Posted by
Virginia Daddy on Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:36:25 AM
I was watching some of the protests briefly tonight between strudy sessions, but this question occurred to me: what would the liberals do if states seceded from the nation tomorrow?
I mean, really, what would they do? Raise an army and invade Virginia? Bomb an island fort off the coast of Texas? Certainly not from recruiting stations from Berkeley.
Might they stick some lawyers on those states and say you can't do that? More likely, but this is a pretty funny response.
Seriously, I don't know exactly what NY, VT, CA, or MA would do, but I do know it would be a lot of talking, and little action. Police might be called, and the national guard, too. But any use of force from the United States on the new nation(s) would go against so much of what the liberals in charge stand for and they would be discredited from the start. I would think they would know this and act appropriately.
Might they work to keep the people from organizing their new nation? Maybe, but again, such restriction would go against everything they supposedly stand for.
Might they libel and slander those leaving? Absolutely. That goes without saying. But so what?
I know there are those who say it is illegal to secede, and there may well be laws on it. There are inferrences in the Constitution, but who cares? I do not intend to be flippant about the Constitution, but there is a simple proposition to uphold-- if the Constitution is broken and can't be fixed, throw it out. If others want to keep it, fine, but there is nothing, except the desire for a unified nation, that suggests a state that doesn't want to be a part of it that they have to stay.
There is also another proposition to uphold, something liberals love to talk about, we all have a choice. Naturally, the choice I speak of is much more fundamental than the one they like to talk about. I speak of a choice to act or to not act. Everything we do entails at least a chocie between two options. Even when backed into a corner do we have a choice: We can fight, or we can cave in.
And we now have at least two choices-- we can fight the liberals to defeat the current governmental trends of expanding the national government at the expsense of the soveriegnty of the state governments, in direct affrontation to the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibted by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." A second choice is to give in and give up our rights. A third is to leave it all behind and re-establish the spirit of the Constitution in a new government because Obama, Nancy, Harry and Co. are putting the final nails in its coffin.
What will they do? Of course they will do everything they can to keep it from happening. If a group successfully leaves their nation it will show them to be failures. They will spin it that radicals who were against freedom left to create an intolerant and close minded nation. But to those who care about what the Constitution actually says, the Constitution will be upheld.
I quoted the 10th Amendment above. It says two things about the powers not delegated in the Constitution. First, it says the powers not delegated in the Constitution are to be given to the states, and second, if not to the states, to the people. It is also important to recognize the context of the 10th Amendment. It is part of the Bill of Rights, that was promised to be voted on after the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-federalists, those more focused on states rights and wary of a strong national government and the Constitution, wanted them passed to ensure certain freedoms would not be infringed. The 10th Amendment was a part of these protections that led to the ratification of the Constitution and specifically sought to protect the sovereignty of the states by limiting the federal governments powers by stating what is not in here is entrust to the states and the people. The 10th Amendment was arguably the area of biggest tension at the Constitutional Convention-- establishing a viable nation while protecting the sovereignty of the states in a time when being from VA was more important than being an American.
It is arguable that the Constitution did imply certain powers to the federal government, but these are limited, and now through something known as the rational basis test, Congress has close to a blank check to do what they want. Basically, the rational basis test states that if a law has a reasonable purpose and the law reasonably helps that purpose be reached, it will be allowed. This, and under the excuse of implied powers, the federal government has just about rendered the 10th Amendment useless. It has taken the states rights from them, and the people.
After all of that, you may be wondering what that has to do with my thought earlier? If the spirit of the Constitution has been killed, the document has been murdered. Some like to talk of a living and breathing document, but in their putting life into it, they have killed what was originally intended to be. Therefore, it is dead.
And this brings in the discussion of choice. To those who think we live under a dead document, we have a choice-- to try to resuscitate it or to leave it behind and recreate somewhere else. Either may work, but in the event the latter is chosen, what can be done to stop it?
A final point, many revolutionaries thought there should be a revolution every twenty five years or so. They wanted them to keep government pure. I am not necessarilly advocating revolution or secession, but if that is true, we are long over due.