Archive

Parting Company

  • majorspark
    Ever since my youth I have had an interest in history, politics and science. To the chagrin of some of my fellow jocks I was many times at the top of the class in these subjects. Always in history. When it came to college I chose to focus on science. I graduated earning a BS in industrial technology. Eventually I started my own business an that is where I am today. I find the time to keep up with politics and history.

    Some of my most influential political figures of the past are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. In modern times I would have to say Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Milton Friedman.

    I mention a summary of my background to give a little more context to my opinion on the article I am citing in this post. Most of you that frequent this forum know I believe in the balance of power. I believe the constitution is a contract between the sovereign states and the federal government. Where the states relinquished some powers as sovereign states in exchange for mutual benefit. These powers exchanged were strictly enumerated in the constitution.

    I find myself in agreement with "Williams" as the author likes to call himself. I believe the federal government is in violation of the contract. I believe there is no moral cause today backing their violation. I agree with the author in that my preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation. It is simply not possible for all 300 million of us to agree on all these issues the federal government is forcing all its citizens to come to a central solution. I agree with "Williams" in that it is better to part ways than to force our wills on each other risking civil strife.

    I have great respect for many on this forum on both sides. For those on both sides what do you make of "Williams" piece?
    Parting Company



    Here's the question asked in my September 2000 column titled "It's Time To Part Company": "If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?"

    The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

    I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

    You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.

    James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

    Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. Some independence movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden; Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally.

    The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.
    http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/PartingCompany.htm
  • CenterBHSFan
    James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

    I think that we are so far removed from that concept and intention, that it isn't even funny. I also believe that most everybody would have to agree. The biggest question today is "how much further are we willing to go?" in order to win the argument?

    The comment about the one-upmanship is true at every level.

    I like this person's statements. It's clear that they weren't written in haste.
  • Writerbuckeye
    We're headed for an eventual showdown between some states and the federal government -- and it might come to secession in some cases. Whether it sticks or not will be a whole different issue.

    But I can definitely see states of a like mind on the basic tenet of states rights vs the federal government over-reaching its authority coming to a head with those states banding together.

    We may eventually see this country split several ways if a compromise can't be found.

    If/when that happens, I'll be moving to Texas. :)
  • redstreak one
    Nice article. Is this new Arizona immigration bill a beginning? Writerbuckeye, I will be right behind you to Texas! lol
  • BoatShoes
    "Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote"

    If we are to take Mr. "Williams" position seriously and demand coherence...it seems as if there is so much more that the federal government has created that must be repealed or destroyed. Perhaps we can compile a list.

    The FBI
    The CIA
    The Federal Reserve
    The Department of Education
    Federal Education grants and loans
    The Department of Homeland Security
    The Department of Veteran's Affairs
    Nuclear Weapons
    The Department of Energy
    HUD
    Medicare
    Medicaid
    Social Security
    The War on Drugs and the ATF
    The Environmental Protection Agency
    NASA
    And on and on and on and on...it's too much to list...

    But of course, Mr. Williams position is not realistic. It's so vogue to quote Jefferson when his view of America was that it would be a nation of limited population wherein we would all be yeomen farmers keeping to our own affairs. It was the federalists who envisioned the America we have today. There is no monument of Alexander Hamilton nor Chief Justice Marshall sitting with ambiance in the nation's capital but we are living in their monument, a powerful economic force on a global scale.

    Without our powerful federal government there is so much power we would lack....we can have Freedom with a capital F as opposed to freedom.

    Granted, the Congress has mistakenly justified their actions with the Commerce Power while treating it as a Police Power when it is not even necessary as Article 1. Sec. 8 provides Congress with a police power in it's outright and did not leave this power solely dedicated to the states. And, if this not be true and the contemporary conservative demands it such, she negligently calls for the demise of a great national power.

    "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."~Thomas Jefferson.

    I would like to write more as this I'm sure will go back and forth, (looking forward to it MajorSpark), but I have to get back to work for the time being.
  • QuakerOats
    An excellent column --- par for the course for Mr. Williams.

    We may well be approaching the time to part ways, as long as conservatives get to decide who gets to live where, it can occur peacefully.

    :)
  • believer
    Writerbuckeye wrote: If/when that happens, I'll be moving to Texas. :)
    I'll be right behind you.
  • majorspark
    BoatShoes wrote: If we are to take Mr. "Williams" position seriously and demand coherence...it seems as if there is so much more that the federal government has created that must be repealed or destroyed. Perhaps we can compile a list.

    The FBI
    The CIA
    The Federal Reserve
    The Department of Education
    Federal Education grants and loans
    The Department of Homeland Security
    The Department of Veteran's Affairs
    Nuclear Weapons
    The Department of Energy
    HUD
    Medicare
    Medicaid
    Social Security
    The War on Drugs and the ATF
    The Environmental Protection Agency
    NASA
    And on and on and on and on...it's too much to list...
    If time permits maybe later I can get into detail on specific federal agencies in your list as to whether they should be a federal or state responsibility. In your list however there are some agencies that should definitely fall under federal control. Just not by default as is common practice.

    The states must grant the federal government the authority through the amendment process. Take NASA, why would any state in the union not see this as a power that of necessity should be granted to the federal government? What is wrong with using the amendment process to define the scope and power of these agencies?

    I have little doubt that likely a number of the programs and agencies in your short list would pass the amendment process. No doubt there would be several that would not. The arguments by those that demand a strict definition of the constitution is not that we disagree with all federal involvement. All we ask it when we increase the size and scope of federal power the states relinquish it through the amendment process, not by simple majority of the federal congress with the approval of the executive.

    When we define the Constitution liberally and not strictly we diminish its authority. For instance there a some amendments I disagree with. A couple being the 16th & 17th. As much as I disagree with these two amendments I respect that a new power was granted to the federal government (16th), and the original intent of some of the founders was altered (17th), yet both came about within the bounds of the constitution through the amendment process. Therefor I have respect for their authority.
    BoatShoes wrote: But of course, Mr. Williams position is not realistic.
    True it is too late to reverse course. That time has long since past. This was the whole point of "Williams" article. We have reached the point where our differences are irreconcilable. The constitution in many Americans eyes has been abrogated to the point of no return. He is saying lets part company before things get nasty.
    BoatShoes wrote: It's so vogue to quote Jefferson when his view of America was that it would be a nation of limited population wherein we would all be yeomen farmers keeping to our own affairs.
    I doubt that was Jefferson's view. If it was he would not have fallen prey himself to violating the limits of the constitution by securing the Louisiana Purchase in the manner that he did. The constitution is a document made by men over 200 years ago. It is not infallible. It is not engraved in stone. It has an amendment process that gives it the ability to be relevant to all Americans today and in the future. If only politicians would use it.
    BoatShoes wrote: It was the federalists who envisioned the America we have today. There is no monument of Alexander Hamilton nor Chief Justice Marshall sitting with ambiance in the nation's capital but we are living in their monument, a powerful economic force on a global scale.
    I doubt they were that clairvoyant. Believe it or not Boat there were those that craved central authority in the 18th century. It is my opinion that the least common denominator was essential to gain the signing of all the states delegates to the constitution. The penchant for centralization of power that many of the signatories feared began before the ink was dried on the constitution. As in today's political world they settled for what they could get and worked from there. History shows us that the natural progression of government is to gain power over the governed.
    BoatShoes wrote: Without our powerful federal government there is so much power we would lack....we can have Freedom with a capital F as opposed to freedom.
    I would not say every act of the federal government has devious intent. Much good has been accomplished with increased federal power. But what good has been achieved is not guaranteed to continue. A just and benevolent dictator could accomplish good as well. The danger is granting central power to efficiently disperse just and good policy for the sake of the masses. Many of our founders wisely knew that granting such centralized power would inevitably attract those with nefarious intent.
    BoatShoes wrote: Granted, the Congress has mistakenly justified their actions with the Commerce Power while treating it as a Police Power when it is not even necessary as Article 1. Sec. 8 provides Congress with a police power in it's outright and did not leave this power solely dedicated to the states. And, if this not be true and the contemporary conservative demands it such, she negligently calls for the demise of a great national power.
    I am confused as to what you are saying here. Maybe you can clarify.
    BoatShoes wrote: "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."~Thomas Jefferson.
    Jefferson is correct. No one can predict the future. That is why the founders provided us with a constitution that could be amended without limit, negating their very words if so willed by the amendment process.
  • believer
    majorspark wrote:
    BoatShoes wrote:"no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."~Thomas Jefferson.
    Jefferson is correct. No one can predict the future. That is why the founders provided us with a constitution that could be amended without limit, negating their very words if so willed by the amendment process.
    It's unfortunate that our Congressional "leadership" has become so spineless, corrupt, and self-preservationist that they have defaulted that amendment process to the judicial branch.

    If Jefferson and other members of a nation's founders were to return today, my guess is they would be both pleased at what our nation's people have accomplished yet appalled at what our federal government has become.