by: Per Bylund

Or maybe it is the other way around, it is hard to tell. In any case, it is easy to see what federalism is about in both cases - and what happens when federalism exists side by side with nation-states (as in the EU). Whereas the US federal government is and has been running amok, the EU is running hyper-amok.

One reason for this is the ongoing tug of war between the national parliaments and the powers at the super-national level. I say powers for a reason, because there is an ongoing tug of war within the EU as well, mainly between the elected European Parliament and the national governments' representatives in the Council of Ministers.

One can easily understand that these conflicts are related.

On the one hand, there is the "democratic" view of "the people's voice" being represented by the national parliaments (keep the power "close" to the people) and the European Parliament (elected by the European peoples). On the other, there is the power motive and the aim by those currently in power to increase their influence - through overriding national parliaments as well as the European Parliament. (I don't take sides for either side in this, as both ultimately represent centralization of power on the European continent.)

What is interesting in comparing the US federal government with the European Union is the institutional difference and how that affects the political ruling class. In the US, they are formally restricted by the Constitution (even though it is a failed attempt to limit power) and the federal powers are separated. Furthermore, the federalism of the United States is for a number of states with basically the same culture.

In the European Union, there is no constitution and therefore no formal restriction to how much federalism may grow or in what ways. The only limit is due to the fact that the federal power is over numerous bodies with distinctly different cultures, languages, traditions, and history. This is of course an obstacle to the efficiency of Rule, but it also creates a situation where people are in the hands of their rulers. The reason for this is that rulers have a common goal: more and centralized power. The peoples of Europe have different aims and different views with respect to federal power. France, for instance, seems to aim for a federalized Europe to be able to force their socialist views on everybody and become a power great enough to replace the USA as the world's super power. The UK, on the other hand, is member but would rather not be: the Brits are against the common currency and basically any "harmonization" of policies. Whereas the peoples of France and UK cannot agree on what to do or even in what direction to go, the political elite in both countries aim for the same thing: increased power.

A recent example of how things work in the EU is the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty formerly known as the "Constitution" of the EU. This document specifies that the EU now has the right to relieve the national governments of whatever power the EU "needs" to address whatever problem. This document needed to be confirmed by all member nations, in some of which national law required decision by referendum. The people of Ireland and other countries voted No. So the EU power elite renamed the document to "treaty," bribed the peoples with subsidies and promises and had them go through another referendum. The treaty was accepted.

Currently, the so-called SWIFT debate is the focus of attention. This is originally a request from US authorities to gain access of all European banking data; to the European power elite, this is not a problem - it is an opportunity for increased control. So the non-elected government representatives in the Council of Ministers are all for it, whereas the European Parliament is not as happy about it (since they will, in theory, be held accountable in the general elections).

According to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has a right to be heard on issues such as this. The SWIFT decision was made November 30, however, the day before the Lisbon Treaty came into effect. It should be no surprise that those in power are corrupt and that they take whatever chances they have to make the most of their power. But in this case the decision was made before there even was a proposal - there was only a draft of the new treaty (there is an old one that runs through January, so there is really no rush). The official reason for not involving the Parliament is that the draft of the new SWIFT treaty had not been translated to all languages, which is a prerequisite for bringing issues to the Parliament.

The obvious and real reason, of course, is something very different: the Council of Ministers could not afford waiting to let the Parliament have a say in this matter. Now the Spanish chairmanship of the EU has to work through the treaty and decide on exactly what it is to include. The decision, however, has already been made.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. But don't forget that it is equally true that the corrupted seek power. Institutions may slow down the progress of power, but it will not stop the general direction. As long as we have a power elite, they will work tirelessly to gain more power. Always at our expense, of course, since power is a win-lose, winner-takes-it-all kind of game.

by Russel D. Longcore, DumpDC

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

Jefferson wrote that the People had a duty to “throw off” a despotic government.

“Throw off.”

That sounds to me like a somewhat unfriendly separation. It doesn’t sound particularly cordial. It also makes me think that the throwee ain’t exactly thrilled about getting thrown off and might take exception to the decision of the throwers.

The quote above is only once sentence from the Declaration of Independence. But it is one of the most seminal thoughts and principles of the document. Let’s take it apart and consider its words, their meanings, and the consequences.

“…A long train of abuses and usurpations…” In 1776 that was the caprice of King George III as he and his Parliament created laws that affected the colonies in ways that did not affect any other Englishmen. Those laws included the Stamp Act, various taxes and tariffs, prohibitions on imports and exports, more and more taxes, Redcoats patrolling American streets, the suspension of habeas corpus, and requiring those charged with crimes to travel back to England for trial.

Today, Washington has ignored the strictures of the Constitution of the United States, and has done so for over a hundred years.

It violates the First Amendment. There are plenty of laws that abridge free speech, not the least of which is the Patriot Act.

It violates the Second Amendment by enacting laws and regulations infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, simultaneously destroying the militia and making citizens less safe and states less secure.

It violates the Fourth Amendment through internet surveillance, airport searches and warrantless searches.

It violates the Fifth Amendment by rendition of American citizens without due process and IRS double jeopardy prosecutions. You also are compelled to be a witness against yourself every time you sign your tax return.

It violates the Sixth Amendment as no one gets a speedy trial.

It violates the Seventh Amendment when it does not protect the right to jury trial, but allows judges or administrative bodies to adjudicate cases.

It violates the Eighth Amendment as excessive bails and fines are imposed regularly.

It violates the Ninth Amendment as it ignores certain rights retained by the People.

It violates the Tenth Amendment by accruing to itself powers not delegated to it, and others reserved to the States and the People.

Need I go on? There are seventeen more Amendments.

“…pursuing invariably the same object…” What was that object? The object was to milk the maximum revenue from the colonies as possible. England had won the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763 and were heavily saddled with war debt. So the more taxes and tariffs that King George laid on the colonies, the more the colonists rebelled. Then, the King made still more laws to bring the rebels to heel.

Washington’s object today is much the same. It has a crushing war debt as well as a crushing domestic debt load. Then add the mind-boggling financial liabilities, like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae and the total comprises nearly 1000% more than the entire Gross Domestic Product of the USA. Then consider the ramifications of laws like The Patriot Act.

“…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism…” To evince is to show clearly. Colonists could see clearly that King George’s taxes and laws, designed only for the colonies, were a design to reduce their rights as free Englishmen and confiscate their wealth without due process.

Today’s long train of abuses and usurpations coming from Washington evince a design to accomplish the same objects by turning the Constitution on its head. The Federal Government of the USA started with very limited roles and clear restrictions. Washington’s design has been to acknowledge no restrictions on its power and to accomplish anything it desires.

“…it is their right, it is their duty…” American citizens may have rights that they do not exercise. But that is different than duty. Many Americans consider that military service is a duty, and there is nothing in the Constitution that states anything of the sort. But find me a person who argues with the content of the Declaration of Independence. If you run into a person who is against secession, show them the Declaration and see what they do with fulfilling their duty.

“…to throw off such government…” The process of state nullification does not throw off government. It merely attempts to control the actions of the government, and to nullify its unconstitutional laws while staying a part of the whole. Throwing off such government can only mean secession, which is the act of withdrawing formally from the United States of America.

“…and to provide new guards for their future security.” To explain this, we return to the Declaration for another quote: “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

For the People to provide new guards for their future security can only mean to institute new government. That precludes and omits any continuing relationship with the old government.

That means secession.

State secession is the only reasonable, logical and pragmatic solution to overcome the absolute despotism and criminal tyranny pouring out of Washington, DC.

by: Brian Doherty

Tim Cavanaugh was earlier riffing off the 9th amendment's multiple ideological uses; here's a report from the 10th Amendment Center on some recent action on the notion that the states and the people have some powers reserved to them from the Feds.

Excerpts:

In states around the country, there’s a growing movement to address and resist two of the most abused parts of the Constitution – the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amendment.  Already being considered in a number of state legislatures, and passed as law in Montana and Tennessee this year, the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA) is a state law that seeks to do just that.

The latest to join the FFA movement?  Kentucky.  Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session, HB87 seeks to “Create new sections of KRS Chapter 237, relating to firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition that are made in Kentucky, marked made in Kentucky, and used in Kentucky, to specify that these items are exempt from federal law”....

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010.  Fourteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances.  And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law nearly void.

This sort of nullification of federal law by the states has some awkward history in America, and indeed a court fight is already on over the Firearms Freedom Act in Montana:

In October, the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Missoula, MT to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA).

“We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state,” explained MSSA President Gary Marbut. “The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA.  It’s time for Montana and her sister states to take a stand against the bullying federal government, which the Legislature and Governor have done and we are doing with this lawsuit. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts.”

Radley Balko back in September on liberal horror of modern invocations of the 10th.