One wonders if President Obama ever read The Federalist: 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.
With the passage of ObamaCare coming on the heels of government takeover of industries and taxpayer-funded bailouts of the irresponsible, many are wondering how we can turn the socialist tide. They see Uncle Sam expanding, their rights and economic prospects shrinking and their voices ignored. For these people, November cannot come soon enough.
But November is not the ultimate solution. In the political universe, seven months is an eternity, and we cannot know precisely how public sentiment will evolve. Besides, the chances of Republicans retaking both Houses are slim and, even if they do, there's no guarantee they'll rise to the occasion. Some will be Scott Brown types – not the sort to give us tradition we can believe in.
A better solution lies on the local and state levels. Fifteen states are currently suing the federal government over ObamaCare, and then there is the Tenth Amendment Movement, involving at least 35 states that are asserting their sovereignty over powers granted them by that amendment. These are good starts, but . . . .
Question: What if the Supreme Court, in obvious violation of the Constitution, upholds ObamaCare? Do we simply obey unflinchingly and wait for the next federal usurpation?
Certainly, there is every reason to believe the Black Robes will thus rule, as enabling the Leviathan's tyranny has become their practice. Of course, many legal "scholars" will provide oh-so intellectual justifications for the incessant expansion of federal power as they lawyer away our rights. But let's look at what James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, wrote in The Federalist, No. 45:
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 . . .
When was the last time we had a government reflecting these limits? The truth is that Uncle Sam violates the Constitution ever more brazenly with the passage of time, adding to its power and subtracting from our rights. And it won't stop unless someone stops it.
And it is time we stopped it. The states should send a message: Black Robes, if you won't do your job, we will do it for you. No state resident shall be compelled to buy health insurance, and we will not cooperate in the enforcement of such a mandate. Furthermore, no federal agents may enter our territories for the purposes of such enforcement. And if they do, they will be arrested.
On top of this immediate concern, states should resolve that the same will apply to all other unconstitutional mandates – regardless of how established and longstanding they may be.
Period.
Now, many people – good people – will object to this prescription. "How can you defy the courts?" they will ask. "We must respect the rule of law." But what is the law? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And when a government violates it, it loses its legitimacy, right to exist and legal authority.
Will we just accept an oligarchic judiciary and abide by its dictates no matter how onerous? Will we accept social engineers-cum-lawyers' "interpretations" of plain language regardless of how contrary to the text they may be? What will we believe, them or our own eyes? If the former, we are not governed by the rule of law. We are governed by the rule of lawyers.
And let us understand fully the moral and legal validity of my counsel. The Constitution is the contract the American people have with one another, and enumerated in it are the rights and responsibilities of all those party to it. But it has one serious flaw.
It only works if you actually abide by it.
Now, what if one of the parties, being more powerful, continually violates the contract for the purposes of advantaging itself? Do you seek redress through the courts? Sure. What if, however, this party has the power to appoint judges sympathetic to its tyrannical aims? What if these judges, with a wink and a nod and legalistic mumbo-jumbo, aid and abet the party in its breach of contract? Do you just say, "Oh, well, that's what the contract means now because they said so"? Or do you recognize a simple fact?
To wit: Through its habitual violation of the terms of the contract, the federal government has rendered it null and void.
Null and void. It is silly to think that states have an obligation to follow the law when the Leviathan violates it at will. It is to fight abiding by Queensberry rules while your opponent makes up his own rules. That is, if you can even characterize it as fighting and not genuflection.
I know my prescription is bold enough to scare many into believing all the more in November, but be under no illusions. The idea that we're going to put the Leviathan in its proper place at the national ballot box is a pipe dream. The problem of extra-constitutional federal governance is not a new phenomenon; it is approximately 100 years old and so deeply ingrained that the central government views many violations of the Constitution as federal rights. Besides, the Founding Fathers gave us a balance of power between Washington and the states for a reason: Governments don't willingly relinquish or limit their own power. Thus, it is naive to think that "asking" the Leviathan to recede into its cage will bring anything but contemptuous laughter. For how long will we say "pretty please"? For how long will we play by the rules while the Leviathan plays with the rules? It's time to stop asking and start telling.
Moreover, those of us who care about resurrecting tradition are in the minority. The 11 most populous states boast more than half our population and enough electoral votes to elect the president, and they are a decidedly liberal bunch. Obama won nine of them – most by wide margins – losing only Texas and Georgia. Four of them, California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey – which alone have a quarter of the U.S.' population – are firmly entrenched in the statist camp; three of them, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, have one foot in that grave; and two of them, Florida and North Carolina, are teetering on the edge. And all of them, along with the rest of the West, are trending left.
It is time for the few remaining pockets of traditionalism to take control of their culture and destiny. If not now, when? Will the resurrection of manly virtue ever wait for the next usurpation? Will we wait until the Black Robes find a justification for hate-speech laws? Do we sit idly by while cultural traitors manufacture socialist votes by granting amnesty to 13-20 million illegals, people with no allegiance to our nation? Will we just watch them build a statist electoral phalanx that will support the redistribution of wealth and further constitutional trespass? I say no. States should send a message to the Leviathan: If you don't do your job, we'll do it for you. They should make clear that they will not recognize the citizenship of any individual who broke into our nation and was then given a get-out-of-jail-free-if-you-vote-for-me card.
Period.
What's that you say? Immigration is a federal role?
Null and void.
And if asked about the constitutionality of the matter, I would just quote a very powerful woman second in line to the presidency: "Are you serious?! Are you serious?!
Yes, I am serious. It's time to stop acting like an abused wife who'd rather take beating after beating after beating than leave the tyrant.
The sun will not come out in November. It rises with the vigilant, shines on the stout-hearted, and sets only when a nation's courage sleeps.
“Are you serious?” That’s a question we should ask this author – and “follow my prescription” – what prescription? The states should rise up and demand the Feds follow the constitution? Who exactly in these “states” is Duke referring to? The governor, the state legislators, local law enforcement, the state highway department? This author doesn’t say, just the “states”, whoever that may be.
The Know Nothing wing of the Conservative movement may appreciate this form of nonsense rhetoric but it’s hard to see why any thinking Conservative would. Usually, these emotion laden screeds start with a list of grievances and, often, well documented grievances with actual validity among voters, then much flag waving ensues, the Founding Documents are always mentioned, finally a wrap up describing one or more vague solutions, usually lacking in specifics and occasionally even lacking logic, are proposed. This formula for writing Conservative diatribes is much overused and, what’s worse, it isn’t helping.
What could happen in November – a Republican majority in Congress would be nice according to most Conservative pundits – but what happens next? Will Congress roll back every one of Obama’s initiatives? Will the Republicans achieve an overwhelming majority which can easily override any future Obama veto – isn’t it more likely California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, et al, will send the usual Democrats to Congress from the traditional Democratic strongholds? Isn’t it more likely that once majority power is obtained, the Republicans will offer their own prescription for health care reform rather than repeal Obamacare in its entirety – and isn’t it also likely the Republicans fully intend to claim their share of the Health Care funding prize while loudly telling voters that a complete repeal of Obamacare is unwise and unnecessary?
Most thinking Conservatives would be grateful for a paralyzing gridlock in Washington following the November elections, Obama still giving his daily speeches on the need for this or that social legislation, Congress actively blocking implementation of further “Obama’s” but, unfortunately for us, also more than willing individually to cash in on existing programs for the benefit of themselves and their primary financial backers. It’s not a perfect world and a Republican victory certainly won’t usher in a Conservative Millennium. Perhaps Conservatives should follow Einstein’s advice and stop doing the same things over and over while expecting different results.
For example, contrast the Tea Party movement with the Civil Rights movement. In appearance they are superficially similar – folks very worked up, holding rallies, giving speeches, posting essays on the Web (or in the major newspapers of the 60s’), demanding change and relief from an oppressive government. But in substance the two movements are very different.
The Civil Rights movement had the sympathy and enthusiastic support of the national media, folks getting their heads busted on the 6:00 news, dogs charging defenseless protestors, all narrated with sympathetic comments from the network newscasters or print journalists. In contrast, the Tea Party folks are labeled as racists, nutcases, malcontents by Obama’s catamites within the mainstream media. There is some sympathy for the Tea Party movement here and there within the mainstream media but its primary loci centers within Conservative websites and the FOX network.
Gandhi’s passive resistance approach inspired the success of the Civil Rights movement, along with the moral support of many Americans, including those living in the South, who had grown thoroughly disgusted with separate drinking fountains, restrooms and movie seatings to name only a few of the indignities. Seeing our citizens beaten by the police further infuriated Americans, many of whom were white voters not likely to be the subject of discrimination. In contrast, the Tea Party movement is a reliving of past glories, easily undermined by erudite critics within the media and the government.
Recall the original Boston Tea Party was followed by a war of independence, men went from protesting to shooting and being shot at in turn. But that won’t be the outcome of today’s Tea Parties – success at the ballot box is the nebulous and sole goal. Only the lunatic fringe within the Know Nothing faction hopes for armed insurrection, the rest of us know that isn’t possible or likely. Yet, ballot box victories are unreliable strategic goals, the last election proved or should have proven to everyone’s satisfaction Americans aren’t overwhelmingly conservative by nature and previous Republican majority victories at the ballot box were no guarantor of personal freedom or a restoration of Constitutional principles.
Do Conservatives possess strengths which lie outside a consistently vocal advocacy of conservative principles? I believe we do and in abundance. Unlike the Civil Rights movement, the Conservative movement lacks the overwhelming support of the media and many American citizens to boot. But Conservatives have a great deal of individual wealth, own the majority of small businesses, have control over vast financial investments in various guises, are industrious folks, hard working and thrifty. Individually, we’re not exactly Bill Gates, but we do alright.
Like today’s terrorists, perhaps it’s time we inventoried our strengths and recognize, just as the terrorists have, the enemy can’t be beaten in the orthodox fashion. Both Republicans and Democrats within professional politics love money and they’re quite adroit in prying money loose from those who have it but lack the political power to resist confiscation. We’re not only being consistently beaten by our political enemies, we’re individually funding their efforts as well.
Rather than fund our enemy’s efforts while vainly hoping for an enduring success at the ballot box, Conservatives should examine tactics utilizing financial pressure to achieve goals. Boycotts of products, of services, of companies, of vacation destinations, plus other imaginative uses of wealth and the power derived from wealth are powerful weapons, both legal and non-violent in nature. We’ve all heard the intense wailing of the mainstream media as their circulation and viewer numbers fall – perhaps we should take the hint and look for similar opportunities in other areas. Where are the financial weak points of the fat cats who prop up our corrupt political system? How can these weaknesses be exploited?
And like today’s terrorists, any guerilla war employing financial weapons will be a long one, low-key and lacking spectacular victories. Boycotts and financial terrorism are without emotional satisfaction, there’s no brief but glorious high derived from waving signs in the company of fellow Conservatives at the local rally – so, at present, we’re not yet ready for financial warfare – but we should be thinking – and talking – about it. The day may eventually come when we’ll be psychologically ready to turn down a different path.
If some believe this article to be one of “known-nothing” emotionalism, I would point out that not only does it reflect the desparate ire of most Americans, but more importantly it echoes the well-reasoned motivations of some other Americans some 200 years ago. It’s not that state governments would be more conservative. Rather, it would help restore the vertical balance of power envisioned by the federalistss. True, the last time states asserted any sovereignty, it led to a war which resulted in what many think was an increase of federal power over the states. However, unlike the cause which led to the formation of the Confederacy, the current catalyst is not one of moral ambiguity, but it is in opposition to legislation that to many is or will lead to immoral consequences (i.e “death panels”).
The most important point Mr. Duke makes is not to forget local and state government. Lots of people are feeling like victims of abuse at the hands of the feds, and he’s pointing out that they are not, or do not have to be alone.
He notes several states are on track already, and encourages people to put pressure on those states not addressing their grievances.
He also reminds us how upside down things have become. We’ve come a long way from when states decided it would make their lives easier to centralize certain duties and functions pertaining to war, foreign policy and trade.
The states created a Frankenstein’s monster, and Mr. Duke’s proposal is that the people dissatisfied with what they are seeing should remind the states and federal government that in front of “America” is “The United States.”
Mr. Skurka’s notion that a state intervening on the behalf of its people is impossible because it is so lost it can’t determine whether the governor or the highway department should head the effort, is absurd. Indeed, what good is a boycott if the state can’t figure out who to send to Washington to plead their case once high unemployment and lost sales tax revenues are produced by a successful boycott?
Local governments do local business. State governments do state business, and federal governments do national business.
If you are part of a state government and you show up to do state’s work one day and see it’s already been done in the night for you by the feds, it is the state that has a grievance.
Lots of people are responsible for letting it get this out of hand, including lots of conservatives (Supreme Court justices among them). Lots of time, case law and precedent must be dealt with if the balance of power outlined in the Constitution is to once again be understood and respected.
Mr. Skurka suggests that the states should not be a key player in this effort and that consumer boycotts are a better way to resolve systemic federal violations of the Constitution?
I can’t think of a better gift to Obama, and can hear the speech already: “Fist the wealthy put our country in peril with their never-ending greed and thirst for more, and now they are costing us millions of American jobs and billions in lost sales taxes revenues, all because they cannot tolerate a program to ensure poor and middle class American people have access to the same quality health care the wealthy are used to getting.”
Successful boycotts are sustained by constant drum beating and communication efforts to keep people fired up and on point. Every speech and every memo issued by boycott organizers is a weapon in the hands of progressives, who will argue that if Wall Street did not demonstrate how flawed and vulnerable capitalism is, the willingness and ability of “ruling rich whites” to punish the American people by withholding their treasure could not make a better case for socialism, or even the nationalization of business.
“We simply cannot afford to be at the mercy of a ruthless wealthy class, which by its actions, demonstrates it is willing to hurt millions of poor and less affluent Americans with heartless and crippling boycotts at a time when the economy and people are suffering so much already.”
Considering that states refuse to stand up to federal usurpations in exchange for relatively paltry things like highway and education funding, it is laughable to think that they would openly defy a federal mandate that had been upheld by the Supreme Court. Making the states and their citizenry completely dependent on federal largess is the federal government’s mutual assured destruction strategy to ensure that such a state-level uprising will never take place. It would be nice to think that the states would or could undertake such a task, but extraordinarily unrealistic. Aside from economic power, if it came right down to it, the federal government also has a lock on physical power, and if pressed, would undoubtedly use it. Take to the streets with the .22 bolt-action air rifle that the government allows you to keep locked in your gun case fully dismantled and see how far you get against riot police with body armor and assault rifles – let alone a military arsenal. Bear in mind that it was only 18 years ago that federal agents laid siege to a rural home and shot a housewife in the head because of her husband’s gun modification infractions and stormed the gates of a compound full of religious kooks with tanks while children burned alive in the basement. Armed resistance is about the only thing more laughable than a state uprising. It may be reasonable said that the time has yet again come for “one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”, but this isn’t 1776, and the task is monumentally different today. Short of such an action, we are doomed to the whims of a fickle 5% of the population who make up the “swing vote”, and minimizing the damage they cause. Put up every reasonable fight you can, but don’t expect a single state government to get onboard.
Mr. Mulligan
“…but don’t expect a single state government to get onboard.”
There are state’s on board already, which is why the question is headed for the courts. It’s a start. You may anticipate that they won’t have the stomach to take up the matter of the Constitution if the Supreme Court upholds, but don’t be so sure. We may have to.
At this point only a few fully grasp the potential impact of this case, but I suspect the arguments and the implications that will emerge will rock the left and right to their very cores.
Mr. Skurka above, for example, proposes boycotts, a time-honored act of free speech and a valuable consumer right/tool to influence change outside the courts. Just how do I boycott the “evil” health insurance industry Democrats have been demonizing for the past year if the very same Democrats just passed a law that compels me to patronize that industry?
Has anyone on the left considered that they are being forced by their government to patronize an industry that supports animal medical experimentation – that indeed any kind of refusal to engage in commerce could be subject to a fine or even criminal prosecution under the commerce clause? Could protesters who make good public arguments about why we shouldn’t buy a good or service have their bullhorns confiscated for the impact on commerce their words produce?
Madison wrote in Federalist 45: “The regulations of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained.”
Well, seems there’s some apprehension these days, and there’s going to be a lot more when people start to think harder about this one.
As for the Supreme Court, the bald eagle may be coming home to roost. That honorable body is about to find out how the dishonesty and bad jurisprudence over the last 75 years has put it in a terrible pickle.
Based on the corruptions of the commerce clause to date, the court may be forced to determine that our government can make us spend our money to buy insurance – American cars, Kraft Macaroni and Cheese… .
At that point the Constitution simply has to be clarified for all those morons who can’t understand the language, but most important, it has to be amended in a way that allows us to address all the mistakes that now are institutionalized, part and parcel of our regulatory and legal systems, not the least of which being a good deal of criminal law.
It’s a mess, but we can’t avoid the cleanup forever. The Constitution either means something or it doesn’t. We’ve gotten away with fooling ourselves that there is a third alternative (that it means whatever we can get judges to say it means) for about as long as we can.
Mr. Adams,
I don’t disagree at all with your analysis, I just don’t think a plurality of state governments will reflect my views and yours. In fact, I don’t think any will entirely. One of these suits initiated by a dozen or so states will undoubtedly make it to the Supreme Court, and at that point it’s a 50/50 gamble depending entirely on the whim of Anthony Kennedy. When they rule on the case, that will be that. As it is, around 40% of people are okay with this bill just the way it is, and of the other 60%, many will simply fall in line if the law is upheld. Since both houses of the legislature actually passed this steaming pile of crap, obviously a constitutional amendment cannot be proposed through that avenue. The only other alternative is for 2/3 of the state legislatures to initiate a constitutional convention and propose an amendment that 3/4 of the state legislatures will then have to ratify. I’m sure you can do that math and guess the odds of proposing, let alone passing, an amendment to nullify the bill.
Civil disobedience is not even a good option in this case since jail time is not prescribed as punishment for non-compliance, but rather the seizure of taxes already withheld. The government can’t reasonably throw 60% of the country into jail, but they would be all too happy to keep 60% of the country’s tax withholding rather than return it to them. Don’t be surprised if this is pitched as the next big Obama plan to reduce the deficit (that Obama caused).
So where does that leave us? Screwed, that’s where. At the mercy of a court that ignores the law and a populace divided between those hopelessly dependent upon the government, hopelessly afraid of the government, or hopelessly ignorant of the constitution. Not every story has a happy ending.
Or, to quote a protest sign designed by musician Isaac Brock:
“Protests only work if the people you are protesting give a sh*t what you think.”
Mr. Mulligan,
Understood, though I would see an Article V in this case focused on deficit/spending and abuse of the commerce clause to extend nearly unlimited power to Congress.
We nearly had such a convention not that long ago due to outrage among the states over the deficits, so deficits being far worse now…
The other focus would be use of the commerce clause, and it only has a little to do with the health care bill, which only serves to illustrate the extent to which Congress will go to get what it wants.
If upheld by the courts, as has been said, there is virtually nothing the federal government cannot regulate and control in our lives, and if that reality should emerge, it’s time to stop rationalizing and analyzing court cases and recognize that the bottom line is that someone, somewhere has violated the Constitution.
In that the states have become subservient wards of the “nanny” federal government – just as the people are becoming – I can agree with your thinking, but that’s part of my reasoning for moving on this, as it’s only going to get worse.
I encourage you to focus your look-ahead goggles a little more, as we need all the good (positive) thinkers we can muster. That’s not to say there’s no place for doubters and detractors, as they clearly deserve a mention in our history books, as well.
A good case can be made that much of the strife and political bickering that cripples us today is rooted in the overreach of government, and the misuse or misinterpretation of the Constitution that permits such power abuses.
And it is worth noting that there are good signs that we are at the right place and time. So many conservatives and constitutional orginalists are at odds and throwing ideas back and forth, differing widely on the methods, course of action and details, but all united in goal. Remind you of anything?
History is calling on our thinkers, and they can’t afford to shirk their duty to the Constitution and all those who have defended it these last 230 years. They also can’t afford shy away from old fashioned speech-making.
Ideas are great, but they only inspire those who understand them. There has to be something for those less interested in the details, but thoroughly committed to the principles of liberty, fiscal responsibility and limited government.
So:
For a very focused, defined Article V that zeroes in on the hopelessly crushing debt/deficits and clarification of the limits on federal power
For appealing to the duty of state legislators to defend the Constitution and unite the people when ambiguities real and imagined threaten stability
For reminding state legislators they and their people, along with the several other states, are ultimately in charge of this country
For stepping up and writing a new chapter in American history by recognizing that Article V exists for a reason, and recognizing that reason when it comes along
For shutting the traps of the far left, and shutting the traps of the far right
For joining those people between them, through the security and comfort a clarified Constitution and a set of undeniable liberties provides
It has to be sooner rather than later. The leftward course we’re on leads to more and more government power, unimaginable burdens and hopeless dependence that will make the task of reversing (recovering our liberty and the prosperity it produces) far more difficult (and dangerous) than you surmise it is now.
Lot of words, but what I really mean to say is, “If not us, who? If not now, when?
By the the way, for those who have not read it:
Toward a Constitutional Convention
By Phillip Ellis Jackson, on March 19th, 2010 is at the following link
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/19/toward-a-constitutional-convention/
Again, I agree completely with your thinking, and I would be happy to take up metaphorical arms with you, but if SCOTUS does end up upholding this law (which again, comes down to the decision making process of one man), I don’t think there’s any amount of debating, persuading, protesting, boycotting, or even outright violence that you or I can do to force people who do not respect the constitution now (politicians) to abide by it, especially when such a radical departure from the current orthodoxy requires near-unanimous participation and agreement among the people who elected the very people who are bastardizing the constitution in the first place. I hope for all of our sake that people and states do step up in that event, but I don’t expect it.
Are “states” any more real than the Feds; is California, with its massive economy, somehow capable of opposing the will of Washington D. C., a tiny enclave of federal employees working deep within an urban ghetto populated by the poorest and least competent of our citizens? That’s a question which could consume many happy hours debating the relative strength of the Fed versus a determined group of rebellious “states”. And despite what tragically happened the last time upstart states banded together to oppose the will of the Mighty Fed, the debate could be a lot of fun, at least it would consume some idle hours with something other than a lobotomy session in front of the idiot box. Still, why should the organizations known as the “states” fight, why not the mythical “Sons of Liberty”, an equal opportunity association of white collar workers opposed to forced socialism, lovers of apple pie and determined to restore baseball as our national sport?
The reason the “states” must carry the banner, rather than the intrepid ‘S of L’ is due to America’s love of mass movements, of the “Way of the Herd”, of a bottomless depth of national conformity we can see clearly among the Japanese but which somehow escapes our notice when we study our own morning reflections within the bathroom mirror. Let’s admit to it, we’re a hopeless matriarchy, a society dedicated to the safety and comfort of women, an ideal society for raising children, prosperous and peaceful to a fault, a protected garden ever blooming which, in truth, benefits men as well as women – we even have special terms such as “soccer mom”, “team dad” to describe the contented beneficiaries of this amazing culture, a way of life which has taken us Americans generations to construct.
But how does this relate to the “states” carrying the good fight to the Potomac? Well, the states are the second tier teams, those underdog schools battling the powerhouse Top Ten, or the Big 5 or whatever nickname we apply to those specific institutions which represent massive and enduring power within society. But what stops us from forming new associations, the aforementioned Sons of Liberty for example, who will go after the despised Feds? If the States won’t act, why not form an action group which isn’t beholden to maintaining the status quo?
The answer goes back to that American Matriarchy operating so successfully behind the scenes, guiding our culture down dimly lit paths we seldom see and are often afraid to acknowledge. Little boys, young American males, are indoctrinated early on with the concept of the team, the group. Sure, we may admire the Mountain Men, those rugged males who struck out on their own, who refused to live within the confines of the current matriarchy of their day but, while we may admire them, we decidedly don’t want to be them. Nowadays, we even have modern Mountain Men, professional golfers like Tiger Woods who don’t need supporting teammates to succeed, a male hero who can stand alone against all contenders. But our deepest passions are reserved, through that same highly evolved socialization process, for the team concept, for those specific teams who command our deepest loyalty. The question of how enduring bonds of such intense loyalty were forged helps explain our present dilemma – that ongoing tragedy where the sheep constantly lament their failure to escape the iron control of the sheep dog.
The socialization of our young males is formed through the team concept, that is, once we have grown beyond the kindergarten playground and the “don’t hit the girls” stage of male development. Nor is it of much importance what the team actually does, kicking a ball around the field, slapping a puck across the ice, throwing our bodies at each other while one of our number runs for a touchdown – what matters is we give our loyalty, our passion to a clearly defined and delineated group, we want our team to win but not by breaking those arbitrary rules of the game we carefully memorize, we want to share the winner’s circle with our teammates, not hog all the cheers for our own selfish glory. This is the socialization process we are carefully taught while growing up, sometimes directly but most often indirectly.
Women sociologists assure American males team sports hark back to ancient warfare, remind males subliminally of that well loved battle between clan MacDonald and clan Stewart, where men fought bravely and died gloriously on the damp heather – team sports which shunt biological male aggression into healthy social pathways – or so we’re told. But, in reality, our team sports carefully channel men into well defined and nigh unbreakable habits of thought, into consistent identity with a team, their team, their community, their state, and, ultimately, their nation. We begin to accept arbitrary societal rules without question, just as we once accepted “off-sides”, called strikes and double dribbling without stalking angrily off the field never to return. And these rules become so ingrained within ourselves we look with deep suspicion upon anyone who challenges our loyalty to them, who would point out the rules often make no logical sense, can frequently harm us by requiring non-reciprocal sacrifices on our part for the benefit of our ungrateful team members.
We play by the rules, we support our team. So, it’s only natural we think of that second tier team, our own State, as the challenger within this political battle. And we all want these various States to play the Federal team by the rules, the rules which must always transcend any purely individual goal of personal freedom – we don’t want to win this game by breaking the rules, winning isn’t that important if it requires circumventing the rules. Now simply substitute the Constitution and the law for “the rules of the game”, the “states” become a team which, within our minds and unlike the Sons of Liberty, can legitimately challenge Team Fed. However, we can’t and won’t destroy our beloved matriarchy in the process through precipitous action by one team against another, we will play the game in only the way it was meant to be played. Congratulations “Team Conservative” – you’re perennial losers but you will always be great team players.
Mr. Skurka,
“We play by the rules, we support our team. So, it’s only natural we think of that second tier team, our own State, as the challenger within this political battle.”
The states are the challengers because the “action group” that delivered our freedom appointed the states and their people the keepers of liberty. Any power the fed has is derived from the people and their states.
If this is basketball, then we have a case of the refs gone rouge, not just making the calls, but making the rules as they see fit.
We’d all do well to remember the states are team owners, that the teams are player owned, and that the federal government is the league they set up to serve them as a group.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by IC_politics: The States Must Rise Again: The Only Way to Combat Obama’s Socialist Agenda: One wonders if President Obama ever r… http://bit.ly/9EsdSX...
[...] Uno se pregunta si el Presidente Obama haya leído El Federalista: Las facultades delegadas por la propuesta de Constitución al gobierno federal son pocos y definidos. Los que han de permanecer en los gobiernos estatales son numerosos e indefinidos. Con el paso del ObamaCare viene en los talones de intervención gubernamental de la industria y financiados por los contribuyentes de rescate financiero de la [. . . ] URL del artículo original http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/04/07/the-states-must-rise-again-the-only-way-to-combat... [...]
[...] The States Must Rise Again: The Only Way to Combat Obama's Socialist Agenda The evil that a man inflicts on his fellow man injures both not only the one to whom it is done, but also the one who does it. Nothing corrupts a man so much as being an arm of the law and making men suffer. — Ludwig von Mises [...]