FFQF: E Unum Pluribus?
I'm going to cheat somewhat here, as I am copying and pasting a quote delivered to my email inbox today. It is inexplicably relevant to the topics I've been discussing of late (and of which has been the topic of discussion amongst liberty lovers for years). 
"The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes [and] delegated to that government certain definite powers and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. To this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party. The government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution the measure of its powers."
-- Thomas Jefferson
(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President
Source: in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 which were written in response to an attempt by Congress to expand the criminal jurisdiction of the federal government through a set of laws entitled the "Alien and Sedition Laws."
As much as I admire John Adams and dislike Thomas Jefferson, I believe Jefferson was within Constitutional boundaries when he rejected Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts and wrote the subsequent Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The issue of State's Rights is sticky, but Jefferson is perfectly correct that the binding force of the Union is not the federal government, but rather the Constitution and it's limited powers. For this, I stray from being considered a complete Federalist. It doesn't take a technical and vocational schools guide to see that the states are sovereign for their own affairs:
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.
I could never understand why Federalists clung to the Elastic Clause, particularly considering the wording of the 10th amendment.
The Kentucky Resolutions brought their own abuse, I realize, fueling the secessionist fever that led to the Civil War. I am one of those who count Abraham Lincoln as being in the wrong by asserting dictatorial powers for preserving the Union. Slavery is wrong, always was wrong, but so is tyranny; the Civil War concerned much more than the issue of slavery. At it's basest, the issue was about State's Rights. Certainly secession was and is deadly to the Union. Equally, so is federal tyranny. I suppose the real question is, Which is worse?
Founding Father's Quote Friday is hosted at Meet the Founders blog
4 comments :
Cato:
Good post and good analysis.
If memory serves correctly, Jefferson did become more 'elastic' in his interpretation of the Constitution once he took office as President.
Interesting, Cato. I suspect I would have been (and may still become?) a secessionist. Just as the rights of the individual must come before the rights of the state, I think those of the states must come before the federal government. Having never experienced our government the way it was designed, though, it's hard to say for sure - although I am sure that claiming authority that has not been granted is the way of death.
As I read of the many states that are currently trying to reassert their rights, (I touched on this in my FFQF today) I have this mustard-seed-sized hope that one of those states will go back to the beginning and try to form a state based on God's justice.
Then again, I've hoped to see the church do the same thing, and that shows no signs of happening.
Great quote for today, Cato! So true. Now, if only Jefferson had been a bit more consistent when he was President ... heh.
I think your analysis of the situation makes a lot of sense. As for your question about the Federalists, and their embrace of the "Elastic Clause," I think that I understand why they did it, and I think (I'm not an expert, but as far as I've read) that it's actually agreeable to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. It's too lengthy of a subject to address here, but HOPEFULLY I will be updating my critique of DiLorenzo's Hamilton's Curse on my Hamilton blog soon, and I will cover this subject.
As for the Alien and Sedition Acts ... they were definitely wrong, but they have an interesting history. They did not originate with Adams, but in Congress. Not all of the Federalists were for it; I recall reading that Hamilton called the measures to extreme, and rightly foretold that Adams' signature approving the Acts spelled the doom of the Federalist Party.
"What is there in the world that cannot be abused?" Hoh boy.
Great post. Thanks for participating today!
Happy FFQF!
Cato: Good post...how are things in snowy Utica? Was a resident of your sister city Rome, NY, back when I returned from Vietnam, while stationed at "The Griff"(Air Force Base)...then lived there for another year and a half after, back from 1970 to late 1973.
Post a Comment