I was in college during the Vietnam war protests.  And I lived in San Francisco during the "free love" era.  I had had a passionate interest in politics during high school but it slowly faded as I watched and listened to people agree with ideas that I found illogical.  So I purposely ignored politics and political discussions.  I assumed that one tiny voice, someone who was struggling just to pay the rent and survive daily duties, could not make a difference in the national political debate.

My interest in politics revived when I got cable TV in the summer of 1994 and started watching C-SPAN.  In December, 1994, I read paragraph 1 of Federalist Paper #1.

You are asked to study and consider adopting a new Constitution for the United States of America to replace the current, ineffective federal government.  This is a very important decision.  Our country's existence depends on it.  So does the safety and welfare of its people, communities, and States.  We will decide the fate of a nation that is, in many respects, the most interesting in the world.

 

The people of this country will decide important questions:  Can societies establish a good government by careful thought and choice?  Or are people destined to be governed only by accident and force?  The answers depend on our response to the current crisis.  And the wrong decision will be unfortunate for all of mankind.  Federalist Paper #1 [paragraph 1]

Thus began my love affair with the United States Constitution.  I had no idea that during the summer of 1787 the United States was in dire straits.  The country was near collapse.  Little more than a soft breeze would have ended the dream and the United States would have gone the way of every other country that had ever existed.

American innovations and prosperity would never have developed.  As Federalist Paper #1 says, all of mankind would have lost out on the 200+ years of progress made since the ratification of the Constitution.

Now, in 2010, a malaise is felt across the country.  I feel discouragement daily.  I'm still just one small voice.  However, I now know that the country can be cured.  I suggest that the prescription to cure this malaise is the Constitution.

Demanding the federal government adhere to the Constitution seems like an insurmountable goal.  Fortunately, the Founding Fathers formed a confederate republic, leaving all powers not defined within the Constitution to the people and the States.  And they expected the people and the States to stand up against the federal government when it over-stepped its authority or ignored its duty.  Last week, Arizona accepted that responsibility.  As people demand adherence to the Constitution, I hope to see many States assume their Constitutional sovereignty.

     The States can defeat encroachments by the federal government.  However, if the federal government doesn't like a State law, the State law goes into effect.  If the federal government opposes the law or sends federal officers to stop it, the federal response would inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State.  The evil couldn't be prevented or repaired, if at all, without using force, a method that must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty.

On the other hand, States can easily oppose unpopular federal laws.  The people may refuse to cooperate with federal officials.  State courts and legislatures would expose the difficulties.  Large States could effectively block the law from going into effect.  Adjoining States could present obstructions that the federal government would not be willing to confront.

     Many States would oppose federal encroachments on States.  Every State government would support the common cause.  Resistance plans would be made.  One spirit would animate and lead the States.  Fear of the federal yoke would produce the same resistance as the dread of a foreign yoke.  And if the federal government did not voluntarily renounce its proposed changes, force would be used as it was before.  But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to take such extreme actions?

In our war with Great Britain, England--the part of the empire with a large population--invaded the rights of the American colonies, which had a much smaller population.  Great Britain's actions were unjust and unwise, but its goal of defeating the American colonies wasn't impossible.

But what if a State went to war against the federal government?  Who would be the parties?  A few representatives of the people [federal officials] would be opposed by the people themselves.  Or one set of federal representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of State representatives, with all of their common constituents on the side of the latter.

     Military force is the only other way that the federal government could usurp State power.  And it would take a very large military force.  The federal government would have to build up the military.  Over a long period of time the people and the States would have to elect men ready to betray them both.  The traitors would have to systematically enlarge the military.  The State governments and the people would have to silently watch the gathering storm and continue to fund the military until it was prepared to burst on their own heads.

This series of events is more like the incoherent dreams of jealousy or the exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal than like the sober fears of genuine patriotism.

 Let's say an army devoted to the federal government was formed.  The State governments--with the people on their side--could repel the danger.  According to the best computations, the size of a country's standing army cannot exceed 1% of the total population or 4% of the number able to bear arms.  In the United States, the army could be no bigger than 25,000 or 30,000 men.  The militia with nearly half a million armed citizens and officers appointed by the States would oppose the federal army.  The militia would fight for their common liberties.  Local governments would lead the militia.  And the militia would be loyal to the State governments.

Such a small federal army probably couldn't conquer the militia, just as we successfully resisted the British army.  Americans, unlike the people of almost every other nation, have the advantage of being armed.  And the people are attached to the State governments, which appoint the militia officers.  This forms a barrier against federal ambition.

Several European kingdoms have large military establishments.  Yet they are afraid to trust the people with arms.  Citizen arms alone might not be powerful enough to defeat a monarchy.  But if the people had the additional advantage of local elected governments, who could direct the national attacks and appoint militia officers, the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions that surround it.

Let's not insult the free and gallant citizens of America.  They can defend their rights more easily than the debased subjects of a tyrant can rescue their rights from their oppressors.  And let's not insult the American people with the supposition that they will ever allow the long series of insidious measures that would necessitate the use of armed force.

The federal government's construction will either make it sufficiently dependent on the people or it will not.  If it is dependent on the people, that dependence will restrain schemes obnoxious to their constituents.  Or if not, it will not possess the confidence of the people and the State governments--supported by the people--will easily defeat its usurpation scheme.  Federalist Paper #46 [paragraphs 7-10]*

_______________________________________