[Noumenon]

A timely re-post of a classic. Chodorov was one of America's truly great thinkers for the cause of liberty. If nothing else, this essay should alert us to what some of us already know all too well - that this Obamunist takeover of what promises to be every sphere of human thought and endeavor has been a long time in the making.

The question is: what are we going to do about it? Do we have the courage to face the answer? And then act?

[Huck]

It’ll have to get much worse before anything happens. Maybe this is off topic, but have you seen people sweeping their driveways with gas powered blowers? Raking leaves with same? I’m talking owners, not landscapers. I see it all the time. As long as we have people stupid enough to use a gas powered broom, we haven’t reached the bottom yet.

[gorilla_warrior]

Many parts of the country are for the most part comfortable with totalitarian government and will never secede. We need one or two large states like Texas and Alaska to secede, others will follow. Personally I think it is wrong to think in terms of states, and more productive to think in terms of counties or congressional districts. For example, there are huge areas of California - on of the “bluest” of states, that would secede if it was practical. If secession were to occur it would require wholesale revision of political boundaries.

[Welcome2thejungle]

Secession has a much better chance of success than trying to remove BHO over the birth certificate issue which is going no where.

[mrsmel]

People these days don't even realise how much control we have conceded to the federal government just in the 20th century, and it's accelerating. Income tax would've been unthinkable 150 years ago. It was only supposed to be a "temporary" measure when it was implemented, but like all leftist government "temporary" takeovers, it not only became permanent, but has expanded and become a jackboot on the necks of Americans who don't even realise the weight is there because we've become so used to it. And it happens just the same way with every program the left implements.Because it alwaysabout centralising power, the better to consolidate it and hold all the reins tightly when the day came. I think that day is here now.

[norton]

First time I've seen this piece.

Entirely as an academic exercise I'd like to see what the "Davis and Lee were traitors" crowd that infests CW posts has to say about the same subject updated...?

On the other hand, I think our present central government would act a lot sooner and (yes) more harshly to any remotely serious form of states rights movement today.

And, I guarantee that the UN would provide all the aid and succor needed to assure that North America didn't pick up any votes in that (sarc) esteemed body (/ sarc).

[freedommom]

Which states do we secede to?

imho The federal reserve is at the base of all corruption.
I'm sure they are involved with states too.
We need to know who cooks the books in US government AND
indivdual states government.

I'm sure if we knew all the lies we would be shocked.

[boxlunch]

Bump for a great article.

[antisocial]

BTTT

[G Larry]

I can imangine a wide swath from Nevada to the Illinois border, just checking out......

[Robert DeLong]

I prefer State Legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention.

[unixfox]

Those that want to secede could form a new union and tell the rest to go eff themselves!

[Jackknife]

Read this.

[dynachrome]

From 1952 and timely today.

“There is no end of trouble the states can give the centralizers by merely refusing to cooperate. Such refusal would meet with popular acclaim if it were supplemented with a campaign of education on the meaning of states’ rights, in terms of human freedom.”

[TigersEye]

I’m ready for secession. If CO won’t do it then I’ll move to a state that will.

[grumpa]

Texas is rolling toward secession:

http://www.texasnationalist.com/

http://www.thetexasrepublic.com/Home_Page.php

http://www.texassecede.com/

http://freetexasconstitution.wordpress.com/

[supercat]

I would suggest that more people need to be aware of a few simple truths, which aren't really taught in schools but can be derived by simple logic. Among them:

1. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any government act contrary to the Constitution is illegitimate. If an act is unconstitutional, neither the Supreme Court nor any other agency has any authority to declare it otherwise, unless the Constitution is amended via Article V to allow for such action. Any such declaration made without authority is illegitimate and void.
2. Any government action which could not be justified without court precedent is unjustifiable and illegitimate.
3. Juries have a right and duty to regard the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, any judicial declarations notwithstanding. No judge has any legitimate authority to demand they do otherwise.
4. The Supreme Court has no authority over anyone other than the parties to the cases before it. The claim that "precedent" is some sort of uber-law is entirely without legitimate Constitutional basis.
5. The right to a jury trial implies a right of a defendant to demand that a jury make any and all applicable factual determinations. If a judge makes some factual determinations himself, but does so contrary to what a jury would have decided, and if he withholds information from the jury on the basis of such determinations, the verdict attributed to the jury may really be the work of the judge.
6. The reasonableness of searches will often be dependent upon factual issues unique to the cases for which they are used. While it is common for courts to declare that behavior which was "reasonable" in one case is automatically "reasonable" in another, there is no legitimate basis for such declarations. Since unreasonable searches are illegitimate, juries should not construe any evidence from such searches in a manner detrimental to a defendant.
7. The reasonableness of punishments (i.e. fines' being "not excessive", or other punishments' not being "cruel and unusual") is often dependent upon details of of the applicable cases (including, but not limited to, a defendant's state of mind). A punishment which would be if anything too lenient if a particular witness telling the truth, might be grossly excessive if the witness is lying. If a jury's authority to rate the credibility of witnesses is to be upheld, juries must be allowed to limit sentences. Judges routinely block juries from even knowing what sentences would apply to the crimes their judging; I would expect they do that because they know that juries would regard the sentences as excessive and thus illegitimate.
8. A person who performs an action with an objectively reasonable belief the either the action is either de jure or else it is both legal de facto and harmless to others, generally does not have criminal intent; to punish such a person severely would generally be excessive.
9. All free people have a right to keep and bear arms. To disarm someone is to deny that person's liberty. The only people who may be legitimately disarmed are those who may be legitimately regarded as "not free".
10. While there might be some debate regarding the legitimacy of statutes or laws which would, as a side-effect, interfere with people's ability to arm themselves (e.g. requirements that firearms marked for certain calibers be able to withstand certain chamber pressures), any statute whose clear purpose or effect is to make it difficult for some free people to arm themselves effectively is an infringement of such people's right to keep and bear arms, and is thus illegitimate.
11. A government agent who does something without legitimate authority is no less of a crook than would be someone not affiliated with government who does the same thing.
12. A government agent who covers up the crimes of another government agent becomes complicit in the lesser of (1) what he believes those crimes to be, or (2) what they actually are.
13. Denouncing an illegitimate government is not anarchistic. To the contrary, those who oppose anarchy must oppose the anarchists in an illegitimate government.

The Constitution is actually pretty simple. What's hard is trying to twist the Constitution so as to maintain the pretense that the government's behavior is legitimate. Drop the pretense, and the boundaries of legitimate government become much clearer.

[Repeal The 17th]

This is from 1952?
Dang, I was a one-year old.
Who’d a thunk it?

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks dynachrome. Truly a timeless article noumenon!

Not exactly 10th Amendment but a great article nonetheless; certainly something for us I believe in the vanguard to give some serious thought to. Glenn Beck made a good point on his show a day or two ago: Looking ahead at potential scenarios, consider your options and make your decision beforehand based on the various scenarios. Be prepared. No surprises.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Through two very small blurbs, i.e. the “interstate commerce clause” and the “health and welfare clause”, the federal government has seized massive amounts of power that far exceed the true scope of the Constitution. It is ridiculous that the federal government even THINKS they have the power to seize and redistribute trillions of dollars and to federalize the entire health care industry on mere PIECES of sentences in the Constitution. If we had a judiciary that gave a damned for the Constitution, they would have slapped down the vast majority of legislation as unconstitutional decades ago.

[djf]

In 1776, we were hounded by tyrants 3000 miles away.

Same deal today. They’re just closer.