Oct 2, 2009

States Rights and Liberty

I have been watching with great interest the growing states' rights movement. Many states have introduced and some have recently passed resolutions asserting their sovereignty over the federal government under the 10th Amendment, an constitutional amendment all but forgotten these days by conservatives and liberals alike. This amendment was designed to make explicit what was implicit in many parts of the constitution and was presupposed by most of the Founders, namely, that the United States was a federation of sovereign, independent states (read: nations), and not a singular nation. The federal goverment was not designed as a national government, but as an extention of the various state governments designed to serve their collective interests. The set-up was intended, in part, to preserve the sovereignty of the states except within a very narrow range of responsibilities delegated the federal government. Thus, it was also intented to preserve individual liberties.

The current states' rights movement is trying to prevent and roll back the incroaching tyranny of an all-encompassing and all-powerful national government that is presently, let's face it, leading us gradually (but not too gradually!) into socialism and the eradication of personal liberty. I encourage the readers to learn more about this movement by visiting the website of the Tenth Ammendment Center (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com). For some history of the constitution's emphasis on liberty and states' rights and its application for today, read this helpful article by Frank Chodorov:


1 comment:

Goldenfoxx said...

No offense to any revolutionaries hoping to hop on board this bandwagon, but I'm pretty sure the 10th Ammendment has been effectively broken, or at least ignored, since the end of the Civil War. That's not to say that I'm in support of the Civil War-era Southern slave agenda, but they had to right to secede from the Union and got pretty well crushed for trying. I'm no lawyer (not even close), but I'm pretty sure that's going to be a difficult precedent to overcome.

But it's not like it's the only Constitutional amendment that people want to ignore, either. liberal Democrats are all over the 2nd, while conservative Republicans seem to want to ignore the intention of the religion clauses present in the 1st. No one really seems to care about that "speedy trial" thing in the 6th, either.

My point is this: in this day and age, interpretation of the wording in any and all of the Bill of Rights seems to be up for grabs depending entirely on the mood of judiciary system and the overall agenda of the federal government.

-- Topher