What is written in 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.”
The People created a bond “to secure these rights…” and the relationship is that of “Governments… instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. It is illogical to conclude that our founding document was aimed pointedly at one segment of government, and allowed another segment to run in any which way it desired. The states are bound by the same precepts, restrictions, and rules set forth in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. The state is not limitless in power, and it cannot abridge “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” on a whim, usurped power, political agenda, or interpretations clearly made to infringe upon the individuals rights.
Since the People created a compact that gives certain powers to the federal government, and prohibits the infringement of rights, there must be some authority to protect the individual from transgressions. Can we posit from the action of restricting the federal government that the People intended that they had the capacity to defend against crimes of tyranny committed by the federal government? Would it be rational to claim that they would accomplish a security of rights by giving the state unlimited powers, or rather that they gave the state the duty to protect the individual’s rights by whatever means available? Is it not reasonable that the unlimited power of the state was aligned solely to the duty of the protection of rights rather than the restriction of rights?
If the state has the authority to enact any law, either by decree, claims of the Tenth Amendment infinite power, or by enticing the majority to give away not only its rights, but those of us who can see and think clearly, what is the purpose of arguing for any right at all? Where does the argument begin and end for a limited government? Does it end when we realize that we’ve given away our freedom to power seekers, and career politicians at both the state and federal level?
In a perfect world, we would at least have a basic knowledge of our fundamental law. The words are clear that it is not men who are instituted among governments, and therefore it was deemed at the outset that the people should hold not only the purse, but also the sword in order to hold government in check. After all, that body of men and women who are given certain administrative functions within the system are there at the pleasure of the People, and the rule of law.
We should never have allowed the idea that any branch of government can interpret, or move from the fact that it is the People who are sovereign, and not subject to the law especially when that law suits the ‘compelling interests’ of the servant. We’ve failed miserably when succumbing to the idea that those who pass a bar exam given by a membership club, or wear a black robe have authority to centralize the power so that tyranny can flourish.
The judiciary should have been taken to task immediately when it began to interpret the law, and design the rules of the court calling for allegiance to its authority rather than that of the Constitution. Above any decisions made by a small group of men, or women there must be an authority of the People to curtail, and in many cases arrest and prosecute those who claim powers that jeopardize the happiness of the individual.
When the judiciary began to show its true colors the governors of the states should have immediately mustered the Militia to make the appropriate arrests, and thereafter made it clearly unlawful for a member of the bar to hold any office other than that associated with the judiciary. An oath to the rules of the court should be defined as a conflict of interest to any other role outside the function of the judiciary.
Failing in their duty to protect the rights of the People, the governors of the original Thirteen Colonies left us with a legacy of corrupt courts that could overturn every aspect of the Constitution, all the way through The Bill of Rights.
Now, instead of a Constitutional Federal Republic, we have a democracy. It is so ingrained in our national identity that even those who should know better use the term. Even on admonition to the fact of law, the responses are typically defensive to the erroneous notion of our form of government. How do you resolve ignorance?
If it is your choice to give away your rights through abject stupidity, and you want to live as a slave, it is your personal choice. It cannot have a binding effect on other individuals, or the body of the people who desire to live unencumbered by the agenda of a group that believes it knows best, or has granted itself powers to interpret what the law should be.
I have asked the question before; does the state have the power to enact any law, create any court, or enforce any rule it chooses?
I don’t expect anyone to give a legitimate, and well thought out answer to such a question. Why bother when emotions and hysteria will work quite well for another attack on liberty.
Think about what I’ve asked. It is a critical question. It requires that the person, or persons being asked has either some understanding of freedom, or at least a rudimentary ability to logically analyze the possibilities of what the outcome could be; a society controlled by a tyrannical government.
Government, once allowed to expand, will hold no bounds, restrictions, or conscience. It will continue to grow, and siphon off the wealth, prosperity, and happiness of the People.
Most will continue with their heads in the sand, and some of us will run around shouting about corruption and tyranny to no avail. Others will go into court where the government will make specious claims about immunity, security, general welfare, and compelling interests. The few of us will call for the revitalization of the Militia, The Citizen Soldier, in order to reclaim the Grand Jury, and protect the Petit Jury from improper instructions, and threats.
We must realize that if we play in a rigged game the disposition of power shifts to those who not only claim authority they do not have, but are also subsidized by ignorant and avarice followers, we can only reach one point; that is the dismantling of liberty, and the complete loss of wealth of the common man.
Think before you support more powers for the state. It will ultimately lead to a struggle that your children or grandchildren will be forced to fight. The question to ask yourself is, will they be forced to do so “when there is no hope of victory”?