I have to say it’s awesome to see so many states standing up to the Fed, using the 10th Amendment to tell them to back off, so that states can do as they please. We see this almost daily, from the legalization of marijuana, to the blocking of federal civil asset forfeiture laws. All of this is awesome, but is it enough? No, it most certainly is not.
America’s Founders were brilliant men, no doubt. They established our government under federalism, where we have a centralized federal system, and those powers were spread amongst the states, with the authority to rebuke federal law should any state deem it appropriate to do so. In the event the federal government became too powerful, they provided us with Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the Convention of States, to restrain out of control federal power. In fact, we have current elected officials who are hard-core constitutionalists pushing for an Article 5 Convention as we speak. But will it work? That’s a question I cannot, and I don’t believe anyone else, can answer. If it doesn’t work, I’m afraid what we are left with would be another revolutionary war.
For the sake of argument, however, let’s say it does work and we place the necessary restraints on the federal government. What about us at the state level against our own state governments? What if they became tyrannical, and out of control? I would argue they already are, in many forms, whether through excessive taxation, insane gun control laws, ridiculous and unnecessary licensing fees and requirements, and, of course, enforcement of victimless crimes. What do we do then?
While it is not specifically cited in the U.S. Constitution, Federalist Papers No. 28 by Alexander Hamilton makes it clear what might be necessary at the state level to preserve our liberties:
In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Now, some of you might say, “Well Hamilton said ‘having no distinct government in each,’” referring to your local counties and cities. Okay, fair point, but I will remind you that your local city and county governments enforce state statutes, and therefore, the only centralized government is the state government. So what are we to do?
Provided we successfully restrict and restrain the federal government as provided, the next step for us is to do the same to our individual state governments. As there is no provision that I’m aware of in any of our individual state’s constitution to restrain our states’ individual power, I’m afraid the last recourse we have would again be a revolutionary one as Alexander Hamilton specifically wrote about. It is much harder to fight back at the local level than at the federal level. Hamilton knew this as well, as he also stated in Federalist Paper No. 28:
The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.
Hamilton knew and recognized the fact that our own state powers could of course become tyrannical as well, and that it would be even more difficult at state levels to fight back against it, although it may become necessary to do so. Hamilton continued:
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
“Artificial strength of the government.” What a powerful, yet accurate statement. Their power is absolutely artificial. It only remains non-artificial if we stand by and do nothing and allow it to be more than what it is. Local law enforcement officers will either stand with us, or stand against us, just as any federal law enforcement officers would have to do at the federal level, and that’s a decision each of them will have to live with.
_________________
Shane Foster has worked his entire career in military law enforcement, corrections, and as a private investigator. He has a unique perspective into how law enforcement operates from within its ranks, our judicial system, as well as our privacy laws and how every day our individual freedoms and liberties are gradually taken away from us and our individual rights abused on a regular basis.
Latest posts by Being Libertarian (see all)
- Ron Paul Revolution Takes Over The Libertarian Party - May 30, 2022
- Secession: The Lost Aspect of Federalism - April 16, 2022
- Democracy & Freedom: A Contradiction in Terms - February 15, 2022
[…] Restraining Federal Power Is Not Enough To Protect Individual Freedom – Being Libertarian […]
I hear your warning and see that it has merit. However, we have a long haul yet before us in bringing about a successful Article V Convention. When we get that battle behind us, I’ll be glad to join you on the next hill.
Comments are closed.