Posted on 02/01/2009 4:18:18 PM PST by Dada Orwell
Just caught up on all the posts, a fascinating discussion with great bearing on today’s times and government.
I’ve definitely learned at lot from our discussions on this thread, and I have a lot more reading to do now as a lot of quality information was put out... thanks MamaTexan.
I hope scenarios like this never comes to fruition, but with the unconstitutional actions of the government I could actually see how it could take place in the near future, if that is the case, I’ll be going back home to Texas and let the chips fall where they may.
Thanks to all... AOV
Take care, Hon! We'll keep the light on for ya. :-)
“No state has anything in its respective Constitution that allows for legal secession.”
That may be, however. . .
The Declaration of Independence and principles therein ‘are’ codified law of the USA.
As the Republic’s last bulwark, it is the citizenry’s duty ensure enforcement.
Subsequently, the 2nd Amendment is the vehicle necessary to exercise our God-given right to quell a tyrannical, destructive, profligate Federal government.
Liberty can be such an ugly pursuit.
thaDeetz
I agree with regards to the 10th amendmant providing authority for secession.
In the context of formation, the constitution was very leery of centralized government. You all are very versed in all the statements and philosophies, so I won’t go into it, but I think the 10th and 2nd amendments are misunderstood by a lot of people.
The key phrase in the 10th is: “...nor prohibited by it to the states...” To say that rights not assigned to the feds by the constitution vest in the states is one thing, but to specifically say that rights not prohibited by the constitution rams the point home: If we didn’t think about it, it’s all yours. This would include the right of secession. The conception of such a right being granted is consistent with the thinking at the thim which is to allow states to police their own government.
The 2nd amendment refers specifically to militia. Although many have tried to use this as an excuse to limit arms, the true intent was to ensure states had an armed citizen’s army to protect its interests, including when they are threatened by the feds.
The real problem, though is it’s too late. The framers had in mind a rational discourse based on liberty and *assumed* liberty would be a de facto goal of any citizen. Sadly, we have allowed the constitution to be torn to shreds over time in the name of all the usual suspects: safety, security, fairness, crisis, catastrophe and my all time favorite “we need ______”.
The Constitution is a living document which sees the world through the eyes of its stewards: us. Subsequent to the civil war, we adopted the notion of national citizenship before state citizenship. People are more likely to know who the President is than their gvernor. People are more likely to know who their federal representative is than their state representative. People are more likely to know who the federal Speaker of the House is, etc.
The notion of national citizenship has resulted in the abandonment of the cause of state citizenship and, more importantly, relations to the federal government *through* the states. Everybody knows their 1st amendment rights, most their 2nd and some their 4th. And yet, how many of us, right here, right now, have a copy of our state’s constitution handy?
What’s worst of all, we have chosen to consistently vote for our own oppressors who buy us with the most easily traded currency: fear.
Democracy is no guarantee against tyranny.
But in considering secession, one must look at the consequences. Who is to say that oppression by the hand of the state is superior to oppression at the hand of a federal government? When the state engages tyranny, one without a union has no recourse but to accept, fight or leave.
But I believe that a sort of political free market would provide an invisible hand that keeps tyranny in check. The situation with New Hampshire and its neighbors illustrates the point nicely. If I can buy smokes without tax, I’m going next door. By the same token, if my state oppresses me too much, I will find one that doesn’t. If I am a socialist, there is probably a choice for me, as well. The political patchwork of the continent would be a sampling of all sorts of ideology, all engaged in a Darwinian sort of contest. I’m not entirely sure that would be such a bad thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.