Obama, States' Rights, and the Constitution

[Editors note: This post is a collaborate effort between me and my brother-in-law, Erich. I look forward to writing future articles with him.]

During a December interview on "60 Minutes", Obama was asked how he would rate his presidency. The president said: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history." I'm not going to attempt to define exactly what he meant by "modern history", but for the sake of argument let's look at modern history as 1776 to the present, shall we? With that in mind, we'll review the significance of Obama's comments as they pertain to the United States of America; particularly to "the Republic, for which [the flag] stands, one nation, under God, indivisible; with liberty and justice for all".

I recently had a conversation with a brother-in-law of mine, recounting a story that scares me more than a little. Not too long ago in the history of civilization there was a country that broke into factions and began to war with itself. One side wanted to split off and create their own independent nation while the other side wanted to keep unity for the sake of power. Rather than look to the law of the land, the bigger, more powerful side declared war on the smaller, weaker side that wanted to create their own country. Many men fought, suffered and died and in the end the side desiring to keep their little country together won. Sound familiar? It should, it was the Civil War...known to some people as the war to end slavery but to others as the war for state's rights. This was the point at which the power of the national government began to take precedence over the power of the states. Subsidiarity, for a large part, was gone. [I want to clarify that I don't think states' rights are more important than granting individual liberty to all people. Slavery is evil no matter what. The Emancipation Proclamation was necessary to guarantee freedom for slaves, but it did not require a war.]

So, let's tie this back to the flag and its pledge. The true reason for allegiance to the flag is obviously not allegiance to a physical starred and striped item, but to the "republic for which it stands" ...so what does "the republic" mean? It is the concise political word for the nation - the One Nation for which the North fought the Civil War to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, the Pledge specifies that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. We generally take indivisibility for granted, probably not giving our 50-state union a second thought. The fact is, our constitution specifically provides for national solubility, should one or more states desire independence. Practically speaking, states speak first for its citizens, not the federal government. Our current president has little respect for state's rights (or citizens rights, for that matter) that don't align with his agenda; he inflicts his presumed power on all citizens without regard for their voice. Would this still be the case had the Civil War gone differently, or not occurred at all?

No respectable historian would argue that Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. In truth, even his Emancipation Proclamation was only a "war measure" that would have become defunct if the war ended the next day – and it was written so as to avoid actually freeing any slaves since it only applied to "rebel territory." Both Lincoln and Congress announced publicly that their purpose was not to disturb slavery but to "save the union"; as a union is not compulsory, but voluntary, they actually destroyed that union philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature that was established by the founders. All states, North and South, became wards or appendages of the central government in the post-1865 era.

The Civil War was really fought over the issue of self-governance and state autonomy that our federation of states, our "United States of America" was founded on. Does this mean that I think the South should have seceded? No, I don't think they should have, but I agree with them on constitutional principle. As Erich stated during our conversation, "The Civil War is the point at which we went from being a constitutional federation to a national government." In the current system the federal government's rules trump everything else.

So how does this relate to Obama and his self-placement as 4th bestest behind FDR, Johnson, and Lincoln? Those of you that follow history will remember that these three presidents are some of the most prominent champions of national government's authority over the country's citizens that our country's highest office has ever seen. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and dismissal of the southern states' right to secede, FDR's New Deal, and Johnson's Great Society were progressive steps toward centralization of government power that has continued to build throughout the last 150 years and is currently being manifest in diktat by our current executive. Obama makes no secret of his willingness to impose laws, mandates, and sanctions upon the people that he was elected to lead. Abroad he has been both hawkish at times and sheepish at others, simultaneously throwing our troops under the bus and aiding wars or potential conflicts in Libya, Syria and Iran. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq, contrary to his election promises. Our economy is stagnant at best and permanently weakened at worst, and for all his blaming of others Obama is the president and he has done nothing tangible to improve our global economic leadership. While promising to use a "scalpel" on the budget, he racks up more and more debt onto our shoulders and those of our children, with national debt significantly higher than ever before. Our constitutional rights as citizens are looked at by Obama as executive-defined, as he picks and chooses who qualifies for what rights. If you take his list and turn it upside down, Obama would certainly be closer to the number of 4th worst, but he didn't do this by himself. We have given our federal government and its "leaders" unprecedented and undeserved power. If our states, as constitutionally independent and self-governed units, began to exercise their rights and power, we would see a day in which the federal government's willingness to impose mandates at will upon we the people would greatly decrease. For all our sakes, I hope that day comes swiftly.