by Timothy Baldwin
Liberty Defense League
January 20, 2010
The sentiment is brewing, the consensus is collecting and the solution is becoming more apparent: the States of America must reclaim their sovereignty and independence to protect our God-given liberty and freedom. At this point in our country’s existence, I dare say that the time for persuading others to “join their side” is over. For the most part, the people of the states have chosen what type of government they want, how they relate to that government and what they are willing to do to effectuate it.
American history reveals the same categorical beliefs concerning freedom and government have existed since 1776 (as human nature never changes): a small percentage (say, 10%) fight for freedom and independence; a small percentage (say, 10%) fight for imperialism; a large majority (say 40%) care nothing about getting involved; and the remaining percentage follow whomever they believe will win at the end of the day, to merely be treated as favorably as possible by the victors. These choices become more revealed as oppression becomes harsher and more intense, for with every action there is a reaction.
As the oppression from the federal government has become increasingly known and felt over the past one hundred years, those who have attempted to remedy the situation have explored solutions, most of which involved merely voting. Unfortunately, the solutions used during the twentieth century have proven ineffectual to protect freedom, and perhaps worse: they have aided the oppression of the federal government. Many are saying, enough is enough. Thus, now in 2010, real solutions are being seriously considered, not the least of which is an individual state’s DECLARATION ON INDEPENDENCE, just as the colonies did in 1776. This Declaration of Independence is commonly referred to as Secession.
Perhaps there is not a single issue that cuts to the heart of American principles more than the matter of declaring independence from all others, as secession does. The principles in support of or against secession are literally a dividing line that cannot be resolved by a (supposed) “common court” or “final arbiter,” such as the federal supreme court. A court can no more dictate to a body-politic (i.e. state) regarding the principles of self-government, consent of the governed, sovereignty, statehood, natural law, or breach-of-compact remedies than it can dictate an individual’s ability to defend his home from unlawful invaders.
Indeed, the States have never given up this natural right to govern and defend themselves, especially where the compact (i.e. the constitution) has been violated (e.g. “long train of abuses [evincing] a design to reduce them under absolute despotism”) by the entity created to be bound to its terms (i.e. the federal government). How do we know this? First, because there is nothing in the terms of the US Constitution itself which even implies that the states gave up their right to dissolve their part in the compact, which was formed by their voluntary assent to begin with. To the contrary, the US Constitution confirms that sovereignty of states in the tenth amendment. Second, because all of the most influential freedom documents used by our founding generation giving political, moral and legal grounds to secede from Great Britain confirm the right of a body-politic to disassociate itself with other states where the compact between them is violated. Third, because the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” reveal that a body-politic has the right “to alter or to abolish [government], 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.” Fourth, because the very principles used to empower the federal government, contrary to the true meaning of the constitution, confirm that if the federal government’s powers can change with circumstances, so can the States’ powers, “to secure these rights [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
You may not like the fact that all the States in America have this right of self-government. You may not agree with it. You may not understand it. But your opinion on the matter does not change their right given by God Himself. You may wish that the States would be perpetually bound to a union enslaving them. You may say that the States MUST pass a constitutional amendment to “reinstitute freedom.” You may opine that three-fourths of the States are the only means of preserving freedom. You may believe that each State could not “make it on its own.” But your opinions does not change the laws of nature, the rights and powers of an individual state, the authority of an individual body-politic and the obligations of all external subjects and objects (e.g. the federal government) relevant to the sovereign political decision of each state.
When the US Constitution was being publically discussed, it was never proposed that the union would thrive because of government FORCE holding them together. Rather, a moral bond was presupposed to hold the states together; namely, the principles of freedom revealed through the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Moreover, the States rested their ratification of the compact in 1787 upon the assumption that all the states and the federal government (their creation) would maintain the requisite element of GOOD FAITH to “uphold, defend and support the Constitution of the United States of America.” Without this assumption of good faith, “they would never [have] coalesce[d] into one body.” Samuel Pufendorf, Two Books of the Elements of Universal Jurisprudence, (Indianapolis, IN, Liberty Fund, 2009), 127. Those individual bodies-politic understood that “men who violate those pacts are sinning against the same law.” Ibid., 126. Therefore, where the necessary and requisite element of GOOD FAITH does not exist in that society, there will necessarily exist a valid fear that the compact will continually be breached. See, Ibid., at 127. When continuing fears of such breaches exist, “no civil society [can] be…preserved.” Ibid.
To many, this reality is all too clear. The federal government has demonstrated its continual and intended breach of the compact formed in 1787. To them, the shame they should feel for violating this compact apparently does not furnish enough restraint to limit their actions within the lines and bounds of delegated authority. Bad faith is evident and obvious. As a result, the people of the states are reviving their rights under the rule of law, which states, “if one party has broken its pledged good faith the other party is no longer bound.” Ibid., 122. From this rule of law, a truth follows: “he who does not stand by pacts already violated by the other party is not perfidious.” Ibid. In other words, where the non-breaching party of a compact no longer recognizes its obligations under the original compact, that non-breaching party is within its rights in doing so, viz-a-viz, secession.
In 2010, freedom-loving people in America are taking these principles seriously and have decided to lead their community and state in this regard. Many are running for state political office and are literally campaigning on the principles of state sovereignty, independence and/or secession. You can visit the this site to see which candidates have so far signed what is called the “Ten-Four Pledge,” sponsored by Michael Boldin, creator of www.tenthamendmentcenter.com. These candidates are doing what no generation of candidates have done in a long time: they are standing on the principles of true federalism, wherein the states have the power and even the duty to resist federal tyranny. Consider their “Ten-Four Pledge” in part:
“As a public office holder, or a candidate for public office, I promise that, as long as I hold office:
1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.
2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.
3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.
4. I will introduce, sponsor and support resolutions affirming the sovereignty of the People of this State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that nullifies, within my state, actions of the federal government which exceed its Constitutional authority.
6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.
7. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation which refuses federal funding made on condition that my State comply with federal mandates not authorized by the Constitution.
8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.
9. I will be accountable to voters. Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.
10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.”
Candidates like these will only continue to grow. This is not going away.
Whether you like it or not, a revolution is taking place in America. It is a revolution standing firm on the principles that our founding generation fought and died for: self-government, consent of the governed, constitutional government, limited government, separation of powers, lines of sovereignty, natural laws of God, freedom and all that implies. A constitution itself may be virtually ignored by the government it created, but the principles and power of freedom never leave a body of people who are willing to take action and yes, sacrifice for these principles’ preeminence.
Indeed, were it not for those men and women who truly believed (“faith without works is dead”) that duty to God required resistance to tyranny, it is likely that the “experiment” in freedom would never have gotten to the laboratory of a constitution in 1781 or 1787. The colonies would have remained dependent on Great Britain. The colonies would have never become sovereign and independent states. The checks and balances, limitations and bounds of delegation within a written constitution, based upon the natural laws of God, would have never been incorporated into American governmental fabric.
Face the facts: the train of abuses is not slowing down. Just the opposite, it is gaining speed and adding more carts to its momentum every day. The time for choosing sides has just about expired. When the hammer falls, knowing where to stand and why will be crucial to you and your posterity’s freedom. Make the right decision: choose freedom.
Copyright © Timothy Baldwin 2010
Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment