You are on page 1of 2

Vote out statists of the Union | www.therecorderonline.com | Recorder

Vote out statists of the Union

Vote out statists of the Union | www.therecorderonline.com | Recorder Vote out statists of the Unionwww.tenthamendmentcenter.com ). Numerous states have passed legislation opposing the federal confiscation of state authority. These actions have " id="pdf-obj-0-6" src="pdf-obj-0-6.jpg">

Article 1, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution originally provided for election of federal Senators by their state legislatures.

Alleged problems led the states to ratify the 17th amendment, April 8, 1913, which changed the method of election to direct popular vote. In 2004, Sen. Zell Miller (D-Georgia), introduced a resolution to repeal the 17th amendment, asserting his experience as a Senator necessitated it. “Direct elections of Senators,” he said, “allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.”

What must we the people do when a Senator, or any other “representative,” fails to fulfill his calling?

The founders of our nation were extremely well informed of the nature of man and the history of government. Recognizing patterns of that history, they instituted a system designed to restrain the evils that had racked every form of government ever instituted among men. This new system, properly called federalism, made provisions for the preservation of states’ self-governance by incorporating checks and balances on federal government. Senators were elected by the legislatures in order to secure one of these “checks” on federal government since, if elected by the state legislature, they would very likely represent the interests of the state. This original structure of the Constitution, as suggested by Miller, was established as the best possible form of government to secure and protect states and citizens from threats to personal liberty.

Almost all of America’s founders recognized the tendency of centralized governments – in our case general or federal – to increase their authority and dominate the smaller governments – in our case, states. Those strongly inclined toward limited general government addressed the concern of it being unbridled, affirming the benefits of federalism’s “check and balance” for senators. In one article, found in the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote, “…it will rarely happen, that the members of the state governments will carry into the public councils, a bias in favour of the general government.”

His article proposes that states will never have to fear being overcome by federal government because representatives of the states have their own states as “the objects of their affections.”

In a case where one is biased toward the federal government and against the state, the legislature, or where applicable the constituents (voters) of that state will promptly remove the pseudo-representative from office. Such a person is a Statist – he favors large government at the cost of personal freedom, and for this reason he is a risk to all. Madison argued this removal of counterfeit representatives would always keep the federal government in check, as well as maintain proper sovereignty for the states and security for the citizens.

The basis of his argument is that the Constitution, as well as the first 10 amendments (or Bill of Rights), contain clear statements that limit the authority of the federal government. The 10th amendment alone affirms, “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.” The relatively few responsibilities of the federal government are specifically spelled out in these documents and the 10th amendment clearly attributes everything else to the states or to the people.

Today, we are witnessing an increase in state/federal tensions. As citizens throughout the country have become aware of the federal government’s efforts to take authority to itself that properly belongs to the states and to the people, there has been an increasing awareness of, and interest in, the principles preserved in the 10th Amendment (see www.tenthamendmentcenter.com).

Numerous states have passed legislation opposing the federal confiscation of state authority. These actions have

provided opportunities for states to regain their sovereignty. If this will be accomplished, Madison’s recommendations about Statists cannot be ignored. Representatives who advance the federal government in lieu of making their states “the objects of their affections” are freedom-stealing Statists who must be put out of office. Ultimately, citizens must make the choice to retain, and in many cases, take back their freedoms. This will only be accomplished by replacing the Statists with those who will truly represent the people of the states.

An important example in Virginia is the new federal health care. The Commonwealth of Virginia, anticipating the seizure of its citizens’ rights through the creation of federal health care, sought to protect us by establishing its Health Care Freedom Act. This law ensures the federal government will not exercise unlimited authority over the most intimate and personal of all matters – the body, both in life and in death. This is the commonwealth’s effort to restrain “Big Brother” in the ongoing 10th-Amendment power struggle.

Although this bill passed the State House and Senate, the representatives were not all agreed about its virtue. In a striking last effort to undermine the entire measure, Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) proposed an amendment to the bill that states, “This legislation is merely intended to inform the United States Congress of the resolve of the General Assembly of Virginia in regard to proposed federal legislation. It is not intended to have any effect upon the existing laws of the Commonwealth or any future laws enacted by this body.” Such an amendment would turn our protection into a gentle recommendation to the federal government. Amazingly, the effort to change this protective measure into a suggestion was rejected in the Senate by a mere five votes! We fared no better locally, since Bath County Sen. Creigh Deeds supported Petersen’s measure, and opposed the bill when it came to the full senate vote.

This raises numerous questions. Why would any state legislator wish to force the citizens of the state to purchase health care? Furthermore, why would any desire to make it a federal issue? The simple answer, as Madison pointed out more than 200 years ago, is that they are Statists of the Union: they support laws that take freedom from citizens and give it to large centralized government.

What must we conclude? Every legislator who voted against the wishes of the state legislature has supported the interests of the federal government. These wayward legislators fall into two categories: those who allege to represent the people in the state legislature, and those who allege to represent the freedom of the state and its citizens in the federal government.

One might argue those who voted against citizens’ freedoms at the state level, such as Del. Jim Schuler and Sen. Deeds, would not have known what the wishes of the state were until the vote was completed, so they are innocent of supporting federal interests in opposition to those of the state. The same argument would stand for the federal representatives Sen. Jim Webb and Sen. Mark Warner, who voted for federal health care before the conclusion of the matter in the state. Though we willingly grant they could not have known the conclusion of the state’s vote when they cast their own, they are not guiltless. They voted to take the right from the free citizens of Virginia and empower the federal government with it. Furthermore, they did so even though the polls indicated the majority of Virginians did not favor the federal health care requirement.

The federal representatives of Virginia who voted for federal health care subsequent to the vote of the state legislature are even more responsible. They voted for the federal health care mandate knowing the Commonwealth of Virginia sought to protect its citizens against it. They have made one of the most significant decisions in the history of the country, knowledgably opposing the people they purport to represent. There is no conclusion that can be drawn but that they represent, not the people of Virginia, but the interests of federal government and/or their personal ambitions.

We often hear “every vote counts,” and this case is no exception. Had Virginia’s four representatives in the U.S. house (Perriello, Connolly, Nye, Boucher), or two representatives in the U.S. senate (Webb, Warner), voted in favor of the state and against the federal interest, this article would not have been written.

Unless the people of Virginia wish to yield freedom after freedom to the federal government, and end up being enslaved to the few (an oligarchy), they must do as Madison anticipated – remove the Statists from office. Citizens must not allow representatives to be in office, at the state or federal level, who do not have Virginia and its citizens as “the objects of their affections.”

Let their voting record speak for itself. Use your voting freedom to restore your liberty.