This is not exactly a John Brown incident but it is certainly a serious shot over the bow of the Federal government:
This week, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal signed House Joint Resolution 2 (HJ0002), claiming “sovereignty on behalf of the State of Wyoming and for its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States.”
The warning in Resolution HJ0002 is pretty clear:
“That this resolution serve as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers. The state of Wyoming will not enforce such mandates.”
Freudenthal himself states:
“For decades we have shared increased frustration dealing with the federal government and its agencies. What started out as a leak in the erosion of state prerogative and independence has today turned into a flood. From wolf and grizzly bear management, to gun control, to endless regulation and unfunded mandates – the federal government has become far too powerful and intrusive.”
If Wyoming were the only State to do this it would be interesting as it is the site of the libertarian Western ‘Free State’ project. As the article further reports, it is far more than that :
Wyoming joins 10 other states that have passed similar resolutions since last year; Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee passed theirs in 2009, and Utah, Alabama, and South Carolina have joined Wyoming in passing resolutions this year.
Let us pray that the second Revolution (or Civil War as the case may be) remains one fought out in legislatures and courts. Let us also pray that our side wins, because if it does not, the US is finished as a free and prosperous country.
I love Wyoming.
I was talking to an Englishman recently about how the people are different there and he either refused to understand how people can be different in one state in the U.S. or he was just provoking me. I tend to think both. But honestly, it is very provincial to think that everyone in the US is the same from sea to shining sea. I use the term provincial because it seems the rudest thing you can call someone these days, although I think it is grossly misused.
As a former Wyomingite, this makes me proud.
I thought that “provincial” was only an insult in the minds of those at SanFran fundraisers sipping Chablis and deriding those “clinging to their guns and religion” ?
BTW, Freudenthal is a Democrat, who endorsed Obama, having cited “Obama’s style of leadership and openness to discussion.” Obama won the Wyoming Democratic caucus by a 61.44-37.83 margin over then U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
I too, an eastern academic, am a Wyoming fan and enjoyed the Wyoming conference for English profs in Laramie for many years. The western academics were a refreshing change from snotty Ivy Leaguers. However I was born in Quebec City on the great St. Lawrence and have spent virtually my whole life close to vast bodies of water and life away from such a landscape is just unthinkable.
To which the federal government will reply: “Pish-tush, do you want to die?”
It’ll be interesting to see who’s serious, here.
An image of Auric Goldfinger and his industrial laser just flashed through my head.
That seems a particularly brave stand for Alaska to take, given the amount of money it takes from the Federal government in contravention of the 10th amendment. I wonder if they’ve done it as a matter of principle, or whether they’ve calculated that the state would be better off overall.
Have you noticed Hillary Clinton’s tendency in the last few years to wear Bond Villain outfits? Ominous, says I.
There has been some pertinent commentary over at VC on the underlying issues partially reflected in the actions of WY and other states. Parens Patria, Amendment X, etc.; lots dealing with the “Constitutionality” of legislative provisions.
The trends of our U.S “Society” have been and are to abandon the constitutional format for political fiat – and there are no signs that these trends will change, let alone stop.
The concept that our Federal government is one of enumerated powers has been effectively neutered, progressively, for over the past 100 years or so now.
Two simple examples of such Federal exception (which, incidentally, correlate with resultant extreme economic dysfunction) are Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. TThey were enacted under taxing powers (FICA, e.g.), but without specific enumerated authority for the appropriations. And, of course, SCOTUS has assured us that those taxes created no “rights,” but that the appropriations have been and continue to be entirely at the arbitrary discretion of Congress. Thus, the U.S. electorate has accepted the political fiats, without regard for Constitutional constraints (much as Woodrow Wilson urged) in exchange for the “benefits” to “society as a whole.”
Thus, it has been and is being accepted by the electorate that our social order is better off by departures from the doctrine of Enumerated Powers controlling and limiting the functions of the Federal government – now expanding to education, housing, HEALTHCARE, bikepaths, etc., etc.
Can the electorate be wrong? You Betcha! And they always are when being bribed with their own money.
Still, the Constitution is going away, though not for the reasons Wilson noted.
There will be some periods of reactions, some slowing of the trends, but by the time of my children’s grandchildren our prior forms of social organization will be a relic of “different times.”
RRS,
I do not disagree with the trend you describe. It may not take the 4 generations you mention for the fall of our political order. The “Slaughter Rule” [for Brits, it is named for Rep. Louise Slaughter D- NY] that allows the Speaker to “deem” that a bill has been passed without a vote being taken was enacted in our House of Representatives a couple of days ago. It is expected to be used Sunday to nationalize our healthcare without a vote, barring a miracle. Further the White House Press Secretary announced yesterday that they reserve the power to use the method for other items of the President’s agenda.
We are ruled by fiat, decree, Ukase, the radiance of the “Lightworker’s” countenance, or whatever. We are not governed by the actual consent of the governed in whatever this system is.
Consider it, for the Brits, the equivalent to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act of 2007, wherein your Parliament granted to any Ministry the power to enact, amend, or repeal laws by signature without further reference to Parliament or Crown. Labour has not used it yet [that we know of] but it is there. Our equivalent of it is being used now. Who needs a Constitution when you have the Slaughter Rule?
I, and a number of others, have difficulty in seeing how the Democrats can ever allow honest elections in the future. Polling for Congress’ approval is at the lowest level on record. Right now, even with the Capitol phone system on overload, they are getting 100,000 calls an hour protesting the healthcare bill and the Democrat response has been literally to try to charge some callers with the Federal crime of “Harassment” for calling. It is becoming common for Democrat Congressmen to lock their local office doors rather than face constituents. Obama’s personal polling is in some major polls below Bush’s; the more so the more accurate the demographic and political breakdown of the poll. Politicians who have usurped power do not meekly step down when they can count the votes themselves.
We are waiting for the other economic shoe to drop. Leading indicators of consumer demand are dropping off the cliff. The stock market is moving up, but with extremely low volume, which indicates market manipulation by insiders rather than actual value. Companies are very literally preparing major layoffs of workers if healthcare nationalization passes Sunday, and I know of one major electronics manufacturer which is preparing to move its entire operation overseas [Singapore] in that event and is offering subsidies to its contractors and sub-contractors to move there too.
In the face of this, the only tool the government has left is fiat, as they have neither credibility nor constitutional legitimacy left.
Given that situation, the action of Wyoming and the other states may end up being more akin to the remonstrances and petitions to the Throne and Parliament by the English colonies in the 1750’s than to anything else. We know where that ended up, and events move a lot faster now than centuries ago. I suspect we are but one or two triggering incidents from a struggle that will determine the future of Liberty in the West. I am not sanguine about the prospects; determined but not sanguine.
Subotai Bahadur
Unless a fundamental change happens among the people, I think you’re right. The key is the education system though. Private and home schooling has been increasing, which is encouraging. I just don’t know how much time we have left to counter the inertia.
Alasdair: deriding those “clinging to their guns and religion” ?
if you do not cling to the former, you can expect to kiss goodbye to the latter*.
* in the broad meaning, “way of life”
Subotai, you are correct. This is all happening rather faster than is perhaps accepted. It seems most folk have some kind of idea of business as usual even if they hear that ominous rumbling sound in the distance. It could all come down as in a whirlwind.
Some events in recent history have been very surprising and fast such as the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Wyoming has indeed taken a bold stance. Alaska could supply the US with all the oil it needs and more.
I am also watching Israel.
To give a better picture of the timescale :
My father was b. 1879
I am approaching 86. Our Children are 53 and 49; theirs are 23, 20, 18 & 17. That’s not so far away is it?
But, the point is that the electorate accept and settle for ad hoc reactions (they are not solutions) to perceived deficiencies in our social order as opposed to “staying within the rules” of a Constitutional system.
After all, why do societies have Constitutions? Was ours generated just to fill in the blanks after the departure from English Law? T.R., Wilson, FDR, and others have thought so, and that is the trend.
but without specific enumerated authority for the appropriations
Actually the enumerated power is the Tax & Spend Clause
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”
So, Congress has the power to spend as they see fit for the “general welfare” of the US.
This and the Interstate Commerce Clause are the two enumerated powers that have grown to swallow the idea of limited government.
Especially since the post-FDR court packing scheme SCOTUS have ruled that there is almost nothing the Interstate Commerce Clause can’t do.
So you really can’t argue that the powers are enumerated, just that the Courts are not treating those enumerations properly.
What I truly think the main culprit of centralized government is the idea that strings-attached funding is OK. Congress will earmark X dollars for the states if states agree to enact legislation Y.
This has made every state and city government a lowly client of their patron in DC.
Indeed, RSS, it is not so far away.
I was thinking: How on earth is anything ever going to be sorted out if politicians are not accountable for, nor answerable for the consequences of, anything they said or did more than five minutes ago?
What cheerful, self-satisfied face will America’s current rulers put on things in a few years’ time as they view the wreckage they have caused?
I have met a lot of con men in work that I have done and I am bowled over time and again by the sheer amoral, deceiving “chutzpah” that politicians from both sides of the Atlantic manifest.
Why does anyone ever believe anything they say? Ever.
EvilDave, et al. –
Many who read and post here are well aware of James Madison’s letter in which he dealt with the proper understanding of the “general welfare” wording.
There used to be (and sometimes is still applied) a doctrine that a document must be construed in terms of its entirety.
But, what can be observed are the continuing efforts to “escape” from or supplant the strictures of a constututional format.
Many factors have been cited as to why these trends toward political fiat have been and are being accepted by the electorates.
Missing from electoral consideration in these trends has been concern with who determines, and how, and to what ends shall be this so-called General Welfare.
So far, the trends of how appear to impose burdens on some for the benefits of others (from by ability – to by need; also, read Rawls). The who seem to be an evolving political/academic class. The ends, though obfuscated, are to foster the composition of the who.
Political historians might see this as a move toward a type of oligarchy. That definition may fit the succesfully developing Asian prototypes, which may replace our system of social order over time.
EvilDave –
Since you quote me, please note my use of the word “specific” to modify and give particular meaning to “enumerated.”
If general welfare is a specific, which better minds than mine have denied, then, we have never had a constitutional system.
None of the big health, education and welfare schemes were thought up by the “electorate” nor were the voters even keen on them till they got used to each one in turn.
The schemes are, and always have been, thought up and pushed into effect by the “educated” elite.
Even such support that schemes have is manufactured.
For example, only a minority of Americans support Obamacare – yet even that minority would not support it if healtcare was not so expensive.
And healthcare is so expensive BECAUSE OF ALL THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS – THE REGULATIONS AND THE SPENDING PROGRAMS.
One intervention leads to another – or “middle of the road policy leads to socialism” as Ludwig Von Mises put it.
Still good luck people – for now the crises years have arrived.
Government is too big for civil society to long support it – yet the elite are determined to make government EVEN BIGGER.
The intention is obvious – deliberatly smash civil society and replace it will full collectivism.
And the left are correct – the present system can not stand (it is a mess) it will become all one thing or all the other.
Collectivism or freedom – the next few years will decided that, as the present compromise has reached the end of the road.
Of course what the left do not know (can not bring themselves to admit) is that full collectivism does not work either.
So even if they win they lose – they will destroy civil society only to see their own alternative (collectivism) collapse into bloodsoaked chaos.
That is why we must defeat them – oddly enough for their good as well as our own.
Ah Paul –
You are so right:
That “getting used to” is acceptance of political fiat.You are the first in this trhread to note whence cometh the political fiat – and why it comes.
Many thanks RRS.
In the very unlikely event I get to 86, I hope I am half the man that you are.
Actually I would settle for being half the man that you are right now.