When discussing the role of government in these United States, it should really be broken down into two questions.

1.) What is the fundamental role of government?

2.) What is the role of the Federal government?

Since the founders realized everyone won’t agree to the answer of the 1st question, they delegated very few and defined powers to the Federal government and left the rest to the people at the local/state level. Where the general government was to only serve the interests of the union at large, including common defense and promoting trade among the states,  the local and state governments were to fulfill the varying ideals of the citizenry.

Established Churches And Local Governance

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both opponents of established churches at the local and State level, where they both argued against the established church in their State of Virginia which was ended in 1786 after the passage of the “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom“. However, they conceded that this is still a state issue and not to be directed by the Federal government. Even if they wished other states who had established churches would eventually voluntarily join them in their ideal (Connecticut was the last State to de-establish in 1818), it was their wisdom concerning the nature of power through their study of philosophy and history that lead them to believe this was better for the people of the various states to decide on their own at a more local level, not to be forced upon them by the central government.

This is a very difficult concept for many to accept since the late 1800′s where there was a concerted effort to pull the attention of Americans from their local/state governments and place it with the central government. Our history classes for the past 70+ years have taught US history from a more homogenous stand point, which was not intended, nor has it yielded even the illusion harmony. Instead, it has been attempted to define what it means to be “American” from one standpoint of values, beliefs and ideals. The debate then tends to be over what these “uniform” values, beliefs and ideals are, where many varying factions try to impose their own view; when fundamentally, self-governance should be the emphasis.

The people of various states were intended to have a very broad degree in how they governed accordingly. The people of Virginia may not agree with how things are done in New York or California, but the respective citizens of each state could decide where to live if one place better suited them and their preferred ideals over another.

50 Laboratories of Liberty

There is an ideal of freedom that we all have in our minds. However, this ideal can vary greatly. That is fine so long as we each have an outlet to govern accordingly, which was intended to be the States. Allowing these ideals to compete with one another will most likely yield the best model to be emulated by others.

For those who appeal much more strongly to classical liberalism, they see government’s fundamental role as extremely limited. They believe we have a natural right to do anything we want so long as we don’t interfere with, or directly threaten the rights of other, where the only legitimate function of government is the equal protection of natural rights.

Some have a much more broad ideal of governance and think that government has a role in directing morality and even providing charity, or what they see as the basic necessities of life, including education, food, housing, clothing, healthcare, and even includes government provided retirement.

We each have a definition of Liberty that we would like to see achieved as an ideal, but we should not be under any illusion that using the central government to enforce one ideal over another is the proper way of doing so. We should be willing to accept that others might disagree with our ideals and it is best to allow competing ideals their own area of governance. Under the original construct, this area is their respective state borders. This system has been systematically eroded over the past 100+ years. As a result, these ideals are clashing as more and more power has unnecessarily moved to the central government.

10th Amendment

The 10th amendment of the US Constitution clarifies the boundaries of Federal authority and promotes the concept known as dual-federalism.

“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 we were to carry the founding model forward, we would be de-centralizing government power and respective spheres of authority, not actively promoting a one sized fits all approach to governance.

Visit the Tenth Amendment Center, which is an activism group dedicated to preserving our right to local governance and a Constitutionally limited Federal government.

In America, concentration of power is unmistakable. Confirming the warnings of the anti-federalists, the Federal government has continued to amass power, much of which has occurred in the past 150 years. There may be several reasons for it, each may contribute in its own way. Some say that the Federal Reserve is a culprit, others refer to the major shift in American thought toward the end of the 19th century that brought America from a society of individualism and a focus on decentralized power, to that of a nationalist mindset, where we looked to the Federal government to solve nearly all of our problems via central planning. However, there is another factor that is rarely considered as the source of power concentration. That factor is simply scale.

The American system of government was established as a representative republic under Dual Federalism, where most of the power was retained by the People and State governments. Under this system there was a delicate system of checks and balances to make sure that power was limited and highly decentralized. Most of us are taught about the checks and balances within the central government (three branches), but America under the Constitution was also designed with the State/local governments in mind. These were also supposed to play their role by checking the power of the Federal government. However, the power was understood to be vested ultimately in the people as stated by nearly all State Constitutions in their respective Declaration of Rights.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.
– Virginia Declaration of Rights

This was not realized through direct democracy, which was believed by our framers to be mob rule, where they observed the lessons and failures of direct democracy by civilizations such as Sparta. Instead, they created a Representative Republic.

It was a system of government to be ruled by law, where these laws were made and changed by elected representatives to be held accountable by their relatively small group of constituents. The ratio of citizens to delegates is important, because at some point, as the population grows and representation does not maintain its proper ratio, this system can devolve into an oligarchy, where the many are ruled by a few. At the same time, there is a limit in size to which a legislative body can effectively function.

3 Million to 300 Million

The US Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788, and became law. At that time, the US had 3,000,000 people. The House of Representatives ratio between representatives and people was originally to be 1 representative per 30,000 (Article 1, section 2). The Senate was still elected by their respective State legislators. The House was to be the voice of the people and the Senate, the voice of the States. The smaller group of constituents that each delegate has, the more accountable they are to them. As this group grows, the voice of individuals and even small groups becomes diluted. This compromises the proper balance necessary for self government.

Today, America has approximately 308,000,000 people. The House currently has 435 representatives. This is a ratio of 708,000 people per representative. The Senate has maintained 2 representatives per state (currently 100 members), but it is now popularly elected, so, instead of still being held accountable by a relatively small group of individuals, they directly represent the people of their respective states. State populations range anywhere from 500,000 (Wyoming) to 37,000,000 (California), with an average of 6,000,000. This works out to an average ratio of 3,000,000 people per Senator.

If the current ratios were applied to 1788, the US Congress would have had 4 representatives in the House and 1 Senator for all of the United States. Representation is not practical under this ratio, because the voice of individuals is diluted.

There is a point where representative republics become oligarchies. An argument can be made that we have surpassed that point. It is little wonder why the power of the Federal government continues to grow, seemingly without restraint. There is very little accountability to the people. As the Federal government assumes more powers, this problem is magnified.

Not only did our framers create a government with a much more effective ratio of representatives to people, but the Federal government of their time was much less powerful. The States took on much of the governing responsibility as they were intended under the Constitution. Can we expect the Federal government to be restrained by the Constitution under our current scale? Are the people truly in control?

What can do the Federal government do? The Constitution simplified.

Article 1, section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

California, Proposition 8, passed 2008: states that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” [1]

California, Proposition 19, on 2010 ballot: “legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties.” [2]

These two amendments have brought into question the long forgotten concept of Federalism in America. This includes the right to self-governance. The awakening in America that has occurred in the past few years with regard to the Constitution and our founding principles has been interesting to say the least. Many groups have realized that the Federal government is out of control and that too much power has accumulated in DC. They realize it is this concentration of power that has resulted in many of the problems within our society, including the destruction of our economic and social freedoms.

However, California stands to separate the wheat from the tares in regards to those who simply want to use unauthorized power of the national government to accomplish their political ends, and those truly want to return to our founder’s original intent of the US Constitution and the American form of government under Dual Federalism.

Dual Federalism was the legal theory that prevailed at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution in 1787. It is the system of American government that was originally intended. It defines the relationship between the Federal and State government as intended by America’s framers. Dual Federalism includes 4 primary concepts:

1. National government rules by enumerated powers only.
2. National government has a limited set of constitutional purposes.
3. Each governmental unit—state and federal—is sovereign within its sphere of operations.
4. Relationship between nation and states is best summed up as tension rather than cooperation.

Dual Federalism assured the right of the people to self governance. Under this ideal, the Federal government was restricted to the specific and enumerated powers of the US Constitution. These powers primarily dealt with foreign trade and defense against foreign invasion. The States and local governments were intended to largely handle our domestic concerns. Each State, in this sense retained the sovereignty of nations, except for those powers specifically surrendered to the Federal government under Article 1, Section 10. This concept is addressed 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.”

Proposition 8, Gay Marriage

In 2008, the People of California voted to define marriage within their State as being between a man and woman. Yet, against the will of the People of California, a Federal judge struck down this proposition on August 4th, 2010 [3]. This is currently being appealed in higher courts.

Opponents of Proposition 8 argue that it is a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. However, the supporters of Prop 8 are claiming State sovereignty under the 10th amendment which supports the right of the People to self-govern.

Those who make the case with regard to the 14th amendment argue according to modern case law and precedent. This precedent has been set whereby the courts simply define what the “privilege and immunities” clause means and rule accordingly as they have done with regard to the “Incorporation Doctrine”. This is most certainly headed for the Supreme Court at some point, where it would only require the Supreme Courts Justices to define marriage as being one of the protected privileges and/or find protection under the immunities portion which protects against penalties being applied on specific groups or individuals. However, the most recent SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan, has expressed that she believes there is no “Constitutional right” to marry even under the 14th amendment, but that doesn’t guarantee how she would ultimately rule in this case.

Again, the proponents of proposition 8 must rely on original intent and the concept of Dual Federalism under the 10th Amendment.

Proposition 19, Marijuana De-criminalization

Federal drug prohibition in America has been justified under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. It is this broad interpretation that has been used to justify the power of the Federal government to regulate wheat production on private property for personal use and consumption as in the Wikard v Filburn Supreme Court case in 1942. It is also under this broad interpretation the Federal government regulates fire arms and it will be used to justify provisions of the latest Federal health care bill, infamously known as Obamacare, when it meets pending challenges by various States in Federal court.

What did some of our primary framers think of the power of the Federal Congress regarding commerce?

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.”

–Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

“It is very certain that [the commerce clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and 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.”

– James Madison, Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829

Clearly, the commerce clause was not a broad authority for US Congress to regulate without end. James Madison made it clear it was to protect against economic protectionism among States through tariffs and the like.

Alcohol prohibition was not authorized until the 18th amendment was passed which granted the US Congress the express authority to prohibit the sale of alcohol. Why is it that we have accepted the idea that the Federal government has the authority to place a prohibition on drugs without a similar amendment? Again, the only way to justify it without an amendment is to allow for a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause which allows for nearly unlimited authority to regulate our daily lives and economic activities.

According to original intent, this issue clearly is to rest with the individual States at the highest level. This November, the people of California are going to decide if they want to decriminalize marijuana within their state, yet President Obama and other authorities at the White House have already expressed their intent to enforce the Federal law against the will of the People of California.

Opponents of prop 19 must rely on a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and therefore, broad Federal authority with respect to the regulation of all economic activities.

Where supporters of prop 19, must rely on the 10th amendment.

Ironically, many who support Proposition 8, oppose Proposition 19 and condone Federal interference on the matter. On the other hand, many who support Proposition 19, oppose Proposition 8 and support Federal interference on the matter.

The Role of the Federal Government

“The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore… never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”

— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce.”

– James Madison, Federalist Papers #45

Many think that the founders intended for the Federal government to specifically guarantee our rights, but this is not the case. The purpose of the States and local governments were for the specific protection of individual rights. However, the States created the Federal government for their own mutual protection. This of course protected the right of the people to self governance.

The Bill of Rights is often understood to be the specific protection of our rights in the US Constitution; however, what is seldom understood is that the Bill of Rights originally only applied as strict limitations against Federal power. This was reiterated in the Barron v. Baltimore Supreme Court case in 1833. The individual State constitutions limited the power of the individual States, most of which include their own State Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights that mirror the US Bill of Rights, but are more extensive in most cases.

It was understood by our founders that you cannot trust the Federal government to protect our rights, which necessarily includes the power to define our rights. Even the right to life has always been defined by individual State governments, this of course under the directive of their respective people.

Those who seek a true return to our founding principles which includes the right to self governance under Dual Federalism must accept the right of the People of California to self governance. That is to say, we must accept their right to prohibit gay marriage and legalize marijuana within their State without Federal interference. We must also accept the right of another State to allow gay marriage and prohibit marijuana.

The cross roads with respect to original intent and Dual Federalism will be reached with these two propositions. Will the supporters of Proposition 8 also support Federal intervention with respect to Proposition 19? Likewise, will the supporters of Proposition 19 support Federal intervention with respect to Proposition 8?

There is nothing wrong or in violation of Federalism for having an opinion  as to why a particular State should or should not govern in a certain way. These are perfectly acceptable debates in a free society. However, if you seek to use the power of the Federal government to limit the right of self governance to the People of any one state, you have opened the door for that same power to be used against you. That is the height of tyranny. The use of Federal power in this way is not enumerated in the US Constitution, nor was it ever intended by its creators.

Dual Federalism and self governance were fundamental concepts at the time of our founding and cannot be separated from original intent. Otherwise, the entire concept of a limited Federal government under the Constitution is subverted. What results is the concept of a National, rather than Federal system of government. We were founded under the latter, but we have devolved into the former. It is time for America to decide once again what course it will take. Are we under a “National” or “Federal” government? This may be the last breath for Dual Federalism in America and it may decide the fate of true original intent, it is something we must carefully consider.

“On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

– Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

“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.” [Emphasis Added]

– James Madison, Federalist Papers #39

“The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defence of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421

“It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made that each might do for itself what …concerns itself directly and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor. It is by this partition of cares descending in gradation from general to particular that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all.”

– Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122

‎”We should thus marshal our government into, 1. the general federal republic, for all concerns foreign and federal; 2. that of the State, for what relates to our own citizens exclusively; 3. the county republics, for the duties and concerns of the county; and 4. the ward republics, for the small and yet numerous and interesting concerns of the neighborhood; and in government, as well as in every other business of life, it is by division and subdivision of duties alone, that all matters, great and small, can be managed to perfection. And the whole is cemented by giving to every citizen, personally, a part in the administration of the public affairs.”

– Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:38

“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.”

– James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)

[1] http://www.ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/i737_07-0068_Initiative.pdf

[2] http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx

[3] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/prop8-gay-marriage.html

Illustration by Jeremy Deveraturda

America has found itself at a crossroads. The American people are slowly waking up to the reality that exists in Washington, DC. For decades the political elites have been experimenting with the philosophies and theories which have continued to create and compound America’s problems. Americans have continued to trade one big party establishment for another. Each time falling for the false promises that each provides. However, the big party elites will not address the root of our problems. They will dance around them picking at a few and assure us that if we simply vote for them, they will fix the injustice, they will protect our freedoms and restore prosperity, but they simply will not tell America the whole truth.

You and I have lost our freedoms that our founders risked so much and paid dearly for. The problems that these political elites tell us they need to solve were created by them. They have abandoned the founding principles of a limited Federal government, decentralized power, sound money, individual freedom, and self governance to be directed by the People of each individual State. They don’t believe in dual federalism and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but instead have adopted the idea of cooperative federalism, which has resulted in a nationalists state, rather than one that preserved the sovereignty of the States and best protected the freedoms of the People. They have done all they can to destroy the tenants of our once strong Republic and replaced them with that of a social democracy. They have done this for the past 75+ years while telling us it will be good for us, we must not be selfish and we must support the “greater good”.

We find ourselves in a similar situation that our founders did in 1776. The question remains, are these evils still sufferable? Is enough, enough? Will we right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed? Will we restore true American Liberty by demanding a return to the Constitution in its unadulterated form, to its words as expressed and intended, not some perverted meaning by way of interpretation? Will we demand a true Restoration of our Republic, a return to self governance and dual federalism?

We can continue to be ignored by these political elites that have gathered and concentrated in DC, where they have been bought and sold, and will only be replaced for the most part by more big establishment traitors, or we can call on our States to stand up and reclaim their due and Constitutional power! The answer lies with the States.

Will we finally realize that we need to stop looking only to the traditions and symbols of liberty, stop grasping at shadows and reach for the substance of freedom itself?

Will we take the ultimate pledge in support of freedom?

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776

We must finally take the steps toward a peaceful and effective restoration of our Republic. We have to stop under false pretenses of hope that it will be restored from the top down. We the People of the United States, call, write and march on your State capitals. Gather at your States and unify to protest Federal tyranny. Our States were designed to be our most powerful legal protection against the Federal government. Demand that your State restores the proper balance of power. End those forms to which we have grown accustomed. Grasp the substance of freedom. Restore our Constitutional Republic!

Learn about the growing movement toward the legal, peaceful and effective solution to Federal Tyranny: Nullification.

“The true barriers of our liberty are our State governments; and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811