June 07, 2005
Brick Back Bricker: True Conservatives Don't Trade Away Sovereignty
I wanted to use this entry to share an excellent article that I recently came across, on a subject that most other conservative commentators never discuss. I had included this column in a past blog entry, but this piece seems especially relevant after I saw something on the news, just yesterday, about how President Bush recently spoke to the Organization of American States, with central American trade issues being the new hot topic.
The television news item I saw mentioned the issue of CAFTA, and listed the groups that were opposing this proposed treaty - namely the labor unions, the textile manufacturers, and the sugar industry. As has become unfortunately common in the prevailing understanding of these types of topics, there was no mention of strict constitutionalists or pro-sovereignty conservatives, or of laizze-faire capitalists who know the difference between free trade and free trade "agreements."
The opinion piece that I wanted to feature here is a recent article by a young conservative columnist who I recently found... Here is the article (which has been annotated with hyperlinks):
It's Time to Bring Back Bricker
Nathan Tabor on the amendment that almost saved our sovereignty
I was pleasantly surprised to see this piece in my inbox; Mr. Tabor is now one of my favorite columnists. Can you imagine any Establishment Republican or neoconservative commentator taking this position?
This article prompted me to look further into this proposed amendment, which came rather close to passing. If it had been adopted, we may not have to have the current debate over CAFTA or the FTAA, or LOST, a.k.a. UNLOST (which Mr. Tabor has also written about). And there might be no NAFTA or GATT, and other [already-]unconstitutional agreements that violate our national sovereignty, and our founding principles of republican liberty.
Not surprisingly, few other "conservative" commentators have ever dared to tread along this path. Professor Thomas Woods (more recently the author of the bestselling book on American History - without the P.C.) had previously written this in-depth piece on the Bricker Amendment. Another popular conservative/libertarian writer had penned a shorter article on this topic, around the time that he was the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress - against Nancy Pelosi (who was then a war hawk).
I recently became aware that Nathan Tabor, the author of the above-featured article, has started a new website, Conservatives for Congress. In the closing of that column, Mr. Tabor, himself recently a congressional candidate in North Carolina, mentioned that Senator John Bricker was the "Jesse Helms" of his time. In our present time, Mr. Tabor has been called the young 'Jesse Helms' (and one of the other candidates in his primary race was known as the African-American 'Jesse Helms'). I wish Mr. Tabor the best in his current and future efforts to help reclaim our true-blue American values of constitutionalism and traditional republicanism. Thank God that there are leaders like him within our generation, and within the Republican Party... especially in the midst of the statist liberal/neoconservative mindset that has seemingly taken over Washington, and much of America (even in the "red states").
As for the Bricker Amendment, its prospects for passage don't seem too good... at least as of now. But perhaps when Nathan Tabor is elected to Congress, he can help push that sucker through!
Posted by Aakash at June 7, 2005 07:47 PMThe Bricker Amendment and any provision like it are based on a misinterpretation of the constitution. This guy makes a concise argument on that count.
This is the Paragraph we are all referring to:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This is an assertion of federalism: The states and their laws are subject to the constitution, the laws that come from it, and the treaties made under it. If read correctly, there is no suggestion of the supremacy of treaty law over constitutional.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 9, 2005 01:06 AM1. Are we defining “treaty” as a contract or agreement between two or more nations pertaining to a maintenance of peace and/or trade stipulations?
2. At the time of Brickers amendment in 1953 were treaties established and or broken by an act of Congress, or did the President have the power to do both?
3. If the power described in #2 rested with the President, did Bricker’s amendment propose restoring that power to Congress.
4. Have I completely failed to see the point for purposes of discussion?
If it is inappropriate to ask questions please advise and I will abstain from rendering what would amount to uninformed opinions.
BTW, I was 11 years old at the time of the Bricker amendment.
Posted by: steve smith at June 9, 2005 10:31 AMAakash, this is shocking. Are you really touting Bricker as a hero? Think about this. We are in the age of globalization brought on by international trade but fulfilled by the instantaneous digital revolution that permits the collapse of time and space for transactions across the world.
Had isolationism and the Bricker amendment become the order of the day, we might well have been left out of this globalization process of economic interdependence which holds out the greatest hope for peace between nations the world has ever seen.
We might well be engaged still today in a cold war arms race with both the USSR and China, bankrupting our domestic economy for M.A.D. in just the manner that brought the USSR to its knees. Bricker may have believed he was backed by principle of sovereignty but, he would have ill-prepared the US for the world we live in today which was going to globalize, with or without us.
If the world’s nations are going to become internationally dependent upon each economically, I am damn glad the US is a major player, rather than the our country being isolated from world markets like some school kid who doesn’t want to share his ball on the playground.
Absolute sovereignty and nationalism are mainstays of the military industrial complex. Globalization of economies and industries stands as a direct threat to those who choose a future based on war and who feel insecure without a big gun.
Economic globalization creates a kind of mutual assured destruction (MAD) of its own. If two nations insist on war, their world wide trading partners upon whom they depend for the goods and trade that will support the logistics of their war, may one day be able to say, NO! You make war, you do it without trade with the rest of the world. The threat of economic collapse would instantly become a greater threat than the other nation they want to war with.
No, Ike was right in wanting to move toward a future of cooperation and interdependence. Such a path holds the greatest hope for long periods of human existence on this planet without war. Economic interdependence and binding international law governing international trade are not sufficient to bring world peace, but, they will be key ingredients without which, world peace hasn’t a chance.
BTW, Stephen is right on the passage quoted. Nathan Tabor is another kook who fearfully reacts to the world like a person paranoid of free market contracts which might actually hold his country to its word. I will give him credit for one point though. I absolutely agree the Presidency has far too much power to engage taxpayers in contracts which the taxpayer is not consulted on. But that was a logical evolution of this republican form of government wasn’t it. The first rule of power is to protect power. The second rule of power is secure more power. Way down the list somewhere appears representing the best interests of the people. Oh well, such is the nature of American government for good or ill.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2005 02:43 AM“especially in the midst of the statist liberal/neoconservative mindset that has seemingly taken over Washington, and much of America (even in the “red states”).”
I love it when Republicans begin to slander themselves with the word “liberal”. Now if we can get the Democrats to do it more often with the word “conservative”, middle, moderate Americans might actually have a fighting chance in this country again to put the extremists where they belong, on the fringe instead of front and center in the Congress and Whitehouse.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2005 02:48 AMThe threat of economic collapse would instantly become a greater threat than the other nation they want to war with.
In other words, the populace (individuals like you and me) of a sovereign nation (a country like ours) is threatened with economic collapse (poverty) by the world (other countries) in order to coerce them into compliance with the worlds belief system.
Do I understand that correctly?
Threat of physical harm (war) or ecomonic harm (poverty) MAY achieve the same result in some cases. However, when terrorists have no borders and funding comes from individuals around the world or you have a dictator who takes whatever he wants from the citizens he rules, economic harm will only hamper their efforts or be conferred upon the populace. Only physical harm, or capture, will stop them!
Posted by: Michael Burns at June 10, 2005 02:29 PMMichael, Yes, and Yes.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
And yes, you are right about criminal individuals or small non-national groups.
The wars I was addressing are between nations. What you refer to in your 2nd paragraph is a whole different animal, but, one that nonetheless requires international cooperation to address.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2005 07:53 PM
