The Issue of a Sovereign Nation

September 22, 2017
By

Much criticism has been levied at President Trump for his emphasis in his United Nations speech, on the separation of sovereign nations. This emphasis came in contradistinction to Obamas push for submission to the UN and a world community. It is being seen as a slap in the face of the UN and of other nation’s policies.

The Paris Climate Accord, the Iran Deal, the UN Gun Control Treaty and others, all approved by then President Obama, all are not in effect, because the Senate has not approved their ratification by the President. Many agreements with foreign powers, initiated by Obama are being left unsigned or are being undone by Trump in the battle over National Sovereignty.

Repeatedly in President Trump’s speech to the UN, he affirmed our right of national sovereignty and of cooperation between other sovereign nations. It is a push back from the globalization of legal concepts and one world government advocates like Obama.

No, it is not going to happen under Trump. He is too clear on the foundations of our republic and the very fabric of our beginnings. We removed ourselves from the King, and the constitution is very clear on the philosophy of national sovereignty.

The push for globalization over the past several decades is not part of the fabric of our constitution and yet it has become popular in the liberal set of American politics. It is difficult to understand why this sweep into submission to world power has gained popularity except that it is possibly the remnants of a once illusioned Utopia of Greek philosophers and communist theorists. Somewhere, in the minds of high minded professors is the illusion that we can all get along and that universal control of government will bring an end to human conflict.

Well, the fact of gang warfare in our major cities should be some clue as to how conflict works. Gangs exist in conflict much like tribes of old. They fight for control of territory and resources, reject the rule of law and this is not dissipated by the unifying of governmental boundaries but by the strength of governmental enforcement. In fact, the greater the territory that government tries to control the less effective it is. The more control is localized the greater is the effectiveness.

That issue, the effectiveness of government, is always better served by pushing the responsibility downward to the control of localities by those who live there and work there. Effective law enforcement in always more effective and efficient when it is local and hands on. That is the premise of the United States and the fabric of our constitution. The states have primary power for enforcement of their state laws. States honor the jurisdiction of cities, counties and subdivisions of government. It is the American way.

It is also Trumps way. His major emphasis in the speech to the UN is that America will take care of itself and will cooperate with other sovereign nations but it will not be a part of any submission of national sovereignty to global interests. This is in stark contrast to Obama.

The definition of one’s philosophy of where power should reside is also the definition of major political divides in our country. The left, the progressive (so called) elements of our national political interests seem hell bent on surrendering our rights to self-rule to whatever feel good globalization plan comes along. This drift toward globalization and one world government is hard to justify philosophically, yet it has gained steam over the past several decades.

Well, there’s a new sheriff in town, and a new resurgence of conservatism who will not forget our national foundations, our constitution and our right to national sovereignty. I for one am happy to see us moving back to the sanity from which we came.