Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Christian & Civil Government

State's Rights - Part 1

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Civil Government

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2007-03-04

Synopsis: John Weaver presents a historical overview of states' rights as the foundation of American liberty, arguing that the original states were sovereign entities that created a limited federal government. He contends that the loss of states' rights has led to federal tyranny, and calls for a return to biblical and constitutional principles.

[John Weaver] Now, let me just begin tonight by telling you, first of all, what I would like to do tonight and tomorrow night, just so you will have an idea. Really and truly, the message that I want to bring tonight and tomorrow night happens to be one message. I'm just going to have to cut it in half. The first half is basically historical. There will be a little Bible tonight, but tomorrow night will be more Bible and some history. But tonight will be mainly historical. And let me just point out that I would encourage the teenagers as well as the adults to listen, because I can assure you that you will hear things tonight that you've never heard in your schools. And unhappily, we are ignorant of our history, we're ignorant of our heritage, and we're ignorant of our Bibles.

[John Weaver] And consequently, we've been bamboozled down through the years. Now, let me just say, as you open your Bibles to Romans chapter 13, I do want you to turn there. Let me just say that I was really thrilled to hear that you have a Christian worldview Sunday school class. Most people do not understand how important that really is. You see, you have to look at things either from the spectacles of the word of God or from the spectacles of the world, there's no other alternative. Once you learn to look at things through the word of God, Then you're going to find out what reality really is, because God determines reality and not the world. We need to have a biblical view, not only of economics, and I'd really love to deal with that all week, but we need to have a biblical worldview of education, a biblical worldview of the ministry, biblical worldview of government, biblical worldview of the family. In other words, God speaks on every one of these subjects. And tonight and probably tomorrow night as well as maybe one or two other nights.

[John Weaver] I don't know just yet. I'm going to be dealing some with the Bible and civil government. I want you to understand that God gives us the answers. We are the ones who refuse to hearken and refuse to listen. But if we begin to hear what God says and begin to apply the truth, then we're going to have our problems worked out so. Look in your Bibles if you would please to the book of Romans chapter 13 tonight. Romans chapter 13 and let's read the first four verses. Let every soul be subject under the higher powers for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisted the power resisted the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

[John Weaver] For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Will thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he is the minister of God to thee for good, but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid. For he beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God. A revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

[John Weaver] What in the world does the Bible say about a subject that you and I have heard all of our lives, and that is the subject of states' rights? Have you ever thought about that? What in the world do states' rights have to do with what we're facing today? Well, let me just tell you that states' rights, historically, and I'm going to point out tomorrow night biblically, are an antidote to federal tyranny. Without states' rights, the states basically are nothing more than feudal servants or slaves, basically, working on the federal plantation. Let me just illustrate this by giving you something that I heard in 1999. It was during the month of August, and I was listening to the news, and I heard with my own ears a U.S.

[John Weaver] District Attorney from California make this statement. He said, federal law is superior to state law. And when he said that, I just did a double take. I said, what? Remember now, he said federal law is superior to state law. If that statement is true, then all of the 50 states are nothing more than servants and the federal government is the master. If that is true, there is absolutely no way that any state may protect its citizens. If that is true, then no state can fight unfunded mandates or any mandates. It cannot make laws that would protect its citizens, nor can it make any laws that would contradict federal law. In other words, The federal government would be supreme and sovereign and the ruler over everything. And whenever the federal government spoke, then the states would just simply have to jump. And that simply means the people in the states as well.

[John Weaver] Now, the only conclusion that I can come to, based upon what that U.S. district attorney said, is this. That he is absolutely, totally ignorant of history, the Constitution, and the Bible.

[John Weaver] Now, moreover, he does not understand why the first war of independence was fought, nor does he understand why the second war of 1861 to 1865 for independence was fought either. If his statement is true, it is only true because we have been transformed from a constitutional republic into a federal empire, and we have progressed further down the road of slavery than any of us ever realized. So in order to understand the predicament that we're in in this country, we've got to understand it both historically and biblically as well.

[John Weaver] And so tonight I'm going to be dealing primarily with the historical part, and then try to tie it together tomorrow night to show you that what our Founding Fathers said was indeed biblical and scriptural to the nth degree. So let's begin at the very beginning. You see, when our country first began, we had what was known as the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were drawn up in 1781, and Article II makes this statement. Listen carefully. It says, each state retains its sovereignty freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Now notice what the Articles of Confederation said. Each state had its own sovereignty, freedom, and independence, its own power, its own jurisdiction. The only thing that the states gave up was just a little bit of power to the federal government as such. Do you remember when the war for independence ended? It was ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. And by the way, just so you will know, George III, King of England, when he made peace with the United States, made peace with 13 separate sovereign states.

[John Weaver] Listen, if you would, to the opening of the Treaty of Paris. Here it is. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, in other words, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free and sovereign and independent states and that he treats with them as such, as for himself, his heirs and

[John Weaver] successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, property, and territorial rights, of the same in every part thereof." Isn't that interesting? When he said that he was acknowledging the said United States, he then delineated and named all 13 states and said that they were free, sovereign, and independent states. So George III then made peace with each of the 13 states. When the Constitutional Convention met, the state of Georgia sent its delegation there, and they carried a commission that opened with these words. I love them. The state of Georgia, by the grace of God, free, sovereign, and independent. Notice that. The state of Georgia, by the grace of God. You see, when the United States Constitution was written, it was the states who came together and agreed to create what you and I know as the federal government. And they gave to the federal government certain limited power and authority.

[John Weaver] Please understand this very important principle. Listen carefully. The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government. And they created it to be federal, not national. And there's a big difference between those two things. The federal government that was created and authorized by the states was to act solely as the agents of the states, and the states were the real sovereigns who had the real power, and the federal government was to do only those things that were delegated to it by the states. Now listen carefully, and I'm going to demonstrate this more not only tonight but tomorrow night as well. The right to decide whether or not the federal government did or did not act according to the Compact, that is the Constitution, belonged to the states alone who were the true sovereigns. It did not belong to the federal government. If you allowed the federal government to determine its own limitations, guess what? It won't have any.

[John Weaver] That's just like you coming up to me and saying, Pastor Weaver, I owe you some money. How much do I owe you? Well, just let me tell you, all right? Well, come on. If the federal government is going to determine its own limitations, then it's going to have unlimited power. It's going to be tyrannical and despotic.

[John Weaver] Now, you see, when the Constitution of the United States was acceded to by the states, There were several states who understood that, you know, there's a possibility things might get out of hand. And we want to have a little disclaimer for that. So when the state of New York acceded to the Constitution of the United States on July the 26th, 1788, it added these words, listen carefully, that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. So the state of New York said, all right, yes, we're going to take the Constitution, but we want you to understand that whenever this people want to reassume those powers, they may do so. Did you realize Virginia did exactly the same thing on June 25, 1788 when it acceded to the Constitution? They added these words, the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them at their will.

[John Weaver] So Virginia said, look, any time the Constitution gets perverted. Anytime there is oppression, anytime there's anything we don't like, then we may reassume, we may take back the power that we gave to the federal government. Now, if you really want to understand the sovereignty and the independence of each of these states, you need to consider this fact, that when the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787, that only 11 of the original 13 states ratified it immediately. North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution right away. I want you to note something. The Constitution was not forced upon them.

[John Weaver] It was not considered the majority rules. The other states didn't say, well, tough luck. I mean, we all agreed and we're the majority and you're in whether you like it or not. No, no, didn't work like that. You know, North Carolina and Rhode Island were treated by the other states just like they were sovereign, separate nations, because that's basically what they were. And by the way. When Rhode Island and North Carolina did not immediately join and accede to the Constitution of the United States, there was no war to force them to join the Union. None. Why?

[John Weaver] Because each state realized that it had its own sovereignty, its own independence, and it could do what it wanted to do. When over a year later, North Carolina and Rhode Island did accede to the Constitution. Rhode Island also added these words. We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and plantations, duly elected, do declare and make known that the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. Wow. So if it's going to make the people happy, to resume and take away the power that was given to the federal government?

[John Weaver] Fine, they said, we can do that. You see, a number of the original states delineated their right to take back what they had delegated to the federal government. How many of you have heard that on the news recently? How many of you have been taught that in school? Did you know that Thomas Jefferson and that James Madison wrote what are known as the Virginia and the Kentucky Resolutions? It was these resolutions that gave us the classic statement of states' rights. And in those resolutions, I'm going to quote some of them in just a moment, but in those resolutions they basically tell us that the union is a voluntary association of the states and if the central government or the federal government goes too far, And does anything illegal or unconstitutional, then the states then have the right to nullify or abrogate that law. Listen to what Thomas Jefferson wrote. He said, Now listen to this opening statement. Resolved that the several states comprising the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

[John Weaver] What? Let me just stop there. Did you hear that? He says we are not united on the principle of unlimited submission. We don't owe the federal government unlimited submission. That was Thomas Jefferson. He goes further, 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 the Constitution for the United States and of the amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes. delegated to that government certain defined powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of rights to their own self-government, and that, whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force, that to this compact each state acceded as a state and is as an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself the other party. Each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as the mode and measures of redress." Now that's Thomas Jefferson.

[John Weaver] I want you to listen to what he said. And this is going to be very important later that you remember this. He said, here are the parties to this compact, this constitution. It is this state and each of the other states. What does that mean? It means the federal government was not a party to the compact. It was not a party to the federal compact. And then Thomas Jefferson goes on to say that whenever the federal government goes over and above and beyond the Constitution, then therefore its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no And then he goes on to say this, that each party, that is each state, has an equal right to judge for itself will

[John Weaver] of infractions as of the mode and measured redress. So that means this, if the federal government then passed an unconstitutional law. South Carolina might say, well, what we're going to do is slap them on the back of the hand and reprimand them and tell them we're not going to put up with this anymore. Georgia might say, well, we're going to call out the militia. In other words, it's up to each state how they redress the grievance. In other words, not all the states had to agree on the exact same measure.

[John Weaver] Now, that doesn't mean that there's going to be an open fight all the time, but I'm just simply saying it was showing you the power of each state. Now, South Carolina applied this principle to the terrorists of abomination. You remember the tariffs of 1828 and 1832? And by the way, our tariffs, our taxes are bad and they're high. But I mean, back then, they wanted to raise some of those tariffs 50 and 60 percent back then. And primarily, it would be the South that would be paying those taxes. So, what South Carolina did is, it drew up an ordinance of nullification.

[John Weaver] nullifying those laws because they were unconstitutional. Here is what the Ordinance of Nullification said. We, therefore, the people of the state of South Carolina, in convention of symbol, do declare and ordain that these acts, that is, those tariffs, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers, or citizens, and all promises, contracts, and obligations made or entered into, or to be made and entered into, with purpose to secure duties imposed by these set acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had an affirmance thereof, are and shall be utterly null and void, period." Now what's South Carolina say? South Carolina said, look, these tariffs are unconstitutional.

[John Weaver] That's the end of it. There's not going to be any party coming down here trying to bind the officers of this state, the citizens of this state, or anything in this state to these laws because they're unconstitutional. And then they go on to say this, and it doesn't really matter what the courts say. That's what it said, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had an affirmance thereof are and shall be utterly null and void. In other words, we're not going to recognize it even if they get the Supreme Court to say so. That was South Carolina.

[John Weaver] Listen to the concluding paragraph. And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end, that it may be fully understood by the government of the United States and the people of the co-states, that we are determined to maintain this, our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government to reduce this state to obedience.

[John Weaver] Now let me just stop there. There's a little bit more. But what does South Carolina say? If you want to send down your army, have at it. We are still not going to submit and the use of force will not make us submit. Listen to what else the concluding paragraph said, but that we will consider the passage by Congress of any act to coerce this state, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union and that the people of this state will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other states, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent states may have a right to." Now, listen to what South Carolina said.

[John Weaver] And we're talking the 1830s now. We're not talking the 1860s. We're talking the 1830s. South Carolina said, if you try to coerce us, if you try to force us, we'll just withdraw from the Union. We will separate and we will set up our own government because we are a free, sovereign, independent state and we have a right to do that.

[John Weaver] Now you've got to ask yourself this question. Did South Carolina misinterpret the Constitution? And the answer is no. James Madison, is called the father of the Constitution. And the reason he's called the father of the Constitution is because he was secretary at the Constitutional Convention and he wrote down everything and he had everything in writing so he knew what was said and what was not said and the intent and everything. In the Federalist Papers number 45 he said this, now listen carefully, the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.

[John Weaver] Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former, that is the federal government, will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected, that is foreign commerce. The powers reserved over several states will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the eternal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."

[John Weaver] Now, what did James Madison say? He said, you don't have to worry because the federal government has been given few and limited power. The great majority of the power resides with the states. It will be the states. will be dictating to the people because the people control the states, and therefore the people will be running the state, and they will be determining their own improvements and everything else they want to do, not the federal government.

[John Weaver] Now, those of you who have studied the Constitution know that the Ninth and Tenth Amendment clearly make this very plain. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says this. If I were to ask you, What are the first ten amendments called? Most of you would tell me the Bill of Rights. And yes, we have some rights enumerated in the Constitution. But listen to what the Ninth Amendment says. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. We have far more rights than those that are listed in those ten amendments. And just because ten are listed doesn't mean that's all we have.

[John Weaver] We have a whole lot more. And then the tenth amendment says this, 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. So, the 10th Amendment makes it very plain that, look, we've given you a little power, that's it. The rest of it goes to the states.

[John Weaver] Now, Jeff Davis used this argument on the equality of the states You remember when the abolitionists did not want the southern states taking their slaves out in the western territory. And what they were trying to do was basically not abolish slavery, but they were trying to control the situation. And Jeff Davis said, now wait a minute, wait a minute. It was southern men who fought for those territories. It was southern money who helped finance that. Southerners have a right to go out there and carry whomever they want to carry out there. Just like abolitionists do. And here's his argument. Listen to it. Jeff Davis writes, resolve that the union of these states rest on an equality of rights and privileges among its members.

[John Weaver] And that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the states in their sovereign capacity to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to personal property, so as in the territories, listen, which are the common possessions of the United States, to give advantages to the citizens of one state which are not equally secured to those of every other state. So he said, look, you can't do that. What you're trying to do is give special privileges to one state or to a group of states and deny those same privileges to other states. No, he said, the states are equally the party in the Constitution.

[John Weaver] And so it's unconstitutional to do that. Now, many of you have heard me speak before and some other men, too, of James Henley Thornwell. James Henley Thornwell was a Presbyterian pastor. He was an author. He was a theologian. And he died in 1862. So he died after the war had been going on for basically a year. But he wrote a little tract called Our Danger and Our Duty. And James Henry Thornwell had a lot of foresight. And he wrote something in this tract that really hit the nail on the head.

[John Weaver] This is what he said. If they prevail, Now he's talking about the radical Republicans, the abolitionists, the northern states. He says, if they prevail, the whole character of a government will be changed. And instead, of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent states, we shall have a central despotism with the notion of the states forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will and shaping its policy according to the wishes of a numerical majority of the people.

[John Weaver] We shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresistible democracy. The avowed end of this present war is to make the government a government of force. I find it interesting that he said if they prevail, they're going to change the very nature of our government. They're going to change it from a constitutional republic into something entirely different. And it's going to be a supreme democracy where the majority rules over and tramples over the minority. And then he says the about end of this war is to make the government a government of force.

[John Weaver] Has that come to pass? Well, most definitely it has. You know, it's interesting as you read what other countries wrote about the war and about America, and I just received a new book that has most of the articles that England wrote in observing the war and observing the United States back at that particular time. But most of the people back then understood that this government that was set up was set up as the states being the masters and the federal government being the servant. In fact, even Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America made that observation that we were a union of states and the states had the power and the federal government was the servant. You see, that was so understood back then.

[John Weaver] And it was so understood, especially in the South, and by the way, I hope you understand that one of the problems, and there were many problems, but one of the problems that existed between the North and the South was this. The South wanted a strict construction, a strict understanding of the Constitution, when the North said, no, we'll interpret it any way we want to. No, the South said, you can't do that.

[John Weaver] We were parties to this compact. There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret this. And so the South then, when the South seceded and the Confederate Constitution was written, it opens in the preamble with these words, we the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character. Isn't that amazing? So the southern states then, the Confederate states, were going to preserve state sovereignty while the North was trying to destroy it.

[John Weaver] Now here's what is happening in our day and time. We have a number of politicians who have been giving lip service to states' rights without even understanding of states' rights or without knowing how to apply the principle of states' rights. For example, in 1980, in the opening day of President Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, he said that he stood for states' rights. The same day, in the same meeting, your now deceased Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina said this, we want the federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states.

[John Weaver] Well, folks, let me just tell you this. Words fitly spoken without understanding or without application are basically useless. What am I trying to say? It's very easy to talk about states' rights. It's very easy to talk about independence. Until you begin to make application of it, And then you begin to see, well, if we apply this principle, then this has to go and this has to go and that has to change and this has to change.

[John Weaver] And all of a sudden. We're not ready for change, we don't want it. Now, John C. Calhoun, who was from South Carolina, by the way, who was known as that iron clad southerner, gave a Fort Hill address on July the 26th, 1831. And I want to quote some of this, but I want you to listen to this one statement he made. Listen carefully. Here is the error in our modern day thinking. And John C. Calhoun said this back in 1831. Calhoun said the error is in the assumption that the general or the federal government is a party to the constitutional compact. The states, as it has been shown, form the compact acting as sovereign and independent communities. What does that mean? It means the federal government was not a party to the compact. It was over here.

[John Weaver] It's kind of like this. If Mr. Wilson and I enter into a compact, we enter into a covenant, we enter into an agreement, and all of a sudden Ted comes over and says, now you should do this and you should do it like this. And we look at Ted and say, who are you? You don't have anything to do with this covenant. You don't have anything to do with this compact.

[John Weaver] You just stay out of our business. Do you follow me? So if the states then are the parties to the compact, the federal government is not a party to it. They're the ones who created the federal government, so they have the right to tell the federal government what it can do and what it cannot do. Now, John C. Calhoun went on to say this. He said, The great and leading principle is that the general government emanated from the people of the several states, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all the people forming one aggregate political community." Let me stop there.

[John Weaver] Listen to what he said. He said that the way our government came about was that the states came together. This is very important. Then he says this, and not from all the people forming one aggregate political community. What in the world is he saying? You know, there was a man by the name of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, who said the nation preceded the states. And that the people were the United States before the states ever came into existence.

[John Weaver] No, he said, that's hooey. That's not right. And he's fighting against the false interpretation of Henry Clay. and Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln. And he says, no, it was not one great big aggregate political community, no, it was the states who came together. And he says this, and they came together and formed the Constitution of the United States, which is in fact a compact to which each state is a party, and the character already described, and that the several states or parties have a right to judge of its infractions, and in case of deliberate, palpable,

[John Weaver] and dangerous exercise of power, not delegated. They have a right in the last resort to use the language of Virginia resolutions to interpose for arresting the progress of evil and maintaining with their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

[John Weaver] Now, I have a whole sermon back there on the doctrine of interposition. And he just said that the states have the right to interpose. You know what that means? It means this. The states are supposed to be the protector of our rights. That's the way it was set up. And so when the federal government comes along and passes an unconstitutional law or does something that's going to harm the people of the states, then the states are to come in and interpose. They're to step in between and say, oh, you're not going to do that to our citizens. You're not going to do that to our people. So the states then have a right to interpose themselves. He says, this right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the state of Virginia, may be called states' rights, vetoed, nullification, or by any other name.

[John Weaver] He says, I conceive it to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on historical facts. In the same address, John C. Calhoun nailed it down with these words, and I want you to think about this. Here's what he asked. Stripped of all of its coverings, the naked question is whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government, a constitutional government or an absolute one, a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the states or on the unrestrained will of a majority. A form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice and violence and force must finally prevail. And then he says this, let it never be forgotten that where the majority rules without restriction, the minority is always the subject. Now, folks, listen. Here is the question. Do we have a federal government or do we have a consolidated one? Do we have a constitutional republic or do we have an absolute government? How the states exercise their right of interposition was up to the states. And they cannot delegate this right without surrendering their entire sovereignty.

[John Weaver] If the states no longer can say, hold, wait, stop, you're not going to do this, then the states are not sovereign, the states are servants. And I've got news for you folks, we're all servants working men on the federal plantation.

[John Weaver] Now, when one forgets this simple truth, which we have forgotten in this country, but when one forgets this simple truth, We have what we presently endure, a federal government completely out of control with usurped unlimited power and demanding a usurped and unlimited submission by the citizens to its every whim and every rule and every regulation, period. I'll tell you what, if you want to look in Washington, D.C., and unhappily sometimes in a lot of the state capitals now, you will find what nearly three to five hundred thousand Southern soldiers died to prevent.

[John Weaver] In 1855, Senator Benjamin F. Wade from Ohio. Benjamin F. Wade was a notorious hater of the South. He had no love of the South whatsoever. But Benjamin F. Wade at least understood one thing, and he said this in a speech before the United States Senate. He said, Who is the judge of last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of law? And let's stop there.

[John Weaver] Think about what he just asked. Who is the judge of last resort as to whether or not the Constitution has been violated by an enactment of law? He goes on. Who is the final arbiter? Now listen. the general government or the states in their sovereignty. Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the states to protect their own citizens and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism.

[John Weaver] Now, what did Benjamin F. Wade just get out of his mouth? Benjamin F. Wade said if the government can determine whether or not it acts constitutional, The states are nothing. We have a tyrant and we're working on the plantation. I want you to stop and think about this. Is the Supreme Court the determiner of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional? You've been told that. Is the Congress the determiner? Is the executive office the determiner? If you leave the right to determine what is and is not constitutional with the federal government, that's like leaving it the right to define its own powers and its own authority. No, it comes back to the states and it comes back to the people. You see, the Constitution of the United States was never devised to establish a centralized government. The Constitution of the United States that was ordained by the states was never intended to abolish, replace, or destroy the states and their fundamental rights. Moreover, it was not designed to create a legal system that would allow the federal government to slowly and gradually usurp authority and consolidate all that power and authority in Washington.

[John Weaver] The Constitution was not designed for that. Was it not Jefferson who said, bind them down with the chains of the Constitution? Thomas Jefferson in 1821 said this, listen, see if he knows exactly where we are today. But Thomas Jefferson said in 1821, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power. It will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and as oppressive as the government from which we separated." Wow! He said, when you have all power drawn to Washington in little and in great things, in foreign and domestic things, it will become as venal and as oppressive as the one from which we separated, that is, Georgia, third of England." Jefferson, in his inaugural address, asked a rhetorical question. He asked what it was this country needed, and then he answered his own question. He said it needed a wise and frugal government, one that would restrain men from injuring each other, but otherwise leave them free to their own pursuits.

[John Weaver] He then asked, how was this to be obtained? And he answered the question by saying it like this, that we needed to avoid entangling alliances, that we needed to preserve the rights of election, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to trial by jury, and most importantly he said this, We need to support the state governments in all their rights as the most competent administration for our domestic concern and the surest bulwarks of our liberty." What did Jefferson say? When the states lose their sovereignty and independence, we've lost our liberty. Jefferson said it plainly, states' rights are the bulwark of our liberties. The loss of states' rights equals the loss of our liberties. Let me say it like this.

[John Weaver] Our founding fathers were patriots who loved their country. They were not nationalists who loved their government. There's a big difference. There's a big difference. In a letter that Jefferson wrote to Tracey in 1811, he said again, the true bulwarks of our liberty in this country are our state governments. These men could not envision the states allowing the federal government to intrude and steal their sovereignty and their independence. States' rights are indeed a bulwark of liberty. Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee, father of Robert E. Lee, And Samuel Adams said this, that he feared that the misinterpretation of the Constitution would bring about a fully centralized or consolidated government in the federal government at the expense of the states and sink both into despotism. Wow.

[John Weaver] Now let me ask you a question. Have you wondered what has happened in our country? Has it bugged you? Has it bothered you? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks like this. What in the world is happening? How can we allow politicians to get away with what they did? Did you know that 38 of our congressmen voted against making English the official language of this country? My question is, what language do they want? Chinese? Russian, come on. I mean, if they don't want English, they want some language. How is it that we allow things like this to happen?

[John Weaver] Well, let me show you something. Look in your Bibles to the book of Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10. Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10. Look there. I want you to see what the wise man observed. And this is exactly where we are today. Ecclesiastes chapter 10. And look, if you would please, at verse 7. Solomon said, I've seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth. What? I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth. That's just reversed. The princes ought to be riding. And the servants ought to be walking.

[John Weaver] You know what has happened in this country? The reason we have lost our liberty and the reason we've lost our freedom is because our state legislators do not have the backbone, do not have the knowledge, do not have the constitutionalism and the conviction to stand on their own two feet and look at the federal government and say, you are our servant. You don't tell us what to do. We tell you what to do. You see, what has happened is this. Our servant has become our master and our servant is now riding upon a horse that we provided and is trampling us in the ground. Solomon said something's wrong.

[John Weaver] You ought to read Psalm 82, and I'm not going to preach on that tonight. But there, God talks about having the world basically turned upside down. And Psalm 82 is a psalm against the magistrates. It's a psalm against the judges. And he's saying that when things are not done righteously and justly, then it's just turning everything upside down. You see, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 on January 3, 1788, said this.

[John Weaver] If the federal government should overpass its just bounds of authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, The people whose creature it is must appeal to the standard that they have formed and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prove it justified. Now listen to what he said. If the federal government does go beyond the Constitution, what is it? The people, he said, who created it must come along and say, no, no, no.

[John Weaver] We will not allow this. We will not have this happening. You say, come on, Brother Weaver, that's just never been done. Oh, yes, it has been done. One of my favorite court cases is Chisholm v. Georgia. I don't know if you know about that court case, but it was a 1793 case. In 1793, there was a fellow in South Carolina. who thought that the state of Georgia owed him some money. So Mr. Chisholm then went to the Supreme Court of the United States and said, State of Georgia owes me some money and I want to sue the state of Georgia. Well, the Supreme Court of the United States sent word to Georgia, there's a suit up here against you and you need to come up here and defend yourselves in this suit.

[John Weaver] And we expect you here because the hearing will be such and such date. The state of Georgia said to the Supreme Court of the United States, now I'm paraphrasing this, kiss my foot. What the state of Georgia said, look, you are our servant, not our master. You don't tell us what to do. We tell you what to do. And if you think the state of Georgia is coming up to Washington, D.C., you are mistaken. Well, the Supreme Court sent word, said, fine, you don't have to appear. We will have the hearing without you and we will issue our decision whether you are here or not. Well, wonderful. The Georgia House of Representatives then went into session and passed a bill making it a felony by hanging for any person to come into the state of Georgia to carry out the eunuchs of the Supreme Court and said they would be hanged immediately without the benefit of clergy. Guess what happened? The 11th Amendment was passed then, which stopped all of that stuff.

[John Weaver] And they said, no, no, not anymore. You see, the people of Georgia back then said, we're not going to allow that. We are not going to have that. What has happened in this country? The servant has become the master and the master has become the servant. How in the world did this come about? Well, you could say it came about by fraud, apathy, ignorance. subterfuge, deceit, manipulation, and I'm sure all of those are part of the answer.

[John Weaver] However, I believe Alexis de Tocqueville took the hammer and hit the nail right on the head when he said this, the American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money. Folks, let me tell you something. We, as a people in this country, have become so indolent, so lazy, so selfish, so irresponsible in our lives, we want to live off the labor and the discipline of others. You know, it's bad to listen to news this day in time, in fact, I usually, I try not to do it because I get so upset, but you know, whether you agree with Bush or not is immaterial right now, but you know Bush is making a tour of Latin American countries, and I

[John Weaver] heard, down in Guatemala, they're protesting him because that America has forgotten them. What? Are we responsible to take care of the people of Guatemala? Are we responsible to take care of the people of China? Are we responsible to take care of the people of Russia? Who are we responsible to take care of? Let's be honest. You see what I'm saying? We have become, and the world has become, So indolent and so lazy, we do not have a biblical work ethic. We will not take care of ourselves.

[John Weaver] We will not plan for our future. We will not say we will not do anything. We want the federal government to take care of us. And if they don't, we expect the state government to. You see, the truth of the matter is this. You listen to any of the federal judges when they are being challenged. And they're being shown Laws where numerous things are unconstitutional and illegal. You know what the attitude of most judges is? The attitude is usually, well, I'm not going to be the one to bring down the system.

[John Weaver] We are so fearful of change. And you know what? Because we don't want to change, we are willing to accept bad government. Someone says, well, Brother Weaver, you know, the government provides this and they provide that. You've got to remember, folks, they can't give to you what they do not take from someone else. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody somewhere pays, period. Somebody pays. But you say, well, look, if we try to change now, just think what would happen.

[John Weaver] I mean, man, there would be anarchy. No, there wouldn't be anarchy. Listen to what Richard Henry Lee said. Listen to this. I love this. He said, to say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying.

[John Weaver] You know, there's a verse in the book of Jeremiah, chapter six. Where God says that we're to go back to the old paths. And stand in the old ways. Because those were the ways of righteousness, you know what this country needs to go back to, folks, we need to go back to God's righteousness, back to the Bible. Back to the foundation. Back to Jesus Christ. Back to the Constitution. Back to the biblical work ethic.

[John Weaver] And learn to take care of ourselves and our family. And when we realize that it's not the responsibility of government or the responsibility of anyone else to take care of us, it's our responsibility. And we start doing something about it, things are going to start changing. Folks, let me tell you. We have so much tyranny in this country, and I'm going to bring a quote out tomorrow. That's unbelievable.

[John Weaver] You would not think that someone would have had the foresight to say it, but he did. But we have so much tyranny in this country without even realizing it. Can you imagine the executive orders and the signing papers and all the things that are going on in this country to steal our liberties? And most of the time we don't even know it. Nobody's been upset with the Patriot Act, except those people that it's been used against. Nobody's been upset with Homeland Security. Except those people who's been thrown into jail and imprisoned and shot needlessly. Yeah, it upsets them. You know, I travel a lot and.

[John Weaver] I have to pray for grace. My wife and I were at the airport in California getting ready to fly home. And here was a little woman in her 80s and her husband. In his 80s and here they're going through this metal detector and this little old man is walking like this. And they want to strip search him. I said, come on, give him a knife, I'll take it away from him.

[John Weaver] We have lost our mind. There was a little nun. In her habit, she had to be in her 70s and I'll guarantee you, I could have blown her over. She couldn't have weighed 85 pounds soaking wet. And they were patting her down. But you let those who really look like terrorists. And they won't pat them down because that's racial profiling.

[John Weaver] Am I the only one that thinks we've gone crazy in this country? We've lost our mind. We've lost our moorings. We've lost our foundation. And if we do not come back to a biblical view and learn to see government biblically, as well as historically, if we do not come back and learn to see every aspect and every area of life through the eyes of a word of God.

[John Weaver] We're going to get in deeper and deeper and deeper trouble. I like what Steve Wilkins said, He said that the war was over in 1865. They did not destroy slavery. They just merely enlarged the plantation. Now we're all slaves. You say, I resent that. Well, you may resent it, but I'll tell you what. If you don't jump when they say jump, you'll find out who owns your property and who doesn't own your property and who controls your life and who doesn't control your life. And if you don't have your papers in order, you'll find out very quickly. Who's in control?

[John Weaver] And it's not we, the people, nor is it today the word of God, because people laugh at the word of God. Did you know there is a new Bible coming out that combines our Bible, the Buddhist scriptures, the Hindu scriptures, and it says that Jesus Christ was the son of Mary and a gorilla? You say, how can something like that happen in this country? You want to go up I-75, travel all the way up north and look at all the Muslim temples.

[John Weaver] And I don't mean their little tiny buildings. Their spires are bigger than this building. What is happening? I'm going to show you tomorrow night, folks, we've lost our foundation. And when we don't know what the Bible teaches and what God demands. And we don't know what our Constitution is, most of us have never read the Constitution. If I were to ask you to raise your hand, if you ever read it all the way through one time, most of you have never read it all the way through one time. Some of you never even read your Bible all the way through one time.

[John Weaver] And Lord, have mercy how ignorant we are on history. All I'm saying is, folks, we need to come back to where we should be, and that's bowing at the feet of Jesus Christ, saying your word is true in every area, whether it's government, whether it's economics, whether it's education, whether it's family, whether it's home, it doesn't matter. His word is truth. For Jesus Christ is truth. Let's pray. Father, we're so thankful today for Your love and for Your Word. And we're thankful, Father, for the history that You've given us. And we know and we understand that history is nothing less than Your eternal decrees coming to pass in time. Help us to learn, help us to have an understanding, and help us to see, Father, from where we have fallen, so at least we can find our way back.

[John Weaver] Give us, Lord, grace to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.

State's Rights - Part 1

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	3707175923
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Christian & Civil Government
Genre	Sermon
Date	2007-03-04
Dictation Name
Book	Book 017: State's Rights — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	82

Formatted Transcript

Introduction and Purpose

Weaver explains the message is split into two parts: tonight historical, tomorrow night biblical. He encourages all ages to listen because they will hear things not taught in schools.

Now, let me just begin tonight by telling you, first of all, what I would like to do tonight and tomorrow night, just so you will have an idea. Really and truly, the message that I want to bring tonight and tomorrow night happens to be one message. I'm just going to have to cut it in half. The first half is basically historical. There will be a little Bible tonight, but tomorrow night will be more Bible and some history. But tonight will be mainly historical. And let me just point out that I would encourage the teenagers as well as the adults to listen, because I can assure you that you will hear things tonight that you've never heard in your schools. And unhappily, we are ignorant of our history, we're ignorant of our heritage, and we're ignorant of our Bibles.

The Importance of a Biblical Worldview

Weaver commends the church's Christian worldview class and stresses that God's Word provides answers for every area of life, including civil government.

And consequently, we've been bamboozled down through the years. Now, let me just say, as you open your Bibles to Romans chapter 13, I do want you to turn there. Let me just say that I was really thrilled to hear that you have a Christian worldview Sunday school class. Most people do not understand how important that really is. You see, you have to look at things either from the spectacles of the word of God or from the spectacles of the world, there's no other alternative. Once you learn to look at things through the word of God, then you're going to find out what reality really is, because God determines reality and not the world. We need to have a biblical view, not only of economics, and I'd really love to deal with that all week, but we need to have a biblical worldview of education, a biblical worldview of the ministry, biblical worldview of government, biblical worldview of the family. In other words, God speaks on every one of these subjects. And tonight and probably tomorrow night as well as maybe one or two other nights.

Reading Romans 13:1-4

Weaver reads the passage about submission to governing authorities, setting the stage for discussing states' rights.

I don't know just yet. I'm going to be dealing some with the Bible and civil government. I want you to understand that God gives us the answers. We are the ones who refuse to hearken and refuse to listen. But if we begin to hear what God says and begin to apply the truth, then we're going to have our problems worked out so. Look in your Bibles if you would please to the book of Romans chapter 13 tonight. Romans chapter 13 and let's read the first four verses.

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:1-4

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

States' Rights as Antidote to Federal Tyranny

Weaver defines states' rights as the antidote to federal tyranny, illustrating with a 1999 statement by a U.S. District Attorney claiming federal law is superior to state law.

What in the world does the Bible say about a subject that you and I have heard all of our lives, and that is the subject of states' rights? Have you ever thought about that? What in the world do states' rights have to do with what we're facing today? Well, let me just tell you that states' rights, historically, and I'm going to point out tomorrow night biblically, are an antidote to federal tyranny. Without states' rights, the states basically are nothing more than feudal servants or slaves, basically, working on the federal plantation. Let me just illustrate this by giving you something that I heard in 1999. It was during the month of August, and I was listening to the news, and I heard with my own ears a U.S.

District Attorney from California make this statement. He said, "Federal law is superior to state law." And when he said that, I just did a double take. I said, "What?" Remember now, he said federal law is superior to state law. If that statement is true, then all of the 50 states are nothing more than servants and the federal government is the master. If that is true, there is absolutely no way that any state may protect its citizens. If that is true, then no state can fight unfunded mandates or any mandates. It cannot make laws that would protect its citizens, nor can it make any laws that would contradict federal law. In other words, the federal government would be supreme and sovereign and the ruler over everything. And whenever the federal government spoke, then the states would just simply have to jump. And that simply means the people in the states as well.

Historical Foundation: Articles of Confederation and Treaty of Paris

Weaver traces the sovereignty of states from the Articles of Confederation (1781) and the Treaty of Paris (1783), where King George III acknowledged 13 separate sovereign states.

And so tonight I'm going to be dealing primarily with the historical part, and then try to tie it together tomorrow night to show you that what our Founding Fathers said was indeed biblical and scriptural to the nth degree. So let's begin at the very beginning. You see, when our country first began, we had what was known as the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were drawn up in 1781, and Article II makes this statement. Listen carefully. It says, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Now notice what the Articles of Confederation said. Each state had its own sovereignty, freedom, and independence, its own power, its own jurisdiction. The only thing that the states gave up was just a little bit of power to the federal government as such. Do you remember when the war for independence ended? It was ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. And by the way, just so you will know, George III, King of England, when he made peace with the United States, made peace with 13 separate sovereign states.

Listen, if you would, to the opening of the Treaty of Paris. Here it is: "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, in other words, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free and sovereign and independent states and that he treats with them as such, as for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, property, and territorial rights, of the same in every part thereof." Isn't that interesting? When he said that he was acknowledging the said United States, he then delineated and named all 13 states and said that they were free, sovereign, and independent states. So George III then made peace with each of the 13 states. When the Constitutional Convention met, the state of Georgia sent its delegation there, and they carried a commission that opened with these words. I love them. "The state of Georgia, by the grace of God, free, sovereign, and independent." Notice that. The state of Georgia, by the grace of God. You see, when the United States Constitution was written, it was the states who came together and agreed to create what you and I know as the federal government. And they gave to the federal government certain limited power and authority.

The States Created the Federal Government

Weaver emphasizes that the states created the federal government as their agent, not the other way around, and that the right to judge constitutional infractions belongs to the states.

Please understand this very important principle. Listen carefully. The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government. And they created it to be federal, not national. And there's a big difference between those two things. The federal government that was created and authorized by the states was to act solely as the agents of the states, and the states were the real sovereigns who had the real power, and the federal government was to do only those things that were delegated to it by the states. Now listen carefully, and I'm going to demonstrate this more not only tonight but tomorrow night as well. The right to decide whether or not the federal government did or did not act according to the Compact, that is the Constitution, belonged to the states alone who were the true sovereigns. It did not belong to the federal government. If you allowed the federal government to determine its own limitations, guess what? It won't have any.

That's just like you coming up to me and saying, "Pastor Weaver, I owe you some money. How much do I owe you?" "Well, just let me tell you, all right?" "Well, come on." If the federal government is going to determine its own limitations, then it's going to have unlimited power. It's going to be tyrannical and despotic.

State Reservations and the Right to Resume Powers

Weaver cites New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island's ratification statements reserving the right to resume delegated powers, and notes North Carolina and Rhode Island's delayed ratification without coercion.

Now, you see, when the Constitution of the United States was acceded to by the states, there were several states who understood that, you know, there's a possibility things might get out of hand. And we want to have a little disclaimer for that. So when the state of New York acceded to the Constitution of the United States on July the 26th, 1788, it added these words, listen carefully, "that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." So the state of New York said, all right, yes, we're going to take the Constitution, but we want you to understand that whenever this people want to reassume those powers, they may do so. Did you realize Virginia did exactly the same thing on June 25, 1788 when it acceded to the Constitution? They added these words, "the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them at their will."

So Virginia said, look, any time the Constitution gets perverted. Anytime there is oppression, anytime there's anything we don't like, then we may reassume, we may take back the power that we gave to the federal government. Now, if you really want to understand the sovereignty and the independence of each of these states, you need to consider this fact, that when the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787, that only 11 of the original 13 states ratified it immediately. North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution right away. I want you to note something. The Constitution was not forced upon them. It was not considered the majority rules. The other states didn't say, "Well, tough luck. I mean, we all agreed and we're the majority and you're in whether you like it or not." No, no, didn't work like that. You know, North Carolina and Rhode Island were treated by the other states just like they were sovereign, separate nations, because that's basically what they were. And by the way, when Rhode Island and North Carolina did not immediately join and accede to the Constitution of the United States, there was no war to force them to join the Union. None. Why?

Because each state realized that it had its own sovereignty, its own independence, and it could do what it wanted to do. When over a year later, North Carolina and Rhode Island did accede to the Constitution, Rhode Island also added these words: "We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and plantations, duly elected, do declare and make known that the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Wow. So if it's going to make the people happy, to resume and take away the power that was given to the federal government? Fine, they said, we can do that. You see, a number of the original states delineated their right to take back what they had delegated to the federal government. How many of you have heard that on the news recently? How many of you have been taught that in school? Did you know that Thomas Jefferson and that James Madison wrote what are known as the Virginia and the Kentucky Resolutions? It was these resolutions that gave us the classic statement of states' rights. And in those resolutions, I'm going to quote some of them in just a moment, but in those resolutions they basically tell us that the union is a voluntary association of the states and if the central government or the federal government goes too far, and does anything illegal or unconstitutional, then the states then have the right to nullify or abrogate that law. Listen to what Thomas Jefferson wrote. He said, now listen to this opening statement: "Resolved that the several states comprising the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government."

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and Nullification

Weaver explains Jefferson and Madison's resolutions asserting states' rights to nullify unconstitutional federal acts, and South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification against the tariffs of 1828 and 1832.

What? Let me just stop there. Did you hear that? He says we are not united on the principle of unlimited submission. We don't owe the federal government unlimited submission. That was Thomas Jefferson. He goes further, "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 the Constitution for the United States and of the amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain defined powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of rights to their own self-government, and that, whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force, that to this compact each state acceded as a state and is as an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself the other party. Each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as the mode and measures of redress." Now that's Thomas Jefferson.

I want you to listen to what he said. And this is going to be very important later that you remember this. He said, here are the parties to this compact, this constitution. It is this state and each of the other states. What does that mean? It means the federal government was not a party to the compact. It was not a party to the federal compact. And then Thomas Jefferson goes on to say that whenever the federal government goes over and above and beyond the Constitution, then therefore its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. And then he goes on to say this, that each party, that is each state, has an equal right to judge for itself as well

of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. So that means this, if the federal government then passed an unconstitutional law, South Carolina might say, "Well, what we're going to do is slap them on the back of the hand and reprimand them and tell them we're not going to put up with this anymore." Georgia might say, "Well, we're going to call out the militia." In other words, it's up to each state how they redress the grievance. In other words, not all the states had to agree on the exact same measure. Now, that doesn't mean that there's going to be an open fight all the time, but I'm just simply saying it was showing you the power of each state. Now, South Carolina applied this principle to the tariffs of abomination. You remember the tariffs of 1828 and 1832? And by the way, our tariffs, our taxes are bad and they're high. But I mean, back then, they wanted to raise some of those tariffs 50 and 60 percent back then. And primarily, it would be the South that would be paying those taxes. So, what South Carolina did is, it drew up an ordinance of nullification.

nullifying those laws because they were unconstitutional. Here is what the Ordinance of Nullification said: "We, therefore, the people of the state of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that these acts, that is, those tariffs, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers, or citizens, and all promises, contracts, and obligations made or entered into, or to be made and entered into, with purpose to secure duties imposed by these said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be utterly null and void, period." Now what's South Carolina say? South Carolina said, look, these tariffs are unconstitutional. That's the end of it. There's not going to be any party coming down here trying to bind the officers of this state, the citizens of this state, or anything in this state to these laws because they're unconstitutional. And then they go on to say this, and it doesn't really matter what the courts say. That's what it said, "and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof are and shall be utterly null and void." In other words, we're not going to recognize it even if they get the Supreme Court to say so. That was South Carolina.

Listen to the concluding paragraph: "And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end, that it may be fully understood by the government of the United States and the people of the co-states, that we are determined to maintain this, our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government to reduce this state to obedience." Now let me just stop there. There's a little bit more. But what does South Carolina say? If you want to send down your army, have at it. We are still not going to submit and the use of force will not make us submit. Listen to what else the concluding paragraph said, "but that we will consider the passage by Congress of any act to coerce this state, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union and that the people of this state will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other states, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent states may have a right to." Now, listen to what South Carolina said.

And we're talking the 1830s now. We're not talking the 1860s. We're talking the 1830s. South Carolina said, if you try to coerce us, if you try to force us, we'll just withdraw from the Union. We will separate and we will set up our own government because we are a free, sovereign, independent state and we have a right to do that.

Constitutional Interpretation: Madison and the 9th/10th Amendments

Weaver quotes Madison's Federalist No. 45 on limited federal powers and explains the 9th and 10th Amendments as reserving rights and powers to the states and people.

Now you've got to ask yourself this question. Did South Carolina misinterpret the Constitution? And the answer is no. James Madison is called the father of the Constitution. And the reason he's called the father of the Constitution is because he was secretary at the Constitutional Convention and he wrote down everything and he had everything in writing so he knew what was said and what was not said and the intent and everything. In the Federalist Papers number 45 he said this, now listen carefully, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former, that is the federal government, will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected, that is foreign commerce. The powers reserved over several states will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."

Now, what did James Madison say? He said, you don't have to worry because the federal government has been given few and limited power. The great majority of the power resides with the states. It will be the states that will be dictating to the people because the people control the states, and therefore the people will be running the state, and they will be determining their own improvements and everything else they want to do, not the federal government.

Now, those of you who have studied the Constitution know that the Ninth and Tenth Amendment clearly make this very plain. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says this. If I were to ask you, what are the first ten amendments called? Most of you would tell me the Bill of Rights. And yes, we have some rights enumerated in the Constitution. But listen to what the Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." We have far more rights than those that are listed in those ten amendments. And just because ten are listed doesn't mean that's all we have.

We have a whole lot more. And then the tenth amendment says this: "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." So, the 10th Amendment makes it very plain that, look, we've given you a little power, that's it. The rest of it goes to the states.

The Compact Theory and John C. Calhoun

Weaver presents Calhoun's argument that the federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact; the states are the sovereign parties with the right to interpose against federal overreach.

And all of a sudden, we're not ready for change, we don't want it. Now, John C. Calhoun, who was from South Carolina, by the way, who was known as that iron clad southerner, gave a Fort Hill address on July the 26th, 1831. And I want to quote some of this, but I want you to listen to this one statement he made. Listen carefully. Here is the error in our modern day thinking. And John C. Calhoun said this back in 1831. Calhoun said, "The error is in the assumption that the general or the federal government is a party to the constitutional compact. The states, as it has been shown, form the compact acting as sovereign and independent communities." What does that mean? It means the federal government was not a party to the compact. It was over here.

It's kind of like this. If Mr. Wilson and I enter into a compact, we enter into a covenant, we enter into an agreement, and all of a sudden Ted comes over and says, "Now you should do this and you should do it like this." And we look at Ted and say, "Who are you? You don't have anything to do with this covenant. You don't have anything to do with this compact." You just stay out of our business. Do you follow me? So if the states then are the parties to the compact, the federal government is not a party to it. They're the ones who created the federal government, so they have the right to tell the federal government what it can do and what it cannot do. Now, John C. Calhoun went on to say this. He said, "The great and leading principle is that the general government emanated from the people of the several states, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all the people forming one aggregate political community." Let me stop there.

Listen to what he said. He said that the way our government came about was that the states came together. This is very important. Then he says this, "and not from all the people forming one aggregate political community." What in the world is he saying? You know, there was a man by the name of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, who said the nation preceded the states. And that the people were the United States before the states ever came into existence. No, he said, that's hooey. That's not right. And he's fighting against the false interpretation of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln. And he says, no, it was not one great big aggregate political community, no, it was the states who came together. And he says this, "and they came together and formed the Constitution of the United States, which is in fact a compact to which each state is a party, and the character already described, and that the several states or parties have a right to judge of its infractions, and in case of deliberate, palpable,

and dangerous exercise of power, not delegated, they have a right in the last resort to use the language of Virginia resolutions to interpose for arresting the progress of evil and maintaining with their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them." Now, I have a whole sermon back there on the doctrine of interposition. And he just said that the states have the right to interpose. You know what that means? It means this. The states are supposed to be the protector of our rights. That's the way it was set up. And so when the federal government comes along and passes an unconstitutional law or does something that's going to harm the people of the states, then the states are to come in and interpose. They're to step in between and say, "Oh, you're not going to do that to our citizens. You're not going to do that to our people." So the states then have a right to interpose themselves. He says, "This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the state of Virginia, may be called states' rights, vetoed, nullification, or by any other name.

He says, "I conceive it to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on historical facts." In the same address, John C. Calhoun nailed it down with these words, and I want you to think about this. Here's what he asked: "Stripped of all of its coverings, the naked question is whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government, a constitutional government or an absolute one, a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the states or on the unrestrained will of a majority. A form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice and violence and force must finally prevail." And then he says this, "Let it never be forgotten that where the majority rules without restriction, the minority is always the subject." Now, folks, listen. Here is the question. Do we have a federal government or do we have a consolidated one? Do we have a constitutional republic or do we have an absolute government? How the states exercise their right of interposition was up to the states. And they cannot delegate this right without surrendering their entire sovereignty.

Modern Consequences and Call to Return

Weaver laments the reversal of roles where the federal government has become master, cites Jefferson and others on the bulwark of liberty, and calls for a return to biblical and constitutional foundations.

If the states no longer can say, "Hold, wait, stop, you're not going to do this," then the states are not sovereign, the states are servants. And I've got news for you folks, we're all servants working men on the federal plantation. Now, when one forgets this simple truth, which we have forgotten in this country, but when one forgets this simple truth, we have what we presently endure, a federal government completely out of control with usurped unlimited power and demanding a usurped and unlimited submission by the citizens to its every whim and every rule and every regulation, period. I'll tell you what, if you want to look in Washington, D.C., and unhappily sometimes in a lot of the state capitals now, you will find what nearly three to five hundred thousand Southern soldiers died to prevent.

In 1855, Senator Benjamin F. Wade from Ohio. Benjamin F. Wade was a notorious hater of the South. He had no love of the South whatsoever. But Benjamin F. Wade at least understood one thing, and he said this in a speech before the United States Senate. He said, "Who is the judge of last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of law?" And let's stop there.

Think about what he just asked. Who is the judge of last resort as to whether or not the Constitution has been violated by an enactment of law? He goes on. "Who is the final arbiter?" Now listen. "The general government or the states in their sovereignty. Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the states to protect their own citizens and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism."

Now, what did Benjamin F. Wade just get out of his mouth? Benjamin F. Wade said if the government can determine whether or not it acts constitutional, the states are nothing. We have a tyrant and we're working on the plantation. I want you to stop and think about this. Is the Supreme Court the determiner of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional? You've been told that. Is the Congress the determiner? Is the executive office the determiner? If you leave the right to determine what is and is not constitutional with the federal government, that's like leaving it the right to define its own powers and its own authority. No, it comes back to the states and it comes back to the people. You see, the Constitution of the United States was never devised to establish a centralized government. The Constitution of the United States that was ordained by the states was never intended to abolish, replace, or destroy the states and their fundamental rights. Moreover, it was not designed to create a legal system that would allow the federal government to slowly and gradually usurp authority and consolidate all that power and authority in Washington.

The Constitution was not designed for that. Was it not Jefferson who said, "Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution"? Thomas Jefferson in 1821 said this, listen, see if he knows exactly where we are today. But Thomas Jefferson said in 1821, "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and as oppressive as the government from which we separated." Wow! He said, when you have all power drawn to Washington in little and in great things, in foreign and domestic things, it will become as venal and as oppressive as the one from which we separated, that is, George III of England. Jefferson, in his inaugural address, asked a rhetorical question. He asked what it was this country needed, and then he answered his own question. He said it needed a wise and frugal government, one that would restrain men from injuring each other, but otherwise leave them free to their own pursuits.

He then asked, how was this to be obtained? And he answered the question by saying it like this, that we needed to avoid entangling alliances, that we needed to preserve the rights of election, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to trial by jury, and most importantly he said this, "We need to support the state governments in all their rights as the most competent administration for our domestic concern and the surest bulwarks of our liberty." What did Jefferson say? When the states lose their sovereignty and independence, we've lost our liberty. Jefferson said it plainly, states' rights are the bulwark of our liberties. The loss of states' rights equals the loss of our liberties. Let me say it like this. Our founding fathers were patriots who loved their country. They were not nationalists who loved their government. There's a big difference. There's a big difference. In a letter that Jefferson wrote to Tracey in 1811, he said again, "The true bulwarks of our liberty in this country are our state governments." These men could not envision the states allowing the federal government to intrude and steal their sovereignty and their independence. States' rights are indeed a bulwark of liberty. Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee, father of Robert E. Lee, and Samuel Adams said this, that he feared that the misinterpretation of the Constitution would bring about a fully centralized or consolidated government in the federal government at the expense of the states and sink both into despotism. Wow.

Now let me ask you a question. Have you wondered what has happened in our country? Has it bugged you? Has it bothered you? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks like this. What in the world is happening? How can we allow politicians to get away with what they did? Did you know that 38 of our congressmen voted against making English the official language of this country? My question is, what language do they want? Chinese? Russian, come on. I mean, if they don't want English, they want some language. How is it that we allow things like this to happen?

Well, let me show you something. Look in your Bibles to the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 10. Ecclesiastes, chapter 10. Look there. I want you to see what the wise man observed. And this is exactly where we are today. Ecclesiastes chapter 10, and look, if you would please, at verse 7. Solomon said, "I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth." What? I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth. That's just reversed. The princes ought to be riding. And the servants ought to be walking.

You know what has happened in this country? The reason we have lost our liberty and the reason we've lost our freedom is because our state legislators do not have the backbone, do not have the knowledge, do not have the constitutionalism and the conviction to stand on their own two feet and look at the federal government and say, "You are our servant. You don't tell us what to do. We tell you what to do." You see, what has happened is this. Our servant has become our master and our servant is now riding upon a horse that we provided and is trampling us in the ground. Solomon said something's wrong. You ought to read Psalm 82, and I'm not going to preach on that tonight. But there, God talks about having the world basically turned upside down. And Psalm 82 is a psalm against the magistrates. It's a psalm against the judges. And he's saying that when things are not done righteously and justly, then it's just turning everything upside down. You see, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 on January 3, 1788, said this.

"If the federal government should overpass its just bounds of authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people whose creature it is must appeal to the standard that they have formed and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prove it justified." Now listen to what he said. If the federal government does go beyond the Constitution, what is it? The people, he said, who created it must come along and say, "No, no, no. We will not allow this. We will not have this happening." You say, "Come on, Brother Weaver, that's just never been done." Oh, yes, it has been done. One of my favorite court cases is Chisholm v. Georgia. I don't know if you know about that court case, but it was a 1793 case. In 1793, there was a fellow in South Carolina who thought that the state of Georgia owed him some money. So Mr. Chisholm then went to the Supreme Court of the United States and said, "State of Georgia owes me some money and I want to sue the state of Georgia." Well, the Supreme Court of the United States sent word to Georgia, "There's a suit up here against you and you need to come up here and defend yourselves in this suit.

And we expect you here because the hearing will be such and such date." The state of Georgia said to the Supreme Court of the United States, now I'm paraphrasing this, "Kiss my foot." What the state of Georgia said, "Look, you are our servant, not our master. You don't tell us what to do. We tell you what to do. And if you think the state of Georgia is coming up to Washington, D.C., you are mistaken." Well, the Supreme Court sent word, said, "Fine, you don't have to appear. We will have the hearing without you and we will issue our decision whether you are here or not." Well, wonderful. The Georgia House of Representatives then went into session and passed a bill making it a felony by hanging for any person to come into the state of Georgia to carry out the edicts of the Supreme Court and said they would be hanged immediately without the benefit of clergy. Guess what happened? The 11th Amendment was passed then, which stopped all of that stuff.

And they said, "No, no, not anymore." You see, the people of Georgia back then said, "We're not going to allow that. We are not going to have that." What has happened in this country? The servant has become the master and the master has become the servant. How in the world did this come about? Well, you could say it came about by fraud, apathy, ignorance, subterfuge, deceit, manipulation, and I'm sure all of those are part of the answer. However, I believe Alexis de Tocqueville took the hammer and hit the nail right on the head when he said this, "The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Folks, let me tell you something. We, as a people in this country, have become so indolent, so lazy, so selfish, so irresponsible in our lives, we want to live off the labor and the discipline of others. You know, it's bad to listen to news this day in time, in fact, I usually, I try not to do it because I get so upset, but you know, whether you agree with Bush or not is immaterial right now, but you know Bush is making a tour of Latin American countries, and I

heard, down in Guatemala, they're protesting him because that America has forgotten them. What? Are we responsible to take care of the people of Guatemala? Are we responsible to take care of the people of China? Are we responsible to take care of the people of Russia? Who are we responsible to take care of? Let's be honest. You see what I'm saying? We have become, and the world has become, so indolent and so lazy, we do not have a biblical work ethic. We will not take care of ourselves.

We will not plan for our future. We will not say we will not do anything. We want the federal government to take care of us. And if they don't, we expect the state government to. You see, the truth of the matter is this. You listen to any of the federal judges when they are being challenged. And they're being shown laws where numerous things are unconstitutional and illegal. You know what the attitude of most judges is? The attitude is usually, "Well, I'm not going to be the one to bring down the system."

We are so fearful of change. And you know what? Because we don't want to change, we are willing to accept bad government. Someone says, "Well, Brother Weaver, you know, the government provides this and they provide that." You've got to remember, folks, they can't give to you what they do not take from someone else. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody somewhere pays, period. Somebody pays. But you say, "Well, look, if we try to change now, just think what would happen.

I mean, man, there would be anarchy." No, there wouldn't be anarchy. Listen to what Richard Henry Lee said. Listen to this. I love this. He said, "To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying."

You know, there's a verse in the book of Jeremiah, chapter six, where God says that we're to go back to the old paths. And stand in the old ways. Because those were the ways of righteousness. You know what this country needs to go back to, folks, we need to go back to God's righteousness, back to the Bible. Back to the foundation. Back to Jesus Christ. Back to the Constitution. Back to the biblical work ethic.

And learn to take care of ourselves and our family. And when we realize that it's not the responsibility of government or the responsibility of anyone else to take care of us, it's our responsibility. And we start doing something about it, things are going to start changing. Folks, let me tell you. We have so much tyranny in this country, and I'm going to bring a quote out tomorrow. That's unbelievable. You would not think that someone would have had the foresight to say it, but he did. But we have so much tyranny in this country without even realizing it. Can you imagine the executive orders and the signing papers and all the things that are going on in this country to steal our liberties? And most of the time we don't even know it. Nobody's been upset with the Patriot Act, except those people that it's been used against. Nobody's been upset with Homeland Security, except those people who's been thrown into jail and imprisoned and shot needlessly. Yeah, it upsets them. You know, I travel a lot and.

I have to pray for grace. My wife and I were at the airport in California getting ready to fly home. And here was a little woman in her 80s and her husband in his 80s and here they're going through this metal detector and this little old man is walking like this. And they want to strip search him. I said, "Come on, give him a knife, I'll take it away from him." We have lost our mind. There was a little nun in her habit, she had to be in her 70s and I'll guarantee you, I could have blown her over. She couldn't have weighed 85 pounds soaking wet. And they were patting her down. But you let those who really look like terrorists, and they won't pat them down because that's racial profiling.

Am I the only one that thinks we've gone crazy in this country? We've lost our mind. We've lost our moorings. We've lost our foundation. And if we do not come back to a biblical view and learn to see government biblically, as well as historically, if we do not come back and learn to see every aspect and every area of life through the eyes of the word of God. We're going to get in deeper and deeper and deeper trouble. I like what Steve Wilkins said. He said that the war was over in 1865. They did not destroy slavery. They just merely enlarged the plantation. Now we're all slaves. You say, "I resent that." Well, you may resent it, but I'll tell you what. If you don't jump when they say jump, you'll find out who owns your property and who doesn't own your property and who controls your life and who doesn't control your life. And if you don't have your papers in order, you'll find out very quickly who's in control.

And it's not we, the people, nor is it today the word of God, because people laugh at the word of God. Did you know there is a new Bible coming out that combines our Bible, the Buddhist scriptures, the Hindu scriptures, and it says that Jesus Christ was the son of Mary and a gorilla? You say, "How can something like that happen in this country?" You want to go up I-75, travel all the way up north and look at all the Muslim temples. And I don't mean their little tiny buildings. Their spires are bigger than this building. What is happening? I'm going to show you tomorrow night, folks, we've lost our foundation. And when we don't know what the Bible teaches and what God demands, and we don't know what our Constitution is, most of us have never read the Constitution. If I were to ask you to raise your hand, if you ever read it all the way through one time, most of you have never read it all the way through one time. Some of you never even read your Bible all the way through one time.

And Lord, have mercy how ignorant we are on history. All I'm saying is, folks, we need to come back to where we should be, and that's bowing at the feet of Jesus Christ, saying your word is true in every area, whether it's government, whether it's economics, whether it's education, whether it's family, whether it's home, it doesn't matter. His word is truth. For Jesus Christ is truth. Let's pray. Father, we're so thankful today for Your love and for Your Word. And we're thankful, Father, for the history that You've given us. And we know and we understand that history is nothing less than Your eternal decrees coming to pass in time. Help us to learn, help us to have an understanding, and help us to see, Father, from where we have fallen, so at least we can find our way back.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Sovereignty of the States

Summary: The original 13 states were sovereign, independent entities that voluntarily created a limited federal government.

Evidence: Weaver quotes the Articles of Confederation: 'Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence...' and the Treaty of Paris acknowledging 13 separate sovereign states.

Federal Government as Servant, Not Master

Summary: The federal government was created by the states to serve as their agent with limited, delegated powers.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government.'

Right of Nullification and Interposition

Summary: States have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and interpose to protect their citizens.

Evidence: Weaver cites Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions and South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification declaring tariffs 'null, void, and no law.'

Loss of States' Rights Leads to Tyranny

Summary: The erosion of states' rights has transformed the U.S. from a constitutional republic into a centralized despotism.

Evidence: Weaver quotes James Henley Thornwell: 'If they prevail... we shall have a central despotism with the notion of the states forever abolished.'

Biblical Worldview of Government

Summary: Christians must view government through the lens of Scripture, which defines the proper roles and limits of civil authority.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'We need to have a biblical view... of government... God speaks on every one of these subjects.'

Ignorance of History and Scripture

Summary: Modern Americans are ignorant of their history, heritage, and the Bible, making them susceptible to tyranny.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'We are ignorant of our history, we're ignorant of our heritage, and we're ignorant of our Bibles.'

Key Arguments

The federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact

Summary: The Constitution is a compact among sovereign states; the federal government is their creation, not a party with authority to define its own powers.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Calhoun: 'The error is in the assumption that the general or the federal government is a party to the constitutional compact.'

States have the right to judge constitutional infractions

Summary: Because states are the parties to the compact, each state has an equal right to judge whether the federal government has violated the Constitution.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'Each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as the mode and measures of redress.'

The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states

Summary: The Constitution delegates only limited powers to the federal government; all other powers remain with the states or the people.

Evidence: Weaver quotes the 10th Amendment: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.'

States' rights are the bulwark of liberty

Summary: The preservation of state sovereignty is essential to protecting individual liberties against federal overreach.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'The true bulwarks of our liberty in this country are our state governments.'

The servant has become the master

Summary: The federal government has usurped power and now acts as master over the states, reversing the intended order.

Evidence: Weaver cites Ecclesiastes 10:7: 'I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth.'

Scripture References

Romans 13:1-4

Context: Weaver reads this passage as the biblical starting point for discussing civil government and submission to authorities.

Ecclesiastes 10:7

Context: Weaver uses this verse to illustrate the reversal of roles where the federal government (servant) now rules over the states (princes).

Psalm 82

Context: Weaver briefly references this psalm as a judgment against unjust magistrates and a world turned upside down.

Jeremiah 6

Context: Weaver alludes to the call to return to the old paths and righteous ways.

Historical References

Articles of Confederation (1781)

Context: Weaver quotes Article II to show that each state retained its sovereignty and independence.

Treaty of Paris (1783)

Context: Weaver notes that King George III acknowledged 13 separate sovereign states in the treaty ending the Revolutionary War.

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798-1799)

Context: Weaver cites Jefferson and Madison's resolutions as the classic statement of states' rights and nullification.

South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification (1832)

Context: Weaver reads from the ordinance nullifying the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 as unconstitutional.

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Context: Weaver recounts how Georgia refused to appear before the Supreme Court, leading to the 11th Amendment.

Federalist No. 45 (James Madison)

Context: Weaver quotes Madison on the limited and defined powers of the federal government.

Fort Hill Address (John C. Calhoun, 1831)

Context: Weaver quotes Calhoun's argument that the federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact.

Jefferson's Inaugural Address and letters

Context: Weaver quotes Jefferson on the importance of state governments as the bulwark of liberty.

Important Quotes

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

Significance: Establishes the foundational principle that states were sovereign and only delegated limited powers to the central government.

The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government.

Significance: Succinctly states the proper relationship between states and federal government.

Resolved that the several states comprising the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

Significance: Jefferson's clear rejection of unlimited federal authority.

The error is in the assumption that the general or the federal government is a party to the constitutional compact.

Significance: Calhoun's key argument that the federal government is not a party to the Constitution.

I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

Significance: Biblical illustration of the reversal of roles between states and federal government.

The true bulwarks of our liberty in this country are our state governments.

Significance: Jefferson's assertion that state sovereignty protects liberty.

Discussion Questions

How does the historical understanding of states as sovereign entities challenge the modern view of federal supremacy?

Context: Weaver argues that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.

What are the practical implications of the claim that the federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact?

Context: Weaver quotes Calhoun's argument that the states alone are parties to the compact.

In what ways have we seen the 'servant become the master' in our current political system?

Context: Weaver uses Ecclesiastes 10:7 to illustrate the reversal of roles.

How should Christians balance submission to governing authorities (Romans 13) with the right to resist tyranny?

Context: Weaver reads Romans 13 but also advocates for states' rights to nullify unconstitutional acts.

What role does ignorance of history and Scripture play in the loss of liberty?

Context: Weaver states that ignorance has allowed the people to be 'bamboozled.'

Applications

Study history and the Constitution

Summary: Weaver urges listeners to learn their true history and read the Constitution to understand their rights.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'Most of us have never read the Constitution... Some of you never even read your Bible all the way through one time.'

Develop a biblical worldview of government

Summary: Christians must view civil government through the lens of Scripture, recognizing God's design for limited authority.

Evidence: Weaver emphasizes: 'We need to have a biblical view... of government.'

Reject dependency on government

Summary: Weaver calls for a return to personal responsibility and a biblical work ethic instead of relying on government provision.

Evidence: Weaver states: 'We need to go back to... the biblical work ethic. And learn to take care of ourselves and our family.'

Hold state legislators accountable

Summary: Weaver argues that state officials must have the backbone to stand against federal overreach.

Evidence: Weaver says: 'Our state legislators do not have the backbone... to stand on their own two feet and look at the federal government and say, You are our servant.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T00:49:53Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T15:08:08Z

Clean Transcript

State's Rights - Part 1

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

Now, let me just begin tonight by telling you, first of all, what I would like to do tonight and tomorrow night, just so you will have an idea. Really and truly, the message that I want to bring tonight and tomorrow night happens to be one message. I'm just going to have to cut it in half. The first half is basically historical. There will be a little Bible tonight, but tomorrow night will be more Bible and some history. But tonight will be mainly historical. And let me just point out that I would encourage the teenagers as well as the adults to listen, because I can assure you that you will hear things tonight that you've never heard in your schools. And unhappily, we are ignorant of our history, we're ignorant of our heritage, and we're ignorant of our Bibles.
#1 | 0:00 to 0:46 | cleaned
And consequently, we've been bamboozled down through the years. Now, let me just say, as you open your Bibles to Romans chapter 13, I do want you to turn there. Let me just say that I was really thrilled to hear that you have a Christian worldview Sunday school class. Most people do not understand how important that really is. You see, you have to look at things either from the spectacles of the word of God or from the spectacles of the world, there's no other alternative. Once you learn to look at things through the word of God, then you're going to find out what reality really is, because God determines reality and not the world. We need to have a biblical view, not only of economics, and I'd really love to deal with that all week, but we need to have a biblical worldview of education, a biblical worldview of the ministry, biblical worldview of government, biblical worldview of the family. In other words, God speaks on every one of these subjects. And tonight and probably tomorrow night as well as maybe one or two other nights.
#2 | 0:46 to 2:01 | cleaned
I don't know just yet. I'm going to be dealing some with the Bible and civil government. I want you to understand that God gives us the answers. We are the ones who refuse to hearken and refuse to listen. But if we begin to hear what God says and begin to apply the truth, then we're going to have our problems worked out so. Look in your Bibles if you would please to the book of Romans chapter 13 tonight. Romans chapter 13 and let's read the first four verses. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
#3 | 2:01 to 2:51 | cleaned
"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
#4 | 2:51 to 3:12 | cleaned
What in the world does the Bible say about a subject that you and I have heard all of our lives, and that is the subject of states' rights? Have you ever thought about that? What in the world do states' rights have to do with what we're facing today? Well, let me just tell you that states' rights, historically, and I'm going to point out tomorrow night biblically, are an antidote to federal tyranny. Without states' rights, the states basically are nothing more than feudal servants or slaves, basically, working on the federal plantation. Let me just illustrate this by giving you something that I heard in 1999. It was during the month of August, and I was listening to the news, and I heard with my own ears a U.S.
#5 | 3:12 to 4:05 | cleaned
District Attorney from California make this statement. He said, "Federal law is superior to state law." And when he said that, I just did a double take. I said, "What?" Remember now, he said federal law is superior to state law. If that statement is true, then all of the 50 states are nothing more than servants and the federal government is the master. If that is true, there is absolutely no way that any state may protect its citizens. If that is true, then no state can fight unfunded mandates or any mandates. It cannot make laws that would protect its citizens, nor can it make any laws that would contradict federal law. In other words, the federal government would be supreme and sovereign and the ruler over everything. And whenever the federal government spoke, then the states would just simply have to jump. And that simply means the people in the states as well.
#6 | 4:05 to 5:10 | cleaned
Now, the only conclusion that I can come to, based upon what that U.S. district attorney said, is this: that he is absolutely, totally ignorant of history, the Constitution, and the Bible.
#7 | 5:11 to 5:25 | cleaned
Now, moreover, he does not understand why the first war of independence was fought, nor does he understand why the second war of 1861 to 1865 for independence was fought either. If his statement is true, it is only true because we have been transformed from a constitutional republic into a federal empire, and we have progressed further down the road of slavery than any of us ever realized. So in order to understand the predicament that we're in in this country, we've got to understand it both historically and biblically as well.
#8 | 5:27 to 6:06 | cleaned
And so tonight I'm going to be dealing primarily with the historical part, and then try to tie it together tomorrow night to show you that what our Founding Fathers said was indeed biblical and scriptural to the nth degree. So let's begin at the very beginning. You see, when our country first began, we had what was known as the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were drawn up in 1781, and Article II makes this statement. Listen carefully. It says, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Now notice what the Articles of Confederation said. Each state had its own sovereignty, freedom, and independence, its own power, its own jurisdiction. The only thing that the states gave up was just a little bit of power to the federal government as such. Do you remember when the war for independence ended? It was ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. And by the way, just so you will know, George III, King of England, when he made peace with the United States, made peace with 13 separate sovereign states.
#9 | 6:06 to 7:31 | cleaned
Listen, if you would, to the opening of the Treaty of Paris. Here it is: "His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, in other words, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free and sovereign and independent states and that he treats with them as such, as for himself, his heirs and
#10 | 7:33 to 8:01 | cleaned
successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, property, and territorial rights, of the same in every part thereof." Isn't that interesting? When he said that he was acknowledging the said United States, he then delineated and named all 13 states and said that they were free, sovereign, and independent states. So George III then made peace with each of the 13 states. When the Constitutional Convention met, the state of Georgia sent its delegation there, and they carried a commission that opened with these words. I love them. "The state of Georgia, by the grace of God, free, sovereign, and independent." Notice that. The state of Georgia, by the grace of God. You see, when the United States Constitution was written, it was the states who came together and agreed to create what you and I know as the federal government. And they gave to the federal government certain limited power and authority.
#11 | 8:01 to 9:05 | cleaned
Please understand this very important principle. Listen carefully. The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government. And they created it to be federal, not national. And there's a big difference between those two things. The federal government that was created and authorized by the states was to act solely as the agents of the states, and the states were the real sovereigns who had the real power, and the federal government was to do only those things that were delegated to it by the states. Now listen carefully, and I'm going to demonstrate this more not only tonight but tomorrow night as well. The right to decide whether or not the federal government did or did not act according to the Compact, that is the Constitution, belonged to the states alone who were the true sovereigns. It did not belong to the federal government. If you allowed the federal government to determine its own limitations, guess what? It won't have any.
#12 | 9:06 to 10:14 | cleaned
That's just like you coming up to me and saying, "Pastor Weaver, I owe you some money. How much do I owe you?" "Well, just let me tell you, all right?" "Well, come on." If the federal government is going to determine its own limitations, then it's going to have unlimited power. It's going to be tyrannical and despotic.
#13 | 10:15 to 10:33 | cleaned
Now, you see, when the Constitution of the United States was acceded to by the states, there were several states who understood that, you know, there's a possibility things might get out of hand. And we want to have a little disclaimer for that. So when the state of New York acceded to the Constitution of the United States on July the 26th, 1788, it added these words, listen carefully, "that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." So the state of New York said, all right, yes, we're going to take the Constitution, but we want you to understand that whenever this people want to reassume those powers, they may do so. Did you realize Virginia did exactly the same thing on June 25, 1788 when it acceded to the Constitution? They added these words, "the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them at their will."
#14 | 10:34 to 11:52 | cleaned
So Virginia said, look, any time the Constitution gets perverted. Anytime there is oppression, anytime there's anything we don't like, then we may reassume, we may take back the power that we gave to the federal government. Now, if you really want to understand the sovereignty and the independence of each of these states, you need to consider this fact, that when the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787, that only 11 of the original 13 states ratified it immediately. North Carolina and Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution right away. I want you to note something. The Constitution was not forced upon them.
#15 | 11:53 to 12:43 | cleaned
It was not considered the majority rules. The other states didn't say, "Well, tough luck. I mean, we all agreed and we're the majority and you're in whether you like it or not." No, no, didn't work like that. You know, North Carolina and Rhode Island were treated by the other states just like they were sovereign, separate nations, because that's basically what they were. And by the way, when Rhode Island and North Carolina did not immediately join and accede to the Constitution of the United States, there was no war to force them to join the Union. None. Why?
#16 | 12:44 to 13:30 | cleaned
Because each state realized that it had its own sovereignty, its own independence, and it could do what it wanted to do. When over a year later, North Carolina and Rhode Island did accede to the Constitution, Rhode Island also added these words: "We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and plantations, duly elected, do declare and make known that the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." Wow. So if it's going to make the people happy, to resume and take away the power that was given to the federal government?
#17 | 13:31 to 14:16 | cleaned
Fine, they said, we can do that. You see, a number of the original states delineated their right to take back what they had delegated to the federal government. How many of you have heard that on the news recently? How many of you have been taught that in school? Did you know that Thomas Jefferson and that James Madison wrote what are known as the Virginia and the Kentucky Resolutions? It was these resolutions that gave us the classic statement of states' rights. And in those resolutions, I'm going to quote some of them in just a moment, but in those resolutions they basically tell us that the union is a voluntary association of the states and if the central government or the federal government goes too far, and does anything illegal or unconstitutional, then the states then have the right to nullify or abrogate that law. Listen to what Thomas Jefferson wrote. He said, now listen to this opening statement: "Resolved that the several states comprising the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government."
#18 | 14:17 to 15:36 | cleaned
What? Let me just stop there. Did you hear that? He says we are not united on the principle of unlimited submission. We don't owe the federal government unlimited submission. That was Thomas Jefferson. He goes further, "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 the Constitution for the United States and of the amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain defined powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of rights to their own self-government, and that, whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force, that to this compact each state acceded as a state and is as an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself the other party. Each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as the mode and measures of redress." Now that's Thomas Jefferson.
#19 | 15:37 to 16:57 | cleaned
I want you to listen to what he said. And this is going to be very important later that you remember this. He said, here are the parties to this compact, this constitution. It is this state and each of the other states. What does that mean? It means the federal government was not a party to the compact. It was not a party to the federal compact. And then Thomas Jefferson goes on to say that whenever the federal government goes over and above and beyond the Constitution, then therefore its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. And then he goes on to say this, that each party, that is each state, has an equal right to judge for itself as well
#20 | 16:57 to 17:53 | cleaned
of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. So that means this, if the federal government then passed an unconstitutional law, South Carolina might say, "Well, what we're going to do is slap them on the back of the hand and reprimand them and tell them we're not going to put up with this anymore." Georgia might say, "Well, we're going to call out the militia." In other words, it's up to each state how they redress the grievance. In other words, not all the states had to agree on the exact same measure.
#21 | 17:53 to 18:26 | cleaned
Now, that doesn't mean that there's going to be an open fight all the time, but I'm just simply saying it was showing you the power of each state. Now, South Carolina applied this principle to the tariffs of abomination. You remember the tariffs of 1828 and 1832? And by the way, our tariffs, our taxes are bad and they're high. But I mean, back then, they wanted to raise some of those tariffs 50 and 60 percent back then. And primarily, it would be the South that would be paying those taxes. So, what South Carolina did is, it drew up an ordinance of nullification.
#22 | 18:26 to 19:12 | cleaned
nullifying those laws because they were unconstitutional. Here is what the Ordinance of Nullification said: "We, therefore, the people of the state of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain that these acts, that is, those tariffs, are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers, or citizens, and all promises, contracts, and obligations made or entered into, or to be made and entered into, with purpose to secure duties imposed by these said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be utterly null and void, period." Now what's South Carolina say? South Carolina said, look, these tariffs are unconstitutional.
#23 | 19:13 to 20:10 | cleaned
That's the end of it. There's not going to be any party coming down here trying to bind the officers of this state, the citizens of this state, or anything in this state to these laws because they're unconstitutional. And then they go on to say this, and it doesn't really matter what the courts say. That's what it said, "and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof are and shall be utterly null and void." In other words, we're not going to recognize it even if they get the Supreme Court to say so. That was South Carolina.
#24 | 20:10 to 20:48 | cleaned
Listen to the concluding paragraph: "And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end, that it may be fully understood by the government of the United States and the people of the co-states, that we are determined to maintain this, our ordinance and declaration, at every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the application of force on the part of the federal government to reduce this state to obedience."
#25 | 20:50 to 21:19 | cleaned
Now let me just stop there. There's a little bit more. But what does South Carolina say? If you want to send down your army, have at it. We are still not going to submit and the use of force will not make us submit. Listen to what else the concluding paragraph said, "but that we will consider the passage by Congress of any act to coerce this state, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby declared to be null and void otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union and that the people of this state will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other states, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent states may have a right to." Now, listen to what South Carolina said.
#26 | 21:19 to 22:25 | cleaned
And we're talking the 1830s now. We're not talking the 1860s. We're talking the 1830s. South Carolina said, if you try to coerce us, if you try to force us, we'll just withdraw from the Union. We will separate and we will set up our own government because we are a free, sovereign, independent state and we have a right to do that.
#27 | 22:25 to 22:46 | cleaned
Now you've got to ask yourself this question. Did South Carolina misinterpret the Constitution? And the answer is no. James Madison is called the father of the Constitution. And the reason he's called the father of the Constitution is because he was secretary at the Constitutional Convention and he wrote down everything and he had everything in writing so he knew what was said and what was not said and the intent and everything. In the Federalist Papers number 45 he said this, now listen carefully, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.
#28 | 22:47 to 23:30 | cleaned
Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former, that is the federal government, will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected, that is foreign commerce. The powers reserved over several states will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."
#29 | 23:31 to 24:05 | cleaned
Now, what did James Madison say? He said, you don't have to worry because the federal government has been given few and limited power. The great majority of the power resides with the states. It will be the states that will be dictating to the people because the people control the states, and therefore the people will be running the state, and they will be determining their own improvements and everything else they want to do, not the federal government.
#30 | 24:05 to 24:35 | cleaned
Now, those of you who have studied the Constitution know that the Ninth and Tenth Amendment clearly make this very plain. In fact, the Ninth Amendment says this. If I were to ask you, what are the first ten amendments called? Most of you would tell me the Bill of Rights. And yes, we have some rights enumerated in the Constitution. But listen to what the Ninth Amendment says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." We have far more rights than those that are listed in those ten amendments. And just because ten are listed doesn't mean that's all we have.
#31 | 24:35 to 25:27 | cleaned
We have a whole lot more. And then the tenth amendment says this: "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." So, the 10th Amendment makes it very plain that, look, we've given you a little power, that's it. The rest of it goes to the states.
#32 | 25:29 to 25:53 | cleaned
Now, Jeff Davis used this argument on the equality of the states. You remember when the abolitionists did not want the southern states taking their slaves out in the western territory. And what they were trying to do was basically not abolish slavery, but they were trying to control the situation. And Jeff Davis said, now wait a minute, wait a minute. It was southern men who fought for those territories. It was southern money who helped finance that. Southerners have a right to go out there and carry whomever they want to carry out there. Just like abolitionists do. And here's his argument. Listen to it. Jeff Davis writes, "Resolved that the union of these states rests on an equality of rights and privileges among its members.
#33 | 25:54 to 26:44 | cleaned
And that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the states in their sovereign capacity to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to personal property, so as in the territories, listen, which are the common possessions of the United States, to give advantages to the citizens of one state which are not equally secured to those of every other state." So he said, look, you can't do that. What you're trying to do is give special privileges to one state or to a group of states and deny those same privileges to other states. No, he said, the states are equally the party in the Constitution.
#34 | 26:45 to 27:24 | cleaned
And so it's unconstitutional to do that. Now, many of you have heard me speak before and some other men, too, of James Henley Thornwell. James Henley Thornwell was a Presbyterian pastor. He was an author. He was a theologian. And he died in 1862. So he died after the war had been going on for basically a year. But he wrote a little tract called "Our Danger and Our Duty." And James Henry Thornwell had a lot of foresight. And he wrote something in this tract that really hit the nail on the head.
#35 | 27:25 to 28:01 | cleaned
This is what he said: "If they prevail," now he's talking about the radical Republicans, the abolitionists, the northern states. He says, "If they prevail, the whole character of a government will be changed. And instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent states, we shall have a central despotism with the notion of the states forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will and shaping its policy according to the wishes of a numerical majority of the people."
#36 | 28:01 to 28:35 | cleaned
"We shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresistible democracy. The avowed end of this present war is to make the government a government of force." I find it interesting that he said if they prevail, they're going to change the very nature of our government. They're going to change it from a constitutional republic into something entirely different. And it's going to be a supreme democracy where the majority rules over and tramples over the minority. And then he says the avowed end of this war is to make the government a government of force.
#37 | 28:35 to 29:22 | cleaned
Has that come to pass? Well, most definitely it has. You know, it's interesting as you read what other countries wrote about the war and about America, and I just received a new book that has most of the articles that England wrote in observing the war and observing the United States back at that particular time. But most of the people back then understood that this government that was set up was set up as the states being the masters and the federal government being the servant. In fact, even Alexis de Tocqueville in his book "Democracy in America" made that observation that we were a union of states and the states had the power and the federal government was the servant. You see, that was so understood back then.
#38 | 29:24 to 30:21 | cleaned
And it was so understood, especially in the South, and by the way, I hope you understand that one of the problems, and there were many problems, but one of the problems that existed between the North and the South was this. The South wanted a strict construction, a strict understanding of the Constitution, when the North said, "No, we'll interpret it any way we want to." No, the South said, "You can't do that."
#39 | 30:21 to 30:45 | cleaned
We were parties to this compact. There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret this. And so the South then, when the South seceded and the Confederate Constitution was written, it opens in the preamble with these words, "We the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character." Isn't that amazing? So the southern states then, the Confederate states, were going to preserve state sovereignty while the North was trying to destroy it.
#40 | 30:45 to 31:26 | cleaned
Now here's what is happening in our day and time. We have a number of politicians who have been giving lip service to states' rights without even understanding of states' rights or without knowing how to apply the principle of states' rights. For example, in 1980, in the opening day of President Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign, he said that he stood for states' rights. The same day, in the same meeting, your now deceased Senator Strom Thurmond from South Carolina said this, "We want the federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states."
#41 | 31:26 to 32:10 | cleaned
Well, folks, let me just tell you this. Words fitly spoken without understanding or without application are basically useless. What am I trying to say? It's very easy to talk about states' rights. It's very easy to talk about independence. Until you begin to make application of it, and then you begin to see, well, if we apply this principle, then this has to go and this has to go and that has to change and this has to change.
#42 | 32:12 to 32:43 | cleaned
And all of a sudden, we're not ready for change, we don't want it. Now, John C. Calhoun, who was from South Carolina, by the way, who was known as that iron clad southerner, gave a Fort Hill address on July the 26th, 1831. And I want to quote some of this, but I want you to listen to this one statement he made. Listen carefully. Here is the error in our modern day thinking. And John C. Calhoun said this back in 1831. Calhoun said, "The error is in the assumption that the general or the federal government is a party to the constitutional compact. The states, as it has been shown, form the compact acting as sovereign and independent communities." What does that mean? It means the federal government was not a party to the compact. It was over here.
#43 | 32:44 to 33:44 | cleaned
It's kind of like this. If Mr. Wilson and I enter into a compact, we enter into a covenant, we enter into an agreement, and all of a sudden Ted comes over and says, "Now you should do this and you should do it like this." And we look at Ted and say, "Who are you? You don't have anything to do with this covenant. You don't have anything to do with this compact."
#44 | 33:45 to 34:10 | cleaned
You just stay out of our business. Do you follow me? So if the states then are the parties to the compact, the federal government is not a party to it. They're the ones who created the federal government, so they have the right to tell the federal government what it can do and what it cannot do. Now, John C. Calhoun went on to say this. He said, "The great and leading principle is that the general government emanated from the people of the several states, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all the people forming one aggregate political community." Let me stop there.
#45 | 34:12 to 34:53 | cleaned
Listen to what he said. He said that the way our government came about was that the states came together. This is very important. Then he says this, "and not from all the people forming one aggregate political community." What in the world is he saying? You know, there was a man by the name of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Abraham Lincoln, who said the nation preceded the states. And that the people were the United States before the states ever came into existence.
#46 | 34:55 to 35:30 | cleaned
No, he said, that's hooey. That's not right. And he's fighting against the false interpretation of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and Abraham Lincoln. And he says, no, it was not one great big aggregate political community, no, it was the states who came together. And he says this, "and they came together and formed the Constitution of the United States, which is in fact a compact to which each state is a party, and the character already described, and that the several states or parties have a right to judge of its infractions, and in case of deliberate, palpable,
#47 | 35:30 to 36:06 | cleaned
and dangerous exercise of power, not delegated, they have a right in the last resort to use the language of Virginia resolutions to interpose for arresting the progress of evil and maintaining with their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
#48 | 36:06 to 36:24 | cleaned
Now, I have a whole sermon back there on the doctrine of interposition. And he just said that the states have the right to interpose. You know what that means? It means this. The states are supposed to be the protector of our rights. That's the way it was set up. And so when the federal government comes along and passes an unconstitutional law or does something that's going to harm the people of the states, then the states are to come in and interpose. They're to step in between and say, "Oh, you're not going to do that to our citizens. You're not going to do that to our people." So the states then have a right to interpose themselves. He says, "This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the state of Virginia, may be called states' rights, vetoed, nullification, or by any other name.
#49 | 36:24 to 37:17 | cleaned
He says, "I conceive it to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on historical facts." In the same address, John C. Calhoun nailed it down with these words, and I want you to think about this. Here's what he asked: "Stripped of all of its coverings, the naked question is whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government, a constitutional government or an absolute one, a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the states or on the unrestrained will of a majority. A form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice and violence and force must finally prevail." And then he says this, "Let it never be forgotten that where the majority rules without restriction, the minority is always the subject." Now, folks, listen. Here is the question. Do we have a federal government or do we have a consolidated one? Do we have a constitutional republic or do we have an absolute government? How the states exercise their right of interposition was up to the states. And they cannot delegate this right without surrendering their entire sovereignty.
#50 | 37:17 to 38:50 | cleaned
If the states no longer can say, "Hold, wait, stop, you're not going to do this," then the states are not sovereign, the states are servants. And I've got news for you folks, we're all servants working men on the federal plantation.
#51 | 38:51 to 39:07 | cleaned
Now, when one forgets this simple truth, which we have forgotten in this country, but when one forgets this simple truth, we have what we presently endure, a federal government completely out of control with usurped unlimited power and demanding a usurped and unlimited submission by the citizens to its every whim and every rule and every regulation, period. I'll tell you what, if you want to look in Washington, D.C., and unhappily sometimes in a lot of the state capitals now, you will find what nearly three to five hundred thousand Southern soldiers died to prevent.
#52 | 39:11 to 40:07 | cleaned
In 1855, Senator Benjamin F. Wade from Ohio. Benjamin F. Wade was a notorious hater of the South. He had no love of the South whatsoever. But Benjamin F. Wade at least understood one thing, and he said this in a speech before the United States Senate. He said, "Who is the judge of last resort of the violation of the Constitution of the United States by the enactment of law?" And let's stop there.
#53 | 40:17 to 40:59 | cleaned
Think about what he just asked. Who is the judge of last resort as to whether or not the Constitution has been violated by an enactment of law? He goes on. "Who is the final arbiter?" Now listen. "The general government or the states in their sovereignty. Why, sir, to yield that point is to yield up all the rights of the states to protect their own citizens and to consolidate this government into a miserable despotism."
#54 | 41:00 to 41:35 | cleaned
Now, what did Benjamin F. Wade just get out of his mouth? Benjamin F. Wade said if the government can determine whether or not it acts constitutional, the states are nothing. We have a tyrant and we're working on the plantation. I want you to stop and think about this. Is the Supreme Court the determiner of what is constitutional and what is not constitutional? You've been told that. Is the Congress the determiner? Is the executive office the determiner? If you leave the right to determine what is and is not constitutional with the federal government, that's like leaving it the right to define its own powers and its own authority. No, it comes back to the states and it comes back to the people. You see, the Constitution of the United States was never devised to establish a centralized government. The Constitution of the United States that was ordained by the states was never intended to abolish, replace, or destroy the states and their fundamental rights. Moreover, it was not designed to create a legal system that would allow the federal government to slowly and gradually usurp authority and consolidate all that power and authority in Washington.
#55 | 41:36 to 43:14 | cleaned
The Constitution was not designed for that. Was it not Jefferson who said, "Bind them down with the chains of the Constitution"? Thomas Jefferson in 1821 said this, listen, see if he knows exactly where we are today. But Thomas Jefferson said in 1821, "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and as oppressive as the government from which we separated." Wow! He said, when you have all power drawn to Washington in little and in great things, in foreign and domestic things, it will become as venal and as oppressive as the one from which we separated, that is, George III of England. Jefferson, in his inaugural address, asked a rhetorical question. He asked what it was this country needed, and then he answered his own question. He said it needed a wise and frugal government, one that would restrain men from injuring each other, but otherwise leave them free to their own pursuits.
#56 | 43:14 to 44:40 | cleaned
He then asked, how was this to be obtained? And he answered the question by saying it like this, that we needed to avoid entangling alliances, that we needed to preserve the rights of election, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to trial by jury, and most importantly he said this, "We need to support the state governments in all their rights as the most competent administration for our domestic concern and the surest bulwarks of our liberty." What did Jefferson say? When the states lose their sovereignty and independence, we've lost our liberty. Jefferson said it plainly, states' rights are the bulwark of our liberties. The loss of states' rights equals the loss of our liberties. Let me say it like this.
#57 | 44:41 to 45:40 | cleaned
Our founding fathers were patriots who loved their country. They were not nationalists who loved their government. There's a big difference. There's a big difference. In a letter that Jefferson wrote to Tracey in 1811, he said again, "The true bulwarks of our liberty in this country are our state governments." These men could not envision the states allowing the federal government to intrude and steal their sovereignty and their independence. States' rights are indeed a bulwark of liberty. Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee, father of Robert E. Lee, and Samuel Adams said this, that he feared that the misinterpretation of the Constitution would bring about a fully centralized or consolidated government in the federal government at the expense of the states and sink both into despotism. Wow.
#58 | 45:40 to 46:42 | cleaned
Now let me ask you a question. Have you wondered what has happened in our country? Has it bugged you? Has it bothered you? Maybe I'm the only one who thinks like this. What in the world is happening? How can we allow politicians to get away with what they did? Did you know that 38 of our congressmen voted against making English the official language of this country? My question is, what language do they want? Chinese? Russian, come on. I mean, if they don't want English, they want some language. How is it that we allow things like this to happen?
#59 | 46:44 to 47:35 | cleaned
Well, let me show you something. Look in your Bibles to the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 10. Ecclesiastes, chapter 10. Look there. I want you to see what the wise man observed. And this is exactly where we are today. Ecclesiastes chapter 10, and look, if you would please, at verse 7. Solomon said, "I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth." What? I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth. That's just reversed. The princes ought to be riding. And the servants ought to be walking.
#60 | 47:35 to 48:23 | cleaned
You know what has happened in this country? The reason we have lost our liberty and the reason we've lost our freedom is because our state legislators do not have the backbone, do not have the knowledge, do not have the constitutionalism and the conviction to stand on their own two feet and look at the federal government and say, "You are our servant. You don't tell us what to do. We tell you what to do." You see, what has happened is this. Our servant has become our master and our servant is now riding upon a horse that we provided and is trampling us in the ground. Solomon said something's wrong.
#61 | 48:25 to 49:11 | cleaned
You ought to read Psalm 82, and I'm not going to preach on that tonight. But there, God talks about having the world basically turned upside down. And Psalm 82 is a psalm against the magistrates. It's a psalm against the judges. And he's saying that when things are not done righteously and justly, then it's just turning everything upside down. You see, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 33 on January 3, 1788, said this.
#62 | 49:14 to 49:39 | cleaned
"If the federal government should overpass its just bounds of authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people whose creature it is must appeal to the standard that they have formed and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prove it justified." Now listen to what he said. If the federal government does go beyond the Constitution, what is it? The people, he said, who created it must come along and say, "No, no, no.
#63 | 49:42 to 50:15 | cleaned
We will not allow this. We will not have this happening." You say, "Come on, Brother Weaver, that's just never been done." Oh, yes, it has been done. One of my favorite court cases is Chisholm v. Georgia. I don't know if you know about that court case, but it was a 1793 case. In 1793, there was a fellow in South Carolina who thought that the state of Georgia owed him some money. So Mr. Chisholm then went to the Supreme Court of the United States and said, "State of Georgia owes me some money and I want to sue the state of Georgia." Well, the Supreme Court of the United States sent word to Georgia, "There's a suit up here against you and you need to come up here and defend yourselves in this suit.
#64 | 50:16 to 51:15 | cleaned
And we expect you here because the hearing will be such and such date." The state of Georgia said to the Supreme Court of the United States, now I'm paraphrasing this, "Kiss my foot." What the state of Georgia said, "Look, you are our servant, not our master. You don't tell us what to do. We tell you what to do. And if you think the state of Georgia is coming up to Washington, D.C., you are mistaken." Well, the Supreme Court sent word, said, "Fine, you don't have to appear. We will have the hearing without you and we will issue our decision whether you are here or not." Well, wonderful. The Georgia House of Representatives then went into session and passed a bill making it a felony by hanging for any person to come into the state of Georgia to carry out the edicts of the Supreme Court and said they would be hanged immediately without the benefit of clergy. Guess what happened? The 11th Amendment was passed then, which stopped all of that stuff.
#65 | 51:16 to 52:27 | cleaned
And they said, "No, no, not anymore." You see, the people of Georgia back then said, "We're not going to allow that. We are not going to have that." What has happened in this country? The servant has become the master and the master has become the servant. How in the world did this come about? Well, you could say it came about by fraud, apathy, ignorance, subterfuge, deceit, manipulation, and I'm sure all of those are part of the answer.
#66 | 52:27 to 53:02 | cleaned
However, I believe Alexis de Tocqueville took the hammer and hit the nail right on the head when he said this, "The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." Folks, let me tell you something. We, as a people in this country, have become so indolent, so lazy, so selfish, so irresponsible in our lives, we want to live off the labor and the discipline of others. You know, it's bad to listen to news this day in time, in fact, I usually, I try not to do it because I get so upset, but you know, whether you agree with Bush or not is immaterial right now, but you know Bush is making a tour of Latin American countries, and I
#67 | 53:06 to 54:12 | cleaned
heard, down in Guatemala, they're protesting him because that America has forgotten them. What? Are we responsible to take care of the people of Guatemala? Are we responsible to take care of the people of China? Are we responsible to take care of the people of Russia? Who are we responsible to take care of? Let's be honest. You see what I'm saying? We have become, and the world has become, so indolent and so lazy, we do not have a biblical work ethic. We will not take care of ourselves.
#68 | 54:12 to 54:50 | cleaned
We will not plan for our future. We will not say we will not do anything. We want the federal government to take care of us. And if they don't, we expect the state government to. You see, the truth of the matter is this. You listen to any of the federal judges when they are being challenged. And they're being shown laws where numerous things are unconstitutional and illegal. You know what the attitude of most judges is? The attitude is usually, "Well, I'm not going to be the one to bring down the system."
#69 | 54:51 to 55:29 | cleaned
We are so fearful of change. And you know what? Because we don't want to change, we are willing to accept bad government. Someone says, "Well, Brother Weaver, you know, the government provides this and they provide that." You've got to remember, folks, they can't give to you what they do not take from someone else. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody somewhere pays, period. Somebody pays. But you say, "Well, look, if we try to change now, just think what would happen.
#70 | 55:36 to 56:21 | cleaned
I mean, man, there would be anarchy." No, there wouldn't be anarchy. Listen to what Richard Henry Lee said. Listen to this. I love this. He said, "To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying."
#71 | 56:22 to 56:40 | cleaned
You know, there's a verse in the book of Jeremiah, chapter six, where God says that we're to go back to the old paths. And stand in the old ways. Because those were the ways of righteousness. You know what this country needs to go back to, folks, we need to go back to God's righteousness, back to the Bible. Back to the foundation. Back to Jesus Christ. Back to the Constitution. Back to the biblical work ethic.
#72 | 56:49 to 57:24 | cleaned
And learn to take care of ourselves and our family. And when we realize that it's not the responsibility of government or the responsibility of anyone else to take care of us, it's our responsibility. And we start doing something about it, things are going to start changing. Folks, let me tell you. We have so much tyranny in this country, and I'm going to bring a quote out tomorrow. That's unbelievable.
#73 | 57:26 to 57:54 | cleaned
You would not think that someone would have had the foresight to say it, but he did. But we have so much tyranny in this country without even realizing it. Can you imagine the executive orders and the signing papers and all the things that are going on in this country to steal our liberties? And most of the time we don't even know it. Nobody's been upset with the Patriot Act, except those people that it's been used against. Nobody's been upset with Homeland Security, except those people who's been thrown into jail and imprisoned and shot needlessly. Yeah, it upsets them. You know, I travel a lot and.
#74 | 57:56 to 58:55 | cleaned
I have to pray for grace. My wife and I were at the airport in California getting ready to fly home. And here was a little woman in her 80s and her husband in his 80s and here they're going through this metal detector and this little old man is walking like this. And they want to strip search him. I said, "Come on, give him a knife, I'll take it away from him."
#75 | 58:59 to 59:32 | cleaned
We have lost our mind. There was a little nun in her habit, she had to be in her 70s and I'll guarantee you, I could have blown her over. She couldn't have weighed 85 pounds soaking wet. And they were patting her down. But you let those who really look like terrorists, and they won't pat them down because that's racial profiling.
#76 | 59:37 to 1:00:06 | cleaned
Am I the only one that thinks we've gone crazy in this country? We've lost our mind. We've lost our moorings. We've lost our foundation. And if we do not come back to a biblical view and learn to see government biblically, as well as historically, if we do not come back and learn to see every aspect and every area of life through the eyes of the word of God.
#77 | 1:00:16 to 1:00:42 | cleaned
We're going to get in deeper and deeper and deeper trouble. I like what Steve Wilkins said. He said that the war was over in 1865. They did not destroy slavery. They just merely enlarged the plantation. Now we're all slaves. You say, "I resent that." Well, you may resent it, but I'll tell you what. If you don't jump when they say jump, you'll find out who owns your property and who doesn't own your property and who controls your life and who doesn't control your life. And if you don't have your papers in order, you'll find out very quickly who's in control.
#78 | 1:00:44 to 1:01:35 | cleaned
And it's not we, the people, nor is it today the word of God, because people laugh at the word of God. Did you know there is a new Bible coming out that combines our Bible, the Buddhist scriptures, the Hindu scriptures, and it says that Jesus Christ was the son of Mary and a gorilla? You say, "How can something like that happen in this country?" You want to go up I-75, travel all the way up north and look at all the Muslim temples.
#79 | 1:01:35 to 1:02:32 | cleaned
And I don't mean their little tiny buildings. Their spires are bigger than this building. What is happening? I'm going to show you tomorrow night, folks, we've lost our foundation. And when we don't know what the Bible teaches and what God demands, and we don't know what our Constitution is, most of us have never read the Constitution. If I were to ask you to raise your hand, if you ever read it all the way through one time, most of you have never read it all the way through one time. Some of you never even read your Bible all the way through one time.
#80 | 1:02:34 to 1:03:19 | cleaned
And Lord, have mercy how ignorant we are on history. All I'm saying is, folks, we need to come back to where we should be, and that's bowing at the feet of Jesus Christ, saying your word is true in every area, whether it's government, whether it's economics, whether it's education, whether it's family, whether it's home, it doesn't matter. His word is truth. For Jesus Christ is truth. Let's pray. Father, we're so thankful today for Your love and for Your Word. And we're thankful, Father, for the history that You've given us. And we know and we understand that history is nothing less than Your eternal decrees coming to pass in time. Help us to learn, help us to have an understanding, and help us to see, Father, from where we have fallen, so at least we can find our way back.
#81 | 1:03:24 to 1:04:26 | cleaned
Give us, Lord, grace to serve Thee acceptably with reverence and godly fear. In Thy name we pray, Amen.
#82 | 1:04:27 to 1:04:34 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T00:49:53Z

State's Rights - Part 1

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

John Weaver presents a historical overview of states' rights as the foundation of American liberty, arguing that the original states were sovereign entities that created a limited federal government. He contends that the loss of states' rights has led to federal tyranny, and calls for a return to biblical and constitutional principles.

Introduction and Purpose

Weaver explains the message is split into two parts: tonight historical, tomorrow night biblical. He encourages all ages to listen because they will hear things not taught in schools.

The Importance of a Biblical Worldview

Weaver commends the church's Christian worldview class and stresses that God's Word provides answers for every area of life, including civil government.

Reading Romans 13:1-4

Weaver reads the passage about submission to governing authorities, setting the stage for discussing states' rights.

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:1-4

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

States' Rights as Antidote to Federal Tyranny

Weaver defines states' rights as the antidote to federal tyranny, illustrating with a 1999 statement by a U.S. District Attorney claiming federal law is superior to state law.

Historical Foundation: Articles of Confederation and Treaty of Paris

Weaver traces the sovereignty of states from the Articles of Confederation (1781) and the Treaty of Paris (1783), where King George III acknowledged 13 separate sovereign states.

The States Created the Federal Government

Weaver emphasizes that the states created the federal government as their agent, not the other way around, and that the right to judge constitutional infractions belongs to the states.

State Reservations and the Right to Resume Powers

Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and Nullification

Constitutional Interpretation: Madison and the 9th/10th Amendments

Weaver quotes Madison's Federalist No. 45 on limited federal powers and explains the 9th and 10th Amendments as reserving rights and powers to the states and people.

The Compact Theory and John C. Calhoun

Modern Consequences and Call to Return

State's Rights - Part 1

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	3707175923
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Christian & Civil Government
Genre	Sermon
Date	2007-03-04
Dictation Name
Book	Book 017: State's Rights — Chapter 1
Source Timed Segments	82

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction and Purpose: Weaver explains the message is split into two parts: tonight historical, tomorrow night biblical. He encourages all ages to listen because they will hear things not taught in schools.
The Importance of a Biblical Worldview: Weaver commends the church's Christian worldview class and stresses that God's Word provides answers for every area of life, including civil government.
Reading Romans 13:1-4: Weaver reads the passage about submission to governing authorities, setting the stage for discussing states' rights.
States' Rights as Antidote to Federal Tyranny: Weaver defines states' rights as the antidote to federal tyranny, illustrating with a 1999 statement by a U.S. District Attorney claiming federal law is superior to state law.
Historical Foundation: Articles of Confederation and Treaty of Paris: Weaver traces the sovereignty of states from the Articles of Confederation (1781) and the Treaty of Paris (1783), where King George III acknowledged 13 separate sovereign states.
The States Created the Federal Government: Weaver emphasizes that the states created the federal government as their agent, not the other way around, and that the right to judge constitutional infractions belongs to the states.
State Reservations and the Right to Resume Powers: Weaver cites New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island's ratification statements reserving the right to resume delegated powers, and notes North Carolina and Rhode Island's delayed ratification without coercion.
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and Nullification: Weaver explains Jefferson and Madison's resolutions asserting states' rights to nullify unconstitutional federal acts, and South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification against the tariffs of 1828 and 1832.
Constitutional Interpretation: Madison and the 9th/10th Amendments: Weaver quotes Madison's Federalist No. 45 on limited federal powers and explains the 9th and 10th Amendments as reserving rights and powers to the states and people.
The Compact Theory and John C. Calhoun: Weaver presents Calhoun's argument that the federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact; the states are the sovereign parties with the right to interpose against federal overreach.
Modern Consequences and Call to Return: Weaver laments the reversal of roles where the federal government has become master, cites Jefferson and others on the bulwark of liberty, and calls for a return to biblical and constitutional foundations.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

The federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact

The Constitution is a compact among sovereign states; the federal government is their creation, not a party with authority to define its own powers.

Weaver quotes Calhoun: 'The error is in the assumption that the general or the federal government is a party to the constitutional compact.'

States have the right to judge constitutional infractions

Because states are the parties to the compact, each state has an equal right to judge whether the federal government has violated the Constitution.

Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'Each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as the mode and measures of redress.'

The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states

The Constitution delegates only limited powers to the federal government; all other powers remain with the states or the people.

Weaver quotes the 10th Amendment: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.'

States' rights are the bulwark of liberty

The preservation of state sovereignty is essential to protecting individual liberties against federal overreach.

Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'The true bulwarks of our liberty in this country are our state governments.'

The servant has become the master

The federal government has usurped power and now acts as master over the states, reversing the intended order.

Weaver cites Ecclesiastes 10:7: 'I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth.'

Scripture References

Romans 13:1-4: Weaver reads this passage as the biblical starting point for discussing civil government and submission to authorities.
Ecclesiastes 10:7: Weaver uses this verse to illustrate the reversal of roles where the federal government (servant) now rules over the states (princes).
Psalm 82: Weaver briefly references this psalm as a judgment against unjust magistrates and a world turned upside down.
Jeremiah 6: Weaver alludes to the call to return to the old paths and righteous ways.

Historical References

Articles of Confederation (1781): Weaver quotes Article II to show that each state retained its sovereignty and independence.
Treaty of Paris (1783): Weaver notes that King George III acknowledged 13 separate sovereign states in the treaty ending the Revolutionary War.
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798-1799): Weaver cites Jefferson and Madison's resolutions as the classic statement of states' rights and nullification.
South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification (1832): Weaver reads from the ordinance nullifying the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 as unconstitutional.
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): Weaver recounts how Georgia refused to appear before the Supreme Court, leading to the 11th Amendment.
Federalist No. 45 (James Madison): Weaver quotes Madison on the limited and defined powers of the federal government.
Fort Hill Address (John C. Calhoun, 1831): Weaver quotes Calhoun's argument that the federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact.
Jefferson's Inaugural Address and letters: Weaver quotes Jefferson on the importance of state governments as the bulwark of liberty.

Important Quotes

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

Establishes the foundational principle that states were sovereign and only delegated limited powers to the central government.

The federal government did not create the states. The states created the federal government.

Succinctly states the proper relationship between states and federal government.

Resolved that the several states comprising the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

Jefferson's clear rejection of unlimited federal authority.

The error is in the assumption that the general or the federal government is a party to the constitutional compact.

Calhoun's key argument that the federal government is not a party to the Constitution.

I have seen servants upon horses and princes walking as servants upon the earth.

Biblical illustration of the reversal of roles between states and federal government.

The true bulwarks of our liberty in this country are our state governments.

Jefferson's assertion that state sovereignty protects liberty.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

How does the historical understanding of states as sovereign entities challenge the modern view of federal supremacy?

[Context]

Weaver argues that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.

[Question]

What are the practical implications of the claim that the federal government is not a party to the constitutional compact?

[Context]

Weaver quotes Calhoun's argument that the states alone are parties to the compact.

[Question]

In what ways have we seen the 'servant become the master' in our current political system?

[Context]

Weaver uses Ecclesiastes 10:7 to illustrate the reversal of roles.

[Question]

How should Christians balance submission to governing authorities (Romans 13) with the right to resist tyranny?

[Context]

Weaver reads Romans 13 but also advocates for states' rights to nullify unconstitutional acts.

[Question]

What role does ignorance of history and Scripture play in the loss of liberty?

[Context]

Weaver states that ignorance has allowed the people to be 'bamboozled.'

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T15:08:08Z