Posted on 04/08/2010 3:41:36 AM PDT by Scanian
If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways? The question is even more relevant today and Dr. Williams revisits it in a column . Whatever divide existed in 2000 has only widened today. The party in power has a different vision for America than the majority of Americans.
The uneasy schism existed since the founding of the country. Even some of the founders debated these issues. Initially, the schism was small and held in check by a functioning Constitution. Over time, the Constitution has been deprecated by politicians of both parties. Today, it is little more than a quaint artifact of history in the eyes of many politicians.
Many Americans feel strongly that the Constitution should be the controlling document to contain government.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are Sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a Sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.
--- Jeff Davis, Pres. CSA
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.