Part I: The United States “are.”
Most of the time what I read (including my own stuff) is long on descriptions and explanations of the problems besetting the nation, but woefully short on suggestions or thoughts on how to fix it. My views regarding the trajectory of the country have been clearly stated on this website and I stand by them. I do not think the country is salvageable in its present form and the odds of avoiding a national nervous breakdown are minimal at best. Having said that, mechanisms do exist for addressing the problems we face. What follows is a thought experiment in (Admin willing) several parts on what it would take to restore this nation without the massive destruction, bloodshed, and chaos which will inevitably engulf us if we continue our present course. I believe the chances of any of the needed reforms I hope to discuss actually coming to fruition are negligible. The alternative, however, is so horrific that we owe it to ourselves and to those we love to give voice to hope.
The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.
Robert E. Lee
The states are the key to any significant amelioration of the national dilemma. I am not talking about the states in terms of the people who live in them. I am talking about the states as sovereign entities separate from and opposed to the federal power. The distinction is crucial to what follows.
Prior to Lincoln’s War, national identity was an afterthought. One’s state commanded primary allegiance. This sense of state sovereignty and identity suffered near extinction in the bludgeoning that followed hard upon the South’s refusal to accept federal ascendancy. Its restoration is essential if the states are to have any hope of standing up to the federal leviathan. If any recognizable version of America is to survive, the United States must once again become an “are” instead of an “is.” As a people, we must do something we have not done in a very long time. We must learn to think of ourselves as Montanans, Virginians, Vermonters, Georgians and Minnesotans first and Americans second. State legislators and executives must think and act like the leaders of sovereign states and not like second-string players on the national team.
If the people of any given state wish to rise above the provincial subservience to which the central government has relegated them, they must be willing to pay all sorts of costs that the federal government will seek to inflict upon them. More importantly, they must instill that willingness in their leadership. State politicians must begin to fear the people of their state more that they fear the power of the federal government.
Usually the first tool in the federal bag is the threat to withhold all sorts of federal payments from recalcitrant states. Depending on the severity and duration of the challenge, everything would potentially be on the table. From highway money to Social Security, every form of federal largesse will be included in the threat and the actual withholding of these resources would undoubtedly cause significant disruptions to state operations and genuine pain to the vast number of individuals and families that have become dependent on federal handouts for their very existence. Sorry about that, but a genuine challenge to federal authority must be backed by the willingness to tell the national government to take their money and shove it.
Of course, many of the actions of a state that truly seeks to wrest authority from Washington D.C. would require the nullification of a host of federal laws and regulations. Even now, we see de facto nullification of federal law in the actions of many states with regard to immigration and drug law. California refuses to enforce federal immigration and drug law and suffers no consequences. If that bastion of leftist moonbattery can thumb its nose at Washington with impunity, why cannot Montana similarly invite the central government to piss up a rope when it comes to enforcing oh, let’s say… federal gun laws? The double standard in such matters is comically blatant.
Naturally, politically incorrect nullification would trigger a slew of court challenges certain to spark a chubby in every lawyer from Nome to North Lauderdale. Invalidation by the courts would surely follow. Ultimately, the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of any challenge deemed serious enough to find its way to the top of the heap. Leftist lips, perennially chapped from suckling on the government teat, are nothing if not persistent. Rest assured that no state challenge to federal mandates regarding diversity, gender equality, second amendment rights, or any other liberty destroying pet projects of the protected classes would go unnoticed or un-litigated. Liberty to the hive mind is like a game of whack-a-mole; wherever it pops up, it must be hammered down. The trouble for tyrants is that like whack-a-mole, freedom, hammered in one place, has the temerity to pop up again somewhere else. Sovereign states, if they so choose, can provide a place where free men can hold their heads up without fear of the federal mallet.
The essence of nullification is indifference to federal power. Whether that power emanates from the Executive, the Legislative, or the Judicial is of no consequence. If a rebellious…check that…wrong word. If a sovereign state worthy of the name has had enough of federal overreach, the particular source of federal douchebaggery is unimportant. What matters is how willing the state and its people are to go to the wall to reclaim their place in the national discussion.
Indifference to federal mandates requires the national government to initiate some sort of action, though, once again, that appears to depend on the political leanings of the state in question. If no federal action is forthcoming, then nullification has achieved its purpose and has fundamentally altered the federal/state relationship without violence or bloodshed. This appears to be the case in states like California and Colorado. However, if there is direct federal action to compel state obedience the response must be commensurate with the severity of the federal riposte, up to and including armed resistance. I believe that any serious attempt by the states to restore their sovereignty would likely escalate until both the states and the federal government would be faced with essentially the same choices faced by the country in 1860. Here we get to the meat of the matter.
Any state challenge to federal authority must carry with it the explicit threat of secession. Otherwise, the whole exercise is pointless. The possibility always exists that the federals will blink when they once again stand eyeball to eyeball with a state that has rediscovered its backbone. When (or if) the brink is reached, secession must once again be on the table. Most Americans likely think that secession is somehow illegal, or simply unthinkable. It is neither.
The right to withdraw from a voluntary association is implicit in the very concept of such an association. Secession from a voluntary association, which is antithetical to the interests of one or more of the constituent members, is implicit in the original agreement; therefore, unless and until the original agreement is altered in such a way as to make withdrawal illegal, the right of secession still exists. It likely exists as a natural right in any case, but again, that is a discussion for another day.
As much as we might revere the Constitution, in essence it is nothing more than a contractual agreement between sovereign entities. There is in it no explicit prohibition on withdrawal from the agreement; therefore, the conditions noted above still apply. I believe that the South had the absolute right to secede, but was denied exit from the Union by force of arms. The Union victory in Lincoln’s War did not abrogate the right of secession, it only compelled the submission of the unwilling. The right of secession still exists and the several states need to remember that fact, as does the federal government.
The restoration of state sovereignty to its rightful place in the national debate is crucial if this country is to have any chance at a peaceful resolution of the growing conflicts we face. Our own history shows us the perils of such a course of action. I do not believe the federal government has the stomach to initiate a second civil war, but if the people of any given state utterly reject further association in the American Union, the only option left to the federal power is to compel their submission. As things stand now, Washington holds the whip hand and the lickspittle representation of most states would likely fold at the first federal threat to withhold government cheese.
It is clear that restoring state identity and sovereignty is largely a subjective process. The people of any given state must rediscover what it means to chart their own course. The risks inherent in opposing the federal beast we have allowed to run rampant are significant, but so too are the potential rewards. A re-ordering of the Union as something more akin to the original Articles of Confederation would allow states who wish to follow a socialist path to suffer the consequences of their foolishness without encroaching on the rights of those states that choose the freedom road. A vastly diminished federal government would have little power to continue to impose a one-size-fits-all credo on states wishing to go their own way.
If there is to be the slightest chance of avoiding the horrors of internecine strife that are looming on the national horizon, the states absolutely must reclaim their rightful place in the original vision of the Founders.
Next up: Article V Convention, Amendment repeal, demoting the Supreme Court, Abolishing the withholding tax, and other impossible tasks.
No comments:
Post a Comment