Blog

An Email Discussion

I thought it might be interesting to show an email discussion I was in recently. This illustrates the divide between Tenthers and those who accept blindly what they have learned from government run schools.

—–Original Message—–
From: Lex [mailto:lex@electlex.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 10:45 AM
To: ‘My Friend’
Subject: RE: current politics

For those who don’t know it, I am working closely with the Tenth Amendment Center and some of my writings can be seen at www.illinois.tenthamendmentcenter.com For an interesting commentary on the issue of nullification, something that I believe in wholeheartedly, please check out Jack Hunter at:

—–Original Message—–
From: ‘My Friend’
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2011 12:00 PM
To: Lex
Subject: RE: current politics

I figured that the issue of nullification was settled with the civil war. Or do we need another of those to resolve our current issues?

According to you, if the State and the Federal government are in conflict, why cannot each state decide which laws are acceptable and which are too inconvenient to obey?

Sorry, I don’t like your child labor, clean water, immigration or tax laws. If I have $100M to elect sympathetic state legislators to nullify those pesky federal laws, I can make a mint. Next week, we’ll introduce our plan to abolish unions and the 40-hour workweek. Oh, and Eisenhowers’s warning about the military-industrial complex is quite quaint.

Nullification is a dangerous idea. The Tenth Amendment was curtailed by the Fourteenth to guarantee equal protection under the law. Don’t like the law? Fight it at the federal level, not through nullification via the Tenth. We fought a Civil War 150 years ago over States Rights. Are we headed to round two? Because I see no political solution once nullification starts.

You say that the government is on its way to insolvency because of an unconstitutional overreach? I say it is due more to corruption. When we bestow $1T in tax credits for favored donors, there might be the appearance of impropriety. When the tax rate for the landed gentry, whose very prosperity is protected by the government they decry, cannot be raised lest the poor suffer, my sympathy falters.

We have 235 year of laws enacted by a duly elected Congress sign by Presidents. Which part don’t you think are constitutional?

—–Original Message—–
From: Lex [mailto:lex@electlex.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2011 9:55 AM
To: ‘My Friend’
Subject: RE: current politics

There are numerous errors and misapplied assumptions in your answer so let me respond. As a matter of fact, taking into account all of the founding documents and English common law, which SCOTUS does on its better considered decisions, there is, in fact, a number of limits upon and missions defined for government at all levels. The Constitution of the United States (COTUS for now) is small and concise in its explanation of the limits and permissions. Most of the law we have passed in the last 150 years (as well as much passed prior) is, in fact, beyond the limits prescribed. The fact that SCOTUS allows much of it is no different than saying that Dred Scott or Plessy Ferguson should be the law of the land because it has been ruled on already. In fact, they were not constitutional decisions.

Also, SCOTUS is not defined in the COTUS as being the one, or even one at all, definer of constitutionality, except specifically as allowed in Art. 3. It was in Marbury v. Madison that SCOTUS under Marshall took the liberty and has done so ever since. Madison and Jefferson stood up to the Alien and Sedition Acts with the Kentucky and Virginia resolves, but that case we decided by Jefferson’s election. However, there have been numerous cases of state’s powers defined and defended from then up until 1997. I’ll come back to that.

Congress is limited to Art. 1, Sec. 8 and no individual or state is indebted to any law that doesn’t conform to that Section because of the Supremacy Clause. It clearly states that only laws passed pursuant to the COTUS are supreme. Period. To address Joe’s expansion permissions under the Commerce Clause, there is ample evidence of a limited interpretation from founding documents. The intent was a limited government and Madison, among many others that you can find with a quick google, said that if the commerce clause is broadly applied, then the COTUS was unnecessary.

The commerce clause, as Madison wrote to Joseph Caball in 1798: “ …was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government..”

Joseph Story wrote about the commerce clause: “Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory.”

So at this point, I have pointed out the folly of the expanded definition of that clause. It is also helpful to note that SCOTUS has conflicting decisions on the matter into recent times. Lopez v. US clearly contradicts the liberal application that Joe prefers.

Back to the purpose of government and the appearance of conflict between the 10th and 14th. In fact there is no real conflict except in interpretation. In fact, states and the federal government were bound to honor the Bill of Rights by their agreement to the COTUS. Yet both conspired for about 75 years to keep slavery alive against their own law. Abolitionists and carpetbaggers, emboldened by the 13th, tried to abrogate the power of southern states that had trampled the rights of their people, but the 14th actually still leaves them intact except to step in when the states fail to do their legally required duty: to protect the rights of all of their citizens. (I’ll let you find the actual definition of the purpose of civil government in the founding documents on your own.)

This was addressed by SCOTUS in 1883 when overturning the 1875 civil rights law. Here is an excerpt: “Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against State laws and State proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, and by power given to Congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect: and such legislation must necessarily be predicated upon such supposed State laws or State proceedings, and be directed to the correction of their operation and effect.…

And so in the present case, until some State law has been passed, or some State action through its officers or agents has been taken, adverse to the rights of citizens sought to be protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, no legislation of the United States under said amendment, nor any proceeding under such legislation, can be called into activity: for the prohibitions of the amendment are against State laws and acts done under State authority.… It is absurd to affirm that, because the rights of life, liberty and property (which include all civil rights that men have), are by the amendment sought to be protected against invasion on the part of the State without due process of law, Congress may therefore provide due process of law for their vindication in every case; and that, because the denial by a State to any persons, of the equal protection of the laws, is prohibited by the amendment, therefore Congress may establish laws for their equal protection.”

As far as federal laws that you list, child labor laws are dubious under the COTUS and actually hurt the poor worse than the rich, who can afford to live on dad’s income. The clean water act is covered under COTUS, as is immigration. Taxing according to clause 1 of Art. 1 Sec 8 and the 16th Amendments are ok, but the code as it exists with out apportionment and so many unequal exemptions and loopholes is clearly unconstitutional.

As to the danger in nullification, please remember that we have had many examples of nullification over the years. Illinois and 25 other states nullified the Real ID law by outlawing it under state law. It is resurgent and may be supported in Illinois this time around. Montana recently passed the Firearms Freedom Act which points out that any gun manufactured, sold and used solely with in state borders is exempt from federal law. The BATF has stated they will not recognize the state law, but then have refused to test it. California effectively nullifies unconstitutional marijuana law with a battery of state and local statute. The DEA has emphatically denied their permission, but except for a few minor lapses, is obeying the boundary. Nullification already occurs by legislation, executive order and court decisions more often then you recognize.

Finally, I will get back to the SCOTUS view of state’s powers and their right to ignore unconstitutional federal law. Sheriff Richard Mack, who I have the pleasure of meeting last year, was a key player in Mack, Printz v. US. Sheriff Mack was elected in Arizona and was ordered by the federal government to execute the Brady gun ban under the Clinton Administration. He refused. He cited his oath to protect and defend the COTUS. Since the law was clearly unconstitutional, his claim was that he could not administer it. Federal Judge John Roll ruled “Mack is thus forced to choose between keeping his oath or obeying the act, subjecting himself to possible sanctions.” The government appealed and on June 27, 1997, the Brady Bill was ruled to be unconstitional in the SCOTUS. The basis of the ruling was the 1992 decision in New York v. the US: “We have held, however, that the state legislatures are not subject to federal direction … The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” In Scalia’s opinion in Printz, he said, “Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers but only discrete enumerated ones.” Sheriff Mack effectively nullified the Brady bill in his county by his actions and that led to a victory for state’s powers activists like me.

Do we have to fight another civil war to re-establish the proper balance of power and restore constitutional government? According to our Declaration of Independence, “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.” I think I have established a credible base for the usurpations of the power of the states and the overstepping of the constitutional limits of Congress. How far we go until it is absolute despotism is a bit subjective. I certainly believe we are closer than you believe.

Finally, I want to address something from Joe’s email of today in which he defers to the decisions of leaders and professors, whom he feels is more qualified than he to make these decisions and analyses. I disagree than any of them knows better than me until they address my concerns to my satisfaction. Simply saying “SCOTUS says so, so it is” will never be enough in my book. These concepts do not require a Ph. D. to understand. I think more people need to confidently become involved, as equals, or we will continue as an oligarchy of corporate interests who care not for the tranquilized masses.

- Lex

May 30, 2011 | Categories:Uncategorized | Leave A Comment »

There ought to be a law.

It is so common to hear, “There ought to be a law.” In fact, the knee jerk response of legislators and citizens alike is almost always to invoke the government to fix things. Since we are too often too busy with our lives otherwise, it is easy to accept government solutions. But if we allow ourselves to be lulled into perpetual indifference, we will find that solutions we don’t like will be forced upon us and our Liberties lost. Many think that we are already there.

Strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States in its original form would limit the national government from infringing on our rights. Yet we have seen many decades of overreaching by Congress and the inaction of states to defend its citizens. There is a new awakening to the proper balance, but it comes after so much expansion of national law that we are now on our heels and reeling.

The fight over individual rights, and the power of states to protect them, began before the ink was dry on the hemp of the Constitution. But the modern era of bloated regulations and taxation began around 100 years ago during the worldwide expansion of socialism. We now have many generations that have grown up inured to the loss of rights and habituated to government solutions. So the first response to each lost liberty is to look for another law to protect us. Now we find that the balance of power is upside down and the leviathan national government disregards its limits with regularity.

Many people want to pass laws to re-establish state sovereignty. Many laws recommended by the Tenth Amendment Center would help to recover the proper balance of power. The advantage is to bring the weight of state government to bear in enforcement of our rights. But is another state law necessary?

There are two reasons why such a law might be counterproductive. And we have an example in the recent failure of one such law to pass. In California, advocates for Liberty tried to get the legalization of marijuana codified into law. That effort failed at the ballot box and the failure points out the inherent problem of a democratic society. Allowing popular will to trump the rule of constitutional law actually entrenches infringements of personal liberty.

There is no constitutional basis for prohibition of marijuana. If fact, such law is counter to every concept of liberty that anyone can imagine. No one can claim to protect freedom through prohibition. By attempting and failing to “legalize” marijuana, advocates have emboldened those who want to trample on the Constitution and everything it stands for.

I have heard similar sentiments for other positive law initiatives. What if they fail? Doesn’t that make it harder re-establish a lost liberty? In fact, it does. When the state aligns itself with the national government to restrict freedom, the endorsed infringement becomes a tyranny.

This brings us to the other downside of passing a state law to protect freedoms. We already possess freedom and only lose it voluntarily. Whether it be smoking pot in California, or protecting gun ownership in Montana, or nullifying national ID in Illinois, the ultimate responsibility for protecting freedom rests with each of us. If we are afraid or too lazy to fight for our rights, they will be taken from us. And relying on another law to do the job for us is just another excuse for inaction.

Samuel Adams wrote “If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.”

Make no mistake about it. It is fear that keeps us in line. But succumbing to fear keeps us isolated where unity would keep us safe. The DEA can bust one or two in a car or home, but it cannot fight a community or a state. The BATF can vilify a small group and arrest them or even kill them. But a population of hundreds, thousands or more can stop the tanks and SWAT teams.

Here in Illinois we know that our state legislators and governors have little interest in standing up to the national government. The game in Springfield is to work with Washington to funnel money back to the state. They have been bought and sold in this decades old game that continues to work against the people. And they continue to buy compliance in the populace with earmarks and handouts. We need our state government to become our ally once again.

To fight this abuse, we need numbers of people to demonstrate together their resolve. We need to convince our representatives in the General Assembly that our rights are more important than campaign contributions and re-elections. If we don’t get help from our state government, we must band together for mutual protection in the same manner as our founding fathers.

George Sutherland wrote, “The saddest epitaph that can be inscribed for a lost liberty is that its owners failed to stretch out a hand to save it while there was yet still time.” Let us not bear that regret. There is still time.

Feb 01, 2011 | Categories:10th Amendment, Individual Rights | Leave A Comment »

David Davis in United States History

 

In my home town of Bloomington, Illinois there is a tourist attraction that is a part of history. It is the mansion and former home of David Davis, a friend of Abraham Lincoln, a Supreme Court Justice and one time Senator from Illinois. His popular legacy is that he encouraged Lincoln to run for president and was then appointed by Lincoln to the Supreme Court. But his lesser know accomplishments include his contributions as a justice in a couple of landmark cases. In one of those cases, he actually helped reverse some of Lincoln’s policies.

 

Limiting the President’s Power

 

That case is Ex Parte Milligan which was decided in 1866. During the Civil War, President Lincoln authorized the military to form commissions to try Confederate sympathizers. One of those cases involved known sympathizer Lambdin Milligan. Milligan’s involvement with pro-Confederacy groups led to charges that he had incited rebellion in the north. He was convicted by a military commission and sentenced to death.

 

Milligan’s case was appealed and was argued before the Supreme Court on which Justice Davis sat. The defense disputed the jurisdiction of the commission because civilian courts were still in operation despite the war. Lincoln had already fought with the Supreme Court over habeas corpus and this was again an issue. In the year after Lincoln’s death, Justice Davis wrote the opinion which said the president did not have power to suspend habeas corpus. The Court also held that the president may not establish trial by military commission, even in times of rebellion, in the absence of congressional approval. The Court reiterated that the Constitution remained the law of the land in time of war as well as in peacetime.

 

Monetary Issue

 

Another case of interest on which involved Justice Davis concerns the issuance of Greenbacks, the fiat currency introduced by Lincoln to fund the Civil War. Although Davis dissented in the opinion, the ruling did not directly uphold nor contradict the authority of Congress is establishing Greenbacks as currency. It only ruled on their use as legal tender, thereby making them payment for all debts, even those owed before their issuance.

 

The case involved a woman, Mrs. Hepburn, who owed a debt of $11,250 in coin before Greenbacks were created. She paid back $12,720 in Greenbacks to cover interest. But that was rejected by her creditor, Mr. Griswold, because it took two Greenbacks to equal one gold dollar. The court ruled that Congress did not have the authority to make any notes legal tender.

 

In Hepburn v. Griswold, the court delved deeply into the constitutional limits imposed on Congress. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase writing for the majority reiterated the basic concepts as follows (emphasis added):

For there can be no law inconsistent with [constitutional] law. No enactment not in pursuance of the authority conferred by it can create obligations or confer rights. For such is the express declaration of the Constitution itself in these words:

“The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Not every act of Congress, then, is to be regarded as the supreme law of the land; nor is it by every act of Congress that the judges are bound. This character and this force belong only to such acts as are “made in pursuance of the Constitution.”

It is unfortunate that Davis sided with Samuel Miller and the minority. The case was to be revisited again after several new justices were appointed and Hepburn v. Griswold was overturned with Davis’ help.

 

The Closest Election

 

The presidential election of 1876 proved to be the longest, closest, most hostile, and controversial in the history of the United States. Davis almost became the only person to ever single-handedly elect the President of the United States. However, such a controversy would have exposed him to vilification by the party of the loser, whichever that may have been.

 

In the disputed Presidential election of 1876, between the Republican Rutherford Hayes and the Democrat Samuel Tilden, Congress created a special Electoral Commission to decide to whom to award a total of 20 electoral votes which were disputed from the states of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon. The Commission was to be composed of 15 members: five drawn from the U.S. House of Representatives, five from the U.S. Senate, and five from the U.S. Supreme Court. Both parties agreed to this arrangement because it was understood that the Commission would have seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and Justice Davis. Davis was considered to be non-partisan and impartial.

 

Tilden’s corrupt nephew, Colonel William T. Pelton, tried to influence Davis by having the newly elected Democratic majority in the Illinois legislature vote Davis to the U.S. Senate. Remember that this was before the Seventeenth Amendment. Pelton figured that Davis would then reward the Democrats with the victory. However, this plan backfired.  

Contrary to expectations, Davis recused himself from the commission. By doing so, the new Senator Davis managed to avoid being hated by at least half of the nation. This tactical error cost the Democrats the presidential election.  The substitute fifth justice, Joseph Bradley, was a Grant Republican who would cast every vote for Hayes.

The next time you are in Bloomington, Illinois, drive by the Mansion at 1000 Monroe Drive. When you do, remember the man who lived there, David Davis, and the many marks he made on our history.

 

Dec 17, 2010 | Categories:Illinois History | Leave A Comment »

States Powers and Individual Rights: Deriving Governmental Powers

States Powers and Individual Rights: Deriving Governmental Powers

As a member of the Tenth Amendment Center, many might assume that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is my favorite from the Bill of Rights. However, my favorite is the Ninth: 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

This affirmation of individual rights secures the concept of natural rights being beyond governmental infringement. That is also the basis of the Declaration of Independence. Stating that we have the rights to Life and Liberty, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [our government], and to institute new Government …” in the case of abuse of those rights. 

Such statements put the right of self government in the hands of individuals. Our form of government, a republic, binds people over a small geographic area, our state, but that government must protect the rights of all inhabitants. The power of the state to pass law comes from those who live in the state. So when states band together into a pact, the Constitution of the UNITED STATES, there can be no implied sacrifice of the power of states, because that power is derived from state citizens. The only limits on powers that can be imposed upon the states by the national government are those specifically listed in the Constitution.

This concept of power by consent of the governed is universally taught in school, but not well understood. The governed are the citizens, you and me. Our agreement is to band together to form a more perfect union to protect our Liberty. That does not mean to give unlimited power to elected officials whose jurisdiction covers the biggest geographical area. The interest of each individual is lost when power is derived top down. That negates the purpose for banding together.

The national government exists because, as the representative of the citizen, the state agrees through the Constitution to work with other states for mutual advantage. How can the power of states be limited by a national government when the state’s source of power is its citizens? It cannot.

So when we talk about the power government, we must recognize the context. Power wrested from people by the threat of force is not legitimate. The true and limited power of government comes from consent of citizens who choose to endow such power for the protection of rights. No power derived from people should deny rights to people. That is a conflict of terms. Likewise, no rightful power of the national government can take away from the sovereignty of the state.

The Tenth Amendment establishes the national government as subservient to states except as explicitly stated in the Constitution. Likewise, the Ninth Amendment establishes the people as the source of all government power. No government, state or national, should disparage any of the rights retained by each one of us, the people.

Dec 02, 2010 | Categories:10th Amendment | Tags: | Leave A Comment »

States Rights and Responsibilities

Rights and privileges are misunderstood by legislators and citizens alike. The application of law from various jurisdictions using conflicting interpretations only confuses citizens and sets the stage for the erosion of rights in spite of intent. The very purpose of civil government is for the protection of our individual rights. Municipal and state laws should constrained to that purpose  as much as possible as well. Going beyond that mandate can immediately bring our rights as citizens under attack.

The relationship of state government to the national government in our federal system must not be mistaken. To allow the national government the power to tell state citizens what they can or cannot do violates the contract between the states that is the foundation of our country. The purpose of national intervention into the affairs of citizens is only allowed in the case that state law becomes abusive of the rights of citizens. As long as the state is not abusive of rights, it is in compliance with the federal contract and national interference is not needed. Ultimately, that was the reason for the 14th Amendment.

 The 1875 Civil Rights Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1883 because of the over reaching application of national power, ostensibly through the 14th Amendment. Here is an excerpt from that ruling referring to individual rights as positive rights:

 “Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the Fourteenth Amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against State laws and State proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, and by power given to Congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect: and such legislation must necessarily be predicated upon such supposed State laws or State proceedings, and be directed to the correction of their operation and effect …”

In other words, if the state has not passed law abusive of individual rights, the federal government does not have standing to interfere in the affairs of its citizens. To do so would violate the respected order of jurisdictional limits.

It is unfortunate that, after the Civil War, many states did not adequately protect the rights of former slaves. In fact, many abuses of national power can be traced to an inadequate response by the states to maintain the sanctity of individual rights. However, national government encroachment into these areas results in law that coerces rather than protects. The results may help some citizens, but it is almost always at the loss of rights of others.

The current health care law is a prime example of national law that oversteps state jurisdiction and results in the loss of rights of state citizens. By mandating an imaginary “right” to health care, the labor of healthcare providers and the property of taxpayers are unfairly infringed. If, indeed, such a right did exist, the state should respond by protecting that right. But it is hard to protect a right that doesn’t exist, and national encroachment just makes things worse.

 These types of actions by the United States Congress infringe on the rights of citizens to be secure and free in their own lives. It also infringes on the responsibility of municipalities and states to protect those rights. If Congress oversteps its constitutional bounds in this manner, it is the responsibility of the states to overrule Congress and protect the Life, Liberty and Property of state citizens. If the state doesn’t do its job on behalf of its citizens, then we may find we have come to Liberty’s end.

Aug 19, 2010 | Categories:10th Amendment | Leave A Comment »

10th Amendment Pledge Signer Celebrates Primary Victory

Last Tuesday, David Ratowitz, signer of the pledge to support our 10th Amendment rights, won the Republican nomination for the 5th Congressional District. This is the seat once held by disgraced former Governor Rod Blagojevich and current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel. A Ratowitz victory in November would send a strong message to Washington that Illinois is ready to take its sovereignty back. (more…)

Feb 10, 2010 | Categories:10th Amendment, Federal Elections, Video | 1 Comment »

The Bread and Circus of Federal Elections

This past Tuesday night, the nation watched as Scott Brown secured a victory few imagined possible for a Republican. In the scramble to decide which Democrat was worthy of ascension to the Edward M. Kennedy Memorial Senate Seat, Scott Brown gave the voters of Massachusetts an opportunity to say, “D) None of the above”. Wednesday morning, Republicans and Democrats alike were squabbling over what lessons should be learned from the previous night’s election results. While there are many reasons to be encouraged by what happened Tuesday in Massachusetts, those of us focused on state sovereignty issues should be cautious about the lessons we take away. (more…)

Jan 25, 2010 | Categories:Federal Elections | Tags: | Leave A Comment »

California Dreamin’ (on someone else’s dime)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

This past Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for the federal government to bail out the taxpayers of his state to the tune of some $6.9 billion. The request comes amid efforts to close a $19.9 billion gap in his proposed $82.9 billion 2010-2011 fiscal budget. We hear daily news stories of governors all over the United States struggling to close similar gaping holes in their states’ budgets. By what rationale is California more deserving than others? Schwarzenegger argues his case on two fronts. First, he points out that Californians pay far more in federal taxes than they ever receive in federal disbursements. Second, he suggests that the burden of complying with unfunded federal mandates is one of the chief culprits bankrupting his state. Let’s take each of these arguments in turn. (more…)

Jan 12, 2010 | Categories:Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

State Sovereignty, National Union

Seal of the State of IllinoisWhen Illinois became the 21st member of the United States in 1818, its first General Assembly so revered the principles of the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment that they inscribed them on the Great Seal of the State of Illinois.

“State Sovereignty, National Union”

These words are not casual banter or decorative afterthought. They are a sober affirmation of the vision articulated in the Federalist Papers at the young nation’s founding:

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution. – Federalist 39

It is worth noting that these words were penned by James Madison, one of the most nationalist voices among the founders. Yet even Madison was forced to concede that the several states remained sovereign over all matters not expressly delegated in the text of the Constitution. This common understanding of the Illinois state motto, and the inviolability of Illinois sovereignty, stood unmolested for nearly half a century. In the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, however, one influential but misguided critic took careful aim at both. (more…)

Jan 06, 2010 | Categories:10th Amendment, Illinois History | 2 Comments »