To truly understand the founding principles of this Nation, it is essential to recognize the primacy of the concept of sovereignty, both as it applies to individuals and the respective States that comprise our Union.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Individual sovereignty is the central concept of libertarianism, or classical liberalism, as it is also known. It is the idea of self-ownership; that our life, liberty and property are our own; and that no other individual, group of individuals, or any form of government, can make claim against them. To violate our right to life would be murder; to violate our right to liberty would be enslavement; and to violate our right to property would be theft. These rights were understood by our founders as fundamental rights, that they are a natural birthright of the human condition and/or a gift from God. Every individual has the right to live their life and use liberty and property in any manner they see fit, so long as they do not violate the fundamental rights of another. With these rights also comes responsibility, however, and this seems frequently to be forgotten. Each individual is considered equal in that all share the same unalienable rights, not that they have equality of health, opportunity or prosperity. With individual sovereignty comes the freedom to succeed, but also the freedom to fail.
The first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Bill of Rights, proceeded to enumerate many of the individual rights felt necessary to ensure the preservation of liberty and ensure a just government. These included the freedoms of religion, speech, and of the press; the rights of assembly and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; the right to keep and bear arms; the right against unreasonable searches and seizures; the right to due process of law; the right to a speedy and public trial; the right of trial by jury; and freedom from excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. The ninth amendment then emphasizes that despite the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, this list is not exhaustive, and that other natural rights remain to the people.
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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.”
Yet, despite this seemingly clear explanation of the primacy of individual rights in our founding documents, our Federal and State governments have repeatedly passed laws and executive orders which violate our rights. Worse, it is our fellow citizens, in the form of interest groups and professional lobbyists, who commonly petition government officials for the passage of laws which violate the fundamental rights of their compatriots. As expressed above in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted specifically to protect these rights, and when a government has failed to do so, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. In my view, each and every law, Federal and State, is worthy of inspection to determine whether or not it is in violation of our founding principles. The measure to be used is clear; whether a given law violates an individual’s natural rights to life, liberty and property. What is not clear is whether the people have the collective will to do so.
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
State sovereignty is a concept apparently unique to the United States. I view it as somewhat distinct from the philosophy of libertarianism, which fundamentally pertains to the natural rights of individuals, but was certainly intimately intertwined with libertarian ideals in the minds of our country’s founders. Indeed, it was a natural outgrowth of libertarian philosophy in the nascent U.S., considering its origins as independent states who united in mutually beneficial opposition to British monarchial rule. The concept of state sovereignty is different from individual sovereignty, as States cannot be considered as having “natural” or “God-given” rights, but are instead empowered and justified by the mutual consent of their citizens. But, as relates to the dealings between the States and the Federal Government, a parallel between state sovereignty and individual sovereignty can be seen; the laws of the States were originally intended to have primacy over the laws of the Federal Government.
This intent was quite clear in our country’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, as quoted above. It is quite true that the Federal Government as first created under the Articles of Confederation was largely powerless and ineffectual, consisting only of a single house of Congress, with no President, no Judiciary, and no power to raise funds beyond submitting petitions to the States. Our founders appeared to have erred in placing too much emphasis on the primacy of the States over the Federal Government, but this fact serves as evidence of their intent, to preserve the sovereignty of the individual states.
“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.”
From the very beginnings of our country, there were fierce debates regarding the balance of power between the States and the Federal Government. Our first President, George Washington, steadfastly refused to become a member of any political party, and indeed hoped that they would never be formed, fearing they would be a corruptive and enfeebling influence. Nonetheless, two political parties soon formed, the Federalists, to include Hamilton and Adams, and the Republicans, to include Jefferson and Madison. Parenthetically, despite the commonality of name, I can appreciate little similarity to the modern Republican party and that of Jefferson and Madison. In reality, both of our modern political parties, Democratic and Republican, have more in common with one another and with the old Federalist party, than they do with the party of Jefferson and Madison. In any case, the Federalists argued for a strong central government, while the Republicans emphasized the preservation of state sovereignty.
In 1787, the U.S. Constitution was adopted, greatly strengthening the Federal Government with the addition of a bicameral Congress, an Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court. Conflicts between Republicans and Federalists did not end, however, as is exemplified by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, penned by Jefferson and Hamilton, respectively. The following is from the Kentucky Resolutions:
“Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
I believe that a new era of the importance of state sovereignty is upon us. Due simply to the growth of our nation, from 13 original States to 50 States today, an increase in land area from 860,000 square miles in 1790 to 3,530,000 square miles today, and the expansion of our population from 4 million Americans in 1790 to nearly 310 million today, I find it naive to believe that our Federal Government can functional efficiently and morally. Our States need to reassert their sovereignty, to provide for their citizens more effectively and efficiently than can the Federal Government, and particularly to ensure that the natural rights of their citizens are dutifully protected from the overreach of Washington, D.C.
Now, more than ever, we need Iowans to reaffirm their individual sovereignty, and to demand that our State Government reassert its sovereignty, to protect our rights and promote our prosperity.