Back in the 1860s, it was all very simple and clear-cut – at least looking back a century and a half. A State called a convention with delegates selected by voters, and if the convention voted to leave the Union, a declaration was published stating the fact and reasons. Good or bad, or both.
(By the way, that is called “representative democracy” and the States are sovereigns. Too bad the self-proclaimed “defenders of democracy” today (and then, at least in the North and West) can’t seem to understand that. Of course, these same so-called democracy-worshippers today don’t seem to trust The People” to vote right without some kind of vanguard telling them what to vote for.)
But today, we need to ask, when does a State de facto secede from the Union. (Well, what is left of the federal republic after 150 years of stealing power, money, and rights by DC.)
What do you, dear readers, think?
Is a flat-out refusal to obey the federal courts’ dictates and decisions an indicator? Is once enough? Or is there some quantity of rejection that is the trigger? We have State after State playing that card. Texas (or so it is claimed) is ignoring or rejecting the Supremes’ decision about barbed-tape fencing. The Hawaiian Supremes claim that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to Hawaii and so the Supremes’ decision on keeping and baring arms can be ignored. California and other States have refused to apply federal law. Other States have (after picking and choosing) have stepped on the FedGov’s toes daring to enforce federal laws.
The federal response has been mixed as well. It appears to be based more on the political position vis-a-vis the current regime (and the Deep State) than on pedestrian matters such as obeying the US Constitution.
And we read more and more screeds (sometimes by politicians) decrying all the various efforts and actions to secede or have a national divorce or stage rebellions, revolts, or other conflicts.
And in those States that are thumbing their noses at DC and each other, just who is deciding to do so? Is it so-called leaders out of touch with the will of the people? “Leaders” who are running hard to get back in front of the mob they are supposed to be leading? Media? Big business? The Deep State?
I don’t think any of us here at TPOL have a clear answer to the questions. At the same time, as we travel across state lines, we see more and more differences and hear more and more warnings about these issues that are drawing deeper and harder lines across the country.
In some ways, it is our fond desire to declare a pox on both (or all) their houses. Will secession or divorce restore more of our liberties? Or at least set the stage to do so? Or will it lead to massive conflict, bloodshed, and destruction that will reduce our liberty?
Again, dear readers, what do you think?
The Price of Liberty 
The solution, as I see it, is to honor the genius of the founders and return to the original configuration (see: Constitution: United States of America, c. 1791, for clarification) and allow the states to be fully sovereign within the structure and confines of the U.S. Constitution, to survive, prosper or fail, according to their individual conditions, expertise and population.
The country is the United States of America, not America, with a huge monolithic federal government and fifty insignificant political subdivisions.
I do recognize the concept of two fisherman whose boat is sinking and one refuses to help bail because the hole is not in his end of the boat; I’m thinking of the travesty that California, and more recently, New York, have become, but it seems that dealing with such governmental failures should be primarily the job of the States, not Washington, D.C. Which does not mean that the States could not avail themselves – temporarily, and in limited form – of the authority of the federal government; there is, however, an inherent threat in doing so that the federal government would use such an appeal as an opportunity to take license to expand its authority; Woodrow Wilson did that in 1913 with imposition of the federal income tax, and Franklin Roosevelt did exactly that beginning in 1932 to “deal with the Depression,” without either president suffering much, if any, pushback from the States and everyone has been paying the price ever since.
LikeLike
How about trying to revert to the earlier original, the Articles of Confederation? What would be the downside of revoking all taxing “authority” DC claims to have, and have the “central” government become a subscription model, where the States decide whether it’s worth being a part of the club, and to change the rules, the States need unanimous consent?
LikeLike
Steve, you have our vote for that proposal. Anyone else want to join in?
LikeLike
“Will secession or divorce restore more of our liberties? Or at least set the stage to do so? Or will it lead to massive conflict, bloodshed, and destruction that will reduce our liberty?”
Probably both. Early adopters will likely cause a lot of blood on both sides, but I don’t think we are as keen on brother wars as we were in 170 years ago. Even that level of bloodshed was likely only possible through the church (“Onward Christian Soldiers”, etc.) and the church has moderated itself to modernity to such an extent it has little moral authority. Hard to get people into a killing frenzy over the gospel of being nice to each other.
LikeLike
You are right. Some churches – not the ones preaching the Gospel of Christ Jesus – fortunately they are not monolithic. But when we look at the situation in Northern Ireland just a half-century ago. Or present-day Mexico and Israel-Gaza?
LikeLike