By R.D. Fry
Some friends contacted me and said their county was thinking about what size of a regional planning council to create / join. They wanted to know what I thought about these regional planning commissions. Below is what I told them.
The Truth about Regional Councils
The Area “Regional Planning Organization” is just another name for the new governance apparatus that is being pushed by the federal government and the Sustainable Development promoters. They are doing it at the national level such as with the President’s Rural Council and the Governors Council (created by Executive Order 13528) and are marketed to “strengthen the partnership between federal and state governments.”
These Regional Councils, Council of Governments, Regional Commissions are all setting up a top down centralized planning and governance system which will insulate the citizens from the government if not their elected representatives. To the extent elected representative will remain in place they will be ineffective and their role will be meaningless such as we are seeing with Congress.
In some cases public private partnerships (PPP) are involved and / or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO). This is just another form of fascism or as some call it now corporatism. Under traditional fascism the government controls business such as the Nazis did in Germany. But under Neo-fascism of today it is often the business interest or NGO that controls the government.
Regional Councils and Soviets
These are the same thing as the USSR called “soviets” (councils) and are put in place to carry out the decisions and planning from on high. Some of the Regional Councils even do their planning on a five year basis. This was of course the planning horizon for the USSR and Red China centralized planning.
The Constitution and Regional Councils
These regional councils are not a form of republican governance as guaranteed by Article IV §4 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”
This Article implicitly requires the states to maintain a republican form of government.
Oath to Support the Constitution and Regional Councils
An elected official or state employee cannot support the creation of these un-American, un-Constitutional soviets and remain true to their oath of office and to the Constitution, which is required by Article VI clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;”
Fear an Efficient Government
These councils are often promoted based on their efficiency. “Efficiency” basically means the extent to which the input is the most minimal to accomplish the output, it’s the relationship between the means and the end and often thought of as being related to time with quicker being better.
An efficient government is one that can identify a problem or opportunity quickly and move quickly to ameliorate the problem or take advantage of the opportunity through policy implementation.
In a democratic constitutional republic, such as the United States, policy implementation will be at a very deliberate (slow) rate when the system is working correctly. Our system of government was designed not to be efficient. This is because our Founders realized that the most effective government for preserving the Liberty of the citizens and the principles of popular and state sovereignty was not an efficient government.
The Founders believed the best government to protect the Liberty of the citizens is a government that was accountable and responsive to the people. It is also a government tied down with checks and balances where the branches of government have oversight on each other and the state and federal governments have oversight on each other.
It is almost a socio-political axiom that there is an inherent tradeoff between Liberty and efficiency of government. The most efficient government for making socio –political change is a totalitarian government. The leadership decides what the problem is what is best to solve it, passes the required decree and off the policy goes.
Currently what we are seeing in our governments is the increase of efficiency at the cost of Liberty and sovereignty of citizens and states. Worse yet we are seeing the federal government and a state governor that has a policy of implementing extra –state governmental organizations i.e., regional commissions and councils, that are themselves structures to effectively make the federal government more “efficient”. These Regional Economic Planning organizations accomplish this efficiency by insulating the government from the people and removing the governments’ accountability to the people.
To “strengthen the partnership between the federal and state governments” is like having the dog, you put out to keep an eye on the fox, invite the fox in the hen house for their mutual benefit. It just does not work out well for the hens and it will not work out well for our Liberty.
Federal Government can’t Mandate States Administrate
or Participate in Federal Programs
There is a very long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases that hold that under the principles of federalism and dual sovereignty the federal government may not require (mandate) that a state administrate or participate in a federal program. This would be a violation of the state’s sovereignty.
In a more recent case, Printz (and Sheriff Richard Mack) vs. United States, the Supreme Court confirmed this principle even as to agents of the state such as sheriffs. This case involved the Brady handgun law that required sheriffs to do background checks on gun purchasers. In finding the law unconstitutional the Court said:
“The question presented in these cases is whether certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the Constitution….
It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty.”…Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty….
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty….”
Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.)
Just Going Along
Remember there were only few (two) sheriffs that filed suit against the federal government over this issue. The vast majority of them were going along with it in spite of the fact it violated the Constitution and their oath to the Constitution. Because the federal government wants to do it and passes a law to do it does not make it constitutional. Because a vast majority of the states, the state legislators the sheriffs or the county commissioners are willing to go along with it does not make it constitutional. And, just because everyone else is willing to go along with it does not relieve us patriots of our Constitutional duty.
Contracting Your Rights Away
I urge you to take extreme caution is supporting this unholy alliance. To the extend any of the counties or cities are required to do anything by the federal government it is because they have contracted away or have allowed someone else to contract away their rights.
Due Diligence to Duty
Before entering into such a “regional planning council” can even be considered the follow documents should be reviewed carefully and in detail.
Cooperative Agreement (HUD 1044 or similar agreement)
Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
Management and Work Plan
Uniform Administrative Requirements
Grantee’s proposal
I would ask your county commissioners:
1. Have they identified and reviewed all the relevant agreements and documents including the above in detail,
2. Have they obtained a legal opinion as to what such requires of the county specifically and with particularity (and regarding 4 and 5 below),
3. Have they made the documents (no.1 above) available to the public,
4. Have they identified the government agencies , state and federal, that will be involved in the organization and the process,
5. What will be the areas of involvement and the level of control by the government agencies, state and federal,
6. What specific provision is in any of the agreements / documents to protect the Liberty of citizens and their property rights, do any of the documents even mention such?
If they have not done the above they have not done their due diligence.
They do not have a right to rely upon the representations of those who are promoting this council. Most promoters of such councils have a personal interest in it through salary etc. or are ideologically tied to Sustainable Development. Other questions to ask:
1. Is anyone promoting such who is being paid, in whole or in part, by a government grant,
2. If so how much and what grant?
3. Are they required / paid to promote such councils
by the terms of the grant?
Conclusion
It has been said that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread” and I will tell you fools rush in where patriots fear to tread. I would not support this for all the tea in China.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. These views and opinions do not represent those of SalinaPost.com, and/or any/all contributors to this site.