Monday, October 13, 2008

But wait!, might secession (or the threat of secession) be our only option?

Yesterday I wrote that the secession movement is an ill-conceived movement that can accomplish nothing, if followed through to its end, but fracture of the country and civil war, followed by, if the country could survive a modern civil war at all, tyranny of the victorious part over the losers. And I offered what to me is a more sensible plan, an Article V state initiated convention for proposing amendments.

I can quote many founders and many founding documents on this, but for the time being, and since I'm a bit short on time this morning, let's consider a few excerpts from Washington's Farewell Speech:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists 'til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community, and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

As I've written before, the full text of Washington's speech is well worth your time to read and reflect on often. It, along with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Monroe Doctrine, and perhaps a few others should serve as our political scriptures.

Recently as well I wrote about the supposed "exclusive" authority of the federal government over immigration, and the illegitimacy of this false doctrine. I wrote there that the basis on which this illegitimate doctrine is founded -- where Congress has "occupied the field" and intended a "complete ouster" is a dangerous and an unAmerican doctrine which effectively and for all intents and purposes makes the constitution, or any stipulation contained therein reserving to the states and to the people certain powers not explicitly granted to the national government, null and void.

I wrote in yesterday's post concerning Article V that the state initiated method for proposing amendments had miraculously managed to survive the assault on the constitution let loose in its full fury since the establishment of the fourteenth amendment. As an aside, there is some pretty solid evidence that the fourteenth amendment was not ratified by Congress according to the constitutional prescription. It shouldn't surprise any of us that the defeated southern states which opposed the amendment would have their Congresses dismissed and more favorable Congresses installed in their places by the all-powerful oppressive federal regime.

But to get on with the point of the post, and to summarize what my investigation has yielded on the subject thus far, it seems that the federal courts have once again struck down a clear constitutional provision intended by the founders as a (to use a modern expression) backup to the backup. And on what grounds have they colluded with Congress to overthrow the constitution? Well, apparently the docrine of federal preemption in all things governmental (read: tyranny and oppression!) is more deeply ingrained than I'd originally thought.

Now if you'll kindly pardon me, I think I'll get started eating my crow. (More later when I've had time to digest some of this ... crap.)

I still maintain that the secessionist movement, in and of itself, is an ill-advised movement, UNLESS it is part of a larger strategy intended to regain control of our government by peaceful constitutional means. And let's be clear about what the stakes are here -- this whole concept, as I've said so many times before, that the federal judiciary is the last word on the constitution is as illegitimate and unAmerican a concept as there ever was or ever shall be. There are times, my friends, when we must act in direct defiance of our government; when we must abjectly deny its self-proclaimed authority over all matters constitutional, and reassert our power as the ultimate and final arbiters of the constitution. Otherwise we're nothing more than slaves subject to the whims of an arbitrary government, whether we realize it or not.

What am I proposing?

Much will need to be added to my initial thoughts on this, but the following is basically what I'm proposing.

First, irregardless of what the federal courts have ruled and on what illegitimate basis they mean to collude with Congress and subject us to their oppressive arbitrary rule, I reject their arbitrary authority and rulings out of hand. The constitutional prescription for calling a convention for proposing amendments is not in the power of either Congress or the federal judiciary or the Executive branch to change or overthrow. It is the power reserved to the people through their state legislatures, by explicit constitutional decree, and to none other. I therefore declare any ruling to the contrary null and void. The first point then is this, let the federal courts rule as they will on this subject then laugh them into derision.

Second, we can use a recent example to show that the people still retain to themselves ultimate and final authority on matters constitutional, and that our federal "masters" will cower to the will of the people when and if the people assert themselves -- the killing of the Senate Amnesty Bill.

Third, we need to combine forces with groups such as the Secessionist movement to effect our ends of setting our government aright.

Fourth, we need to advocate for an Article V convention as a singular purposeful movement throughout the states under the banner of some overarching theme, i.e., the restoration of Balanced Constitutional Government. The purpose here is to show unity under a common theme and singularity of purpose. The problem thus far with effecting an Article V convention, as I see it, is that there has been no national unity of purpose; no movement among the states that could effect the requisite number (two thirds) of states needed, at any single time, to effect the convention. No; the applications of the states are, though they line up under common motives in certain cases and do meet the requisite number required, spread out over the course of time, and therefore easily dismissed by the federal Congress as just so many separate applications which, in and of themselves, and spread out over time as they are, do not meet the requisite number laid down in Article V.

The purpose in point four can be summed up this way: Get the requisite number of states on board and under a common overarching purpose in a relatively short span of time, say, five years. If the requisite number of applications are made, under a common overarching banner and within a short span of time, by the states, Congress cannot simply ignore them as they have over the course of our history. If Congress inadvisedly chooses, under these conditions, to declare that it has "exclusive" authority in proposing amendments, then the people would be actuated to take immediate action.

The four points I've drafted above are not intended in any way to exhaust those things we need to do in order to effect an Article V convention. Surely persons a lot smarter than I am and more Constitutionally astute can either add to, take away, or revise what I've written in the four points to better suit our purposes. The main point is to devise the bare bones of a plan and a strategy to save the constitution and our people. Any additional thoughts from my readers are greatly appreciated.

One last thing, I realize that there is a fear that the entirety of the federal constitution might be overthrown if such a convention were to be held. I would answer this fear in a couple of ways -- First, I personally don't believe this outcome has a chance in hell of ever happening. The People, by a solemn act of themselves as a whole, will never "scrap" the entirety of the U.S. Constitution. Too many Americans believe its principles to be sacred and inviolable. Second, as I've shown here and elsewhere, the federal government has already effected the overthrow of the constitution for all intents and purposes. As long as we permit it to believe it has all and exclusive power and authority; that it is the final arbiter, and not the people, nothing will be done to change it and federal government will continue to assert its prentended power in actuality until all, including any window of opportunity left to us to rectify the situation and rein the federal government in, will have been lost.