www.siptn.org/April/williams.htm
Despite that evidence, some readers concluded differently. Let's consider an alternative to secession in response to federal government encroachment on our liberties. Suppose Congress enacted the Federal Clean Thoughts Act (FCTA) and President Bush signed it. Under its provisions, before books and newspaper reports could be published and before television and radio programs could be broadcasted, prior approval of their "fitness" would have to be obtained from the Federal Clean Thoughts Commission. Supreme Court charging FCTA is a violation of the First Amendment. However, the court finds that under the Constitution's "general welfare clause," the law is constitutional. Do we accept the tyranny or pick up the sword, or do we think about state secession again? I would hope that the response of my fellow Americans wouldn't be: "Williams, the law is the law. Do we allow the federal government to determine the scope of its own powers? Should we accept whatever Congress, the White House and the courts say is constitutional? Constitution provides no specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. That's not to say there isn't a compelling case for obedience to unconstitutional laws: the brutal force of the federal government to coerce obedience. Supreme Court and White House sanction, represents constitutional encroachments of varying degrees. In violation of both the letter and spirit, the federal government imposes unconstitutional and costly mandates covering the gamut from education and land usage to how much water can be used to flush toilets. I wonder when a governor and his state legislature will summon the courage to declare some of these federal laws null and void, and refuse to enforce them. Of course, Washington might respond by not sending back money the citizens pay in federal taxes. Then the potential of ugliness arises because the state can establish a mechanism to withhold the money its citizens send to Washington. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
|
http://csua.com/feed/