Monday, June 22, 2009

Nationwide Seccessionists - The Wall Street Journal

It turns out that the Anti-Federalists were right. Mistakenly they believed the promises and assurances of the Federalists and gave in with an assumed inviolate Bill of Rights. However, what they only suspected and realized too late was that the agreed meanings of words is paramount to any agreement. If you can change the meanings of the words then the whole nature of the agreement changes. Language changes over time. The formal words lose their place and meaning in the vernacular as colloquialisms and slang enter the vocabulary. In law where meaning IS everything it is especially important that the meanings are static. Unfortunately they are not. Law and interpretation of law is in that penumbral dynamic that affords complete change to meanings and thus intent as well. Not that intent is sacrosanct, it is not. The "Framers" intended to legalize slavery; intended to keep certain kinds of people unenfranchised and intended to make theft and murder ‘legal’ since 1787. Thus the assurances of the protections of the limiting control of the Bill of Rights on the Fed/GOV is almost moot with redefinitions.
There is more and more evidence everyday that the mutated Federal Government is no longer controllable by the States that created it. Thus we have the need and want for separation. However, with new meanings of terrorism, sedition, combatant, and insurrection being proffered by recent spurious legislation, timing is of the essence. Is it the right time now for a break up? Is the American public sophisticated enough to understand the moral justifications? Would there be more or less bloodshed now or later? Could it be done peaceably? One thing that you can be assured of is that we will see secession, or our children will. How it turns out remains to be seen.

Remember that classic Beatles riff of the 1960s: “You say you want a revolution?” Imagine this instead: a devolution. Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society.

There might be an austere Republic of New England, with a natural strength in higher education and technology; a Caribbean-flavored city-state Republic of Greater Miami, with an anchor in the Latin American economy; and maybe even a Republic of Las Vegas with unfettered license to pursue its ambitions as a global gambling, entertainment and conventioneer destination. California? America’s broke, ill-governed and way-too-big nation-like state might be saved, truly saved, not by an emergency federal bailout, but by a merciful carve-up into a trio of republics that would rely on their own ingenuity in making their connections to the wider world. And while we’re at it, let’s make this project bi-national—economic logic suggests a natural multilingual combination between Greater San Diego and Mexico’s Northern Baja, and, to the Pacific north, between Seattle and Vancouver in a megaregion already dubbed “Cascadia” by economic cartographers.

Patrick Henry declares ‘give me liberty, or give me death’ in his 1775 speech urging the colonies to fight the British. - Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Devolved America is a vision faithful both to certain postindustrial realities as well as to the pluralistic heart of the American political tradition—a tradition that has been betrayed by the creeping centralization of power in Washington over the decades but may yet reassert itself as an animating spirit for the future. Consider this proposition: America of the 21st century, propelled by currents of modernity that tend to favor the little over the big, may trace a long circle back to the original small-government ideas of the American experiment. The present-day American Goliath may turn out to be a freak of a waning age of politics and economics as conducted on a super-sized scale—too large to make any rational sense in an emerging age of personal empowerment that harks back to the era of the yeoman farmer of America’s early days. The society may find blessed new life, as paradoxical as this may sound, in a return to a smaller form.

This perspective may seem especially fanciful at a time when the political tides all seem to be running in the opposite direction. In the midst of economic troubles, an aggrandizing Washington is gathering even more power in its hands. The Obama Administration, while considering replacing top executives at Citigroup, is newly appointing a “compensation czar” with powers to determine the retirement packages of executives at firms accepting federal financial bailout funds. President Obama has deemed it wise for the U.S. Treasury to take a majority ownership stake in General Motors in a last-ditch effort to revive this Industrial Age brontosaurus. Even the Supreme Court is getting in on the act: A ruling this past week awarded federal judges powers to set the standards by which judges for state courts may recuse themselves from cases.

All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR’s New Dealers blush. But that’s just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution. In April, at an anti-tax “tea party” held in Austin, Governor Rick Perry of Texas had his speech interrupted by cries of “secede.” The Governor did not sound inclined to disagree. “Texas is a unique place,” he later told reporters attending the rally. “When we came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”


The U.S., as envisioned by some percolating secessionist movements.