The Tyranny of Centralized Government

Posted Mar 31, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |

Spread the love

For centuries, the main reason no government has ever survived its own greed for money and power is that whoever is in power at present constantly assumes that this time it is different—they are in charge. Communities rise from humble beginnings and expand into formal governments that seek to become nation-states, often absorbing the communities around them. When they emerge as a nation, they will typically seek to expand further into empires. To maintain that lofty position, they will inevitably become authoritarian when they feel that power slipping away.

Thomas Paine (1737-1809), whom the British hated because he wrote Common Sense, finally influenced the American colonists to rise up against the abuse of the king and centralized government in England, which they called – no taxation without representation. Thomas explained that those in control bathe themselves in glory and power and quickly forget that they are not the sovereign of the state – that is, the people. Pasine explanned:

“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.”

The very problem is emerging within states where centralized governments are seeking to strip local citizens of the right to vote in their local communities and to impose taxation without representation all over again. This is always the problem within all governments – the endless thirst for endless power, like the Neocons and their endless wars of conquest.

Home Rule in the United States is becoming a major issue as a consequence of severe abuse of authority by tyrannical state governments seeking to grab power from municipal governments, often being “bribed” by real estate developers who don’t want to have to comply with local zoning regulations and approvals from municipalities. This is the very same tyranny that led to the American Revolution – no taxation without representation.

These state politicians are seeking to usurp all the rights of local residents because some real estate developer has “donated” to someone’s campaign to overrule a local community by overriding local zoning regulations put in place by local residents. Any politician who makes such a motion in a state legislature should be compelled to disclose ALL donations and promises of future contributions or job offers. To submit such a motion with a conflict of interest should result in disbarment from ever holding public office and 20 years in prison.

It is time this corruption ends – NOW!

Forty of the 50 states apply some form of the principle known as Dillon’s Rule, which says that local governments may exercise only powers that the state grants explicitly to them, to determine the bounds of a municipal government’s legal authority. Dillon resigned from the bench and became a professor of law at Columbia University from 1879 to 1882. This is outrageous and tyrannical, contrary to the very principles on which the American Revolution was fought. This theory of state preeminence over local municipal governments was expressed as Dillon’s Rule in an 1868 Iowa State case:

“Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it may abridge and control”.

Clinton v Cedar Rapids and the Missouri River Railroad, (24 Iowa 455; 1868)(Per Curiam.)

However, against this tyrannical decision stands the Cooley Doctrine, often referred to as the Doctrine of Home Rule. This doctrine upheld the spirit of the American Revolution as it recognized an inherent right to local self-determination, which should be a human right. In a concurring opinion, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Thomas M. Cooley in 1871 stated:

“local government is a matter of absolute right; and the state cannot take it away”.

In the treatise Municipal Corporations (1872), Dillon contended that the power of states is unlimited, with the only restrictions under the state or federal constitutions. He wrote that municipalities only have the powers expressly granted to them by the state. Therefore, in a typical tyrant of centralized power like the King of England in 1776, the power of a municipality’s very existence rested upon the state’s authority. This formulation of the municipal power scope became known as “Dillon’s Rule.” It is clearly one-sided and seeks to expand the power of a state over all municipalities. Then the King was right, the American colonists should have shut up and jumped as high as the king commanded. Overlooked is that these municipalities in the 13 colonies pre-existed the states. He advocated a usurpation of local power, and that is the very power grab that has destroyed every form of government for thousands of years.

One of the best examples of this abuse of power is probably Russia. Lenin, although communist, was copying the United States, whereas the individual republics would retain their separate culture and sovereignty. Sensing there would be a future political crisis, Lenin’s Testament became a document dictated in late 1922 and early 1923. Lenin proposed changes to the structure of the Soviet governing bodies and criticised Bolshevik leaders Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Bukharin, Pyatakov, and Stalin. He warned of the possibility of a split developing in the party leadership between Trotsky and Stalin. Lenin also suggested that Joseph Stalin be removed from his position as General Secretary of the Russian Communist Party’s Central Committee. Stalin seized power upon Lenin’s death and carried out in Russia the equivalent of Dillon’s Rule. He stripped all the republics of their independence and sovereignty and established a centralized power in Moscow that eliminated all local municipal rule and autonomy. This is what is being carried out right now at the state level in the USA – both blue and red states.

The Supreme Court of the United States cited Municipal Corporations and fully adopted Dillon’s emphasis on state power over municipalities in Hunter v. Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161 (1907), written by Justice William Henry Moody (1853–1917), a Progressive appointed by Teddy Roosevelt, believing in the supreme power of government. The Progressive Justice Moody upheld the power of Pennsylvania to consolidate the city of Allegheny into the city of Pittsburgh, despite the objections of a majority of Allegheny’s residents. The Court’s ruling held that states could alter or even abolish at will the charters of municipal corporations without infringing upon contract rights, relying upon Dillon’s distinction between public, municipal corporations and private ones. However, the Court did not prevent states from passing legislation or amending their constitutions to explicitly allow home rule.

The Court also did not address the entire core issue of taxation without representation. That argument has not been raised and goes to the heart of the Due Process of Law secured by both the 5th and 14th Amendments.

This constitutional allowance was reiterated in Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U.S. 182 (1923), where the Supreme Court held that:

“In the absence of state constitutional provisions safeguarding it to them, municipalities have no inherent right of self-government which is beyond the legislative control of the state, but are merely departments of the state, with powers and privileges such as the state has seen fit to grant, held and exercised subject to its sovereign will”.

These decisions are anti-democratic and are purely the way governments always behave to usurp supreme power, leading to their self-destruction. Neither of these decisions dealt with the fact of local taxation or zoning. What is taking place now is the attempt at usurpation of power by centralized government in the spirit of Joseph Stalin rather than Thomas Jefferson. You bought a house in a particular municipality for the quality of the local school, the local zoning ensuring it remains residential, and because of property taxes. States think that they can usurp local power, take bribes from developers, and overrule local residents, denying them Due Process of Law, which is the cornerstone of freedom, including the right to be heard.

The U.S. Supreme Court articulated that due process includes the right to be heard as early as 1908 in the case of Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908). In this decision, the Court ruled that property owners must be given an opportunity to present objections before a tax assessment could be imposed, emphasizing that due process requires “an opportunity to be heard at some stage of the proceedings.”

However, the principle was further solidified and expanded in later cases. Notably, in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970), the Court held that due process mandates a pre-termination hearing for individuals facing the loss of government benefits, reinforcing the right to be heard in administrative contexts. While earlier cases like Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701 (1884) touched on notice and hearing requirements, Londoner is often cited as the foundational case explicitly linking due process to the right to present one’s case. This stems from the Bible and Genesis. God summons Cain after he murders Abel, and when he already knew he had killed his brother, God directly confronts him and affords him the right to be heard, asking, “Where is your brother Abel?” This inquiry reflects the very foundation of Due Process of Law. Did he murder him? Was it in self-defense? These states are stripping local communities of their most fundamental right to be represented in their local community. I grew up, and my town allowed bars. The next town was a “dry” town. Residents have a right to make those decisions, and the state has no moral authority to overrule that.

CAN A MUNICIPALITY SECEDE FROM A STATE?

Prior to 1820, the area now known as Maine was part of Massachusetts, referred to as the “District of Maine.” Frustration had built up because the state of Massachusetts was the Federalist stronghold, and they had been pro-British. Thus, their lack of support during crises like the War of 1812 led to the Separation Process. Maine held a statehood referendum in 1819, with voters approving separation from Massachusetts, which finally consented to the split, and Maine drafted its constitution. The role of the Missouri Compromise (1820) was interesting because Congress admitted Maine as a free state under the Missouri Compromise, which balanced it with Missouri’s entry as a slave state to maintain the Union’s free/slave state equilibrium. Hence, Maine officially became the 23rd state on March 15, 1820, marking its peaceful separation from Massachusetts.

Kentucky (1792): Originally part of Virginia, it was ceded to the federal government and admitted as a separate state. While not a direct “split” in the same political context as Maine or West Virginia, it originated from Virginia’s territory.
Tennessee (1796): Formed from land ceded by North Carolina to the federal government, which later became the Southwest Territory before statehood. Like Kentucky, this was a territorial transition rather than a direct split.

The Dakota Territory was established in 1861, covering present-day North Dakota, South Dakota, and parts of Montana and Wyoming. On November 2, 1889, it was split into the states of North Dakota and South Dakota as part of the U.S. government’s push to admit western territories as states. The division was driven by political and economic factors, including railroad interests and balancing congressional representation.

In the United States, the ability of a municipality to secede from its state is a complex legal issue governed by constitutional principles and state laws. This is my view:

Constitutional Framework:
- U.S. Constitution: Article IV, Section 3 stipulates that no new state may be formed within an existing state’s jurisdiction without the consent of both the affected state legislature and Congress. This implies that municipal secession would require similar approvals if it results in creating a new state or altering state boundaries.
- Supreme Court Precedent: In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), the Court ruled that states cannot unilaterally secede from the Union. While this case addressed state secession, it underscores the principle that territorial integrity is protected, extending by analogy to municipalities. This held that the Confederate States were always still part of the Union, and it was obviously self-serving.
State Authority:
- Most state constitutions outline processes for creating, altering, or dissolving municipalities, but seceding from the state itself is typically not addressed.
- A municipality seeking to secede would likely need explicit approval from the state legislature, potentially through a constitutional amendment or specific legislation.
Practical Considerations:
- Historical Examples: There are a few instances of successful municipal secession. Proposals (e.g., parts of Colorado seeking to join neighboring states, or Staten Island’s attempts to leave New York City) often face legal and political hurdles.
- Political Challenges: Secession requires consensus among local residents, state lawmakers, and federal authorities, making it politically contentious and rarely achievable.
Conclusion:
- Legally Possible? Yes, but only with consent from the state legislature and Congress, per Article IV.
- Realistically Feasible? Extremely unlikely due to procedural complexities, political opposition, and historical precedent favoring territorial continuity.

In summary, while municipal secession is theoretically possible under strict constitutional conditions, practical implementation is highly improbable without unprecedented cooperation across multiple levels of government.

In Florida, Key West humorously attempted to “secede” from the United States in 1982, an event now famously known as the creation of the Conch Republic. The U.S. Border Patrol set up a roadblock and immigration checkpoint on the only highway connecting the Florida Keys to the mainland, causing severe traffic delays and economic harm to tourism. Since you had to prove you were an American to leave Key West, the Fed made it seem you were not part of the USA. On April 23, 1982, Key West officials declared “independence” as the Conch Republic, completing a mock secession ceremony. Mayor Dennis Wardlow “surrendered” to a naval officer and demanded $1 billion in “foreign aid” to rebuild. The Gesture was a smash hit in Miami. The secession was a satirical protest, not a legal attempt. It aimed to draw attention to the checkpoint’s negative impact and advocate for its removal.

The stunt garnered national media coverage, and the checkpoint was eventually lifted. The Conch Republic remains a beloved symbol of local identity, celebrated annually with festivals. There are restaurants still named the Conch Republic – the symbolism of what America was all about – FREEDOM! While Key West never legally seceded, the event was a creative and successful protest that highlighted community concerns while embracing a whimsical spirit.

States are Grabbing Power to our Destruction

This is not a whimsical protest anymore. States are seeking dictatorial power and eradicating the Due Process Rights of their citizens. This is as bad as what Stalin did to Russia, stripping the republics of their sovereignty that Lenin promised. This is the backdrop to rising civil unrest and the ultimate separation of the United States, as every empire has collapsed throughout history. The United States, Europe, and Canada, for that matter, are all feeling oppressed by a centralized government. Under the parliamentary system, the people have no due process right to vote for who will be the head of state. We are witnessing this even in Florida, and these oppressive power grabs are undermining the very foundation of our communities and nation.