Category Archives: States’ Rights

UPDATED: Anti-Federalists Prophesied The End Of Freedom (Gave Us The Bill Of Rights)

Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, History, Political Philosophy, States' Rights, The State

“Anti-Federalists Prophesied The End Of Freedom” is the new column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“On the eve of the federal convention, and following its adjournment in September of 1787, the Anti-Federalists made the case that the Constitution makers in Philadelphia had exceeded the mandate they were given to amend the Articles of Confederation, and nothing more. The Federal Constitution augured ill for freedom, argued the Anti-Federalists. These unsung heroes had warned early Americans of the “ropes and chains of consolidation,” in Patrick Henry’s magnificent words, inherent in the new dispensation. …

… As “strong advocates of States’ Rights,” Anti-Federalists held that “self-government, independence, and individual liberty were best protected at the local level. A distant and powerful central government,” the kind cooked up at the Philadelphia convention, was anathema to these “cherished values.” To that end, Anti-Federalists fought to preserve the “loose-knit relationship” that had existed between the “Confederation government and the States.” …

… As the saying goes, “a prophet is not without honor save in his own country.”

To observe Obama (and predecessor) in action is to realize that Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry and New York Anti-Federalist “Cato” were prophets who deserve a lot more honor in their own country. Both forewarned of an imperial presidency in the making. “‘The president,’ wrote “Cato,” has so much power that his office ‘differs very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain.'”

Indeed, President Barack Obama habitually “uses executive orders to circumvent federal legislation.” He exempts his “friends or political cronies” from oppressive laws his subjects must obey. And he orders the suspension of “duly enacted [immigration] law”—even “barring enforcement”—because he does not like the law.

A propagandized population has a hard time choosing worthy heroes. It is high time Americans celebrate the Anti-Federalists, for they were correct in predicting the fate of freedom after Philadelphia.

To deny that the Anti-Federalists were right is to deny reality. …

The complete column is “Anti-Federalists Prophesied The End Of Freedom.” Read it on WND.

Featured on Barely A Blog:

* “Nelson Mandela, ‘The Che Guevara of Of Africa.’”*

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

• At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

• On my Facebook page.

• By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

UPDATE: BILL OF RIGHTS. The Anti-Federalists gave it to us. Absent their insistence on instantiating individual liberties in the Constitution, we’d have been without the the Bill of Rights.

Mark Levin Trashes Secession But Looks To The States For Salvation

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, Liberty, States' Rights

For the umpteenth time, conservative radio talker Mark Levin got unhinged today over the quintessentially American ideas of state nullification and secession. “Neo-confederates” is Levin’s latest pejorative for patriots who think that these Jeffersonian principles are the last hope for freedom.

To reclaim the republic, Levin and his listeners look to the states and their role in the amendment process, as stipulated in Article V of the Constitution. Never mind that the states, contrary to the mistaken predictions and hopes of the Constitution makers, have never initiated a constitutional amendment; and never mind that even in the event that the states demand a constitutional convention, there is no mechanism to compel Congress to act.

The great constitutional scholar James McClellan was no “neo-confederate.” Yet even an ardent defender of the Constitution as McClellan conceded that, sadly, “the Framers relied on the good faith of Congress for the observance of the requirement” and that “there was no way to force Congress to act.” (“Liberty, Order, And Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” p. 310.)

Levin and his listeners are deluded if they think that from the “free” states—all four of them (New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota and Alaska)—will come our salvation. The legislatures of two-thirds of the states have to unite to call on Congress to hold a national Constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the dead-letter Constitution.

Libertarian Party: Party of Isms, Not Individualism

Gender, IMMIGRATION, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Race, Ron Paul, States' Rights

When it comes to playing manipulative politics with social issues—matters of “racism,” “sexism” (blah, blah), with which government should not concern itself—there’s no daylight between left-liberals and left-libertarians.

The loser Libertarian Party is running a gubernatorial candidate (Robert Sarvis?) against one of the most libertarian attorneys general a state has had: Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli. The latter has an impressive record of achievements and has taken principled positions on the issues.

For instance, Attorney General Cuccinelli’s attempts to nullify federal health insurance mandates in Virgina go as far back as March of 2010, when he launched a legal challenge to “shield Virginians from paying any penalties for not purchasing federally-approved health care.”

By Wikipedia’s telling, the Libertarian Party’s challenger, Sarvis, “supports same sex marriage and says it is a personal issue for him because his own marriage, which is biracial, was illegal in Virginia 50 years ago.”

By the same token, why not support affirmative action, on the ground that it wasn’t the law “in Virginia 50 years ago”?

Left-liberal argumentation! Sanctimonious too.

As one who believes that the state should stay out of marriage altogether, I cringe when so-called liberty lovers join Hollywood dimwits to place this issue at the forefront of the fight for freedom and beat people about the head with it. If you care about liberty, keep the state out of marriage; don’t expand its purview. Go to an attorney and solemnize your marriage through contract law.

Unsurprisingly, this Libertarian Party candidate is for open borders, framing the matter by using more sly, liberal illogic. (Here: I know immigrants, therefore immigration should proceed unfettered.)

Remember that immigration has pitted governors like Arizona’s against the Feds in a heroic fight for the right of state representatives to protect their statesmen from trespass. On immigration, left-libertarians come down foursquare on the side of the federales. You can be sure that the latest Immigration Bill will be Sarvis’s dream-come-true.

Cuccinelli, on the other hand, has ruled that “state law enforcement officers are allowed to check the immigration status of anyone ‘stopped or arrested.'” According to FoxNews, Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion … “extending that authority to Virginia police in response to an inquiry over whether his state could mirror the policies passed into law in Arizona.”

Most telling, Ron Paul has endorsed … Cuccinelli.

UPDATED: Will Mark Levin Ever Diss Militarism and Majoritarianism (As Facets of Statism)?

Constitution, Democracy, Federalism, Founding Fathers, libertarianism, Liberty, Military, Neoconservatism, States' Rights

Mark Levin is right about the need to repeal the 17th Amendment. Libertarians have long since argued in favor of senators once again being elected by the respective state legislatures, as was the original intent of the Framers.

However, about eight minutes into Mr. Levin’s segment with Sean Hannity, I heard the radio host emphasize only the idea of term limits vis-a-vis the Senate, when he should have also been dissing the idea of democracy. Were not America’s constitution makers trying to put in place a scheme that would forestall unfettered democracy?

Was this not the purpose of an upper House elected by state legislatures, and not by the people at large as the 17th Amendment decreed?

I imagine there is no place for curbing militarism in the grand scheme of Mr. Levin’s new book.

Neoconservatives do not consider the military-industrial-complex a branch of Leviathan. However, militarism and majoritarianism are facets of statism.

UPDATE: From “Independence And The Declaration of Secession”:

“While Mark Levin, the radio man lauded by his Republican adherents as “The Great One,” has denounced the secessionists among us (check), McClellan (a real scholar) seconded the Declaration’s secessionist impetus. …”