|
|
Are you a journalist or someone that otherwise might have a unique perspective on the world around us today? Would you like to become one of our Bloggers and have a syndicated blog right here on batonrougeteaparty.net? If so, please email us at webops@batonrougeteaparty.net today! In your email, please state your name and share with us why you believe that publishing your views will help educate and deepen our members and readers' understanding of the world around us.
|
|
|
|
 |
May
18
Written by:
Founder's Ink
5/18/2009 11:33 PM
I was enthused by my mission, and I chose to accept it, to pontificate about the Founder's opinions about state's rights. I would be so historical, and just a bit pithy. I'd compare and contrast Paine to Jefferson to Adams, with a pinch of Franklin for flavor. But alas, it was not to be. You see, there is surprisingly little in their writings that is directly on point as we know state's rights.
"But why not?", I hear you cry. Didn't the founders believe in state's rights? And if they did why didn't they write more about it?
I happen to believe that the founders DID believe in what we call state's rights, and far more than we do today. I base this belief on three pieces of evidence.
The first evidence is the Constitution as originally passed, specifically Article 1, Sections 2 and 3. These set up Ben Franklin's wonderful contribution, a bicameral legislature. These two separate, yet equal bodies were to represent two different constituencies. The House of Representatives members, elected by the voters, were to represent the will of the people. The Senators, elected by their state's legislature, were to represent the interest of their home state, and not to duplicate what the House already did.
The second evidence is the overall Constitution as they passed it. The Constitution spells out what the federal government must do. But the founders wouldn't pass it until the Bill of Rights, which spells out what the federal government could NOT do. The federal responsibilities were few and limited, while the state's responsibilities, according to the 10th amendment, are vast and nearly all-encompassing.
The third evidence is like the second, but a bit more on point. Jefferson, the main author of the Constitution, later wrote the Kentucky Resolutions. In there he writes that the federal government had few and limited responsibilities, and that anything not specifically granted to them in the Constitution was reserved to the states.
Allright, they believed in state's rights. But why didn't they write more about it? I think it is because the founders could not conceive of any other reasonable alternative. They were, as we all are, limited culturally, historically, and technologically.
Culturally, each of the colonies, later states has a unique history leading to a unique culture. Also our culture, as theirs, has certain rules about identification. If here in Louisiana, I identify myself by town or parish. In New York, I identify myself as a Louisianian. Prarieville or Napoleonville or Tangipahoa would be meaningless to a New Yorker. Their cultures were not diluted by mass media or mass migration. They were steeped in it, and few traveled far enough to see anything different. When they came together, is it any wonder that they thought of themselves as Virginians or Pennsylvanians or New Yorkers first, and Americans second?
Historically, the founders had just risked their property and lives in a war with the world's only and greatest superpower. That war was brought about by a capricious and arbitrary centralized government, and cost thousands of lives. Do you think the founders wanted to give much power to a central government after that? They had only banded together because Britain could have defeated each colony in turn, but all together they had a chance.
Technologically, the founders were very limited. Our modern system of Federalism, with it's alphabet soup of regulatory agencies reporting to the Capitol at the speed of light would be unimaginable to them. They could concieve of our situation less than I could of having dinner with Lectriod leader Lord John Whorfin from Planet 10 in the 8th dimension. Remember that in their world, nothing of human endeavor moved faster on land than a horse. Not goods, not letters, not ideas, nada. Any central government's control over an area is limited by it's communications with that area. Smart central governments set up semi-autonomous regions or states, and limit their own role. Stupid ones overcontrol, and rebellion follows. The founders were smart enough to realize their technological limits.
In short, it is self evident that the founders believed strongly in state's rights. They believed so strongly that those rights are evident in the body of the Constitution and in the 10th Amendment. They just didn't talk about it much, anymore than we would write with amazement about the sun rising tomorrow. They just didn't see any other viable way. I think the founder's wisdom holds up very well centuries later.
As I started, this was not what I intended to write. Sometimes a writer's plans get hosed, and the writer gets taken in a new and wonderful direction. This happened here, and I depart with a better and deeper understanding into our founders' thoughts. Thanks for the opportunity.
The Grey Man
Tags:
4 comment(s) so far...
Re: Founder-ing on State's Rights
Have Louisiana U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen or women Violated the State Constitution with their votes?
As of late our U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen or women have been in such a rush to vote for things based on party line without reading them and knowing what’s in them. We need to ask the question “have our Louisiana U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen or women violated the Louisiana State Constitution”. You ask what am I talking about. So before I get to far into this, let’s take a look at the two of them. Like most citizens of the great state of Louisiana, I never read our constitution much less remember it if I did. So when I did you know what I found under ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS §26 this little thing called State Sovereignty. This alone really does mean a lot to most of us, without reading the U.S Constitution along with it. So now let’s take a look at the U.S Constitution Tenth Amendment. “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.” In short if the power is not listed in the U.S. Constitution, then that power is a state issue not the feds. So now comes into play the Louisiana Constitution “ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS State Sovereignty §26 The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled. Acts 1997, No. 1494, §1, approved Oct. 3, 1998, eff. Nov. 5, 1998.”
Now that we had our history lesson let’s talk about the meat and potatoes. Under the budget and the stimulus bill, there were a lot of things that said if you don’t do this, you don’t get the money or if you take the money, you have to pass a law saying this. This has been something the feds have been doing for a long time now. You might remember when we had to change our DWI law to read .08 is legally drunk or they would cut off our DOT money. And so like good little kids we did because daddy said so. But now we are putting our kid’s and grandkids’ future on the line with this system of government that was never meant to be. We need to stop and take a hard look at it. And if we do you just might find that we need to take control of our state and get the feds out of it. So to do this we need to ask the question Have Louisiana U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen or women Violated the State Constitution with there votes? If they have, can they still be our U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen or women? If they have violated our state constitution what action can we take? Have they breached their contract with the people of the state of Louisiana? I know one thing we need to do is remind them that their job is to look out for the best interests of Louisiana; not their party. I will admit that I am no legal scholar or anything like that. I’m just an old soldier. But I feel these are some question that we need the answers to. With all this said, I know we have a lot of great legal minds in this state. What are the answers?
By flyfish1964 on
5/26/2009 1:21 PM
|
Re: Founder-ing on State's Rights
This is what our state politicians should be hearing from the people:
What is the meaning of Louisiana State Sovereignty?
The Sovereign people of Louisiana, having created the Sovereign State of Louisiana, call on our state legislators to enact the following legislation:
- Form an Alliance of Sovereignty between all 50
states.
- Work within that Alliance to peaceably bind the Federal Government with the chains of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
- All Federal Monies (corporation taxes, license fees, income tax, etc.) payable to the Federal Government from the state of Louisiana shall be collected by the State of Louisiana for distribution to the Federal Government.
- All Federal Agencies and employees doing business in Louisiana shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana. This includes the Federal Courts located in Louisiana.
- All Federal Law Enforcement personnel shall be licensed and regulated by the State of Louisiana and must register with the Sheriffs Office of the Parish they are operating in. The Sheriffs office must approve all Federal enforcement actions prior to enforcement.
- All Federal employees will have mandatory classes on Constitutional Law and the Oath of Office in order to obtain their license.
- Louisiana State Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all Federal Courts including the U.S. Supreme Court as it pertains to the State of Louisiana.
- All Louisiana Senate and House Representatives in the US Congress shall return to Louisiana and report to the Louisiana State Legislature for further instructions.
The Federal Government is trying to suggest that the Sovereignty Resolutions passed by the states means Succession.
There is no Succession here.
There is control of the government.
By Tom Rankin on
8/4/2009 8:09 PM
|
Re: Founder-ing on State's Rights
Copy and paste if the links do not work
Council On Foreign Relations- Article www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/1462
Inflation and the Dollar's Crash-(9min51sec) www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLYLb9Vm4xU&feature=related
Conquering the Spirit of Debt- Sept 2003 by Pastor Rod Parsley.- (48min56sec) video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3051024550497129264&hl=en
By Tom Rankin on
8/7/2009 5:04 PM
|
Re: Founder-ing on State's Rights
How much does Congress actually care about our health?
H.R.1495
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make health care coverage more accessible and affordable.
Cosponsors: None!!!
In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the federal income tax an amount equal to the sum of (1) the amount paid by the taxpayer for insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents, plus (2) the amount contributed to a health savings account of the individual (or the individual's spouse).
A simple way to help pay for medical care by letting Americans keep more of their money. No support.
Instead, Congress wants to spend a few trillion dollars—and impose sweeping regulations.
Also with zero support in the House, by the way:
H.R.2630
Title: To protect the privacy of patients and physicians.
Cosponsors: None
All individuals shall have the ability to opt out of any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system for maintaining health care information. No Federal funds shall be used to support, encourage, or otherwise promote the use of standard unique health identifiers (such as those described in section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act, before the amendment made by subsection (a)(1)) in any Federal, State, or private health care plan.
No information from any electronic medical record maintained by a health care provider and created pursuant to a Federally mandated, created, or funded program may be shared with another health care provider absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved. This shall not apply in a medical emergency. No health care information from an individual medical record shall be placed in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of health care information, absent a signed, informed consent from the patient involved.
The Federal Government may not require a health care provider to participate in any Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information. No health care provider shall be denied participation in, or otherwise sanctioned with respect to participation in, a Federal health care program because the provider refuses to participate in a Federally mandated, created, or funded electronic system of maintaining health care information.
Unless you live in Texas's 14th District, your Congressman is on board with neither of these bills. Let him know these bills are vital steps in improving health care in America. www.CampaignForLiberty.com
By Tom Rankin on
8/9/2009 11:03 AM
|
|
|