What has really happened to ‘State Rights’...?

[Restore our republics]

State Rights has been at the forefront of the liberty movement for some time now. With Ron Paul’s campaign in 2007/2008 a great awakening has taken place in the hearts and the minds of many of the people. A waking up, if you will, to the blatant fact of lawlessness executed by our governments, and an era of the Rule of Men and their monetary system of slavery, here in America – all the way up and all the way down. I am here to do my very best to explain and inform you of what has happened, a point Dr. Paul has touched upon, but one which the people (those who actually care about freedom, liberty, and unalienable rights) have not grasped; the starting point of the overthrow of law (usurpation), the destruction of State rights, and the downward spiral of our great American institutions.

Most of us who support the rule of law (the fundamental principles of constitutional republics) have come to the realization that we are not being told the whole story, we were and are being taught half truths, and brazen lies about what our governments have and have not done. We have been spoon-fed revisionist history, told to place our hope in men once every two years to restore to us what has been lost, and to ignore the evils of the past because the ‘ends justify the means’. The truth is, my country men, comfort and security has reigned supreme in our communities for generations now; we have lost our way and have come to believe that a little freedom is equal to the “Freedom” our forefathers intended for us. If you are reading this you are the exception, truth is what matters most, and the consequences in pursuit of truth are worth the sacrifice; “..our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

What has inspired me to write this, aside from the obvious passion that “eternal vigilance” requires of us, is the recent ‘hue and cry’ coming from former Bush administration speechwriter Michael Gerson: that Ron Paul is on a “quest to undo the Party of Lincoln”. This is where the answer to our question begins, but it is a trick question, because without coming to terms with the answer we will never restore to ourselves and our posterity what has been lost.

The trend we see today with the Obama administration is nothing new and, in fact, was initiated by the so-called ‘savior of the Union and great emancipator’. Lincoln and the 37th Congress waged an unjust war for the purpose of consolidating power in Washington City, this is the bottom line. I am aware of the rhetoric surrounding the ‘necessity’ of the war, but the truth is, if we are reasonable and logical; if we truly take the time to look at the history of the time and what followed, the picture becomes quite clear – the ‘American Civil War’ was a revolution waged by the ‘Radical Republicans’, one which was intended to overthrow the founding principles of our National constitution and the States which granted it power.

Lincoln’s war of genocide was the first step in setting the stage for all that we see that is going wrong in our nation today. The next great breach of trust and power grab by our National government occurred in 1867 and 1868 with the 39th Congress – the Reconstruction Acts. These Acts forced the ratification of the 14th Amendment and forced the annulment of lawful state governments. Now, many will say that this amendment was for the purpose of ‘giving civil rights’ to the recently freed slaves, however I would beg to differ – What then was the purpose of the ‘Civil Rights’ movement in the 1960’s? A closer inspection of the intent of the 14th Article of Amendment is also necessary to draw a clearer picture. The following is an excerpt from one of the ‘fathers’ of Congressional Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment, and is quite clear, and telling, as to the true purpose:

“...All were ordained in the spirit of liberty, all prohibited the existence of any form of slavery, and all heartily recognized the supreme sov¬ereignty of the National Government as having been indisputably established by the overthrow of the Rebellion which was undertaken to confirm the adverse theory of State-rights...

...As the vicious theory of State-rights had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no standing-room for the heresy would be left....

...Its opening section settled all conflicts and contradictions on this question by a comprehensive declaration which defined National citizenship and gave to it precedence of the citizenship of a State. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United /States and of the States wherein they reside." These pregnant words distinctly reversed the origin and character of American citizenship. Instead of a man being a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of one of the States, he was now made a citizen of any State in which he might choose to reside, because he was antecedently a citizen of the United States.
The consequences that flowed from this radical change in the basis of citizenship were numerous and weighty...

...The first section of the Constitutional amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter destruction of the pestilent heresy of State-rights, which constantly menaced the prosperity and even the existence of the Republic; and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain...” James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress 1861 - 1881
Vol. 2, pp. 300, 303, 312-313 (The Henry Bill
Publishing Company 1886)

My countrymen and women, this is but the tip of the iceberg of what happened to State rights. For 151 years our system of government has been trying to rationalize and incorporate lawlessness into our system of government – “How can we make it appear that the Constitution for the United States of America is unfettered; that we have not set up a legislative oligarchy?”

I realize that this issue is not a simple one, the legal implication are “numerous and weighty”, but how can we expect to repair or remodel our house when we are unwilling to address the foundational problems which have persisted? Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? Do we truly believe in the fundamental principles of law embraced by our founding fathers or are the political whims and passions of the day superior to Natural Law? This issue is not unknown to the legal profession; it has just been considered taboo – From the Supreme Court of Utah:

“… In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment, which the present Supreme Court of the United States has by decision chosen as the basis for invading the rights and prerogatives of the sovereign states, it is appropriate to look at the means and methods by which that amendment was foisted upon the Nation in times of emotional stress…
...We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.” Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403(1968).

This issue can no longer be ignored; it is ripping our nation apart. The ‘Civil War’ was a crime, Lincoln a tyrant and usurper, Reconstruction unconstitutional, and the 14th Amendment a nullity, void, in law. Constitutionally-minded people, such as Ron and Rand Paul are not ‘going to save us’; they are there to walk shoulder-to-shoulder with us, to give us aid and support in restoring our republics. Are you willing to educate yourselves upon this truth we must face? Are you willing to face the broken heart of our nation, and then do what must be done?

I will look forward to the discussion.

In liberty,
Isaac Hutchison Birch

[ZanZibar]

Only individuals have rights, governments have powers.

[Restore our republics]

Only individuals have rights, governments have powers.

Study up on 'body politic'.

[Soca Taliban]

States don't have rights!!
Why people think that the abuses perpetrated by the Fed should be passed down to the state is okay is beyond me.

[Travlyr]

Like Dr. Ron Paul says, sound money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity. Americans essentially lost their right to sound money in 1861.

Early federal issues
In 1862, the United States government issued its first legal tender paper money although government obligations were issued periodically between 1812 and 1861 in the form of interest-bearing Treasury notes. These bore interest at 5 or 6 percent and were payable after two years.

The demand notes were authorized by congressional Acts of July 17 and Aug. 5, 1861. They were soon nicknamed "greenbacks," a term that became so popular it was passed on through the years and is heard even today, most often when paper money specialists, or syngraphists, get together.

THE NATIONAL BANKING ACT OF 1863

The National Banking Act of 1863 (along with its revisions of 1864 and 1865) sought to add clarity and security to the banking system by introducing and promoting currency notes issued by nationally chartered banks, rather than state-chartered ones.

The time of the Civil War brought paper money and control. Indeed in 1861, Salmon P. Chase began serving as the Secretary of the Treasury and he is the $10,000 poster boy for the Federal Reserve.

[Restore our republics]

Like Dr. Ron Paul says, sound money is the key to liberty, peace, and prosperity. Americans essentially lost their right to sound money in 1861.
The time of the Civil War brought paper money and control. Indeed in 1861, Salmon P. Chase began serving as the Secretary of the Treasury and he is the $10,000 poster boy for the Federal Reserve.

Salmon P. Chase was also Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court at the time of ex parte McCardle, which was the last time the constitutionality of Reconstruction was before the Court. Well, besides ex parte Yerger in 1869. Congress threatened to pass this bill if the Court assumed jurisdiction on ex parte Yerger:

A BILL: Defining the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in certain cases; S. 363, 40thCong. (1868)
Defining the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in certain cases.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, [That under the Constitution, and as repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power or give to the judicial tribunals any authority to question the decision of the political departments of the government on political questions; and it is hereby declared that all courts of the United States in the administration of justice shall be bound by the decisions of the political departments of the government on political questions.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State, and it is hereby, as heretofore, declared that no civil State government, republican in form, exists in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, or Texas, and no so-called civil State government in either of said States shall be recognized as a valid or legal State government, either by the executive or judicial power or authority of the United States, until Congress shall so provide, or until such State government is represented in the Congress of the United States; and it is hereby declared that the act of Congress entitled" An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March two, eighteen hundred and sixty, seven, and the several acts supplementary thereto, are political in their character, the propriety or validity of which no judicial tribunal is competent to question, and the Supreme Court of the United States is hereby prohibited from taking jurisdiction of any case growing out of the execution of said acts in either of said States until such State shall be represented in the Congress of the United States, or Congress shall recognize such State government as valid and republican in form; and all such cases now pending in said court shall be dismissed, and all acts or parts of acts authorizing an appeal, writ of error, habeas corpus, or other proceeding to bring before said Supreme Court for review any case, civil or criminal, or other proceeding arising out of the execution of said" Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," and of the acts supplementary thereto, or which authorize an appeal in any case from the judgment of the circuit court of the United States in a habeas corpus proceeding to the Supreme Court, or which authorized the Supreme Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus or other writ to bring before it for review any judgment of a circuit or any other court in a habeas corpus case or proceeding, be, and the same are hereby repealed.]

That under the Constitution, and as repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court, the judicial power of the United States does not embrace political power or give to the judicial tribunals any authority to question the decision of the political departments of the government on political questions; and it is hereby declared that all courts of• the United States in the administration of justice shall be bound by the decisions of the political departments of the government on political questions.
SEC. 2 And be it further enacted, That it rests with Congress to decide what government is the established one in a State, and it is hereby, in accordance with former legislation, declared that no civil Slate government exists in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, Arkansas, or Texas, and no so-called civil State government in either of said States shall be recognized as a valid or legal State government, either by the executive or judicial power or authority of the United States, until Congress shall so provide, or until such State government is represented in the Congress of the United States; and it is hereby declared that the act of Congress, entitled "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," passed March two, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, and the several acts supplementary thereto, are political in their character, the propriety or validity of which no judicial tribunal is competent to question, and the Supreme Court of the United States is hereby prohibited from entertaining jurisdiction of any case growing out of the execution of said acts in either of said States until senators and representatives from such States shall be admitted into the Congress of the United States, or Congress shall recognize such State government as valid, and meanwhile all acts or parts of acts authorizing an appeal, writ of error, habeas corpus, or other proceeding to bring before said Supreme Court for review any case, civil or criminal, or other proceeding arising out of the execution of said "Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel States," and of the acts supplementary thereto, or which authorize an appeal in any case from the judgment of the circuit court of the United States in a habeas corpus proceeding to the Supreme Court, or which authorized the Supreme Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus or other writ to bring before it for review any judgment of a circuit or any other court, or of any judge thereof, in a habeas corpus case or proceeding, be, and the same are hereby, suspended. And no law heretofore passed, extending the judicial system of the United States over any of said rebel States, shall be construed to recognize any State government existing therein until senators and representatives from said State shall be admitted into the Congress of the United States, or Congress shall recognize a State government therein as valid.

Interesting to say the least. Lyman Trumbull authored this bill, he was also one of the 'fathers' of Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment.

[Travlyr]

It was a time of great corruption in the Supreme Court as well. The first decision upheld sound money (Hepburn v. Griswold) and it was overturned the following Spring (Knox v. Lee).

if you read the constitution, you'll find that the 'air force' isn't expressly permitted, either

here are the facts of the matter

In Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), the Court ruled that paper money was not unconstitutional: "The Constitution nowhere declares that nothing shall be money unless made of metal." The Court argued that the Congress can manipulate the value of precious metals to the point where it can be rendered as inherently worthless as paper (the Congress could enact a law that says that 10-dollar silver coins weigh 400 grains in one year and 500 grains the next, effectively devaluing the silver). The Court even noted the arguments of the Framers against "emitting bills," but wrote that the Framers (1) could not anticipate all governmental needs and (2) allowed the Congress to do what was necessary and proper to carry out its powers. In this case, that includes printing paper money.

So, said the Court, even though paper money is not expressly permitted by the Constitution, it is also not expressly forbidden, and in spite of the extra-constitutional opinions of some of the Framers, the ability to print paper money is a necessary and proper power of the federal government.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q154.html

It is interesting that Knox v. Lee (1871) overturned Hepburn v. Griswold (1870) immediately after Justice Grier was replaced by Justice Strong and Justice Bradley was added to the court. It seems to me that somebody powerful didn't like the Hepburn v. Griswold decision which was decided by strict adherence to the constitution.

[Restore our republics]

States don't have rights!!
Why people think that the abuses perpetrated by the Fed should be passed down to the state is okay is beyond me.

STATE, government. This word is used in various senses. In its most enlarged sense, it signifies a self-sufficient body of persons united together in one community for the defence of their rights, and to do right and justice to foreigners. In this sense, the state means the whole people united into one body politic; (q. v.) and the state, and the people of the state, are equivalent expressions. 1 Pet. Cond. Rep. 37 to 39; 3 Dall. 93; 2 Dall. 425; 2 Wilson's Lect. 120; Dane's Appx. §50, p. 63 1 Story, Const. §361. In a more limited sense, the word `state' expresses merely the positive or actual organization of the legislative, or judicial powers; thus the actual government of the state is designated by the name of the state; hence the expression, the state has passed such a law, or prohibited such an act.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Ed.

By implication, you are saying the people have no rights.

[pcgame]

Only individuals have rights, governments have powers.

Correct.

Even in liberty defined Ron Paul sais states don't have rights, only individuals do. I think a proper term for states rights could be "proper federalism" or "state powers granted in the constitution."

[Restore our republics]

Correct.

Even in liberty defined Ron Paul sais states don't have rights, only individuals do. I think a proper term for states rights could be "proper federalism" or "state powers granted in the constitution."

Well, Dr.Paul is incorrect. There are State powers, which are limited by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights Articles 2 through 7. The State is the body politic, the body politic is the people, the people are those who meet certain qualifications expressed withing the original State constitutions.

[CJLauderdale4]

Civil War....14th Amendment....16th Amendment....17th Amendment....and ~100 years of progressives
....and voila!

[Restore our republics]

Civil War....14th Amendment....16th Amendment....17th Amendment....and ~100 years of progressives
....and voila!

151 years

[ZanZibar]

I think a proper term for states rights could be "proper federalism" or "state powers granted in the constitution."

The Constitution doesn't grant power to the States. The States granted and delegated powers to the government of the federation via the Constitution.

[ZanZibar]

There are State powers, which are limited by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights Articles 2 through 7.

The Bill Of Rights never restricted the State governments.

[Danke]

And then there is the missing original 13th Amendment...

[Restore our republics]

The Bill Of Rights never restricted the State governments.

That is actually incorrect. Unfortunately that was a bad decision on the part of the US Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore if you go back and read the ratification debates the intention becomes clear. The hyperlink is a good read, start at 1056 #3.

[Restore our republics]

And then there is the missing original 13th Amendment...

From what I have seen, the 'original 13th' is a fiction, and a redundancy. What it iterates is already in the U.S. Constitution.

[Restore our republics]

That is actually incorrect. Unfortunately that was a bad decision on the part of the US Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore if you go back and read the ratification debates the intention becomes clear. The hyperlink is a good read, start at 1056 #3.

I have more study to do on this particular topic, however I think part of the reason for the decision had to do with the institution of slavery and the political rights of freed blacks that were State citizens/freemen, in States like North-Carolina. This is just speculation, as I have yet to read the decision in its entirety and research the politics and events.

[Southron]

Unfortunately, people either do not understand or don't care for federalism. Look at turnout during Presidential elections and state/local elections.

We want to elect a king to mandate our will from on high.

With a proper functioning federal system, national elections would be less important.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

States right to what?

[ZanZibar]

That is actually incorrect. Unfortunately that was a bad decision on the part of the US Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore if you go back and read the ratification debates the intention becomes clear. The hyperlink is a good read, start at 1056 #3.

The bill of rights (really should be called the bill of limitations) did not apply to the state governments until this legal fiction called "the incorporation doctrine" magically appeared... the idea that the bill of rights restricted the statre governments is vapor that someone just dreamed up one day.

[Restore our republics]

States right to what?

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

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.

Read 5000 Year Leap it is a good start anyway. Or are you asking something else?

[Restore our republics]

The bill of rights (really should be called the bill of limitations) did not apply to the state governments until this legal fiction called "the incorporation doctrine" magically appeared... the idea that the bill of rights restricted the statre governments is vapor that someone just dreamed up one day.

That is incorrect as well.
Perhaps you should elaborate on the "incorporation doctrine" you are referring to. The concept of 'legal fiction' was around long, long, long before the 14th Amendment.
Did you read the link I attached? It wasn't something dreamed up, I can assure you. With constitutions and their interpretation it is all about intent. The collection called the Founders Constitution is also an excellent resource.

[Southron]

Read 5000 Year Leap it is a good start anyway.

That is a great book. Everyone should read it.

[NCRepublic]

The bill of rights (really should be called the bill of limitations) did not apply to the state governments until this legal fiction called "the incorporation doctrine" magically appeared... the idea that the bill of rights restricted the statre governments is vapor that someone just dreamed up one day.

The incorporation doctrine did not magically appear. It is the inevitable process that must happen in order to rectify the conflict created by the Reconstruction Acts of 1867. The Reconstruction Acts reconstructed the American union. They changed us from a union of states where your citizenship primarily rested in your state to a nation where citizenship rested in the federal government. Since the Bill of Rights was a limitation on federal powers over states, and the Reconstruction Acts literally annulled the individuallity of all states, the Bill of Rights became applicable to no one. The incorporation doctrine is the process of applying the BoR to national citizens residing within state borders.

The reason that the BoRs is applied to the States through this doctrine is that the states are now composed of national citizens and not state citizens.

The cases cited below should help understand the importance of State Citizenship.

in US vs. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, “there is in our Political System, a government of each of the several states and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own.”

256 P. 545, affirmed 278 US 123, Tashiro vs. Jordan, “There is a clear distinction between national citizenship and state citizenship.”

“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957, and is considered to be a citizen of the District of Columbia, “A person may be a citizen of the United States and not a citizen of any particular state. (cite Slaughter-House cases) This is the condition of citizens residing in the District of Columbia and in the territories of the United States, or who have taken up a residence abroad. (cite Hepburn vs. Ellzey 6 US 445)

“The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship.” Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226

“By the first section of the bill all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,… are declared to be citizens of the United States… It does not purport to declare or confer any other right of citizenship than Federal Citizenship. It does not purport to give these classes of persons any status as citizens of States, except that which may result from their status as citizens of the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of federal citizenship is with Congress.” President Andrew Johnson, March 27, 1866

[ZanZibar]

That is a great book. Everyone should read it.

Doesn't the 5000 Leap essentially call for a theocracy?

[NCRepublic]

States right to what?

State rights to control their internal affairs without the medaling of Congress. Remember Congress has no powers outside of those enumerated.

We either have a nation where the power is centralized in Congress (Not what our founders intended) or the power is exercised at the local level of State government, County/Parish government and City/township government. (This is what our founders intended)

[bolil]

How to determine intent of the founders when they themselves had different intents: eg Federalist Vs Democratic/Jeffersonian. what /\ he said.

[NCRepublic]

How to determine intent of the founders when they themselves had different intents: eg Federalist Vs Democratic/Jeffersonian. what /\ he said.

I am not familiar with this. I know of no founder that promoted the idea of centralizing all power in the newly created Congress and removing it from the states. I think that the 9th and 10th amendments make this fairly clear.

Please post the quotes that promote centralization of power from our founders.

[bolil]

"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of the natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government"
and
"It will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgement, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government."
Lastly
"This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defect. Still continuing no less attached to union that enamored of liberty they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being persuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government. . ."


All from the Federalists papers. If you would like more give them a read as have neither the ambition nor the patience to systematically retype them, here, for you.

Also, I never implied the intent of any was to "centralize all power in the newly created congress and remove it from the states" as you eagerly insinuate, What I said was the founders had much different views as to the proper extent of that centralization. We might, however, infer from the quotes above the possibility that some of our founders would have liked an entirely centralized gov.