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.
I’m going to take issue with one of your statements
“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.”
First off, the 10th amendment. Not sure what else there is to say about that. The constitution is written to describe the powers of the national government, then specifically states that anything not delineated in itself is assumed to be in the purview of the states.
Second, to say that the states have been a threat to liberty doesn’t stand up on principle. What makes the states fundamentally different from the federation? Size. A state is an entity composed of lesser entities (counties) and run by elected representatives. Our federation is the same. Unless there is a fundamental difference between a state and a federation that I’m unaware of, anything that describes a state also describes our nation, but to a greater degree as it has a greater size and power to act.
While I can’t disagree with the benefits of a union for trade, commerce, and common justice, I must disagree on the necessity of power being centralized (and inherently distant for some). You said “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.” That is fallacious. While a federal government does indeed allow the presentation of various opinions, the opinions expressed will necessarily be those of the few in positions of federal power. They will make the decisions that are best for them, not for the states, and because their constituents are distant accountability will be very costly for the constituency to implement.
Look at it this way – if there is a minority in our federation whose needs are not being met, or whose rights are being enfringed, how are they to seek a redress of grievances? They could elect different representatives, but being a minority they have no way of ever winning because the majority rules. Their only option at that point becomes to secede from the union which no longer serves their interests. Otherwise, they no longer have representative government because their government no longer represents their desires since their few are silenced by the many.
I will only reply to your comment concerning the 10th Amendment and will reply to the rest in an actual post.
Look closely at the words of the 10th 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.”
What are the powers delegated to the United States? To collect taxes, pay debt, and provide for the common Defence [sic] and general welfare of the people. It has the authority to regulate commerce among the various states, foreign nations and Indians. The Federal government alone has the authority to create rules for naturalization and for bankruptcies. To coin money, regulate its value, and fix weights and measures. There are more but I believe you’ve probably read article one section eight of our Constitution.
The Federal government is restricted from laying direct taxes, granting titles of nobility, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, or passing ex post facto laws. Again, there are others but I believe you get the point. The same restrictions placed on the Federal government by article one section nine are placed on the States by article one section ten. Also, the states cannot make treaties, alliances, confederations; grant letters of marque, coin money, emit bills of credit,pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts or grant a title of nobility.
The Federal government is restricted from very few things. The State governments are restricted from the powers granted to the Federal government, and the restrictions placed on it by section 9. So we go back to the 10th Amendment, what exactly is left that the Federal government isn’t given power over or explicitly restricted from doing? I am a firm believer in the last part of the 10th Amendment, “or to the people.” If the people of a state delegate powers to the State governments, not already granted to the US or that the States are restricted from, then it is in accordance of the 10th Amendment. However, those powers are few and far between.
I can see your point on this, thanks. In the end, it really comes down to a matter of personal opinion. I agree with all you’ve said there – how could I otherwise, it’s in the Constitution – but I see the Constitution as limiting the federal government by design. It also limits the states, but it’s main purpose appears to me to be to limit the federal government. I can support that opinion with other observations, but I don’t think that would be useful. We simply see things differently. And that’s fine, of course. I think I understand why you have the opinion you do: The limitations to the federal government also apply to the states, therefore the states are more limited than the federal government, and therefore the Constitution is designed to limit the states. Makes sense.