Amendment X - a Call to...???

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The all limiting, all encompassing liberty amendment. It is the one amendment that has the power to tear down a leviathan and return freedom to the states and people.

But what was the purpose of explicitly limiting the powers of a federal government to those documented in the Constitution, and no others?

Here is a great History Lesson from the Tenth Amendment Center:

Throughout the period of the Continental and Confederation Congresses (1776-1788), advocates of a strong central government argued that, in addition to whatever express powers Congress had received from the states, Congress also enjoyed additional “inherent sovereign authority.” This theory would allow Congress to exercise many powers not on the list granted by the Articles of Confederation.

During this period, the “inherent sovereign authority” argument was made by John Adams, Benjamin Rush, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Hartford Convention of 1780. They argued that Congress necessarily had inherent sovereign authority because it was America’s agent for foreign affairs. They sometimes argued that the British Crown conveyed inherent sovereign authority to Congress by the 1783 peace treaty recognizing independence.

The best-known exposition of inherent sovereign authority appeared in James Wilson’s Considerations on the Bank of North America. Wilson’s purpose in composing this paper was to justify Congress’s decision to charter a national bank, even though the Articles of Confederation had given Congress no such power.

Opponents of the Constitution admitted that the Constitution enumerated federal powers, but they feared that Wilson & Company might raise the same “inherent sovereign authority” claim again. Accordingly, most of the states demanded a constitutional amendment explicitly limiting the federal government to those enumerated in the Constitution. That amendment became the Tenth.

What is particularly surprising in light of this history and the Tenth Amendment’s explicit wording, is that some people still argued that the federal government had a vast reservoir of “inherent sovereign authority.”

The subject came up in a 1907 case (Kansas v. Colorado), but the Supreme Court rejected the idea, citing the Tenth Amendment. But the Court used the theory in a 1936 (U.S. v. Curtiss-Wright) to justify federal foreign affairs powers. And a majority of the court seems to have endorsed it in a 2004 case (U.S. v. Lara) explaining federal power over the Indian tribes.

But as a matter of history and constitutional text, there is no real doubt that the Tenth Amendment rendered the theory of “implied sovereign authority” completely illegitimate.

If this is the case, and the argument of "implied sovereign authority" is moot, then the President of the United States and the members of Congress have no authority to dictate banking and housing bailouts, mandatory healthcare, cash for clunkers, or any other "program" that excessively burdens my explicit right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness... and therefore the actions of the Federal Government are in violation of the contract between the Federal Government and the People, commonly known as being Un-Constitutional.

Of course, the US Government operates under the premise of "Sovereign Immunity" which means that unless they explicitly waive their immunity, explicitly allowing a suit to be taken, then a citizen cannot take suit against the Government.

The federal government has become an authoritarian dictatorial body, with no means for checks and balances accountable to the people. Elections are hardly tools for change, rather merely opinions of the consumers. No real element of change comes, especially in the way of returning the Federal Government to its Constitutional bounds.

So I pose a question, what power is left to the citizen, aside from petitioning the state for redress of grievances?

The Importance of Secessionism

Anyone who has been around this blog for some time knows that I was a die-hard Huckabee supporter, not because of his religious beliefs, but because of his commitment to State's Rights. Unfortunately, the Republican Party selected a candidate who could care less about the constitution in general, especially the 9th and 10th amendments. Luckily he selected a VP candidate who fully respects a state's right to vote on their status with the union. Sarah Palin has reached out to legitimize the struggle of a group of "10th amendmenters", called the Alaskan Independence Party, simply requesting the vote which Alaskans were never granted - on whether or not they wanted to join the union.

In the light of the new powers granted to an un-elected official, the Secretary of Treasury, which are unbound and unchecked allowing this individual with no responsibility to the voters to exercise unconstitutional force on the free market, we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain.

When our founding fathers constructed the proposed union, they established the rules for an inefficient government to avoid tyranny, and followed up their governmental structure to ensure that the government understood that it's existence was at the pleasure of the citizens of the individual states... not the other way around.

The Bill of Rights was 10 of 12 proposed amendments, guaranteeing that certain rights were specifically cited as being "off limits" to the functioning of the supposed small federal government.

First, there was a protection of speech, press, practice of religion, protest, and protest against government for grievances.

Second, there was a protection of the individual's right to self preservation, by way of arming the self.

Third, there was a protection of private land - namely against occupying federal forces.

Fourth, there was a protection of the self against search and seizure.

Fifth, there was a protection of the self against self-incrimination, unreasonable trials, and protection of private property against governmental growth.

Sixth and Seventh, there was a protection of the self via jury of peers, and reasonable due process of law.

Eight, there was a protection of the self against unreasonable punishment and torture by the government.

Finally - the ninth and tenth amendments stated clearly that rights not explicitly called out did not mean that those rights were not rights of the people, and that any power not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution was therefor a power retained by the STATES and the PEOPLE of the states.

These last two points are the most powerful of the entire constitution - declaring that the power of the states is superior to the power of the federal government. This includes the power of secession from the union, a right not discussed in the constitution, thus retained by the states and the people to decide.

Unfortunately, our country went to war over the right of secession once before... though history would indicate that it was a war over slavery, the truth being told, the war was over the right of a state to opt out of a union that fails to represent or operate on behalf of the people of that state.
As I was saying, in light of the recent NEW POWERS, unchecked powers, that the federal government has just granted itself over the people, the markets, and the states... we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain, and what power we still have over the federal government... Truth be told, those rights and powers are gone. The answer in plain sight is none. But let's discuss technicalities, and the strength that they have.

Technically we have the right to secede from the union, to cast off a form of government that no longer represents the will of the people or the states. It is the last right of the people to keep the federal government in check - stating loud and clear that it is the people who retain the power, not the government. If the people of this nation, of these collection of states, understands that they are not subjects of the federal government but rather the power behind a once "more perfect union", we can better understand our rights and our purpose for living in this nation.

I would propose a show of force across the nation - a ratification of the collective state constitutions, citing the rights retained by the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution, explicitly stating that the right of the state does, in fact, include the right to secede from the Federal Union of the United States. This is not a proposition that any governor is going to propose - it has to be a grassroots effort of the people of the collective states.

Once this effort comes to a head, the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White (in which the 1869 SCOTUS ruling indicated that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the Union - the decision was 5-3), will come into question. Fortunately for the argument of future state's rights of secession, the decision of the court included a statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual,
and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place
for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through
consent of the States.

This indicates that if the multitude of the states, and the people of the states, indicated that the right of secession was a right retained by the states by the 9th and 10th amendment, then secession could be voted on by any given state and enacted against the federal government's rule.

The right to secession benefits each state, and the people of the United States, as a protection against an overbearing federal government. Unfortunately, the people of this great nation feel defenseless in the current state of the economy and the strict authoritarian federal government that has sprung up in the name of freedom. What freedom does a caged dog have?

Am I advocating a civil war? I would argue that we are in the midst of a "cold" civil war - a class war, a war of values, a war of power over the people... and the people are losing. I am not advocating violence.

What I am advocating is that the People of the United States understand their rights... understand that we do not have to live in a country of corruption and tyranny at the upper echelons. And we do not have to sit idly by as we watch the powers of a KING granted to an unelected Cabinet Member of the Executive Branch.

I am advocating that We the People of the United States of America take back this country - take back our personal rights, and stop living under constant supervision, regulation, and fear of our government!

I am advocating for the freedom of the people of the several states/regions to decide whether or not the Federal Government has grown beyond its usefulness.

Secession is not a resolution that should come lightly. It is a decision that brings into question the very existence of the United States, and the ties that have bound our people together. It is necessary, from time to time, to have the option to pressure the Federal Government into submission on behalf of the people.

Our politicians swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America - but I wonder if any have read it lately or understand what it actually says, or what it MEANS!?!