Monday, July 20, 2009

The Jim Robinson Doctrine: Questions and Answers

Pastorius of Infidel Bloggers Alliance and the Astute Bloggers (see blog roll) has asked some good questions about Robinson's essay on taking power away from the federal government. He writes:

I'm not exactly an expert on the whole states rights argument. Why would this guy want to repeal the 17th amendment? That doesn't make sense to me. He seems to be calling for less democracy if Senators are not elected by popular vote.

And, how is the NSA going to protect ports, bridges, roadways, etc., if the Federal government is supposed to cede all it's property to the states?

Are the states going to take over the ownership of Federal buildings and lands, and then lease them to the Federal government? Is that the idea?

Another problem I have with the FR post is that it is vague in that it does not explain the specifics of how the Federal government has usurped or overextended it's powers.

This is a lot of hot air if no one is willing to be specific.

As you probably know, I believe Obama is governing in a way which is outside the American Tradition. However, I believe he has generally been smart about not comitting impeachable offenses. I do believe that his firing of Inspectors General are probably impeachable offenses. His handling of Chrysler and GM is outside the American Tradition, but unless it can be proven in a court of law that dealerships were shut down for political reasons, that is going to go nowhere.

I am merely saying we have to have specifics around which people will rally. Otherwise, this is just b.s.

Check out this post:
Pas, originally U.S. Senators were selected by the legislatures of the individual states; they were appointed. Congressmen, however, were to be popularly elected. It was believed, with a great deal of common sense, that the Senate was to be a deliberative body unconcerned with political partisanship and petty politics. Since Senators were appointed, there was no need for this. Today we have really nasty politics, the politics of personal destruction and the stupid McCain-Feingold Act, which would be unnecessary if the 17th amendment were repealed. See arguments for repeal at this link:

For your second question, ownership of land and property by the federal government now greatly exceeds its constitutional authority. Currently the federal government "owns" about one-third of all land in the United States; 98% of all land in Alaska, 86% of Nevada land and 65% of all Colorado land. How can the federal government "own" most of a state? That destroys the sovereignty of that state and trashes the "Equal Footing Doctrine" that the original founders wished to preserve, i.e. that all states in the Union are equal in sovereignty vis a vis the federal government.

Despite the intentions of the founders and the clear intent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, the states east of the 100th meridian are vastly "more equal" than the states to the west.

The Constitution is clear about what land the federal government is allowed to possess and the means for acquiring it: see Article 1, Section 8, which describes it thus:
"all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." That's all! The federal government has no legal right to own 98% of Alaska or any other state.

As far as the Dept of Homeland Security or the armed forces protecting the land of the United States, they are obligated to do so by the same Article I, Section 8, and there is no requirement or necessity for them to own the land that they defend; they are an arm of the states and carrying out duties specifically delegated to them by the Constitution, i.e. to raise armed forces for the common defense of the states.

So Jim Robinson is right about taking back the illegally seized lands from the feds and restoring the full sovereign rights of the states. The lands and natural resources of the individual states belong to the people of the states, not to the federal government. The federal government is currently greatly exceeding its Constitutional powers in this regard.

Also see this article:

See Article I, Section 8 here:

No comments: