Let’s Talk about Self-Determination and Federalism

 

I once worked for a holding company of three grocery store chains that were supposed to serve distinct customer segments. But customers of the full-service grocery store were complaining of low-quality products and poor service. Customers of the discount supermarket were complaining of exorbitant prices and products that were too upscale. And customers of the hypermarket were complaining that it had become a confusing blend of the other two chains. Inadvertently, centralization of back-office functions had caused the chains to lose their distinct identities. The resulting nondescript offering pleased no one.

Today the United States has a problem similar to that of my former employer: When it comes to government, people want blue or red; nondescript purple pleases no one.

Self-determination is “the right of the people of a particular place to choose the form of government they will have” (Merriam-Webster). Federalism in the United States refers at once to our system of independent state governments that cede powers to the sovereign national (“federal”) government, and also to the idea that these ceded powers should be enumerated and few.

The architects of our American federalism were constrained by the principle that member states, big and especially small, should retain a healthy measure of self-determination. The nation must never come to represent only the views of the more populous states. Less populous states must have full representation in the federal government, and must be endowed with the powers necessary to have their own way of living under their own moral-legal framework. The federal government took specific powers away from the member states, but by default left all other powers to the states. To underscore and set in stone this original and obvious intent of the framers, the Tenth Amendment was passed as overkill: “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 purpose of hamstringing the federal government like this was to preserve within each state a healthy measure of self-determination. This design opened the way for the set of tremendous compromises that gave birth to our nation.

But centuries of progressive judicial interpretation has resulted in a Tenth Amendment that has not changed its wording, but now has a meaning that is the exact inverse of the original: the federal government now has any power not explicitly assigned to the states.

It bodes ominously for the future of our union that we have undone the very principle that enabled our union in the first place. Without a meaningful Tenth Amendment, we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place — irreconcilable moral-political positions but no surviving framework under which to take refuge from each other’s mutually oppressive positions. The right’s positions flow from a millennia-old Christian understanding of man’s place in God’s universe, and the left’s from a view of a godless universe with only man to save it. There is almost no intersection between the two worldviews, and unless we are allowed to organize ourselves into states of our own liking, we have no choice but to oppress one another, firstly into misery, and ultimately into…what?

If there is an arc to history, it is that birds of a feather flock together and demand the right to self-determination. The New York Times has strikingly illustrated the flocking together in “The Two Americas of 2016”. Calexit is a demand for self-determination. Whether we like it or not, a move toward self-determination is already underway among and within our states. Jonah Goldberg is right that now is the time “to convince liberals that local autonomy is good for them in the era of Trump [and] to get them on record that [local autonomy] is also acceptable for conservatives when the winds change direction and it’s their devil in the White House.”

For millions of conservative Americans, the feeling of being a foreigner in one’s own country has been growing for decades. Now progressive Americans will have their turn. Let’s use this time of fortune for the right and misfortune for the left to give each other the gift of self-determination. Let us restore the Tenth Amendment to its original meaning and go all-in on self-determining states with a barebones, enumerated-power federal government.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    AnonyMouse: Jonah Goldberg is right that now is the time “to convince liberals that local autonomy is good for them in the era of Trump [and] to get them on record that [local autonomy] is also acceptable for conservatives when the winds change direction and it’s their devil in the White House.”

    You can get them on record but the left has no compelling need to make today’s principles consistent with tomorrow’s.

    Witness them warning that Donald Trump will set up a fascist dictatorship, followed by Hillary Clinton demanding that Congress enact censorship of social media. They are on record as opposing fascism one day and favoring it the next. I’ll bet there are some who do both on the same day.

    (By the way, I don’t like the tiny font you used for your article. Some of us have eyes that are old and need to have such things magnified. Fortunately, Ricochet doesn’t break when I do that.)

    • #1
  2. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    The Reticulator:

    (By the way, I don’t like the tiny font you used for your article. Some of us have eyes that are old and need to have such things magnified. Fortunately, Ricochet doesn’t break when I do that.)

    Thanks for the feedback… I think I fixed the font size.

    • #2
  3. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    The post makes some excellent points.

     

    At some point, the states have to say to the feds, “I don’t want your money, and I don’t need it. I’ll stand on my own two feet.”

    I’m oversimplifying, but . . .

     

    • #3
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    AnonyMouse:

    The Reticulator:

    (By the way, I don’t like the tiny font you used for your article. Some of us have eyes that are old and need to have such things magnified. Fortunately, Ricochet doesn’t break when I do that.)

    Thanks for the feedback… I think I fixed the font size.

    The size is fixed, thanks. It’s not the native default Ricochet font, which is an especially good one for doing a lot of reading online.  (I don’t know what its name is, but it has serifs, which doesn’t automatically mean it’s good, but it helps.)

    • #4
  5. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    MarciN

    . . .I’m oversimplifying, but . . .

    KISS!

    • #5
  6. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    Friends, please upvote this post. I’ve finally written something worthy of The Main Feed. Please give me the honor!

    • #6
  7. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    AnonyMouse:Friends, please upvote this post. I’ve finally written something worthy of The Main Feed. Please give me the honor!

    I will do that, but first I have to edit my loopy comment. : )

    • #7
  8. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    The Reticulator:You can get them on record but the left has no compelling need to make today’s principles consistent with tomorrow’s.

    Witness them warning that Donald Trump will set up a fascist dictatorship, followed by Hillary Clinton demanding that Congress enact censorship of social media. They are on record as opposing fascism one day and favoring it the next. I’ll bet there are some who do both on the same day.

    Exactly what I thought as I read this post.

    • #8
  9. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Actually, now is exactly the time to grab back as much of our freedom and independence as possible, no matter how loud the left shrieks. They had no concern for us when they took control of 1/6th of our economy (healthcare) without a single Republican vote and then went even further by altering it at their whim using strictly executive action.

    • #9
  10. TKC1101 Member
    TKC1101
    @

    Mr Goldberg has shown himself to be an inconsistent thinker. On the one hand, liberals are fascists , and fascists need to be opposed and defeated. On the other, since they selectively embrace ‘federalism’ only to deflect and defeat things that are the province of the Federal government, like borders,  we are to indulge them in the idea that will somehow further our goals. Ignore their inconsistency.

    The leviathan grew using the leviathan. It will change and downsize only with the power of the leviathan.

    Why is it conservatives shrink from using the power that has been used against them for decades?

    Because they are led by scribblers.

    Fascism threatened the world with the raw naked power of the nation state.

    It was defeated not by small government and loose associations but by the raw naked power of the nation state.

     

    • #10
  11. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    TKC1101:The leviathan grew using the leviathan. It will change and downsize only with the power of the leviathan…

    Fascism threatened the world with the raw naked power of the nation state.

    It was defeated not by small government and loose associations but by the raw naked power of the nation state.

    Agree, we absolutely should use our power at the federal level to undo every damaging thing liberals have wrought for the past 200 years…including the watering down of the 10th Amendment.

    Peace in Europe came about and fascism was defeated only when all the different peoples finally had their own sovereign nation states.

     

    • #11
  12. mollysmom Inactive
    mollysmom
    @mollys mom

    AnonyMouse

    “It bodes ominously for the future of our union that we have undone the very principle that enabled our union in the first place. Without a meaningful Tenth Amendment, we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place — irreconcilable moral-political positions but no surviving framework under which to take refuge from each other’s mutually oppressive positions. The right’s positions flow from a millennia-old Christian understanding of man’s place in God’s universe, and the left’s from a view of a godless universe with only man to save it. There is almost no intersection between the two worldviews, and unless we are allowed to organize ourselves into states of our own liking, we have no choice but to oppress one another, firstly into misery, and ultimately into…what?”

    I agree, especially with clashing worldviews contributing greatly to irreconcilability.  However, the return to a much more muscular 10th amendment would wreak havoc for people living as political minorities in deep red or blue states; eastern Oregonians and Washingtonians would have even less say in their governance than they do now.  In some cases redrawing state boundaries, such as enlarging Idaho at the expense of Oregon and Washington, could help.

    • #12
  13. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    TKC1101

     

    It was defeated not by small government and loose associations but by the raw naked power of the nation state.

    Yes but we then dismantled Fascism and imperial Japan, undid their conquests and reduced the powers of the state. It grew back because that is what government does.  We must use the power of the State to dismantle the beast.  The Democrats are instruments of the enemy.  The enemy is the state, the collective, organized power, organized interests that are remote, non accountable, not self correcting, parasitical and always growing because that is its nature.  It is organic it grows on its own, it will not be tamed by increasing its size and power.  It must be dismantled, moved to the states where it can be killed, experimented with, tamed.   This is the fatal flaw of post war Republicans because they think defeating Democrats is the goal they then increase the size and power of the government which the Democrats then use to make the beast even more ravenous.

    • #13
  14. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    The federal government took specific powers away from the member states, but by default left all other powers to the states. To underscore and set in stone this original and obvious intent of the framers, the Tenth Amendment was passed as overkill: “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.”

    This is just a quibble, but one that I think is very important: the general government did not “take” anything away from the states as you say. Evidence? Look at the wording in the 10th that you quote: “The powers not delegated to the…” To delegate is to charge a subordinate with a task, meaning the delegator is in charge and the delegatee is the subordinate. The general government is subordinate to the states. The reason for the 10th Amendment was not “overkill” of a principle that all Founders agreed with. It was a guarantee to the anit-Federalists who did not take the word of Madison who said that the general government could not do that which was not enumerated in the new constitution.

    Your version of events takes the Marshal/Story approach to our system, the nationalist doctrine behind our constitution. The actual sentiment of those who debated it in the ratifying legislatures of the states were talking the compact theory as their approach.

    • #14
  15. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    I might recommend to you all to read the Abel Upshur reply to Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution.” It is hard to get a hold of, but if you are interested you can find it here:

    https://www.amazon.com/Inquiry-Nature-Character-Federal-Government/dp/1163764221/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1481466275&sr=8-2&keywords=Abel+Upshur

    • #15
  16. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    mollysmom: In some cases redrawing state boundaries, such as enlarging Idaho at the expense of Oregon and Washington, could help.

    You’d have to take the lines all the way to the Cascades.

    • #16
  17. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    Robert McReynolds:

    This is just a quibble, but one that I think is very importnt: the general government did not “take” anything away from the states as you say. Evidence? Look at the wording in the 10th that you quote: “The powers not delegated to the…” To delegate is to charge a subordinate with a task, meaning the delegator is in charge and the delegatee is the subordinate. The general government is subordinate to the states. The reason for the 10th Amendment was not “overkill” of a principle that all Founders agreed with. It was a guarantee to the anit-Federalists who did not take the word of Madison who said that the general government could not do that which was not enumerated in the new constitution.

    Your version of events takes the Marshal/Story approach to our system, the nationalist doctrine behind our constitution. The actual sentiment of those who debated it in the ratifying legislatures of the states were talking the compact theory as their approach.

    Bad phrasing on my part. If I’d had an editor, I hope it wouldn’t have happened. I meant that the framers gave specific powers to the federal government when they wrote the Constitution, not that the fed actively took them post ratification.

    There are a couple other spots like this that I would fix if I were to edit.

    • #17
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Randy Webster:

    mollysmom: In some cases redrawing state boundaries, such as enlarging Idaho at the expense of Oregon and Washington, could help.

    You’d have to take the lines all the way to the Cascades.

    If the feds had the power to redraw state boundaries, they would have the same sort of power over states that, say, the Russian government has over its oblasts, where boundaries are redrawn from time to time. The states would become nothing more than administrative districts, and we would probably need to change the name of our country from the United States of America to something else.

    • #18
  19. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    The Reticulator:

    Randy Webster:

    mollysmom: In some cases redrawing state boundaries, such as enlarging Idaho at the expense of Oregon and Washington, could help.

    You’d have to take the lines all the way to the Cascades.

    If the feds had the power to redraw state boundaries, they would have the same sort of power over states that, say, the Russian government has over its oblasts, where boundaries are redrawn from time to time.

    I assume this could all be hashed out at a constitutional convention, as an exercise of the power of the people, not the fed. According to the Tenth Amendment, the power to redraw state boundaries is assigned to “the people”.

    • #19
  20. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    AnonyMouse:

    The Reticulator:

    Randy Webster:

    mollysmom: In some cases redrawing state boundaries, such as enlarging Idaho at the expense of Oregon and Washington, could help.

    You’d have to take the lines all the way to the Cascades.

    If the feds had the power to redraw state boundaries, they would have the same sort of power over states that, say, the Russian government has over its oblasts, where boundaries are redrawn from time to time.

    I assume this could all be hashed out at a constitutional convention, as an exercise of the power of the people, not the fed. According to the Tenth Amendment, the power to redraw state boundaries is assigned to “the people”.

    That would just be another way to exercise national-level power. It still nullifies the states as semi-sovereign entities if their boundaries can be redrawn by people who live outside their boundaries.  I think it would be a very dangerous precedent with little gain to show for it even if it worked out well.

    • #20
  21. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    The Reticulator:

    AnonyMouse:

    The Reticulator:

    Randy Webster:

    mollysmom: In some cases redrawing state boundaries, such as enlarging Idaho at the expense of Oregon and Washington, could help.

    You’d have to take the lines all the way to the Cascades.

    If the feds had the power to redraw state boundaries, they would have the same sort of power over states that, say, the Russian government has over its oblasts, where boundaries are redrawn from time to time.

    I assume this could all be hashed out at a constitutional convention, as an exercise of the power of the people, not the fed. According to the Tenth Amendment, the power to redraw state boundaries is assigned to “the people”.

    That would just be another way to exercise national-level power. It still nullifies the states as semi-sovereign entities if their boundaries can be redrawn by people who live outside their boundaries. I think it would be a very dangerous precedent with little gain to show for it even if it worked out well.

    Ok, I see what you mean. I guess then it would be down to states agreeing within themselves to split themselves up, and then having that ratified by the other states in some fashion.

    • #21
  22. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    AnonyMouse:

    Robert McReynolds:

    This is just a quibble, but one that I think is very importnt: the general government did not “take” anything away from the states as you say. Evidence? Look at the wording in the 10th that you quote: “The powers not delegated to the…” To delegate is to charge a subordinate with a task, meaning the delegator is in charge and the delegatee is the subordinate. The general government is subordinate to the states. The reason for the 10th Amendment was not “overkill” of a principle that all Founders agreed with. It was a guarantee to the anit-Federalists who did not take the word of Madison who said that the general government could not do that which was not enumerated in the new constitution.

    Your version of events takes the Marshal/Story approach to our system, the nationalist doctrine behind our constitution. The actual sentiment of those who debated it in the ratifying legislatures of the states were talking the compact theory as their approach.

    Bad phrasing on my part. If I’d had an editor, I hope it wouldn’t have happened. I meant that the framers gave specific powers to the federal government when they wrote the Constitution, not that the fed actively took them post ratification.

    There are a couple other spots like this that I would fix if I were to edit.

    I hear you. I too am a writer not an editor.

    • #22
  23. Ulysses768 Inactive
    Ulysses768
    @Ulysses768

    AnonyMouse:Peace in Europe came about and fascism was defeated only when all the different peoples finally had their own sovereign nation states.

    As in Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”, self-determination of peoples? I think most would agree that kind of thinking had more to do with causing fascism and World War II than ending it.  The UK, US, and USSR did not defeat fascism because they were decomposed into ethnic fiefdoms.  As Wilson’s secretary, Robert Lansing wrote about “self-determination of peoples”:

    The phrase is simply loaded with dynamite.  It will raise hopes wich can never be realized.  It will, I fear, cost thousands of live.  In the end, it is bound to be discredited, to be called the dream of an idealist who failed to realize the danger until too late to check those who attempt to put the principle into force.  What a calamity that the phrase was ever uttered!  What misery it will cause!

    • #23
  24. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    Ulysses768:

    AnonyMouse:Peace in Europe came about and fascism was defeated only when all the different peoples finally had their own sovereign nation states.

    As in Wilson’s “Fourteen Points”, self-determination of peoples? I think most would agree that kind of thinking had more to do with causing fascism and World War II than ending it. The UK, US, and USSR did not defeat fascism because they were decomposed into ethnic fiefdoms.

    World War I needed to be ended before anyone should be blamed for starting World War II.

    Comparing a map of pre-World War I tinderbox Europe to a map of relatively peaceful modern Europe, provides the hindsight necessary to see that self-determination is unstoppable, and efforts to try to stop it lead only to more bloodshed.

    Behold, the nation of Israel, a product of self-determination. Had a strong Israel existed on the earth at Hitler’s time, surely there would have been no Holocaust, and perhaps no World War II.

    Today, peace in Europe is feeling a bit less certain not because the European Union is failing, but because the EU has been trying to hold back the unstoppable forces of self-determination, forces that will now shape a new Europe with new alliances, alliances that pay more respect to self-determination.

    • #24
  25. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    AnonyMouse: Comparing a map of pre-World War I tinderbox Europe to a map of relatively peaceful modern Europe, provides the hindsight necessary to see that self-determination is unstoppable, and efforts to try to stop it lead only to more bloodshed.

    Self-determination is a concept that’s hard to define.  How small can a group able to self-determine be?  Can the Websters decide they’re being repressed, and declare themselves a sovereign nation?

    • #25
  26. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    Randy Webster:

    AnonyMouse: Comparing a map of pre-World War I tinderbox Europe to a map of relatively peaceful modern Europe, provides the hindsight necessary to see that self-determination is unstoppable, and efforts to try to stop it lead only to more bloodshed.

    Self-determination is a concept that’s hard to define. How small can a group able to self-determine be? Can the Websters decide they’re being repressed, and declare themselves a sovereign nation?

    It’s a good question. There is no committee to decide these things. The general rule seems to be, whatever size is willing and able to organize themselves into a sufficiently powerful force to get the courage to declare independence from whomever is governing them and then defend that independence when it comes under attack.

    Edit to clarify my position: I am in no way advocating for any kind of violent activity to force self-determination. I am saying reversal and supression of self-setermination explains much of the violence throughout the ages. To avoid conflict in the USA, we should go back to the first principles of our Union, which include self-determination by states.

    • #26
  27. Ontheleftcoast Inactive
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    Here’s an interesting take on the issue of separation of powers and the states:

    Overall, there were at least eight elements built into the fabric of the federal government for the purpose of balancing the states’ power against that of the federal government.

    1. Secession… This balance was removed in the revolution of 1860.
    2. Taxation.  The Federal government is explicitly prohibited from taxing the citizens directly.  It may only tax the states, and only by headcount.  A dependency upon the states for funds is, after fear of exit, the single largest constraint on a central federal system.   This balance was removed in 1913.
    3. The Senate…
    4. The Electoral College…  One or two large pushy states should not be able to centrally enforce their agendas upon the rest of the country.
    5. The Senators.  The original Senators were appointed by the states’ governments to the Senate… This balance was removed in 1913 as well.
    6. Enumeration of Powers.  The constitution explicitly lists the powers of the federal government…. this limit on the enumerated powers of the federal government died in 1937, with Parrish.
    7. Original Amendments.  The 9th and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution… further remind the federal government that nothing except what was explicitly included in the constitution was in the scope of federal power…. this died in 1942 with Wickard.
    8. Amendment Process.  The Constitution may be amended by a majority of the states…

    There are still four three [ed: oops]left.

    • #27
  28. AnonyMouse Inactive
    AnonyMouse
    @AnonyMouse

    Leaving this here for future reference:

    The Real Thucydides Trap: Will Red and Blue America Go to War?

     

    • #28
  29. Robert McReynolds Member
    Robert McReynolds
    @

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):
    Here’s an interesting take on the issue of separation of powers and the states:

    Overall, there were at least eight elements built into the fabric of the federal government for the purpose of balancing the states’ power against that of the federal government.

    1. Secession… This balance was removed in the revolution of 1860.
    2. Taxation. The Federal government is explicitly prohibited from taxing the citizens directly. It may only tax the states, and only by headcount. A dependency upon the states for funds is, after fear of exit, the single largest constraint on a central federal system. This balance was removed in 1913.
    3. The Senate…
    4. The Electoral College… One or two large pushy states should not be able to centrally enforce their agendas upon the rest of the country.
    5. The Senators. The original Senators were appointed by the states’ governments to the Senate… This balance was removed in 1913 as well.
    6. Enumeration of Powers. The constitution explicitly lists the powers of the federal government…. this limit on the enumerated powers of the federal government died in 1937, with Parrish.
    7. Original Amendments. The 9th and 10th Amendments to the United States Constitution… further remind the federal government that nothing except what was explicitly included in the constitution was in the scope of federal power…. this died in 1942 with Wickard.
    8. Amendment Process. The Constitution may be amended by a majority of the states…

    There are still four three [ed: oops]left.

    I disagree that one is not viable.

    • #29
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.