Posted on 01/01/2014 4:35:36 AM PST by Kaslin
Here's a question that I've asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group? Yes or no. My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.
The problem our nation faces is very much like a marriage in which one partner has an established pattern of ignoring and breaking the marital vows. Moreover, the offending partner has no intention to mend his ways. Of course, the marriage can remain intact while one party tries to impose his will on the other and engages in the deviousness of one-upsmanship and retaliation. Rather than domination or submission by one party, or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.
I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage where vows are broken, our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. These constitutional violations have increased independent of whether there's been a Democrat-controlled Washington or a Republican-controlled Washington.
There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways. You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at the magnitude of the violations.
Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is there authority for Congress to tax and spend for: Medicare, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and thousands of other activities that account for roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to citizens about what type of health insurance they must purchase, how states and people may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps, and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do just about anything for which they can muster a majority vote.
James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." Our founder's constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Americans have several options. We can like sheep submit to those who have contempt for liberty and our Constitution. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and Constitution. A superior alternative is to find a way to peaceably separate into states whose citizens respect liberty and the Constitution. My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.
I like this. I agree with Walter.
Because he is right.
The host would benefit greatly but the ticks would die and they know it.
Protestations to the contrary, separation would be as lethal to the big-government types as the war itself so they must choose to fight.
A calm, articulate voice for freedom is much more dangerous to the parasitic class than the shrill protests of those who are rightfully disgusted by today’s FedGov.
Walter Williams is an academic.
It’s true that a host of things the feds do have no basis in the Constitution, including as he says, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, federal education spending, farm subsidies, etc. etc. (and now health insurance and health care regulation).
He thinks we should separate into states that want to live under the Constitution and states that don’t.
Being an academic is an interesting exercise but doesn’t conjoin with the real world we have created over many decades in this country, where entire lives are organized around a set of assumptions and promises that have been made.
Yes, you can claim that you’ll protect people from bad outcomes by shielding them from having their lives ripped apart, until they die off, but you’ll treat younger people according to the Constitution. IOW, have a transitional period. Managing THAT would be a nightmare in itself...
I’m not saying there’s NO answer. Mark Levin has proposed one in “the Liberty Amendments”. Structurally, states would gather enough support to reign in the out-of-control statists at the federal level using a Constitutional amendment process initiated by states themselves.
Williams comments are relevant but the practical aspects of our predicament are going to rule the day.
In 1776 people like you in the many colonies were called loyalists. King George III was grateful for folks like you.
It is time for a separation of free states and socialist states, it can be done peacefully or in a bitter pitched struggle to the end. Either way, I am good.
e all know right from wrong and we all know who is right.
Will we fight for it? Some of us will.
Our Feral Government supports this concept all over the world except in one country - The USA.
Once again, I agree with Williams. But your post tells us why a peaceful separation can and will never happen. The parasites will fight to the death to maintain their status. I can guarantee that any separation will not be peaceful, same as in 1861.
I believe we are at the point that we need to be divided into two separate countries.
Isn’t this what that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is trying to do?
Great point.
I think Walter is operating under a flawed premise: that the Constitution as it stands limits the scope and breadth of government. That’s simply not true.
Back in the 18th century as today, there were statist toadies trying to expand the scope of government. THEY were the ones pushing for the Constitution. The anti-federalists led by Patrick Henry were against it. The Bill of Rights was only grudgingly included to secure ratification.
The fear of the anti-Federalists was that the Constitution would result in a thinly veiled monarchy. 200 plus years later, I think we can see for ourselves whether their fears were well founded.
They are the ones who were suppose to be the weakest in dealing with the people and yet the strongest when dealing with the other branches of government.
The Courts are suppose to keep the other too branches in line, but they are appointed by the very people they are suppose to oversee.......
I am missing something here?
“Am I missing something here?”
Not really. I would just suggest that perhaps it’s by design. As Lysander Spooner noted over 100 years ago: “The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or been powerless to prevent it.”
Marbury vs Madison was a power grab by the judiciary. I wonder what the deal was at the time, because the other branches of the government could have fairly easily smacked down the judiciary and said, no, this is NOT your role. Some years later, Andrew Jackson did smack down the judiciary. Although his motivation had little to do with carefully considered Constitutional principles.
Kc you Idiot.
Anyway, We are on the Same wave lenght Democrat.
Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears/Nullification Crisis was a prime example of the Court needing to enforce their ruling.
Yet they were powerless in the face of an Imperial Executive.
What were they going to do? Arrest Him?
If we look at the Constitution in it's original form, it is actually kind of terrifying, NO Guarantee's of Free Speech or Unlawful Searches.
Some thought they were unnecessary, like double covering your bases by putting the bill of rights in there, such as having a Constitutional Amendment banning Murder, why would you do that? It's Already Illegal.
So of course you already had Freedom of Speech and Religion and by making the government a guarantor of it you put them as the Arbiter. Like accepting Federal Money in modern times.
But how did they screw up the Judiciary so bad?
I think we make a mistake in believing that the judiciary is inherently more just or less political than the other branches of government. They’re just as much into power for its own sake.
I think the way its fixed is pretty much the same way the problems with the other two branches will be fixed: at the personal, family, or tribal level. You aren’t going to be able to “correct” it at the macro level because its pretty much operating the way it was intended to operate.Its not a bug, its a feature. So the key is minimizing the impact on you and yours.
Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.
We need to be a Moral and upright people, otherwise it doesn't matter who is in office our nation will be corrupt and weak.
If we are then the same is true, we can weather any storm.
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.