by Mike Gray
Former Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin has grave doubts about America’s future, particularly with respect to the two major political parties of today:
. . . my conviction [is] that the only chance we have to maintain and defend liberty in these United States is for free and independent states to rise in righteous indignation against the onslaught of federal tyranny that is rapidly destroying our republic. America—as one nation—is beyond redemption. The federal government is too arrogant, too malevolent, and too drunk with power to ever allow itself to be returned to the principles of federalism and constitutionalism. And this is true no matter which of the two political parties is in charge.
Can secession be an antidote to an out-of-control federal government? Russell D. Longcore thinks it’s achievable, but with what practical results?
The practical blueprint for secession omits the practical realities of politics. To wit, no state government will consider secession until Washington’s system collapses. No state will voluntarily secede until the economic system is so hopelessly, irrecoverably destroyed that Washington can offer nothing more than hyperinflation and martial law. And even in the face of that desperate situation, only a handful of states will secede. The rest will meekly await their orders from their DC masters.
Wilton Strickland has a proposal that involves keeping intrastate arguments within the states instead of running to the federal courts, which he views as a self-defeating exercise:
In a previous article, I offered suggestions for the states to achieve independence by weaning themselves from the federal government and the quasi-religious sentiment now surrounding it. One ingredient I neglected to mention is rather important because it lies squarely within our power as private citizens; at the same time, it is difficult to swallow because it challenges firmly held notions about the Bill of Rights.
Specifically, we must stop running to the federal courthouse whenever a state or local law displeases us. “Making a federal case” out of every nuisance has become a national pastime rivaling baseball, and no corner of America will achieve independence or liberty until we learn to solve our problems within our communities rather than seek federal intervention from without.
My proposition may sound ludicrous because almost everyone now considers it the role of the federal courts to enforce the Bill of Rights against any local, state, or federal antagonist who would dare violate it. On the left side of the spectrum, we find litigants eager to disrupt any attempt by state or local authorities to uphold community standards of decorum; to prevent abortion; to acknowledge God in the public sphere; or to preserve our ability to hire, fire, sell, lease, or otherwise associate as we choose.
On the right side of the spectrum, we also find litigants who make avid use of federal courts, but for different reasons. This sort of litigation is geared toward disrupting attempts by state or local authorities to license professions; to regulate economic affairs; to take or burden private property; to remove religious symbols from public life; or to impose restrictions on gun ownership.
State and local authorities thus find themselves buffeted on all sides by litigation that gives federal courts an obscene amount of power to decide each community’s destiny, which goes a long way toward explaining why “community spirit” has become a quaint notion indeed. In the process, the courts have pummeled the Bill of Rights into an unrecognizable carcass.
This reverses the process intended by the nation’s founders, he notes:
. . . the modern court relishes its role as “perpetual censor” and has inverted the constitutional order. Under the Constitution of the Founders, the states decided which powers the federal government would have; today, it is the federal government that decides which powers the state governments will have.
“Conservatives” and “libertarians” who run to federal court and beg for this treatment are their own worst enemies. Their quest for a federal veto on local matters such as gun control or property takings does just as much harm as the American Civil Liberties Union’s quest to eradicate religion from public view or to establish abortion as a secular sacrament.
Hence the enthusiasm Baldwin, Longcore, and Strickland evince for secession. In their view, the federal government is on power grab jag which only extreme measures will be able to curtail. Baldwin asks a reasonable question:
As I have said before, if the founders intended that the federal government should have unlimited power and authority to decide (translate: dictate) all matters of law and liberty, why, in the name of common sense, did the states retain their individuality, independence, and sovereignty following the ratification of the U.S. Constitution? What was the 10th Amendment all about, if the federal government was the final arbiter and authority in all matters of law and liberty?
As a self-proclaimed constitutional expert, perhaps the President should be compelled to answer that. I have a feeling, though, that the AWOL media will never bring it up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resources:
Chuck Baldwin’s article.
Russell D. Longcore’s article.
Wilton Strickland’s article.
