Jennifer Lake's Blog

“Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right… [N]o serious student of history or politics could believe that Jefferson and Lincoln possessed similar visions for America. Or that Jefferson would have condoned the violent subjugation of a single sovereign state (let alone 11 of them), or thought Lincoln’s disregard for the Constitution in any way legal or justified.

“Rather, he would have known at once that what Lincoln spawned through his belligerence was a government capable of violating its own fundamental law at will; of using illegal force to prevent the governed from withdrawing voluntary consent (regardless of their motivation), and thereby destroying consent altogether. Such a government is incapable of  liberty, and antithetical to the very existence of Jefferson’s America.” https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/20/jefferson-vs-lincoln-america-must-choose/

*

“The Jeffersonian Understanding of the Constitution by Don Livingston” (founder and president of the Abbeville Institute https://www.youtube.com/@abbevilleinst  posted c.2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng7NRRCIUSc

*

From the Mises Institute, author economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo –video “Axis of Evil: America’s Three Worst Presidents” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6vIAlK50sE  “…Lincoln started a war over tax collection…,” (Quoting the book) “Lincoln destroyed the voluntary union of the Founding Fathers and replaced it with a union held together by war and the mass murder of Southern civilians… The uniquely American system of federalism was destroyed along with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution and the states’ rights of nullification and secession [as ‘reserved powers’], and Americans became the servants rather than the masters of their own government…” https://mises.org/library/book/axis-evil-americas-three-worst-presidents

Audio– “Thomas DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln’s Second Revolution” against consent of the governed and the U.S. constitution, hosted by Abbeville Institute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yznx5pJuYx4

Make America States Again

“During the 2024 presidential election, voters have repeatedly heard calls to ‘Make America Great Again,’ ‘Make America Wealthy Again,’ and ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ but one you might not have heard is ‘Make America STATES Again’ – a solution to …drive the federal behemoth back into its constitutional cage.

“…Originally published in the New-York Packet on January 29, 1788, The Federalist,No. 46 was written by James Madison, under the pseudonym Publius, as a continuation of his previous essay (The Federalist,No.45) …to address critics’ concerns that the new Constitution would result in the ‘consequential annihilation of the state governments.’ …As Madison explained in his opening, he saw the federal and state governments as being “different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes.” The federal government cannot annihilate or overstep the authority of the state governments, because the newly proposed Constitution, Madison explained, does not grant it the legal power to do so.

“…Because of the 17th Amendment [ratified April 8, 1913], state governments no longer have any representation in Congress, and their direct influence in the federal government is therefore neutralized. A full repeal of the 17th Amendment and a return to state legislatures electing their states’ U.S. senators in accordance with Article I, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 3 of the Constitution is vital to help Make America STATES Again.

“…Sadly, as a result of lies repeatedly taught in government schools and by the media, Americans have been led to believe that all laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, presidential executive orders, federal regulations, and Supreme Court rulings are the “supreme Law of the Land” and must be implemented by the states as subordinates to the federal government… This widespread belief stems from a misunderstanding of Article VI and what has long been erroneously called the “Supremacy Clause.” Nowhere does Article VI, or any other part of the Constitution, authorize or declare that the federal government and all federal laws have supremacy over state governments and state laws.

“…It is essential that state legislators have a proper understanding of the enumerated powers of Congress to determine what is pursuant to the Constitution. The act of state legislators declaring federal acts that are not warranted by the enumerated powers in the Constitution to be “null, void, and of no legal effect” in their state is called nullification. “If nullification is to be successfully deployed and defended, states’ lawmakers must remember that the Constitution is a creature of the states and that the federal government was given very few and very limited powers over objects of national importance. Any act of Congress, the courts, or the president that exceeds that small scope is null, void, and of no legal effect. No exceptions…

Nullification is deeply rooted in U.S. history — particularly of the American people expressing their collective interest as states. …The people’s inherent sovereignty is expressed first and foremost through their state governments, which in turn sublet a portion of that sovereignty to the federal government. James Madison understood… The heart and soul of Madison’s method to Make America STATES Again is the concept and proper use of nullification.” https://buildingblocksforliberty.org/make-america-states-again/

*

“The Revolution of 1913 – Thomas J. DiLorenzo”

“…the centralized State, in my view, culminated in 1913…  Woodrow Wilson, before he became President, was a political science professor at Princeton, as many of you know. In his book on congressional government he wrote, enthusiastically and in approval, this: ‘The War Between the States established this principle: that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.’ And he thought that was a great thing, the fox would be guarding the hen house from here on out. And of course, this was one of the things such people as Thomas Jefferson thought would be the end of liberty in America– if you allowed, ever, the central government to be the final judge of its own powers. It didn’t take a genius to forecast that the government would get around to deciding that there are no limits to its powers, which it did. Now, this system of federalism, or States’ Rights, was never intended to be enforced by the Supreme Court alone…One illustration of how that was never the intention is…a brief history I have of  the 17^th Amendment… [continue at minute 4]

*

Disclaimer: If you’ve read this far into the post, I want to emphasize that  sources and quotes are educational “FYI”s. I’m not a proponent of repealing amendments, especially in the super corrupt conditions of the present. In fact, anything counter to the noble philosophies of Natural Rights is outside my scope of endorsement. We live in ignoble times, if not “interesting.” No state within the US, apparently, has ever succeeded at nullification but worthy arguments abound. The situation reminds me of an old ‘lawyer’ joke: ‘What do you call 50 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? [Answer:] A good start!’

The trouble with lawyers is they spend your time and money “attorning,” you– that is, according to Webster’s dictionary:  “at-torn, -torned, -torning. Law, (of a tenant) to accept the authority of a new landlord (late ME[English] attournen, AF[French] attourner, OF[French] –to turn over to…” or as we know it today, attorneys effect the transfer of your property (including rights and all) to the jurisdiction of courts and other superior claimants on your person.

States’ Rights and Sovereignty

Jefferson Davis (1808-1889), US Senator and US House representative for Mississippi, published on states’ rights and sovereignty in his 1881, two volume treatise The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government: Listen to part 19 (chapter 9) approximately 25 minutes  https://archive.org/details/risefall_confederategovt_1a_1303_librivox/riseandfall1a_19_davis.mp3 ; or read from the 1881 original https://archive.org/details/risefallofconfed0000jeff/page/146/mode/2up ; or read on for paragraph excerpts highlighted for brevity, below:

“If any lingering doubt could have existed as to the reservation of their entire sovereignty by the people of the respective States, when they organized the Federal Union, it would have been removed by the adoption of the tenth amendment to the Constitution, which was not only one of the amendments proposed by various States when ratifying that instrument, but the particular one in which they substantially agreed, and upon which they most urgently insisted… That amendment is in these words: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’

“The full meaning of this article may not be as clear to us as it was to the men of that period, on account of the confusion of ideas by which the term “ people” —plain enough to them— has since been obscured, and also the ambiguity attendant upon the use of the little conjunction ‘or’, which has been said to be the most equivocal word in our language, and for that reason has been excluded from indictments in the English courts. The true intent and meaning of the provision, however, may be ascertained from an examination and comparison of the terms in which it was expressed by the various States which proposed it, and whose ideas it was intended to embody.

… “each recommended several such amendments, putting this at the head in the following form: ‘That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised. Of course, those stanch republican communities meant the people of the States—not their governments, as something distinct from their people.

“New York expressed herself as follows: ‘That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness ; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same’…

“Rhode Island gave in her long-withheld assent to the Constitution, “in full confidence” that certain proposed amendments would be adopted, the first of which was expressed in these words: ‘That Congress shall guarantee to each State its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States.” This was in May, 1790, when nearly three years had been given to discussion and explanation of the new Government by its founders and others, when it had been in actual operation for more than a year, and when there was every advantage for a clear understanding of its nature and principles. Under such circumstances, and in the “full confidence” that this language expressed its meaning and intent, the people of Rhode Island signified their ‘accession’ to the ‘Confederate Republic’ of the States already united.

… “Much has been said of the ‘prohibition’ of the exercise by the States of certain functions of sovereignty ; such as, making treaties, declaring war, coining money, etc, This is only a part of the general compact, by which the contracting parties covenant, one with another, to abstain from the separate exercise of certain powers, which they agree to intrust to the management and control of the union or general agency of the parties associated. It is not a prohibition imposed upon them from without, or from above, by any external or superior power, but is self-imposed by their free consent. The case is strictly analogous to that of individuals forming a mercantile or manufacturing co-partnership, who voluntarily agree to refrain, as individuals, from engaging in other pursuits or speculations…

“This enunciation of a principle, which, even if it had not been expressly declared, would have been a necessary deduction from the acceptance of the Constitution itself, has been magnified and perverted into a meaning and purpose entirely foreign to that which plain interpretation is sufficient to discern…

“There are some other considerations which may conduce to a clearer understanding of this supremacy of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof :

1. In the first place, it must be remembered that, when the Federal Constitution was formed, each then existing State already had its own Constitution and code of statute laws. It was, no doubt, primarily with reference to these that the provision was inserted, and not in the expectation of future conflicts or discrepancies. It is in this light alone that Mr. Madison considers it in explaining and vindicating it in the “ Federalist.” t . .

2. Again, it is to be observed that the supremacy accorded to the general laws of the United States is expressly limited to those enacted in conformity with the Constitution, or, to use the exact language, ‘made in pursuance thereof.’ Mr. Hamilton, in another chapter of the ‘Federalist,’ calls particular attention to this, saying (and the italics are all his own) ‘that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the supreme law of the land,’ and that the State functionaries will cooperate in their observance and enforcement with the General Government, ‘as far as its just and constitutional authority extends.’

3. In the third place, it is not the Government of the United States that is declared to be supreme, but the Constitution and the laws and treaties made in accordance with it. The proposition was made in the Convention to organize a government consisting of ‘supreme legislative, executive, and judicial powers,’ but it was not adopted. Its deliberate rejection is much more significant and conclusive than if it had never been proposed. Correction of so gross an error as that of confounding the Government with the Constitution ought to be superfluous, but so crude and confused are the ideas which have been propagated on the subject, that no misconception seems to be too absurd to be possible. Thus, it has not been uncommon, of late years, to hear, even in the highest places, the oath to support the Constitution, which is taken by both State and Federal officers, spoken of as an oath “to support the Government”—an obligation never imposed upon any one in this country…  Could any assertion be less credible than that they proceeded to institute another supreme government which it would be treason to resist?

“This confusion of ideas pervades the treatment of the whole subject of sovereignty.  Mr. Webster has said, and very justly so far as these United States are concerned: ‘The sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America. Our governments are all limited. In Europe sovereignty is of feudal origin, and imports no more than the state of the sovereign. It comprises his rights, duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and powers. But with us all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign, and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them such powers as they please. None of these governments are sovereign, in the European sense of the word, all being restrained by written constitutions.’

…“There are but two modes of expressing their sovereign will known to the people of this country. One is by direct vote— the mode adopted by Rhode Island in 1788, when she rejected the Constitution. The other is the method, more generally pursued, of acting by means of conventions of delegates elected  expressly as representatives of the sovereignty of the people. Now, it is not a matter of opinion or theory or speculation, but a plain, undeniable, historical fact, that there never has been any act or expression of sovereignty in either of these modes by that imaginary community, ‘the people of the United States in the aggregate.’ Usurpations of power by the Government of the United States, there may have been, and may be again, but there has never been either a sovereign convention or a direct vote of the ‘whole people’ of the United States to demonstrate its existence as a corporate unit. Every exercise of sovereignty by any of the people of this country that has actually taken place has been by the people of States as States. In the face of this fact, is it not the merest self-stultification to admit the sovereignty of the people and deny it to the States, in which alone they have community existence?

“This subject is one of such vital importance to a right understanding of the events which this work is designed to record and explain, that it cannot be dismissed without an effort in the way of recapitulation and conclusion, to make it clear beyond the possibility of misconception.

“According to the American theory, every individual is endowed with certain unalienable rights, among which are ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ He is entitled to all the freedom, in these and in other respects, that is consistent with the safety and the rights of others and the weal of the community, but political sovereignty, which is the source and origin of all the powers of government—legislative, executive, and judicial—belongs to, and inheres in, the people of an organized political community. It is an attribute of the whole people of such a community… but the governments are only agents of the sovereign—responsible to it, and subject to its control. This sovereign—the people, in the aggregate, of each political community—delegates to the government the exercise of such powers, or functions, as it thinks proper, but in an American republic never transfers or surrenders sovereignty. That remains, unalienated and unimpaired. It is by virtue of this sovereignty alone that the Government, its authorized agent, commands the obedience of the individual citizen, to the extent of its derivative, dependent, and delegated authority. The ALLEGIANCE of the citizen is due to the sovereign alone.

… “No doubt, the States—the people of the States—if they had been so disposed, might have merged themselves into one great consolidated State, retaining their geographical boundaries merely as matters of convenience. But such a merger must have been distinctly and formally stated, not left to deduction or implication.

“Men do not alienate even an estate, without positive and express terms and stipulations. But in this case not only was there no express transfer—no formal surrender—of the preexisting sovereignty, but it was expressly provided that nothing should be understood as even delegated—that everything was reserved, unless granted in express terms. The monstrous conception of the creation of a new people, invested with the whole or a great part of the sovereignty which had previously belonged to the people of each State, has not a syllable to sustain it in the Constitution, but is built up entirely upon the palpable misconstruction of a single expression in the preamble.

“In denying that there is any such collective unit as the people of the United States in the aggregate, of course I am not to be understood as denying that there is such a political organization as the United States, or that there exists, with large and distinct powers, a Government of the United States; but it is claimed that the Union, as its name implies, is constituted of States. As a British author,* referring to the old Teutonic system, has expressed the same idea, the States are the integers, the United States the multiple which results from them. The Government of the United States derives its existence from the same source, and exercises its functions by the will of the same sovereignty that creates and confers authority upon the State governments. The people of each State are, in either case, the source. The only difference is that, in the creation of the State governments, each sovereign acted alone; in that of the Federal Government, they acted in cooperation with the others. Neither the whole nor any part of their sovereignty has been surrendered to either Government.

“To whom, in fine, could the States have surrendered their sovereignty? Not to the mass of the people inhabiting the territory possessed by all the States, for there was no such community in existence, and they took no measures for the organization of such a community. If they had intended to do so, the very style, ‘United States,’ would have been a palpable misnomer, nor would treason have been defined as levying war against them. Could it have been transferred to the Government of the Union? Clearly not, in accordance with the ideas and principles of those who made the Declaration of Independence, adopted the Articles of Confederation, and established the Constitution of the United States; for in each and all of these the corner-stone is the inherent and inalienable sovereignty of the people. To have transferred sovereignty from the people to a Government would have been to have fought the battles of the Revolution in vain—not for the freedom and independence of the States, but for a mere change of masters. Such a thought or purpose could not have been in the heads or hearts of those who molded the Union, and could have found lodgment only when the ebbing tide of patriotism and fraternity had swept away the landmarks which they erected who sought by the compact of union to secure and perpetuate the liberties then possessed. The men who had won at great cost the independence of their respective States were deeply impressed with the value of union, but they could never have consented, like ‘the base Judean,’ to fling away the priceless pearl of State sovereignty for any possible alliance.

[end of Part II, Chapter 9 pp146-156, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol.1]