Editorial: The Center Cannot Hold

This month Vermont Commons delves into the nature of government: small government.

In his article, “Republicanism and Size,” Don Livingston informs us that small size is not only a factor in defining good government, but a requirement for its very existence. Not only does a state need to be of appropriate size to hang on to its culture, sovereignty, legal egalitarianism and general well being; smallness allows it to generate the virtues of a humane society in the first place.

The size of government determines its function. The function determines its size.

SMALL countries DO NOT pursue colonial or imperial ambitions because, being small, such ambitions prove out of the question. On the other hand, they may prefer being small because they do not have colonial or imperial ambitions. After all, with one glaring exception, the 21st century world appears to have rejected empire building, and acknowledged the sovereignty of all states, large and small.

Our 18th century founders puzzled over how to keep the individual (United) States sovereign and, at the same time, to provide for the common defense and to maintain the liberties THEY won from the British Empire at the expense of so much blood and treasure.

This concern, alas, seems moot today in realpolitik terms, because our once-sovereign states, including Vermont, have lost much of their autonomy with few of our citizens appearing to notice or care. The states are no longer governed by their legal and rightful sovereigns in the most crucial realms of decision making. And the federal government, by the way, is not the republic it originally set out to be, because 1) with paraded exceptions, it and its office-holders are above the law; 2) it is not answerable to the people; and 3) it is too big.

In this March 2006 “Reviving Town Meeting” issue, some of the romantics of our Vermont independence movement are attempting to rekindle the 18th Century ideals of liberty and republicanism: ideals with which few disagree and which most applaud; but which, nevertheless, have been trampled by the proud hooves of aggressive nation-states.

Historically, citizens have appeared negligent as these monsters devoured their individual rights, corrupted their institutions, and doomed them, as Ethan Allen said, “to perpetual slavery in consequence of yielding up to tyrants their natural born liberties.”

Our 18th century founders wrote eloquently and often that tyranny doesn't just happen. It is driven by some, welcomed by many, ignored by most, and resisted by few. Is it inertia that carries us down this path? Living things are not inert. They are supposed to be capable of reacting. What is the nature of our species? What kind of beings are we when, knowing what we do is wrong, knowing that our system is corrupt, we remain inert?

What we have obtained by inheritance we esteem too lightly.

And today, we as once-sovereign citizens appeal to the monster that destroys our liberties, when a far, far better tactic is possible, bringing independence within our grasp.

That tactic is a resolution, now in the works in Vermont and nationwide, to give our once-sovereign states a means of interposing themselves between said state's citizens and the unconstitutional illegalities of imperial executive and federal legislative authority.

In plain terms, the resolution would draw a line in the sand. As I write, members of the Second Vermont Republic are busy composing this document with the help of citizen activists and constitutional scholars of all stripes.

It is a resolution of “prior dissent.”

The concept is well established in United States law through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (and stated as well in the Vermont Declaration of Independence). It pushes a state's legislature to act in the event of egregious and illegal unconstitutional behavior exhibited by federal authorities.

The mechanism is simple: should the federal government (executive or legislative) invoke certain expansive but unconstitutional authority (for example, imposing martial law, engaging in pre-emptive strikes against other nations, suspending habeas corpus or activating other agreed-upon triggers) we the people of each sovereign state have the constitutional duty, through our elected state representatives, to declare our sovereignty and refuse to accept, participate in, or obey such illegal mandates.

One consequence of their 18th century defeat at the hands of American revolutionary secessionists, was that the British imperial authorities learned that power must be tempered by some degree of humanity and wisdom; it must be decentralized and localized. Had they considered colonial petitions, allowed their subjects greater autonomy, and afforded the colonial leaders the respect they deserved, the English colonies may not have seceded.

By the same token, if our own federal government were acting legally, and with some humanity or wisdom, we would not have a persuasive case. But troubling events prove otherwise.

Discussions of such events have filled volumes, but I would be remiss if I didn't name but a few, including 2000 electoral shenanigans and the subsequent hijacking of said election by the federal Supreme Court; 9/11 and the encouragement of domestic “terrorism” against U.S. citizens – itself an act of treason; the passage of the so-called Help America Vote Act (2002), which has led to massive (and still unprosecuted) national election fraud; war profiteering; domestic spying; and massive corporate corruption – enriching a few global corporate players at U.S. taxpayer expense with the blessing of both parties at the federal level.

Those of us in the Vermont independence movement maintain that the federal government crossed the line dividing law and lawlessness a long time ago.

Despite Constitutional guarantees, the rights of the people to protect themselves, to provide for themselves, and to govern themselves, have been quashed time and time again.

The U.S. Constitution – the contract between U.S. citizens and the federal government – has been violated.

We have a very brief opportunity to act.

We have nothing to lose, as the U.S. Constitution works for us and against them; and we have a state constitution, dating from 1777, to support us and carry us into the future.

IF we allow them to destroy the U.S. Constitution, that demolition job will abolish what few fig leaves the states have left, and then we , the people, will be defenseless.
Make no mistake, they are working on it. And that is why we must act now.

Now it is they who are stretched to the limit. We are at our strongest. The whole world is on our side, and we need only to claim what is ours.

If not now, when?

The rules of the game have changed. Let us acknowledge this. Let us wake up and reclaim our sovereignty.

In their over-reaching, ignorance and greed, the neo-conquistadores have given us this chance, because they will not let go.

They have not learned the first rule of empire or baseball: “The Center cannot hold.”

Jim Hogue