"Secession? Not now, not ever. Never!"
Posted on 06/30/2003 6:03:55 PM PDT by B.O. Plenty
HTML> FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
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.
It's time to part company
One political question we have to answer is whether George W. Bush or Albert Gore shall be president, and just which party will control the House of Representatives and the Senate. But I'd suggest that there's a far more important long-run question we must answer: 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, and 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?
Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.
Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: "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."
Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress' mandates to the states and people about how they 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. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end.
Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, controlling their legislatures and then issuing a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776.
You say, "Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person." That's nonsense. Liberty shouldn't require a vote. It's a God-given or natural right.
Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn't peaceably secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.
The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?
WorldNetDaily contributor Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
I understand that the US is a Republic -- but it has some democratic institutions, so the concept of "majority wins" is not alien to America.
But look at the Leftists long love affair with Affirmative Action. That's basically a ploy saying, "Whether we are right or wrong, we feel that most of society has certain feelings about people with dark skin. We feel that most of society is wrong. So, we'll stack the deck and make damn sure that the minority comes out on top, no matter what the majority thinks." They hate democracy! What's the name of their political party? I forget.
Look at filibusters. That's a ploy saying, "Most of the senate has certain feelings about pending legislation and judicial nominations. Most of the senate is wrong. So, we'll stack the deck and make damn sure that the minority comes out on top, no matter what the majority thinks." They hate democracy!!
Forget the Tenth, they have now removed the limitation of the Ninth Amendment.
A branch of the Federal government exercised power to determine and to abridge our unenumerated rights.
Whoa! there...I Think Kalifornia has the same deal...cancels out... :|
"Liberty?" Is that what the struggle against homosexuality is about? I beg to differ.
When will conservatives stop the rhetoric that identifies libertarianism as conservatism's central tenet? Our liberal enemies can only call us hypocrites and laugh at us. Yet every movement towards immorality is portrayed by conservative/libertarian rhetoric as a "restriction of freedom."
There are some issues more important than the amount of freedom or size of government. All societies are required by the Creator of the Universe to outlaw homosexual acts and make them punishable by death. That's what this is about.
I realize this may offend some FReepers, but the use of people's moral instincts to promote libertarianism is very dishonest.
Sam's advice was right only insofar as Texas would have been better off on its own without the confederacy. We held our own throughout the entire war. No sizable yankee army even took hold on our soil until a month after Lee surrendered.
Those that had come during the war were chased out almost as fast as they landed, and the ones that landed were few at that. Lincoln's biggest invasion force contained some 5,000 in the lead men with 15,000 more following right behind them. Every single one of them, or at least those who survived the battle, scattered back to New Orleans in shame after being defeated by a mere 44 Texans with six small cannons at an earthen fort. True story.
The individual's right to freely exercise his or her liberty is not dependent upon whether the majority believes such exercise to be moral, dishonorable, or wrong. Simply because something is beyond the pale of "majoritarian morality" does not place it beyond the scope of constitutional protection. To allow the moral indignation of a majority (or, even worse, a loud and/or radical minority) to justify criminalizing private consensual conduct would be a strike against freedoms paid for and preserved by our forefathers.
...who died believing that Texas should resume its status as a free and independent nation.
"Keep the change"
-Texas
Call it the New Orleans syndrome ; )
Now wait a minute. By your own stats, you say we get back 95 cents for every dollar we give. By my calculations that leaves us at a 5 cent deficit, so why should we have to give you anything?
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.