federalized, too dependent on the central government for assistance (natural disasters), cataclysmic experience with a failed attempt (Civil War), worst possible time in which to do it (during this downturn) - so while decentralization is a very attractive idea, I don't think it's a feasible one. Not to mention that all the pull worldwide is in the opposite direction.
Your thoughts?
Roger
68 - Ruvy
Hi, Roger. Nice to be back!
The United States was never as divided as the Soviet Union or as Yugoslavia was. It was never an empire of subjugated peoples conquered (not counting the American Indians), as was the Russian Empire, nor an unsuccessful attempt to unite Serbs (Orthodox Christians), Croats (Catholics) and Bosnian Moslems. So, the divisiveness in the States is not along ethnic lines with German Americans facing Scandahoovians along state borders with rifles cocked. It certainly is not like the Ukrainians firing over the Polish border from the Ukrainian SSR during the Communist era (one of our friends comes from Hrubieszow on the eastern Polish border).
A killer recession CAN (but need not) inspire a NIMBY attitude where the states that are more prosperous want to keep out immigrants from those that are less prosperous. But, IMHO, in America, the issue is actually one of principle - and money.
In the 1780's, one of the reasons for states wanting to rewrite the treaty that had established the United States and the Continental Congress (the Articles of Confederation) was the crushing burden of debt the states had to carry. One of the provisions of the federal constitution of 1787 was to remove that burden of debt from the states.
Today, the picture is reversed. The United States is bankrupt in all but name - but the constituent states are not. So, assertions of sovereignty are one way to unhook from a bankrupt entity. Usually, under all the flowery language about constitutional rights lurks a financial interest. And goodness knows, the states are far more sound financially than the federation they belong to.
But Baritone makes a good point upthread. Smaller federal unions or empires (like Texas might be) would be swallowed up by foreign powers.
69 - Roger Nowosielski
Ruvy,
I can see the possibility insofar as Texas, California, etc, are concerned. But if Confederacy was squashed
70 - Roger Nowosielski
con't: what chance is there for individual states? Do you know the Constitutional position on the matter?
Roger
71 - Ruvy
I'm not sure that I understand your question, Roger.
72 - Roger Nowosielski
I mean, does the separatist movement requires the Constitutional Amendment?
73 - Dave Nalle
You both seem to be suffering under the mistaken impression that these states are trying to secede. They aren't. They are just asserting their rights under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, which does not have anything to do with breaking up the union.
Dave
74 - Roger Nowosielski
Dave,
I only asked the question. Forgive me, but I don't read every article posted on BC. And if secession is not the issue, then what is? And what import can be attributed to these efforts?
75 - STM
Dave, if you're around, I filed a news piece last night on the killer bushfires but sent it to politics as I could work out what category it fits. Cheers