Conservative Donnybrook

On the way home from work this evening, I tuned into Neal Boortz’s radio program (funny no one else seems to be reporting this) and a caller asked Neal if he’d heard that six different state legislatures had proposed resolutions declaring their understanding that the federal government is limited by the Tenth Amendment. I have found one such resolution under consideration in New Hampshire: House Concurrent Resolution 6. The full text is as follows:

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED

2009 SESSION

09-0274

09/01

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth 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, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: Continue Reading »

The topic of the Civil War and some of the issues surrounding that conflict have arisen on this website on a couple different occasions, but I don’t believe we’ve ever hashed out whether the states possess the right to secede.

I think it can be surmised from my earlier argument (the breach of contract discussion) that I believe that state’s do possess the right to secede. It is inherent in the nature of contract that, the parties may withdraw from the compact upon a showing of breach or by mutual consent. The text of the Declaration of Independence argues strongly in favor of the idea that states possess the right to withdraw from their voluntary compacts with the federal government.

Of course, my argument was that the South did not have cause to withdraw and that it was, in fact, the South that breached its obligations under the contract. However, had the federal government breached, I believe a state would be jusitified in unilaterally declaring rescission as the remedy.  Loss of an election in itself would not provide cause. But, as we have seen from the Declaration and subsequent Revolution, if one party to the contract fundamentally changes the terms, that can provide cause. The lesson, of course, is that it is incumbent upon the national government to act with restraint and within the confines of the Constitution in order to preserve the Union. Acting beyond the sanction of the Constitution would provide a state with a claim of breach and would provide cause for separation.

Some might argue that the moment for restraint has long passed and that the contract on which this Union is premised has been irredeemibly breached. I think there is still an opportunity for reform so long as the parties remain in parity. But, that only makes the call for reform all the more urgent. I have argued that it appears that the necessary reform can only come from the formation of a third party. Neither of the current major parties appear to have the ability to exercise restraint, to honor individual freedom, or to respect the sovereignty of the states.