Let me begin with the disclaimer that I am not an expert on the Constitution but I have read it.
I can recall no reference stating that once the colonies decided to join in a federation that they would have to participate for eternity. It makes sense to me that if you join something voluntarily, you should be allowed to withdraw if the people of a state want to. As a matter of fact, I think it would be wise to have states reaffirm periodically that they want to continue in this union. The second amendment of our Constitution sounds to me like it was intended for states to have militias to protect themselves from the feds. I'm not certain our civil war was "legal", whatever its motives.
The trend of the federal government interfering in State business is alarming. This cannot be blamed entirely on the federal government since many, if not all, the states have abandoned their rights for "handouts" from the feds. The same psychology that binds welfare recipients to government binds states to the feds and makes them reluctant to insist on their rights. It's called "selling out".
One case in point is the question of who controls the borders of a state. States whose borders are also coincidentally borders with other countries have the same right to control their borders as those which do not. The shared responsibility of protecting these international borders presents some problems. In the hierarchy national security falls upon the federal government but state interests and security must be considered as well. If and when the federal government fails in its responsibility to protect the state, the state has every right and the responsibility to protect its sovereignty and its people. They too take an oath to defend their people.
I can recall no reference stating that once the colonies decided to join in a federation that they would have to participate for eternity. It makes sense to me that if you join something voluntarily, you should be allowed to withdraw if the people of a state want to. As a matter of fact, I think it would be wise to have states reaffirm periodically that they want to continue in this union. The second amendment of our Constitution sounds to me like it was intended for states to have militias to protect themselves from the feds. I'm not certain our civil war was "legal", whatever its motives.
The trend of the federal government interfering in State business is alarming. This cannot be blamed entirely on the federal government since many, if not all, the states have abandoned their rights for "handouts" from the feds. The same psychology that binds welfare recipients to government binds states to the feds and makes them reluctant to insist on their rights. It's called "selling out".
One case in point is the question of who controls the borders of a state. States whose borders are also coincidentally borders with other countries have the same right to control their borders as those which do not. The shared responsibility of protecting these international borders presents some problems. In the hierarchy national security falls upon the federal government but state interests and security must be considered as well. If and when the federal government fails in its responsibility to protect the state, the state has every right and the responsibility to protect its sovereignty and its people. They too take an oath to defend their people.
No comments:
Post a Comment