Time to Dissolve the Union?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[W]hat would happen if the states become independent?

States that go "protectionist" and shut down trade and immigration with other states will fall into poverty, and their crime rates would skyrocket due to smuggling. Indeed, people and businesses in those states would migrate to states with fewer taxes, fewer regulations, and free trade. Even states with few natural resources can, like Hong Kong, become economically wealthy and industrially powerful.

Also, extradition agreements could function between states the same as they do now. Sports leagues could have teams in different independent states, just as they do now in different independent countries.

And most states couldn't afford to be anything but neutral on the world stage. . .

War on Drugs: How the Attorney General Will Waste Your Money and Trash the Constitution

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/war-on-drugs-how-the-attorney-general-will-waste-your-money-and-trash-the-constitution

Proposition 19 is on California's ballot this November. It would legalize marijuana in that state.

U.S. Attorney General Holder hates Prop 19, and if it passes he's committed to wasting more of YOUR tax dollars to continue a federal War on Pot in California.

As the letter below indicates, Holder's plan is unworkable and unconstitutional.

But Congress can stop him. They can pass legislation withholding funds for Holder's plan, if necessary. But it might not have to come to that. If members of Congress from both parties announce that they are opposed to Holder's plan and will respect the will of the people of California, Holder and President Obama will likely back away.

You have the right to know TODAY where your Representative and Senators stand on this issue. After all, the election is just 15 days away!

You can ask them using DownsizeDC.org's End the Mexican Civil War Campaign.

Here is the letter I sent. You may borrow from it, making changes according to your own state where appropriate . . .

If California's Prop 19 passes, it will mean the voters believe the War on Pot is unjust, ineffective, unworkable, and too expensive.

If Nebraska passed something like Prop 19, how would you react? Would you follow the will of the people? Or would you want the DEA to randomly terrorize law-abiding Nebraskans?

Attorney General Holder wants to do the latter. If Prop 19 passes, Holder promises to "vigorously enforce" federal marijuana laws in California.

This would be a complete waste of my tax dollars! There won't be enough DEA agents to effectively enforce the federal laws.

More importantly, most federal marijuana laws - as with most federal drug laws in general - violate the Tenth Amendment. This means that the fraction of pot growers and users who do get arrested in CA will be law-abiding citizens singled out arbitrarily or maliciously by the DEA.

Please speak out against Holder's plan. Please do so before the election, so I know where you stand.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

And please share this message with friends who support the Tenth Amendment and oppose the War on Drugs.

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

You Can't Have It Both Ways With Original Intent

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

It is safe to say the Framers of the Constitution never intended the federal government to be used to compel individuals to purchase health insurance.

On the other hand, why should we bother with the "original intent" of the slave-owning, dead white males who drafted the Constitution? Didn't they deny women the right to vote? Didn't they consider an African-American slave "three-fifths of a person?"

These are good questions. It is more than fair to bring the "original intent" of the Framers into question.

But let's not be hypocritical about it. After all,

The "original intent" of these elitist, slave-owning Dead White Males was to create a strong federal government that didn't previously exist.

What Are States' Rights? Or, The Meaning of "Or"

In one of his Mises talks (I think this one), Thomas DiLorenzo clarifies what is meant - at least, what he means - by States' Rights. To paraphrase, the doctrine of States' Rights is merely the right of the people to come together to oppose and resist federal tyranny. It does not mean that the state governments have a "right" to oppress the people.

I received a letter from someone who has an interesting take on the Tenth Amendment that sounds very plausible and is consistent with DiLorenzo's thinking.

Think of these statements:

1. "My pet Fido was a canine, meaning, he was a dog."

2. "My pet Fido was a canine, that is, a dog."

3. "My pet Fido was a canine, or, a dog."

All statements indicate clarify the meaning of "canine" to those who may not know what a canine is. In the third sentence, the word "or" means "meaning" or "that is."

The Tenth Amendment reads, " 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."

If "or" is used the same way as our canine/dog example, then "the States respectively" means "the people of each state."

If this interpretation is correct, The State is understood not as the government of a defined geographical area, but as the people of that area.

It seems that the common understanding of the Tenth Amendment is something like this: "Powers not delegated to the United States are thereby reserved to the State governments, and if the State governments don't exercise those powers, the people can have them to do as they wish; either way, the federal government isn't supposed to care one way or another." And this interpretation is distasteful to those who correctly assert that government's do not have the "right" to take away individual rights.

Does this new interpretation, in which "State" means "people" rather than "government," make any difference?

In one sense, it doesn't. Some will say that it still grants state governments the freedom to oppress if "the people" consent. But that's just a recognition that neither the other states nor the federal government has the right to govern them. Neither the state of Nebraska nor the federal government has the legitimate power to tell the people of South Dakota what to do or how to govern themselves. Similarly, neither the U.S. nor the United Nations have the legitimate power to tell the Canadian people what to do or how to govern themselves.

More significant is how the "United States" meant at the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. I believe DiLorenzo along with probably several others have noted that when the preamble begins "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union" the meaning was not "we the people acting collectively as one nation" but rather "We the People of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia . . ."

So why wasn't it written that way? Because
a) the collection of states was understood when people said "the United States." They didn't have to name them all. They'd say, "the United States are . . ." instead of "the United States is . . ."
b) writing all the states out is awkward, and
c) because there was a possibility that not all the states would ratify and become part of this supposedly "more perfect" Union.

In sum, the people of the States formed the Union; the "American people" did not form the Union, for the "American people" did not exist. The Union was formed by and for the States, not by and for the majority of the "American people." Power is to emanate from the people as individuals coming together within their respective states - not from "the American people" as a whole, not from the state capitols, and not from the federal government.

To be for "states rights" is not to assert the right of state governments to oppress. It is rather, the right of the people to be free from centralized, federal control.

The Tenth Amendment is the Best Medicine

This is my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Surely, if poorer countries can afford universal health care, the United States should, right?

But that's asking the wrong question. Consider that while all nations of Europe have some form of government-run health care, the systems vary in the different countries; there is no one-size-fits, European Union program.

We shouldn't be asking, "Why doesn't the federal government provide universal health care?" but rather, "Why doesn't California? Or Georgia? Or Ohio, Mississippi, Vermont, Nebraska, or Wisconsin? If the people in those states, or any state, really wanted such a system, they could certainly afford it, because other countries of similar size and less wealth provide it.