Can The States Secede? Good, Bad…

Ok, right off the bat we’ve got a problem. Before we discuss any pros, or cons of an action, let’s make sure we’re all working with the same rule book. That book for the US, is the US Constitution. If we consult this massive, and complicated tomb, of legalese, we actually discover a tiny, single page document. So, not hard to do.

In this document we find that the states, are the sovereign parties, that chose to make their relationship an official union, through contract. That’s what the Constitution is. It’s a contract among the states.

It’s a simple matter of a compact of convenience, security, and prosperity.

If this isn’t made crystal clear through the body of the original text, which it is. It’s set in stone in the 9th, and 10th amendments that were forced into the contract before the Constitution was even accepted.

Then the people of the states voted to ratify this new government. They accepted small losses in sovereignty, to enjoy a free market, of unfettered free trade among their fellow countrymen.

Not a bad deal, as long as the terms of the agreement were honored by all parties involved. The problem has been, for some time now, the confusion, and criminality, regarding jurisdiction. The utter spineless representation the states have retained is pathetic. They have ceded almost all of their constitutionally bound duties to their own State Constitutions, and their own sovereign control over the people’s land, and all without letting, we the people know.

Today the states function as underlings, of a superior power. This flips the federalism that began this experiment in governance on its head. We never should have made the Senate, just another popular vote for the people.

The senate was to be the states representation. The 2 state senators were picked by the state legislatures, and could be recalled on a dime. We destroyed this crucial check on power, by the expansion of, democracy. Always a goal of communists. They want everything decided by mob rule.

Of course mob rule is the enemy of individual freedom. Thus, it was guarded against with layer upon layer of checks and balances. Over the last century or so, we’ve removed, ceded, and lost almost everything that made America special.

What I’m getting at is this, the states have the RIGHT, to secede from a union they invented. The states created the union. How can the union be supreme over the states? This is a chicken and egg thing, but it’s solved. The states predate the union, and they can leave the union any time their citizens choose.

As to the pros and cons, I see only pros. Living in the time I have, and seeing the changes I’ve seen, national divorce is a natural, and obvious answer to me. After all, I’m a product of this broken generation of broken homes, and busted up people.

So when I see movements like the State of Jefferson, the “Greater Idaho Project”, and the “Free State Project, I’m nothing but thrilled. Why should people with such diametrically opposed worldviews, be forced to abide by the same norms and customs?

I’m thoroughly convinced that a diplomatic, coming to the table, and negotiated dissolving of the Union, as our only chance for peace. If not this, I believe, with all my heart, we are going to war with one another. Can you give me any reason that can trump the avoidance, of a violent civil war, to make me reconsider?

I think not. We either get a divorce, or we’re looking at a case of national patricide, and suicide. As in we’re going to end up destroyed as a country, and a people. We are only playing with fire by waiting.

Secession isn’t just moral, and legal. It’s our last chance at keeping the American tradition alive. Americanism is wholly hated by too many people that call this place home. The people have a right to retreat, so to speak. They have a right to self select their company. They have a right to live their lives without threat of some totalitarian government.

I mean, what more do you need than abortion to make my point. One side sees this as straight up, murder in the first, committed by a mother against her own blood. The other view, is that this is a routine medical procedure that concerns only one human being. This couldn’t be more stark a difference if I was trying to invent one.

The pros, are live and let live. Healthy trading relationships, and a continued alliance regarding defense.

The cons, are incalculable, and almost certainly includes the most personal, violent, and bloody conflict in US history. Pretty bad.

We have to grow up and diplomatically split this country up. We need to do it upon terms that are satisfactory to at least the vast majority of those involved. If some land requires physical violence to settle, that would be unfortunate, but much preferable to fighting for the whole continental land mass, currently called the US.

This is all very obvious to myself, and probably anyone around my age. We’re used to this because it’s just the macro version of our micro, broken lives. Broken people, and hated up homes. Are we surprised that our country is broken too? I’m not.

Leave a Reply

Living California