-
The Seventeen Year Itch
May 15, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Questions
May 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Stifling Our Children
April 15, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Thoughts on Gay Marriage
March 27, 2013 | 96 comments
-
Baseball Saints and Sinners
March 13, 2013 | 13 comments
Political Hay
The States — Our Last Best Hope
There’s one escape from an increasingly tyrannical central government.
Way back during the interminable weeks between the 2000 presidential election and the final decision in Bush v. Gore, I spent hours upon hours explaining to otherwise intelligent and politically savvy folks just how this country works. Most of these discussions centered on the Electoral College and the media-induced confusion over its presumed complexities.
They usually began: “But Al Gore won the popular vote; shouldn’t he be the president? Isn’t that the way a democracy works?” Explaining that we are not a democracy but a constitutional republic was not that difficult; most Americans still have some notion of what our Constitution is, although many haven’t any idea of what is actually in it.
The toughest thing, though, was trying to put over the idea that, as envisioned and enacted by our founders, ours is a sovereign nation of equally sovereign states. I would ask those persuaded by the “popular vote” press pundits, what they thought about the U.S. Senate; why it was created and how its members were apportioned, and was it fair that Rhode Island and New York had equal representation there? And finally, the way I usually wound up these chats was by asking, “What exactly is the name of our country?”
Yes, the fact that our Fifth Columnists of the Fourth Estate are constantly agitating for the abolition of the Electoral College should tell you just how vital it is to our constitutional form of government, and just how much the thought of states’ rights terrifies the left. And with good reason.
Very quietly, many states have made decided turns to the right. In the last few years, they have voted to restrict abortion and amend their constitutions to ban same sex marriage. Others, noting the need for fiscal restraint, have begun to restrict the crippling power of state and municipal unions, and to reform those entrusted with the education of our children.
And this week, word is, that several governors are exploring the possibility of refusing to establish the healthcare exchanges mandated in Obamacare, with others poised to join in, now that SCOTUS has essentially removed the penalties for doing so. Still others have gone a step further by revisiting the process of state nullification of unjust federal legislation. And the surprising thing is, not all of these are what would be considered “red” states.
It’s a funny thing about our country; voters act one way when electing state and municipal officials, and sometimes in an entirely different manner when it comes to congressional and presidential elections. Here in my state of Connecticut — a liberal bastion, to be sure — we have had our share of Republican governors, as have New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. My husband likes to say that the people want a national nanny and a local daddy.
What this all means is that many states, and more importantly, many of the people are rediscovering the idea of just where the sovereignty in the U.S. Constitution resides, even if the Roberts Court has yet to figure it out. And the key to conveying the essence of this to the rest of the country is the Electoral College. Voters must be made aware that, should this nation ever adopt the election of our chief executive by popular vote, many of their votes would be rendered much more useless than they feel they are now, as candidates would need only to cultivate the voters in the most populous states while basically ignoring those in flyover country.
The intentional constitutional friction between the states of this vast nation was crafted by our founders as a way to guarantee that the interests of small agricultural states would never be threatened by those of the larger, more industrial ones; federal sovereignty was to be invoked only in cases of the true common good; national defense, tariffs, treaties and the like.
The only way to save this nation from an ever-tyrannical central government — all three branches of it — is to restore the notion that we are a union of fifty individual governments, as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. Let us hope this reeducation manifests itself in more bold action by the states, leading up to and including November.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (39) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lisa Fabrizio
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/05/the-states-our-last-best-hope
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Virtue| 7.5.12 @ 6:40AM
Secession! New England seriously considered it in 1815, the South did it in 1861, and maybe it's time to get it right....
Warrior| 7.5.12 @ 9:24AM
Just talking about nullification and secession makes me smile. At least of a few of us still understand what the Founders were trying to accomplish.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.5.12 @ 3:14PM
Secession is akin to border Minutemen: all talk, virtually no action. I've heard countless discussions on my crystal set about "stopping them beaners", but when a call goes out for volunteers, the excuses start in earnest. "I have a dental appointment next week; my wife is pregnant, Gramps has shingles..."
What it comes down to is: though social conservatism is alive, economic conservatism is dying-- you wont secede, you wont control the border to any real degree, etc. But it makes you feel good to fantasize about fiscal order.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 12:04PM
Madison allowed for interposition and nullification, but not secession.
Doctor Right| 7.5.12 @ 12:38PM
Mark Levin, whom I GREATLY respect, said that the Civil War put to rest once and for all the idea that states could secede.
Rubbish!
The only reason in support of that opinion is that the Union won the Civil War; had the Confederacy prevailed, the issue would have been "settled" in the opposite direction.
History AND rules are written by the victors. That doesn't make them just, only enforceable.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 1:24PM
There was no right to secession either before or after the Civil War. If a State is going to leave the Union, it has to do so on the same basis that it joined the union -- consent of the other States. Anything other than that is anarchy.
Doctor Right| 7.5.12 @ 1:42PM
So you're saying that if the Confederacy had won the Civil War then they would have been concerned about the laws of a country they'd just seceded from???
Sorry, but that makes no sense.
If secession is successful, then those laws no longer apply.
I stand by my original assertion: The issue of secession's Constitutionality is supported only by the North's victory in the Civil War. Otherwise, it's irrelevant.
An imperfect but relevant corollary was the Revolutionary War; from the Crown's perspective, it was an illegal act.
Was the result "anarchy?"
Hardly.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 5:47PM
The Revolutionary War is as the name implies -- a revolution. The South said they were not engaging in revolution, but in secession -- for the purpose of maintaining slavery.
Bob K| 7.5.12 @ 7:07PM
It was really a Rebellion. There was no Revolutionary upheaval as in France or Russia. The culture did not change, no aristocrats were murdered and the basis of the law came from England.
TrueBlue | 7.5.12 @ 2:29PM
There has always been a right to secession. The Constitution is a WILLING compact between the states and the federal government. They do not need the approval of the other states to do so.
The reason the Civil War as legal by any Constitional sense is because the southern states attacked northern forts which allowed the Union to call it a rebellion.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 5:50PM
There is no right to secession. The Constitution is the instrument of government for States that willingly ceded some of their sovereignty in order to form a MORE PERFECT union. Why more perfect? Because the States could no longer act as though the Constitution were simply a military compact (as they did under the Articles), with all the attendant difficulties caused by so many divergent interests. They were now a true Union in the Lockean sense.
RCV| 7.8.12 @ 8:19PM
It's nice to be able to agree on something.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 7:16PM
What is the legal, historical, or other basis for your opinion that a state cannot secede?
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.5.12 @ 3:17PM
"The only reason in support of that opinion is that the Union won the Civil War; had the Confederacy prevailed, the issue would have been 'settled' in the opposite direction."
And if your grandmother had been born a man, she would have been your grandfather instead.
Woulda Shoulda Coulda.
Anthony| 7.5.12 @ 3:32PM
Levin also made some great points about revising the Constitution, to wit, term limits for Congress, 12 years total. (Also my number) A 2/3s majority of both houses to repeal a Supreme Court decision, and going back to the original Constitutional concept of the Senate being elected by the various state legislatures.
Roberts put America at the very brink. If we don't make a major U-Turn in November, America is finished.
DTOM| 7.5.12 @ 7:45AM
Maybe we could talk DC into seceding from the states! They can take California, New York, Illinois, and Michigan with them!
What a financial mess that would be!
Louis Jenkins| 7.5.12 @ 9:01AM
DTOM:
A financial mess, but a Godsave to the rest of us. Because of the War for Southern Independence we have been slow to even think about nullification. But it's still out there, like a dream that only awaits someone to put it in motion once more. We're close, ever so close.
Bob K| 7.5.12 @ 7:13PM
You won't be close until you can get national media to refer to the Civil War as the War for Southern Independence without thinking about it.
Gary B| 7.5.12 @ 9:23AM
I have a dream... it is that a group of governors unite around an issue of critical national importance (Obamacare is an example) and inform the ruling class in DC that, "No, we're not going to do it." Simple as that.
I imagine a group of states would carry a lot of Constitutional weight in their defiance of an edict from DC that's clearly unconstitutional. And this includes blatant political decisions from SCOTUS.
Like the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor, I hope like hell Obamacare wakes a sleeping giant. We need that giant now.
Achmed| 7.5.12 @ 9:48AM
I have a dream too...but Obamacare will not wake a sleeping giant. But eventually, something will. It may be an immigration issue for example, with Arizona leading the way.
DerKrieger| 7.5.12 @ 10:01AM
Thank God this is finally starting to pick up some steam. I've been writing for some time over at RedState that federalism would be our salvation. http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/
The Left hates federalism because it denies them the centralization of power and coercion they need to make us comply. Federalism is their kryptonite.
Doctor Right| 7.5.12 @ 12:41PM
...On a lighter note, does anyone else find it odd that the system supporting states' rights is called "Federalism?"
...I guess it would have been bad to call it "statism?"
cicero| 7.5.12 @ 10:55AM
The power to tax . . . That is the true sword of the Federal government that hangs over all of the states, and the citizenry. That is what Roberts sharpened for Washington. If the states are to take back their rightful place in the Republic, they will have to solve that problem. Perhaps Obomacare will be the vehicle. If the States can successfully deny the Federal Government the taxes necessary to implement the law, perhaps they can begin the rollback.
Petronius| 7.5.12 @ 10:56AM
Geography and boundaries are minutia. This country and what little civilization that remains will not survive unless those who are civilized take out the trash. All the cultural traitors must be driven out and kept out or we will never again have anything we can call our own. Do you want to live in their ant hill?
JmsA| 7.5.12 @ 12:37PM
Some get it, many don't. Well done.
LarryK| 7.5.12 @ 11:06AM
Prior to 1866 - The United States are ...
After 1866 - The United States is ....
Kinda hard to break up a Union like that.
RichTex| 7.5.12 @ 11:26AM
Texas doesn’t have to secede. It merely needs to abrogate the treaty of annexation done in 1844. After all, that treaty was never actually ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, it was acceded to on behalf of the United States by a joint resolution of Congress.
Bill84728| 7.5.12 @ 12:13PM
Don't look to the states; they're governments too, and their only interest is in dividing up the spoils with the feds.
The ball is entirely in our courts, folks, you and me. We may choose to end our lethargy and do something, and if we don't, we will become slaves.
Doctor Right| 7.5.12 @ 12:34PM
"...candidates would need only to cultivate the voters in the most populous states while basically ignoring those in flyover country."
Ms. Fabrizio's quote has it exactly backwards - and she's not the first one to say it, either.
In other words, the idea that candidates would only focus on the "most populous states" with a popular vote rule is EXACTLY what happens now with the Electoral College.
Seriously...when was the last time either candidate spent much time campaigning in North Dakota, or Mississippi, or Maine???
With the current system, they spend their time in states like New York, California, Texas, North Carolina, Florida, etc.
Population and Electoral votes are inextricably linked; the states with the most people have the most votes in the electoral college.
Additionally, it is the very same Electoral College system that DISCOUNTS my vote.
I live in a very Blue state that hardly ever votes for the GOP; under a popular vote system, my vote would have far more impact than it does today.
And let's be honest with ourselves, OK? Had Gore won Florida in 2000, many Conservatives would be screaming for an abolition of the Electoral College, too.
Anthony| 7.5.12 @ 3:52PM
Don't forget Ohio, Mich, & Penn.
However, I disagree with your last comment. I also live in CT, along with Lisa, a very blue New England state, and I'm grateful that my state has very little impact on the national election, 4 electoral votes, due to a population decline, all to the south.
If anything, all the lefty wackos who inhabit my state are usually disenfranchised when a R wins the national election, so I'm not upset, since we'll vote for Obozo in November by a 55/45 margin. Imagine if all these wacky lefties were able to sway the election by popular vote!!! Perish the thought!!!
Also, if Gore had won Florida, why would we have sought an abolition of the Electoral College? That makes no sense, because Gore won the popular vote by 500,000. Winning Florida would have put him over the top in the Electoral College.
No, if Gore had won Florida, we would have screamed, as we did in 2000, that the bastard and his allies are stealing the election by cherry picking votes in liberal voting precincts.
Voter fraud, not the E.C. is our concern NOW!!
RCV| 7.5.12 @ 2:00PM
Our Constitution did not remain stagnant with the adoption of the Tenth Amendment. Miss Fabrizio seems to forget that it was amended many times after, most particularly after the disastrous Civil War our country endured.
The Post-Civil War amendments fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between the national government, and intentionally so. The people of the country, having seen hundreds of thousands of their citizens slaughtered as the result of secessionist movements in the various states, moved toward a much more unified Nation, through the adoption of the 13th through 15th Amendments. Those Amendments prohibited the states from doing much that was permissible before,. The 14th in particular, strengthened and affirmed the rights of NATIONAL citizenship, and barred the states from infringing in any way on those national rights.
This erosion of state perogatives continued with the adoption of the 17th Amendment, providing for popular election of senators, rather than appointment by state legislators.
One may not like these amendments, nor the rebalancing of state and federal power that they accomplished. But you can't just deny our history and pretend they didn't happen. If you want a return to more sovereign states, you'll have to amend the Constitution once again.
Doctor Right| 7.5.12 @ 3:15PM
...or secede.
RCV| 7.5.12 @ 3:38PM
The Civil War settled that issue as well; and if it's tried again, the result will be the same, even more so. The imbalance in military power between the Federal government and the states is, to put it mildly, overwhelmingly greater now than in 1860.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 7:29PM
Obviously the War settled the issue if a state attacks, as SC attacked Fort Sumter, which gave Lincoln the political and moral power to respond to the attack. What would have happened if SC did not attack, but refused to follow some federal law?
I am not raising this to condone the Confederacy or slavery, but if a state today refused to follow a federal law, what would the feds do? The feds can refuse federal money for roads and other projects. It can federalize the state Guard, as Ike did in Little Rock. Seems that the issue would end up in Court, like all other issues, and then depending on the ruling, an amendment.
The 14th amendment and its use to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states did assure that certain rights could not be restricted by the federal and state government. But this affects the state's sovereignty only if the state affects those rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment, and other amendments.
Obamacare does not create constitutional rights. But, with the tax approved by Roberts the feds can attach the assets and wages of individuals and companies to enforce Obamacare. So the reality is that the states cannot do anthing to prevent enforcement of the mandate/tax.
DerKrieger| 7.5.12 @ 8:08PM
They can take control of federal taxes from citizens in their states. Model legislation already exists. Just need a state to implement it. http://tenthamendmentcenter.co.....funds-act/
Suzyqpie| 7.7.12 @ 5:56PM
The 17th was the seismic event in state sovereignty. When the Senators were appointed by the governor, the states had representation and power.
DerKrieger| 7.5.12 @ 8:06PM
Miss Fabrizio you are in good company today. The GREAT Walter Williams is calling on states to nullify Obamacare! Federalism is finally getting the attention it needs.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07.....are-audio/
Read my full collection of original and linked articles on federalism here: http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/
Bill84728| 7.6.12 @ 9:30AM
Once upon a time there was an actual serious debate over the issue of whether or not the sovereign states could nullify federal statutes. That debate ended badly, and the advocates of nullification lost.
Suzyqpie| 7.7.12 @ 5:42PM
Mexico exported their poorest most disgruntled citizens to the United States. Stay with me for a minute. The Feds ability to extort state matching funds for Medicaid has been struck down by SCOTUS. The red state governors are standing by this ruling and do not plan to establish the exchanges. Might the red states succeed in exporting the recipient class to the blue states?