One of the most commonly mentioned solutions for our country's problems is, "Throw the bums out!" Most often, the target of this is members of Congress, reasoning that we could do a lot better if we only had better people in Washington. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. Good people will affect good change.

This assumes our problems can be resolved through legislative change. That is not the case. Our country is spiraling out of control, and it seems the proverbial toothpaste is out of the tube. Replacing the bums with new bums will only make us feel better, but for a little while. We need to be aware of what we are facing as a country, because our problems are mounting.

Our two main problems are fiscal insolvency and loss of liberty. Neither can be solved by Congress, no matter who controls it.

On the fiscal side, as things stand now, our Debt to GDP ratio is around 85%. This number will grow in the coming months and years to 100% and then beyond. How do we pay for our debt when our economy is not growing sufficiently to pay the bills? Economies with this kind of ratio do not have strong growth historically. This problem can be solved only by reducing government spending, because higher taxes will never raise enough revenue to pay these bills. 65% or so of our budget is non-discretionary, and with new entitlements looming, this number will grow. These funds make up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Good luck cutting those. Assuming there are large enough majorities to override a veto, does anyone seriously believe the American federal courts would allow draconian cuts to stand? Of course not. The courts have increasingly involved themselves in social policy, and are increasingly justifying rulings with extra-constitutional reasonings. But the question is academic, as there will never be enough politicians in Washington that would do such a thing. Enough of them want to get re-elected and would realize that to even modestly reduce growth in these programs is political suicide. Without drastic corrections, financially, our demise is only a matter of time.

Our liberties, however, are not subject to financial storms, right? Well, history certainly doesn't bear that out. With every financial crisis, real or imagined, our liberties have eroded in the name of social justice. Government can solve the problems, we are always told. However, every time government intervenes to solve a social problem, rights are eroded. It is inevitable that as government grows, our liberties weaken.

The cause of government growth is an almost total disregard for the Constitution, a practice that started with John Marshall, our county's first Supreme Court Justice, when he instituted Judicial Review. This is a power that Justice Marshall created out of thin air. It gives the courts the ability to invalidate laws and other actions taken by the other two branches of the federal government. It has grown to include the ability to declare state's actions unconstitutional. No where in the Constitution does this power exist, nor is there even the slightest hint in the Constitution that the courts could exercise such a power. Yet through fiat, they have become the most unconstitutional, undemocratic institution in our government.

The chain of events that Judicial Review has set into motion have been amazing. But even more incredible is the power that the federal government has accumulated through liberal interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Through this, the Congress has extended the reach of the federal government into almost every aspect of American life. The rationale is commerce that exists beyond the border of a state falls to the regulatory discretion of the federal government. Given that almost everything we touch has at least in some way an interstate element to it (restaurants who have napkins made in another state, for example), the Congress can regulate a small diner and the employees within, as well as the manufacturing of the salt shaker lids. Some such regulation is necessary as disputes between states needs to be resolved. The federal government, however, has used this clause to enact legislation that clearly abuses this clause in the constitution. And to the extent that this power has been used in a manner never intended by the framers, it is a power, "...not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..." (see Amendment 10 to the Constitution). Nonetheless, we have had a series of Congresses, Presidents, and Justices that have interpreted it this way and every state in the country has allowed it to happen.

But one might ask, do the states have a say in this? Do they have to meekly and quietly do as they are told? Well, this is certainly what they have done for 200 plus years, so one would assume that's the way it is. But it is not the way it was meant to be.

The Constitution is a pact between the states, a product of which is the federal government. A correct reading of the constitution would force one to conclude that the federal government is subservient to the states, not the other way around. Many believe this, and handful of states have recently passed sovereignty resolutions declaring that they are not subservient to the federal government. But beyond a resolution here and there, what can be done?

It is simple.

A governor along with a state legislature can simply declare that within its borders, what the federal government has done or is doing is not constitutional. It is not the place of the state to go to the courts to get an answer of constitutionality; the courts ARE the federal government, which is an instrument of the states. As pointed out above, the constitution does not give the courts the power to declare anything that anyone has done to be unconstitutional, expressly because as an agent to the states, they are subservient to the states. So a governor standing on the state capitol steps declaring that the action of the federal government is unconstitutional merely needs to walk back into his office and sit down, because the matter is closed.

If Governor Rick Perry from Texas, for example, did such a thing, one could imagine the federal government announcing a withholding of monies from Texas. I would think Texans would be happy with such an arrangement as they send more to Washington that Washington sends back, so their withholding of monies to Washington would be a net gain, if not through taxes, certainly through a more enriched population who would be able to retain 25% of their income.

Would the feds send the military to put down this action? That IS unconstitutional, as Perry's action would not be insurrection (he would not be trying to overthrow the federal government – merely attempting to bring it in line with the constitution) and therefore his actions could not warrant military use on our homeland. But even if a president did order such a thing, could anyone envision our military carrying out such an order? Of course not. It is not lawful, and their duty and sworn oath to the Constitution (not to the president) would necessitate them to decline this order.

Our problems CAN be solved. They CANNOT be solved in Washington by Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, or any other representative of the Federal Government. As Ronald Reagan said, “Government IS the problem,” and it cannot solve itself. This is a problem that can only be resolved by a state or collection of states acting in concert.

What state will now stand up for America? Which state's citizens will now demand of their legislatures and governors that they stand up for America? Simple resolutions demanding the federal government to stand down and then following through by not allowing the federal government's actions to stand within that state's borders WILL be the card that brings down the house of cards that is the overbearing nature of the federal government. It will, in essence, be akin to hitting the reset button on our constitution and bring us back to the government our founders gave us.