My extremely knowledgeable husband, The Hoosier Gadfly (HG),
is planning to do a blog post about the next step for those who still hope to
preserve our republic as per its constitutional framework. However, he may not
get to it for a day or three, so I am putting together this preview in the
meantime, based on some notes he threw together.
Five secession petitions, concerning five states, have
appeared on the whitehouse.gov petition website. Secession is hopeless, and
makes for lousy PR -- but there is another state-based approach that may offer
a hint of promise, if a sufficient number of states follow it.
Article VI, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution requires all
legislative, judicial and executive officers of the states, as well as of the
federal government, to swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution.
That Constitution includes the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated
to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
HG paraphrases this as saying: "When we talked about a federal
government of limited, enumerated powers, WE MEANT IT."
It is also worth noting, as well, the language affixed by
the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate to the proposed Bill of
Rights when it was circulated to the states, including the following: "The
Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the
Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse
of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
. . . ."
Finally, we must keep in mind that at the time the
Constitution and then the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, the
citizenry as a whole was expected to be able to read and comprehend them. They
were not considered arcane and mysterious documents that only exalted judges in
robes could interpret.
Add all this together, and you have an obligation and
responsibility for state governments to uphold the Constitution as reasonably
understood, even when any or all branches of the federal government have tossed
it aside as antiquated or inconvenient.
We have seen some movement in this direction in the recent
election, where a number of states passed referenda legalizing or
decriminalizing marijuana, a drug the federal government has (with no
constitutional power as a basis) declared illegal, or proclaiming that health
insurance or health care will remain a province of state government, not
subject to federal fiat. HG suggests a more comprehensive and coordinated
campaign, which could be called "Civil Obedience," and/or "Red
State Evolution." As many states as possible should declare that they will
neither enforce nor allow the enforcement of any unconstitutional federal
statutes or regulations within their borders. Any federal agents attempting the
latter will be restrained and escorted hence. If enough states take this stand,
it will be impractical to take action against them.
If any "blue states" find this situation
intolerable -- let them talk of
secession. The states exercising Civil Obedience have no intention of leaving
the Union -- nor of letting it be further
subverted by those also sworn to defend it.
No comments:
Post a Comment