by: Gary Hardee
Some may wish to be a ward of the state, receiving from it gratefully the crumbs of what are their natural rights, bowing low to accommodate the will of the “collective” and yield to the pervasive “group think” that now haunts the thinking of our citizens… but where does it end?
Perhaps you are married “till death do us part”. Does that rule out a divorce from a totally out of control marriage that is clearly violating its foundational tenants? Why do laws allow for divorce in the face of that voluntary vow of monogamy and other expected normal functioning of a married loving couple?
Isn’t it funny how we apply situation ethics when we find the ends to our liking? Are there times when extreme irreconcilable conditions exist that justify ones public appeals for peace, harmony or justice?
We forbid involuntary servitude and rightfully object to taxation without representation but let one person get serious with their clear defiance to such treatment and threaten to divorce themselves from the oppression, harming the union, and they all of a sudden become the threat? Is there no relief for an injured and abused victim? Elections you say? Become a democracy you say? Let 51% rule the other 49% you say?
We can peacefully decent but not too much, right? How and why does loyalty and patriotism to your nation’s founding principles become widely viewed as insurrection?
“Separate but equal” is the often criticized term, wrongly accused of being rooted in racism when it is more clearly rooted in our own individual rights. Under our union of states we are and were meant to be separate but equal. “Equal” in the eyes of the federal government, is to show no favoritism to one state over another in adjudicating disputes between them. Yet they are sovereign, free to otherwise compete with one another, their people freely moving about in support of that state that most reflects our preferred conditions for happiness.
Is it not proper, that we can enter into a contract and it become null, if breached by the signers, and seek court enforced remunerations against the violating party? By this measure, is it not also proper that upon decades of merciless violations of the Constitution which they alone approved would seek relief as sovereign members from that union? When if not under such circumstances are states superior to that which they created? It defies logic that parties to a contract creating something cannot also de-create that something when it no longer serves the agreed upon best interests of the parties that created it, or as they say, “no longer functions as the founders intended”. The concept of willful consensual participation in an atmosphere of unilateral and widespread abuse only goes so far. Redress of grievances was one of the reasons we declared independence from Great Britain.
So, while I am not at all in favor of secession or any dissolution of our republic, I am totally in favor of reviving the contract as it is written and amended “from time to time”.
The “republic” that Benjamin Franklin alluded to is too sadly remote from the knowledge and hearts of her people. The 17th amendment struck a horrible blow to that republic and has resulted in the erosion of the states’ voice in checking and balancing the easily fanned emotions of the people. We are suffering from its approval and will re-balance when it is repealed.
Even the great capitalist favoring business magazine (Forbes) would not remain in an oft violated contract with anyone without seeking firm relief and justice under repeated violations.
Injunctive relief is the larger motive behind recent calls for secession. While the citizens’ general knowledge of our union is severely lacking, it may compel the states to act, being one of the guardians and responsible parties to the pact.
As long as our states elected legislatures operate within the confines of their respective state constitutions and seek that injunctive relief through state calls, we may yet curtail and retract the unauthorized actions of the federal government that brought us to this stage. It is not to bring about harm by the secession calls, quite the contrary! Saying that the union will be harmed or damaged is to rule out the attainment of due relief and balance that more properly existed and heal the nation by again putting the horse in front of the cart. The people’s natural rights are the source of authority for the states, and with the states, are the higher authority of the federal government, and in that order.
May we accomplish the objective of re-balancing post-haste! Then and only then will be see a free nation produce to its potential.