Secession: Part of the Checks and Balances

It is a rainy day here at Beggars Tomb, but that has not stopped the birds from coming out in force to sing such beautiful songs! Truly every day is a great day whether it has real sunshine or liquid sunshine. This morning as I sip on a cup of Earl Grey and I as always concerned and appalled at the direction that our nation is taking and the seeming inability of our elected officials to make decisions that are in the best interest of the People. Over the weekend Susann and I watched the movie with Mel Gibson called the Patriot. Now I have seen this before but it has been a long time and it really got me to questioning and wondering if those brave individuals that stood up against tyranny really be pleased with the manner in which things in this nation have happened, and the events that we have brought upon ourselves with our continued disregard for financial responsibility and almost obsessive desire to remove all the rights and liberties from the individual. In the past months there have been petitions for secession and many have brushed them off as being perpetrated by nut jobs and not legitimate solution to the issue. But I submit to you that maybe secession is part of the process of checks and balances outlined in the foundations of our federal government. Maybe that is the People’s check on the government and the courts when they run amuck.

The Constitution does not outline a procedure for State secession from the Union. While the Declaration of Independence is not controlling law, it is more persuasive then Foreign Law which is very popular among the liberal judiciary and cited in many instances when it comes to secession and the ideas of an individual’s rights. The Declaration states that it is not only a private right, but also a duty of the governed to abolish or alter the government when government becomes abusive; “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.” We can also look at ancient Greek and Hebrew writings to help illustrate that the idea of self-governance has always been considered inalienable no matter what laws may be on the books. The Virginia state flag, which was designed by Thomas Jefferson, depicts Athena, the female warrior, victorious and standing over the tyrant Zeus, who we were taught in our Greek mythology was the god of law. The meaning of the imagery on the flag is simple the individual has the right to abolish he law if it interferes with liberty. If the government of the United States deems that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to what it is entitled to do and the power it has over the people, it must be held accountable. If our courts and elected officials fail to act it is the right given by God and the Constitution for individuals to protect and provide for their individual Liberty and the continuation of that Liberty.

There is a considerable body of international law to follow. East Timor, Eritrea, and the dismantling of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, including the most recent example in Kosovo are all clearly precedential. Foreign law clearly supports the concept of lawful secession. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which affirms the right of all peoples to have their own country. “Article 15 (1) , everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” Each Citizen has a State nationality. Each State is as sovereign as any other State and originally agreed to grant limited powers to the Federal government. By constantly side stepping the Constitution and trampling on the rights of the individual and the Sates the federal government has used or tried to use liberal Supreme Court decisions to greatly enhance the actual powers it is supposed to have. Take for example the case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

The Wickard case followed the failed attempt by FDR to “pack” the Court with additional liberal justices who would enable him to proceed with his policies intended to stimulate the depressed economy. The Wickard case involved a Federal government decreed that a certain local farmer could grow only a limited quantity of wheat. He exceeded his allotment and used the extra wheat to feed his livestock. The Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and not the local activity that takes place completely within a State. Since none of the “extra” wheat was to be shipped out of state and into interstate commerce, the local Federal court held that Congress had no jurisdiction to control the quantity of wheat grown to be used locally, and not to be shipped into interstate commerce. The Supreme Court reversed and thereby expanded the control of Congress into matters that are completely within the domain of the individual States and in the control of the individual citizen. This heralded the expansion of the powers of Congress until today the Federal government controls or tries to control every aspect of our lives, even those activities intended by the original States to be within the jurisdiction of the State and the Citizens of the State. The federal government now thinks of us as children too stupid to full understand what is in our own best interests.

Sate citizenship is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Federal citizenship is voluntary. It was the 14th Amendment that gave rise to the concept of dual citizenship: “The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States … and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States… and the other of the state. Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327(1874) headnote 8 “Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431 (1966). The voluntary notion of Federal citizenship has been upheld since the earliest days of the Federal union: “a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty — the right to declare who are its citizens.” State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380, 6 S. 602 (1889).

Federal citizenship is not defined by the Constitution nor is it in the power granted to it o decide for the individual. At best it is a creation of judicial opinion based upon the language of the 14th Amendment; therefore, citizens of the individual States of the Union who endure policies of a Federal Government that conflict with their strong moral convictions, who through taxation are forced contribute their resources to causes that they believe to be wasteful and ill-advised, have an inalienable right to free themselves from their subjugated status just as the original colonies freed themselves from the tyrant King George and his harsh policies of taxation. In essence it appears that we traded one tyrant 4000 miles away for another that tries to mandate and dictate the details of our lives from within the borders of our own country by forcing us to subjugate ourselves to laws and policies that usurp the powers and rights given to us by the Constitution and God almighty himself.

When the federal government creates special classes of persons and seeks to protect them by passing “hate crimes”, when the Federal government passes laws that penalizes the free exchange of ideas by requiring broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoint, this government arguably engages in conduct strictly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, when the Federal government seeks to deny law-abiding citizens ownership of guns under the 2nd Amendment, it violates the 10th Amendment, and it renders Citizens of the States defenseless against the abuses of federal government power, for which the Constitution clearly limits the power that the federal government can claim and exercise. It is the duty of the federal government to protect and defend the Constitution and citizens of the several States, but instead of passing laws that protect lawful conduct, the federal government by denying lawful possession of all types of weapons, by mandating that they purchase insurance, have passed laws that deny State citizens the reasonable expectation to exercise the rights given to them by God, and not in the province of the federal government to regulate nor speculate on the width and breadth of those rights.

There is domestic case authority that a state that secedes does so with the tacit consent of the federal Government, and that secession completely severs the relationship of that State from the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of White v. Texas, following the Civil War, decided that after the Legislature of the State of Texas put to a vote of the people the question as to whether the State should secede from the union, and the measure passed so Texas joined the Confederate States of America. Military forces were organized and put under the direct control of the new Texas State authority. Shortly after its establishment, the new State government collapsed. The Supreme Court held that “Texas by her rebellious courses had so far changed her status, as one of the United States, as to be disqualified from suing in this court.” In effect the United States Supreme Court held that Texas was successful in separating from the United States and was no longer a member of the “union” free from the federal government’s tyrannical views and policies and obviously not under the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.

There is absolutely no reason why a State might not unilaterally declare its independence from governance by Washington Bureaucrats. This is not to say that a State might not consent to contribute its State National Guard to matters of international concern where the national defense is at stake. Like any coalition between the United States and Foreign States, an independent State of the Union might agree to cooperate in matters that are acceptable to the Citizens of their independent State. Even if we set aside the legal framework and talk about human nature and precedent of history we are able to see what is possible. America came into its very existence by way of secession from under the authority of the Crown of England. In this respect secession could be considered honoring and upholding one of the Nations earliest traditions. Those who would say that to advocate secession is treasonous, ignore the history of the very Union in which they live. In theory the right to secede is a powerful deterrent to excessive federal control over intrastate matters, and should not be rejected as a possible cure and could also be considered as one of the checks and balances put into place by our founding fathers.

Since the States voluntarily joined into the United States of America to form a more perfect union, it is logical that this union continues to be voluntary. Assume that the Citizens of a certain State choose to secede from the Union. We should consider what measures the federal government might take. It is almost unthinkable that the inhabitants of the seceding State would suffer personal injury or death as a result of actions taken under the authority of the President with the consent of Congress. Certainly no law is broken when the secession is peaceful through referendum, of course the precedent for successful secession in the past has been an armed conflict to rid the nation of a tyrant. In some respects the bills passed today with their back room bartering and pork add-ons could also be considered taxation without representation.

It is obvious, given the recent evidence of the treatment of detainees in Guantanamo, that the President or Congress would consider incarcerating anyone without the benefit of due process, and without charging a criminal offense. They have already enacted illegal legislation suspending our rights to the legal process, so they can detain us without impunity. In effect with the legislation that the federal government continues to pass they are cementing in the electorates mind that secession may be the only viable tool that they have left in order to guarantee that the rights granted to us by God and he Constitution are preserved and free of limitations imposed onto them by a war mongering, money hungry tyrannical government that in fact already looks at everyday Americans as enemies of the state. The federal government that we currently have is a byproduct of bad policy and decisions by the electorate. Now that the people are beginning to realize their folly and demand change the federal government passes laws in order to maintain their status quo. We were not supposed to be an imperial power but yet the federal government has imposed an illegal policy of imperialism onto every American for the last 100 years. The foreign policy that they have operated under is both flawed and most definitely imperialistic. The federal government has not only become tyrants to the citizens of the union but also tyrants to citizens of every other country around the globe Why else would they use armed drones to spy on the citizenry? Why else would they suspend our right to habeas corpus? Why else would they try to mandate that they have the authority to force commerce down our throats with Obamacare? The federal government is corrupt and broken, and truthfully may even be beyond all hope of repair. It is very clear by their words and actions that they do not have the best interests of the people in mind at all, but more like self-preservation and continuing o promote the differences in races and classes to divide the electorate o fight amongst themselves instead of combining to establish a new government as is our right.

Who would want to secede from the Union? I submit that the answer is those more likely to secede are conservatives since they have in effect opposed the existing expansion of the powers of the President and Congress beyond the strict construction of the U.S. Constitution. Liberals on the other hand are presumably content with the level of incursion into the affairs of the individual States by the federal government and wanting a more direct relationship with the federal government and the individual. Anyone that is appalled at the apparent lack economic acumen that the federal government continues to display as it squanders the tax revenues it generates with failed policies of an imperialistic time period that has passed. People who believe that they are free to determine their governance would be likely to support the act of secession by peoples of a State who wish to self-govern and be free from the burden of the weighty decisions of a liberal U.S. Supreme Court that has been instrumental in aiding Congress to widen its constitutionally proscribed powers until today there is seeming no limit to the power the Court is willing to give to the Federal government no matter how many rights and liberties it has to bastardize and take away from the people. Certainly if the Federal Government fails to provide for the Common defense, or allows the collapse of the U.S. Dollar, there would likely be much more interest among Citizens of a State for self-determination. We are already seeing this in some regard as the federal government continues to spend money that it does not have and pursues reckless policies. The President and the Congress have both become dangers and liabilities to the People. For all intents and purposes we are already financially bankrupt and have passed laws which are considered to be immoral by standards held by a majority of individuals.

The federal government has already done a great job in segregating the public, there is considerable animosity expressed in the liberal national media toward conservatives who “cling to their guns and Bibles”. Individuals that want to adhere to strong financial polices that contradict the welfare status of the federal government are routinely vilified by the elite class of journalists who tend to try and create news more so than reporting it. It is easy to believe that people from all areas of life in America already feel significant segregation from Congress, and those who render judicial opinions, editorial opinions, and newscasters who slant the news and sometime knowingly grossly misrepresent the facts or in some respects ignore then all together. A sufficient number of people exist already who do not want to be told that every action they take in their lives contributes to global warming; therefore are paying exorbitant prices for goods because of woeful environmental regulations that are restrictive to job creators. These asinine policies add billions to the cost of goods and services and regularly cost jobs. The supposed green movement is a cause championed by the misguided media and the federal government backed by the federal courts. Maybe they all sit around reading the Joshua Tree with their thumbs up their rears trying to see who can come up with the most costly and restrictive legislation to force don the electorates throat. The failure of Federal Programs like Welfare, Social Security and Medicare has already created a schism between the liberals who support them and conservatives who want to curtail government spending and make sure that the social policies of the federal government are viable. It is not difficult to believe that if the federal government continues on the path that it is going down that more and more people will begin to question their viability. As we continue to slide into moral and financial decay any and all options that can be taken to remedy the situation need to be considered, and that does not mean more laws and regulations coming from Washington. It is well past time that the members of both house and all elected officials read the document that they are sworn to protect and defend, because it is obvious that many of them have no clue as to what the Constitution says.

There is likely to be a continued and tremendous groundswell of emotion, indignation, and repressed anger, and it is very likely given these scenarios that Citizens of prosperous states will not likely be willing to carry on their shoulders the failures and bankruptcies of a federal government that is unable to balance a budget and no longer able to provide of the national defense. People will become extremely tired of being labored with maintaining the parasites as we are having to do in the current welfare state. We have the responsibility to ourselves and to future generations to fix the broken shoddy form of government that we currently have if that means by secession then so be it. Can we as individuals and States seceed from the union? Yes we can. We the People are the ones that through our consent and good graces give the usurpers and morons in Washington their authority.

Leave a Reply