Some Maine Yankees remember the Constitution, Ninth and Tenth Amendments

On Saturday morning, Sedgwick became likely the first locale in the country to pass a "Food Sovereignty" law. It's the proposed ordinance I first described last fall, when I introduced the "Five Musketeers", a group of farmers and consumers intent on pushing back against overly aggressive state food regulators. The regulators were interfering with farmers who, for example, took chickens to a neighbor for slaughtering, or who sold raw milk directly to consumers.

The essence of local government, town hall, Sedgwick, ME

Citing America's Declaration of Independence and the Maine Constitution, the ordinance proposed that "Sedgwick citizens possess the right to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing." These would include raw milk and other dairy products and locally slaughtered meats, among other items.

The rest of the article

This is what I am referring to when I talk about local government.  

I consider this an example of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights: Assertion of a right not specifically enumerated to the Federal government.  

Taking this to the logical conclusion of original intent, the local government ordinance should also trump a law of the State of Maine, as the ultimate sovereignty is with the people, then the State, then the Federal government.

Consumers are free to opt out;  if the strategy is economically non-viable, it will terminate itself.  If it works, good for them, because their overhead will decrease, allowing them more to live on.

Are we still sovereign over our lives, or now subjects?

If the current United States cannot be politically reformed within the current system, as the Tea Party hopes, can the South, or the South and West (red states), separate and form a new Confederation of States, leaving the current forced National entity?  

Your school teachers, college professors, journalists, and "mainstream" politicians will tell you: "No! The Civil War ended all of that.  It is dead and buried.  Get over it..." or words to that effect.


Does that make sense when the reasons to nullify, and when necessary, secede, are compelling and even urgent?  Of course not.

If the winning side in a war said the Moon was made of cheese instead of rock and dust, it wouldn't alter the facts.  Eventually, the truth will cause someone to stand up and declare that the moon is made of rock and dust.   

Since 1865, our public schools have been teaching us that the moon is made of cheese. 

A government that was oppressive and heavy handed to white Southerners since 1865 has now become oppressive and heavy handed to all tax payers (and the left should be very pleased with how equal we all have become:  we are all being economically raped by the federal government regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, or sexual orientation).  Every year our salaries remain the same, our dollar purchases less, and the government obligates us to more collective debt.

My ancestors came here to be left alone and take care of themselves.  They came because there was no lord or master to limit their opportunities.

I want no different for myself and my family.  

If the government, by their laws, wants to confiscate property and give it to other people who didn't earn it, the government is unjust.  If they consciously or unconsciously destroy any chance I have to be prosperous, are they not as bad, or worse than George III and Lord North?

I want my Natural rights to life, liberty, and property protected by my government.  That is the only proper mandate that government has, if the government is truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people." (Lying bastard Lincoln) 

If the government doesn't protect those rights, of what purpose is government?

Are we free or aren't we? Do we rule, as per our Founders rhetoric, or have we become slaves of an oligarchy?
 

The cynical would contend that the people have always been subjects in this country, and that our so-called sovereignty has always been an illusion.  

This may be true, but in addressing the situation that confronts our generation, I hold that we have become slaves.  

We are slaves to those who tax us, 

We are slaves to those individuals in this country to whom the nanny state caters (Giving charity is voluntary individual choice vs. supporting welfare by confiscated wealth) 

We are slaves to those industries and private businesses subsidized by government funds and financial slight of hand.  

We are slaves to the whims of a nonrepresentative unconstitutional national legislature ("Are you serious? Are you serious?").

We are slaves to the Federal Reserve, that steals and counterfeits our wealth and our children's inheritance with impunity.

We are slaves to unimaginable unauthorized collective debt incurred by our National government.

So now must fall back on the words of Thomas Jefferson, for we have no other choice:

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Must read for Constitutional Conservatives...

An important book by Thomas E. Woods, Nullification, is reviewed by Jeff Taylor at The American Conservative:

"The balance between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment was maintained while each level of government stuck to its constitutionally proper areas of concern. But gradually federal power intruded into areas formally—and formerly—reserved to the states. Beginning with the Marshall court in the early 19th century, with its invention of the power of judicial review and its creative use of constitutional loopholes, the federal judiciary facilitated this growing imbalance. The Supreme Court’s bias should have been no surprise since it belonged to one of the competing levels of government. Once the federal judiciary decided to begin ruling in favor of its own team, there was no official mechanism that could stop the concentration of power in D.C."

Nullification vs. Secession, from a man who knew

It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.
I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory.


Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. 

Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, and against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. [John C.] Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.   


[Emphasis mine--Honourablemeans]

From the last address of then U.S. Senator Jefferson Davis (Mississippi), January 12, 1861

Read the entire speech here.