Tenth Amendment Center – by Shane Trejo
Once again, the New York Times has published an editorial attacking constitutional principles. This time, it calls for the virtual dissolution of the Republic.
The reasoning behind this assertion? That the government is too small.
Parag Khanna wrote an op-ed article in the May 30 edition of the Timessuggesting a dissolution of the states because of “an antiquated political structure of 50 distinct states” holds back the grand fantasies of central planners in Washington D.C. It reads, in part:
The problem is that while the economic reality goes one way, the 50-state model means that federal and state resources are concentrated in a state capital — often a small, isolated city itself — and allocated with little sense of the larger whole. Not only does this keep back our largest cities, but smaller American cities are increasingly cut off from the national agenda, destined to become low-cost immigrant and retirement colonies, or simply to be abandoned…
Washington currently provides minimal support for regional economic efforts and strategies; it needs to go much further, even at the risk of upsetting established federal-state political balances. A national infrastructure bank, if it ever gets off the ground, should have as part of its charter an obligation to ignore state lines when weighing projects to support.
Khanna doesn’t seem to have any concept or regard for decentralized government, or the danger of consolidated power in the hands of a few powerful people. Those are just pesky little obstacles that need to be overcome while pressing toward the goal of “national greatness” achieved through new federal banking apparatuses, more spending binges, and power further centralized in Washington D.C.
Although Khanna may be correct that our nation’s infrastructure is dismal, there is simply no money left to fix it. The federal government blew through nearly $20 trillion while neglecting infrastructure. Even if the feds were to spend more taxpayer dollars to supposedly fix infrastructure, history dictates that they would not do any better of a job allocating those funds than they did with the previous $20 trillion.
Unfortunately, though, this is the mindset that is dominant among the political class and its backers.
The bad news for Khanna is that the public is starting to reject what he is selling. Distrust of the federal government is near all-time highs, something which has become a long-lasting trend. This makes it less likely for centralizers like Khanna to rally public opinion behind lofty fantasies about massive infrastructure projects and the elimination of state sovereignty, regardless of what is published in the New York Times.
On a positive note, the time-tested American principle of decentralization is starting to catch on again. In larger numbers, people are getting sick of the federal government’s heavy-handed nature, and want the power to returned home. States and people are more than equipped to handle their own infrastructure without bringing unaccountable Washington D.C. bureaucrats into the equation. If the momentum continues and gets firmly behind local control, Khanna’s prescriptions will never get off the ground.
Once again, the New York Times has published an editorial attacking constitutional principles. This time, it calls for the virtual dissolution of the Republic.
The reasoning behind this assertion? That the government is too small.
Parag Khanna wrote an op-ed article in the May 30 edition of the Timessuggesting a dissolution of the states because of “an antiquated political structure of 50 distinct states” holds back the grand fantasies of central planners in Washington D.C. It reads, in part:
The problem is that while the economic reality goes one way, the 50-state model means that federal and state resources are concentrated in a state capital — often a small, isolated city itself — and allocated with little sense of the larger whole. Not only does this keep back our largest cities, but smaller American cities are increasingly cut off from the national agenda, destined to become low-cost immigrant and retirement colonies, or simply to be abandoned…
Washington currently provides minimal support for regional economic efforts and strategies; it needs to go much further, even at the risk of upsetting established federal-state political balances. A national infrastructure bank, if it ever gets off the ground, should have as part of its charter an obligation to ignore state lines when weighing projects to support.
Khanna doesn’t seem to have any concept or regard for decentralized government, or the danger of consolidated power in the hands of a few powerful people. Those are just pesky little obstacles that need to be overcome while pressing toward the goal of “national greatness” achieved through new federal banking apparatuses, more spending binges, and power further centralized in Washington D.C.
Although Khanna may be correct that our nation’s infrastructure is dismal, there is simply no money left to fix it. The federal government blew through nearly $20 trillion while neglecting infrastructure. Even if the feds were to spend more taxpayer dollars to supposedly fix infrastructure, history dictates that they would not do any better of a job allocating those funds than they did with the previous $20 trillion.
Unfortunately, though, this is the mindset that is dominant among the political class and its backers.
The bad news for Khanna is that the public is starting to reject what he is selling. Distrust of the federal government is near all-time highs, something which has become a long-lasting trend. This makes it less likely for centralizers like Khanna to rally public opinion behind lofty fantasies about massive infrastructure projects and the elimination of state sovereignty, regardless of what is published in the New York Times.
On a positive note, the time-tested American principle of decentralization is starting to catch on again. In larger numbers, people are getting sick of the federal government’s heavy-handed nature, and want the power to returned home. States and people are more than equipped to handle their own infrastructure without bringing unaccountable Washington D.C. bureaucrats into the equation. If the momentum continues and gets firmly behind local control, Khanna’s prescriptions will never get off the ground.
Parag Khanna, what kind of name is this?!
Indian import from another part of the world where the false gods and goddesses are endless in number.
Yes. Parag Khanna might be a god himself by now…..but Christians aren’t allowed to pray in public because they might offend his followers.
“Parag Khanna is a senior fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore. This essay and map are adapted from his forthcoming book “Connectography: Mapping the Future of Global Civilization.””
Basically this is a person who wants the USA to die, and someone to “rule the world” and that is fine for that person, but NOT for the USA. My answer to Khanna is ah, not polite, but I suspect most here know what it is (picture the middle finger).
My answer is for that.. ah, person to stay where he is. He, and any other NWO scum is not welcome here.
Each state is its own sovereign nation here in the USA, and the general (called federal) government is the states representative – the states employee – for dealing with mostly foreign affairs. That is why each state has its own representatives there to represent the wants and needs of the people of the state. Admittedly there are now so many Domestic Enemies and Traitors to the American people and our nation that it is way off track.
But it is past time that “We the People of the united States” started doing OUR delegated (retained actually) duties. What are they, one might ask?
Lets start with the armed enforcement arm of both the state and general governments as the Militia – trained as the congress requires the military to be trained and knowledgeable in the US Constitution and the state they are located in. Those documents are the “boss”, so to speak, of the Militias. They say WHEN those that serve within the general and state governments MUST call the Militia and are FORBIDDEN to use any other for the purposes of;
— Enforcing the US Constitution (supreme law of this nation and contract to ALL who serve within our governments are under and Oathbound to) and each state’s Constitution (highest LAW of the state and the second and lessor contract that ALL state employees are under and Oathbound to),
— Enforcing and keeping the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
— Protecting the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
— “Suppressing Insurrections and repelling Invasions”.
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”
Using Grand Jury Investigations and being part of the Grand Jury when needed.
“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.
“Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)
“The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”
“Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
“The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”
“Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”
“Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) (end GRand jury quote)
As Jurors where we judge the LAW/code/regulation/treaty/etc being used BEFORE we judge the person/group/etc and decide their guilt or innocence. but where we also as jurors decide of judges are using the constitutionally required “Good Behaviour” while in office. If it is decided that the judge is not using good behavior (doing the duties as constitutionally assigned, taking and keeping the Oaths) then the judge is charged as such and gets their Grand Jury Trial..
Elections – keeping them honest and free. Charging those who commit election fraud with that crime(s) and the crime of Treason as it is changing our government and force is implied if not used by those things and people them unlawfully put into place within our governments or use against the people.
I understand that his “fine” education does not understand the “American Experiment” of multiple governments each with its own distinct list of duties that are delegated FROM the people that is put into writing and is the contract that ALL who serve are under and bound to.