Sunday, April 27, 2014

What If? Not a Civil War, but States vs. Feds?

Note: Edited slightly from the original for the sake of clarity of intent.

I am going to mention some provocative questions here, but I want it to be clearly known that I am advocating nothing. I do not want bloodshed, but I do want our American way of life preserved. I want to see just how much of the original American spirit from 1776 remains.

What if the federal government continues (under Obama's arrogance and belief that he can rule like a dictator) to overreach. They grab land, they take over our most personal relationships between our doctors and us, and assert the non-American idea that the state is supreme. What should we do?

Could it come to the nation's governors and state legislatures deciding "enough is enough?" Obama says he "has a pen and a phone." Well, so do the nation's governors. What if the governors—if they cannot unfederalize the National Guard—could they elect to legislate and call up a separate state statute that a new militia is being formed—one accountable to the state with the governors as commanders in chief, and not to the feds?

Could the governors, backed by the legislatures, say to the Obama Administration, "No more. No more power and land grabs. So-called "federal" property that is not legitimately federal property such as military bases and government buildings is now confiscated by the states. (We're talking huge swaths of land within state borders.) All local and state police forces are now the new state militias. Your unconstitutional federal mandates will be ignored. And if you try to send federal troops into the states, you will be resisted."

And a big "what if" to the U.S. military—those federal troops. You all hail from states and localities. Should orders come for you to act against the citizenry, could you all collectively say "NO!" since the "Commander in Chief" seems so little inclined to respect the Constitution and American rule of law? You are sworn to the Constitution, not to be slaves of Obama or any other president. The rule of law is not by cafeteria plan. If Obama won't behave and respect the Constitution, maybe the states, counties, municipalities, local police and other armed citizenry who love local law enforcement and their local police friends who back them WILL respect it. I am even hoping (in the wake of Obama dismissing generals who disagree with them) that our military by and large will agree and protect the people if push came to shove.

Again, I am not advocating armed rebellion by fringe groups, individuals and loose cannon "militias." I am talking about legitimately constituted authority on the state and local level restraining the federal leviathan. My hope of what I am advocating is that it will PREVENT the bloodshed that might arise later if nothing is done to nip this in the bud. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration presupposed the right (and a right is NOT a privilege—rights are inherent and cannot lawfully be taken). Privileges can be.) for an oppressed people to change their government. Preferably by the ballot box, but when voter fraud, lying media, and a host of other things compromise the people making intelligent decisions, must other methods be considered? Hard, hard question.

I do not want war. I do not want civil war. But in America, we have a battle between those who really value America and why we were constructed the way we were by our Founders, and the most recent crop of statist bureaucrats and office holders who don't care about the Constitution other than by lip service. Statists hate our freedom, our individuality, and government power is their solution. They are, and always have been, enamored of the authority and total power of the State to bring their desired Utopia into pass. And once they gain total power, history is shown that they are unparalleled in their brutality to get their way.

The Bundy situation in Nevada has been obscured by the octopus ink of his racist and racially insensitive statements. As repugnant as those are, the fundamental issue has not changed. The feds are overreaching. States have reserved powers that are not relegated to the Feds. The states just don't use them much. They tend to cave in to the Feds. It needs to stop, now.

Please note: our Founders saw a place for the federal government, but they kept it on a leash. The federal government is constrained by the Constitution. When we have leaders in office (including one sitting Supreme Court Justice) who vocally express their disdain for the Constitution, then those leaders must be kept at arms' length and stopped when necessary.

I must say it one more time. I do NOT want things to degenerate to this. I hope and pray not. God forbid. Yet we currently have a Chief Executive who thinks he can do whatever he wants with a pen and a phone. This is cockiness, this is arrogance, and it needs to be slapped down. And that is for the benefit of future Chief Executives who forget their Constitutional limits.

If there is a new Civil War in America, it will not be divided by North and South. It will be divided by those who are statist and those who revere our liberties. We need to think it over, and think it over hard. I pray it is not too late to restore Constitutional balance to our body politic. But it may be. More on that later.

Addendum to the above. Two things—remove the "allegedly" from the paragraph about Bundy's statements. They were racist at worst, and extremely insensitive as the least. Second, attorney and talk show host Mark Levin has suggested a Constitutional Convention as a solution to federal overreach. I would like to think he is right, but anytime anyone suggests opening up the Constitution for rewriting, I get very, very nervous. Once you do that, if I understand a Con-Con correctly, you open it up and anything can happen. Consider retired Justice John Paul Stevens wanting to add "militia only" to the 2nd Amendment the other day. Your right to keep and bear arms gone in a flash. Better be very careful with that one.

No comments: