On the dangers of disunity of government

Quotes taken from The Federalist Papers and Samuel Osgood’s Letter to John Adams.

In recent weeks various state governments have passed legislation to the effect that should the Federal government over extend the authority vested in it by the U.S. Constitution, that the states shall consider the Constitution null and void. Texas Representative Leo Berman filled HCR 66 on February 23, 2009. This bill states:

Memorializing Congress in defense of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affirming the right of states to nullify acts of Congress, executive orders, and judicial orders, and asserting that any act, executive order, or judicial order that assumes a power not delegated to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution and which diminishes the liberty of any state or citizen shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution.

This bill, in effect, would forcefully remove the state of Texas, and all its citizens, from Union with the United States of America.

The necessity of the Union can hardly be denied by those who are not self interested. The history of Europe demonstrates the hazards of disunion and should the United States be dissolved we can expect a similar fate. Men by their very nature require political union. Our forefathers understood the principle that necessitated our unity after our separation from England in 1776. Under the Articles of Confederation they attempted to create a loosely connected confederation of states with a weak federal government at the center. By 1787 it had become evident that the Union under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to prevent the encroachment of government upon the rights of the citizens. It was under this premise that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called and a new Constitution was created to form a federation of states with a central government over looking the protection of the rights of the citizens.

While the Constitution limits the national government in many ways, it was written in order to limit the power of the state governments. The states have always been the greatest threat to the liberties of individuals. Samuel Osgood summed up the threat of the states in a letter to John Adams a year before the Constitutional Convention, “The State governments are weak and selfish enough, and they will of course annihilate the first.” And his solution to this folly of the states, “without a proper federal head, the individual states must fall a prey to themselves, or any power that is disposed to injure them.” The existence of a federal government is essential to the protection and continuation of the various states. The federal government permits the presentation of various opinions, which ultimately will lead to the discovery of the proper course of action for all parties involved.

Through unity with the various states we can achieve the individual and collective goals of all citizens of this country. But should we fail in our unity then we will surely fall victim to the, “men [who] are ambitious, vindictive and rapacious.” In the history of Europe, what is there that makes the representatives in the various states believe that these states can exist without unity? Our National government was devised to dampen the passions of men. Yet it is undeniable that if we separate ourselves we fill fall prey to the men whose, “love of power or the desire of preeminence and dominion–the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety” will lead them to call for the acquisition of our current brothers. There has never been an instant in human history where there did not exist a class of men who did not abuse the confidence of the people. Currently our state legislatures are filled with individuals who are seeking to abuse the confidence their constituents have trusted them with.
What is to stop us as separate and independent states from engaging in war with each other? Territorial disputes have plagued the nations of the world since the beginning of time. It is inevitable that the larger states will have designs on acquiring the land of the smaller states. That this should be allowed to happen is to allow for our most divine Republic to be replaced by the most unholy tyranny of Kingship. Through the Union we have been able to protect ourselves from the threat of tyranny. No one party has been able to acquire so much power under our present state of union. Yet, should we dissolve the Union then we should find ourselves amongst the control of violent factions. There is no doubt that there will be some in the various states who will have desire to gain control not only of their state but of the whole continent. In disunion we will find ourselves at the mercy of men who have no regard for the public good, but rather will pass measures, “not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.” The survival of the various states depends upon the unity of this country.

The most pressing issue that we face, should we dissolve the Union, is that we are all commerce republics dependent on trade with each other for our mutual preservation. Presently, this is accomplished in a harmonious manner by our unity with each other in the United States of America. However, should we dissolve into independent states then it will be necessary to continue these relationships in a manner equal to that of foreign nations. In the annals of history, commercial nations fall prey to their own need for commerce and resources. There is little to suggest that as independent nations we would not become subject to this same principle. State will be forced to war with State in an attempt to preserve itself. As a Union we are able to avoid such conflict through free and open trade with each other. Independent nations can only successfully maintain such means through alliances based on mutual self interest. The interests of those within this country have traditionally been the same, or at least not to the point where they have caused a serve rift. Yet as independent states our interests will eventually clash with the interest of others. Our mutual self preservation dictates that we ought to remain united under a federal government.

Finally…A New Post

Probably like most American males these days I’ve been following the aftermath of the revelation and then confession that Alex Rodriguez used steroids between 2001-2003. A-Rod isn’t the first athlete to admit to using steroids, Jason Giambi and Andy Pettitte are notable examples of players who were willing to come clean.  As much as I am ashamed of all the players in Major League Baseball who have used steroids or Human Growth Hormones, I am more ashamed about the players, managers, owners and league officials who are pointing their fingers away from themselves.

On ESPN.com there is an article that says “Selig: Don’t Blame me for ‘roids.” In it, Selig announces, “I don’t want to hear the commissioner turned a blind eye to this or he didn’t care about it…” Well Mr. Commissioner, who are we to blame then for allowing this to become such a problem? During the early decades of the last century Baseball suffered an epidemic of players throwing ball games for money and often players, managers, owners and league officials who knew what was going on did nothing to stop it. It wasn’t until the whole thing blew up in their faces in the midst of the 1919 world series that the owners decided to create the office of the commissioner of baseball. The owners and both American and National League officials attempted to pass the buck. Ban Johnson, then president of the American League, decided to keep his name clean by launching an investigation into the series that was widely said to have been thrown.

Today we live in a world where baseball players are once again trying to get an edge.  Owners and league officials wanted nothing to do with blowing the whistle on the problem of steroids because they were producing exactly what Bud Selig wanted: higher scoring games. Babe Ruth made it evident that people love home runs, and there has never been a more prolific period of home run hitting by a larger group of players than now. Those home runs brought people into the stadium after the 1994 strike ended the season and shortened the ’95 season. Of course Bud Selig didn’t blow the whistle on something that now appears to have been the worst kept secret in the baseball world. He is the commissioner of a Major League Baseball that is seeing more popularity, more revenue than any other era in the game’s history.

I was saddened to see Selig’s words when he tried to pass the blame onto someone else. President Truman once said, “The buck stops here,” and he meant it. Selig doesn’t grasp this concept; everything that goes on in the game of baseball is ultimately going to be placed on him. He is the end of the line, no one is higher in the game of baseball than the Commissioner. He needs to man up and accept the responsibility that it was under his leadership, greed and ambition that steroids were allowed to go unchecked for a decade while his and the owners’ coffers were padded.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.