A New Confederacy?

Secession may be the only answer.

Steven Laib at Intellectual Conservative lays out the case that it is Constitutional.

A lot of readers may ask why this particular case of relevant today. The answer lies in the fact that the subject is now being discussed again by many citizens to a degree not experienced since 1860. There is a good reason for it. The overbearing attitude of the federal government which is trampling on and attempting to further trample on the rights of the states and the citizens makes many patriotic individuals wonder whether or not the only way to save the USA is to destroy it and rebuild it in the image of what the founders intended in 1789. If all of the states all broke of and left the feds hanging as a government without a country, it would present a singular problem for those who want to wield power. Of course, there are many individuals who put down this idea for various reasons. Some go so far as to assert that states cannot secede. These people are wrong, at least within the bounds of U.S. Constitutional law...

The Tenth Amendment

The simple fact is that the four corners of the document do not contain any reference whatsoever to the subject of a state leaving the Union. There is no permission, nor is there any prohibition. This lack leads us to look at the Tenth Amendment, which states that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. It should thus be incontrovertible that the power to leave the Union is a reserved power specifically held by the States or people under the Tenth Amendment. Recall that the people of the State of Texas voted to secede in a statewide election and that the election was held at the behest of the state legislature. In seceding Texas could very easily be seen as simply exercising a constitutional power reserved for it by the Tenth Amendment.

I don't need to be convinced. The Constitution is a contract one of the parties of which—the Federal Government—has failed to live up to. There cannot be any argument that the Federal Government has far over-reached it's Constitutional mandate, and flagrantly ignored its Constitutional limitations.

I do not feel required to honor the Constitution with regard to my relationship to the Federal Government when the Federal Government does not honor it in its relationship to me!

The government cannot be allowed to violate the Constitution whenever it's convenient to gain illegal power over citizens and States, and then insist on precise adherence to it to prevent citizens or States from reclaiming their own legal power.

It will not stand. No matter what the Supreme Court says.

Remember, the Supreme Court is part of the same Federal Government that is out of control and trampling the rights of its citizens and States. It's time we citizens and States recognize that its legitimacy rests on the Constitutionality of its decisions, not the other way around!

The recent Kelo [correction*] case, in which the Court legitimized the taking of private property at the whim of government officials, is a prime example of a decision that was clearly unconstitutional, undermining our most basic freedoms which rest on the sacred inviolability of Private Property.

Like any other branch of the Federal Government, the Court only retains legitimacy as long as it operates within the strict bounds of its Constitutional mandate—and interprets law according to the strict and limited intentions of it. And it has long since violated them in every conceivable way. It is only the habit of tradition that has prevented citizens and States from declaring them outlaws.

And that time of indulgence may be coming to an end. Faster than anyone imagined.

The Gunslinger

*Thanks to cynyr who brought to my attention I had written Heller (guns) instead of (Kelo) property seizing.