Reader supporting Ron Paul

Recently there has been much discussion by social conservatives surrounding Presidential Candidate Congressman Ron Paul. Many say he is too weak on social issues because he wants to repeal many federal prohibitions on drugs, and because he is not in favor of Constitutional amendments for abortion, traditional marriage, etc. As a part of this conversation I recently wrote the following explanation of true federalism and why Dr. Paul's approach to government will allow us to fix both the problems in Washington D.C. and at home.

The States are the sovereign governments We The People have chosen to place our temporal trust in and commit our worldly allegiance to. I am an Iowan before I am an American. At least for now. I believe the State government is supreme to that of the federal government. I base this belief on the fact that the State legislatures are required to ratify the US Constitution prior to admittance into the union. The US Constitution was not established by a popular vote of the people, nor is there any provision in it subjugating it to a popular vote. It is a compact between the Sovereign States.

I believe that our State and its government is also subject to our Creator. Our Constitution acknowledges this... "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa."

Both the US Constitution and the Iowa Constitution however acknowledge that the People are the final authority in worldly government... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states respectively, or to the people." - "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it."

This is the meaning of self-government. We the People are duty bound to govern ourselves, to exercise self-control, to encourage others to do likewise, and when necessary to use the legitimate force of government (via local Sheriff, other peace officers operating within their legitimate jurisdiction, and a jury of the People) to prosecute, convict and punish others for failing to exercise such control.

Government and its authority is derived by the consent of the governed. Government is a social compact formed on the basis of voluntary cooperation and submission to each other. Voluntary submission is often indicated by nothing other than personal presence within the jurisdiction of said governments borders.

Iowans have no legitimate worldly authority to compel Missourians to adopt our definition of abortion. Nor do we have legitimate authority to compel their adoption of our restrictions or exceptions to infanticide laws governing abortion. That is their Sovereign right to self-government."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are... endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." If we truly believe that, then we must also believe that "their Creator" will defend their inalienable rights and righteously judge them if they infringe upon the rights of others.

We must follow the law. We must acknowledge the limited authority of the federal government (the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8) and we must through our State governments hold them accountable for operating within those limits. We must also hold our state government accountable for operating within the limits We the People have set on it. We must demand that IOWA defend the inalienable rights of the unborn. We must demand that IOWA not deprive any unborn child of its right to life, liberty, property, etc. without due process of the law. Missourians, Texans, Floridians, Californians, etc. have the same sacred duty to hold their own state governments accountable. This is federalism. This is limited self government. This is the philosophy of Moses, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Presidential Candidate Doctor Ron Paul.

This is why I am supporting Congressman Paul in the August 13th Straw Poll in Ames, IA. If we elect him president he won't go to the Whitehouse to fix everything. He will go there to stop trying to fix everything and instead return the federal government to its correct role as a supplement to the state governments. Congressman Paul will get Washington out of the way and let us rule ourselves via the Capitol in Des Moines.

Comments

Submit a Comment

PS July 28, 2011, 4:24 pm It seems logical to me in Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution that the process by which states are admitted into the union would be the same process by which states are removed from the union. Iowa has no right to secede without consent of the US Congress. Without a doubt the state\'s rights are vast and rarely limited by the US Constition while the federal government has few rights. The few rights that the federal government does have obviously grants them supreme authority in those areas only. I disagree with half Ron Paul\'s positions on the issues but if he was president he\'d do more good than harm (unlike our current chief executive officer). There are several other Republican candidates more deserving of my vote at the Iowa Straw Poll.

DJ July 27, 2011, 11:51 am Mr Vasquez, what is \"simply wrong\" is limiting discussion of a topic because you, or even Mr Lincoln, disagree with it and declare it settled. Nothing is settled, especially things that purport to be settled by war. The principle of subsidiarity is a very respectable principle, and clearly indicates that the idea of secession is not settled in the way you describe. You may disagree with secession, but you cannot pontificate that any idea is beyond discussing. We are not the slaves of history.

`V July 27, 2011, 1:06 am Mr Aliprantis--Abraham Lincoln refutes secession much more elegantly than I can. In a letter to Thurlow Weed from 17 December 1860 President-Elect Lincoln wrote that \"...no state can, in any way lawfully, get out of the Union, without the consent of the others; and that it is the duty of the President, and other government functionaries to run the machine as it is.\" I\'ve heard a simpler quote attributed to him, that secession is as logical a concept as an arm liberating itself from a torso, but since I have no sourcing for it I would have to consider it apocryphal; the sentiment, however, stands. To believe, in 2011, that secession is still a valid and possible political strategy is simply wrong. Nullification and state\'s rights are 19th century ideals that were attempted and defeated legally and forcefully numerous times beginning with the New England states during the 1812 War, extending through the South Carolina\'s attempts at nullification of Federal tariffs in the 1830s, and of course the secession winter of 1860-61. I\'d suggest, for a basic grounding on 19th century American Politics including secession and nullification, that a relatively inexpensive copy of Alan Brinkley\'s _The Unfinished Nation: A Concise History of the American People_ can be purchased at any local book-store. Best wishes, Alexander Vasquez

WA July 25, 2011, 7:03 pm Dear Mr. Vasquez, Why is \"neo-secessionistic\" doctrine abhorrent? Is it because \"bad\" people (the Confederacy) wanted secession in the past? If so, then that is a logical fallacy. Let\'s say a bank robber loves his family. Is loving one\'s family bad because a bank robber also loves his family? No. If the federal government behaves tyrannically by infringing upon the rights of the states, then the states have the right to secede. This was recognized by the founders because they themselves had in effect seceded from the British Empire because of its infringements upon their rights. Please recognize that no one is saying that Iowa should secede from the union. People are only reminding us that if the federal government infringes upon the rights of Iowans, then Iowans have a right to secede in order to protect those rights. Reminding the federal government of this possibility is one of the many tools that are available to us to combat federal tyranny. Thank you.

AV July 25, 2011, 5:51 pm The arguments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this editorial argue that state governmental authority is superior to federal government authority. This political idea ended with the surrender of the rebellious Confederacy in 1865. While I do support the idea of limited state and federal government I find the prospect of neo-secessionistic doctrine abhorrent.

DJ July 25, 2011, 9:57 am Human beings are the creation of nature and nature\'s God. Governments are the very fallible creations of human beings. Sovereignty belongs to human beings by natural right, to governments by the consent of the governed. Whether or not such consent has been given to the federal government since the days of ratification is questionable.

N July 25, 2011, 9:25 am Thanks to all of our friends from Oskaloosa, Iowa

Opinion : Reader supporting Ron Paul

Comments