Earlier this year, during the debates on the Stimulus Bill, states showed a disinterest in Washington's decision to
force their rules upon several individual States. Over 25 States began introducing, (and many passed)
Resolutions-Declaring their sovereignty.

At that time, i was sending information related to the Tenth Amendment movement to friends. Myself and others
decided to draft a similar resolution that was delivered to Delaware Legislatures to introduce and be signed by
Governor Jack Markell.
The State Legislatures never introduced a resolution to declare the states sovereignty.

At that time,  a friend who is a Constitution Law Professor asked for me to elaborate the basis for states
entitlement to declare sovereignty. Since states had ratified Amendment XIV and this surrendered the states rights
expressed in Amendment X of the Constitution.

I presented the evidence related to the historical facts of the authors of the Constitution, and, the issues related to
the Kentucky Virginia Resolutions.
Yet, I still did not feel I presented the basis for states rights clearly enough. Which determined me to conduct more
historical research for a future presentation.

Since then, Delaware's Attorney General, Beau Biden, (a Democrat, and son of Vice Presient Joe Biden), filed a
claim in US Federal Court  to stop the United States Army Corps of Engineers from deepening the Delaware
Estuary. Despite the states refusal to answer the Corps proposal for the project submitted to the State over seven
years ago.  The inaction drew chastisment from the preciding Federal Judge hearing the case for the state sitting
on the Corps proposal to the Department of Naturall Resources and Environmental Control for such a lenghty
time. Ironically Beau Biden's argument has added more evidence to the question of sovereignty:

Do States have the right to Declare Sovereignty and peacefully secede from the union inorder to
preserve the freedoms entitled to the people of their state?

Attorney General Beau Biden, (a Democrat) decided to the argue the case against the US Army Corps of
Engineers. His claim is based on the States Sovereignty Rights (Amendment X).  What makes this so interesting:  
Several states began affirming their sovereignty to refuse the Stimulus Loans and to defend against infringments
of the Second Amendment being enacted by the Fedearl Government.

Democrats and the Mainstream Media decided to spin the theory of state sovereignty as being racially motivated.

The legal battle on deepening the Delaware channel, stirs up  muck from the  bottom of a deep hole boxing the
Democrats into a political corner;

Either having to admit States do have a right and duty to declare Sovereignty in accordance to Amendment X.
when the peoples freedom is being threatened.

Or, admit (Joe Biden's Son )- Delware's Attorney General, Beau Biden has introduced into Federal court a frivilous
and moot  claim of action resulting in wasting state and federal tax dollars to pay for a claim they already knew was
moot.
(Based upon the theory that  states surrendered their right to declare Sovereignty, Due to ratifying Amendment
XIV.)

This also shows Beau Biden ( who is approved by the American Bar Assoc. and Delaware Bar to practice Law) is
not well versed in the history of the Constitutions and its theory of Law. If a state is not entitled to affirm
sovereignty, and seced from the union,  as some would state. He should have already knew this was a frivilious
and moot  claim wasting tax dollars on the case.
(Basing this upon the theory that Amendment XIV supercedes Amendment X.)

So, Which is it?

Did the State of Delaware's AG, Beau Biden, file a claim against the Army Corps of Engineers, wasting tax dollars
he should have known was frivilous and moot?

Or, does a state infact have the right- And even a duty to declare sovereignty, and secede from the union of the
States?

This is where I will present historical evidence on the principles and theory which gives a more persuasive
interpretation of the constitutions. States right- and duty to secede from the union when freedom is treatened.
Using the the writings of several authors within the Federalist papers and other resources.


A Workers Union Compared To A Union of States
By Earl R. Lofland

Many have debated on the issues of sovereignty, whereas a state is not entitled to exercise their rights in
accordance to
Amendment X of constitution. The union of States imposed a permanent fixture by some based on
the enactment of Amendment
XIV. Where upon it sealed all states to be in an unbreakable bondage of the united
States Government.

By taking this position, it leaves a vague, weak interpretation to the Constitution, and its theory. Without using any
historical facts, showing the truest interpretation for the Constitutions meaning, one can argue this is a binding
and non negotiable contract between the states and the union they formed.  Although, the sovereigns of a state
do still  have the natural and compactual right to peacefully withdraw themselves from the union, which was formed
by the states’ ratification of the
U.S. Constitution in 1787.

Some who argue against a states ability to separate from the union  suggest the meaning and application of our
constitution can change over time. Under a “living constitution”. Our laws may reflect the current conditions of
society and can done away with.
Although, this contradicts the principles of law itself. When ever a law is established, it can not be removed. It may
be superseded, But it is never able to be removed from the Journals of law.

Another reason this contradicts the theory of the constitution we have; When a constitution’s meaning and
application can change over time to reflect current conditions, then undeniably, the union itself is subject to the
same fluctuation  that became unilaterally a part of formation for the union. If the constitution is to secure freedom,
and in the name of that goal, (using the same argument, a constitution changes over time), then it necessarily
follows in principle of constitutional construction that any state originally bound to the  forces of the constitution
can relieve themselves of that force when the circumstances justify its dissolution.

Put differently, "When over the course of time",  circumstances of their ratification have changed, to the point
freedom will be protected by the removal from the union, then removal is a right, as they choose.
Some will deny the states this right because it would deny ultimate power to the almighty union.

Something else to reflect on is a parallel of the union of the States. and  A Workers Union.
If you are a member of a union, you are required to pay dues and meet certain requirements to stay in good
standing to that union.  Complying to their rules and regulations. Otherwise you are denied the entitlements of that
union. If you wish to leave, All is needed to be removed is refuse to pay your dues. Stop attending the meetings.
And/ or sign a letter of resignation.


A constitution does not create freedom, nor does it give anyone Rights.
A constitution is created solely to protect and secure freedom which already exists given by a higher power then
the body of government on the governed. This is done through forms, structure and limitations of government.
This is clearly expressed within the Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” .

James Madison noted the dangers in political battles whereby the federal government usurps power from the
states, perpetrated though legislation passed by Congress and the President and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme
Court decisions. “
[The United States Supreme Court decisions are] to be impartially made, according to the
rules of the Constitution[, which] is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of
the compact
.”
Federalist Paper 39:

The Sovereigns of States are preexisting to and independent of any Congress. Evidence is found in the
Treaty of
Paris (1783). This has not been overturned by any legal actions of the states.

John Adams once wrote; “
I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a
collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States…
.” Each state had its own political and cultural life and
each was “sovereign.”
Robert Yates, writing as Brutus in 1787.

The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete
sovereignty
.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers # 31.Each State, in ratifying the constitution, is
considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own
voluntary act
.” James Madison,  Federalist Papers #39.

There are some who will argue Americans have lost Amendment X citing;
Missouri v. Holland, 252 US 416, 1920,
the Supreme Court decided that powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution could
be given to the national government by Treaty.
The Treaty of Trianon is the peace treaty concluded at the end of World War I and was signed in 1918. The
Supreme Court case was in 1920.

Although, the US Supreme Court issued a fraudulent opinion;  Placing the U.S. Constitution and any treaty above
the importance and relevance of the state constitutions and state sovereignty.  We were told , in efforts to get us
to ratify the U.S. Constitution “
the State governments would clearly retain all rights of sovereignty
which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United
States.
” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers # 32

States having the Sovereign rights to secede were intended to be protected. This was often seen as the only
hedge of protection against aggression from other States. In 1788,Three of the most powerful states in the union;
Virginia in the South, New York in the mid-Atlantic, and Massachusetts in the North, considered an explicit
recognition of States’ rights as part of an essential condition for the ratification of the Constitution.

Gouverneur Morris,  widely credited as the author of the document's preamble: "
We the People of the
United States, in order to form a more perfect union ...
" And called the 'Penman of the Constitution,
made the following statement during the
Philadelphia Convention of 1787,
“But, to come more to the point – either this distinction [between the Northern and Southern States] is fictitious or
real; if fictitious, let it be dismissed, and let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to
blend incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for
security, if every particular interest is to be entitled to it.”

Therefore, if the federal government followed its limited, constituted authority, a state would not be required to
secede- declaring their sovereignty would not be necessary. Although the founding generation would have never
agreed to a system of central government that currently has existed in the United States.
As Gouverneur Morris stated; it would be better to separate than to subject one nation to the cultural imperialism
of another State, section, or nation. Yet, sadly students are not being taught this.


During the 1780s in the
Federalist Papers (#2) instead of one confederacy being created through the ratification
of the U.S. Constitution, several confederacies had to be ratified instead. Therefore it was impossible for a union
of the states to have one ultimate and conclusive authoritative power according to the authors.

Our Declaration of Independence confirms emphatically the constitution can be dissolved. The U.S. Constitution
was ratified by the voluntary assent of the sovereigns of the states, in their capacity as states. "
But it was not
sufficient
,'' say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the
republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which
regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states;
Federalist Papers 39.

James Madison also expressed That the union of the sovereigns would  be a federal and not a national act, as
these terms were understood by the objectors.
"The act of the people, was to establish the means of forming a union of many independent and sovereign States,
not as to forming one aggregate nation,  obvious from this single consideration, the union is to result neither from
the decision of a MAJORITY of the people of the Union, nor from that of a MAJORITY of the States."

The sovereign states created the U.S. Constitution not to create freedom, not to create powers they did not
already possess individually, and not to create a union for union’s sake. They created the union of the states for
certain benefits,  and needs that a union provided at that time. If this union were ever destructive to these ends,
the states would most certainly have the right to dissolve their part of the union to preserve freedom for that state.
James Madison, “dissolution of the compact”; Alexander Hamilton,
Federalist Papers 28, “original right of self-
defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government
”; Alexander Hamilton, Federalist
Papers 26, “people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands,
and to divide themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage
their own concerns in person.”

Another vital thread to the fabric of Freedom and the sovereign states ability to seceed is outlined in a recent legal
case in Delaware. Delaware’s Attorney General, Beau Biden filed a claim against the United States Army Corps of
Engineers, were the AG has decided to base the claim on the sovereignty of the state. (a Tenth Amendment
Issue).

"
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have
perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government
."...
-James Madison


The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the
whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.
George Washington and William T. Peck, ed., Washington’
s Farewell Address and Webster’s Bunker Hill Orations, (New York: Macmillan Co., original from Harvard
University, 1919, 12.

Declaration of the Rights of Man - 1789

George Washingtons Farewell address

Articles of Confederation 1781
Contribute Now