"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." ~ Abraham Lincoln, (speech in Congress January 1848).
This defines the American ideology of absolute freedom. As the farmer of old tossed the reigns of his plow horse about his back and shoved the plow through the sod, so does mankind bind himself to his government. As it is man’s prerogative to plow his fields, it is also his prerogative, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, that:
“...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
As I see it, the Declaration of Independence is our nation’s “official reason of existence”, and if the truths in said document be not truths, then we have no right for existence as a nation. But if it be so true, and if God has favored our cause for absolute freedom, then the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, must be followed, and that according to God’s word.
But a matter has arisen regarding the portion of the Constitution know colloquially as the 2nd amendment; some feel that the law should be changed to fit their own personal opinions. This would be disobedience to God, because He says to submit to the higher powers, and the powers don’t get any higher than the Constitution in this country.
Now, every state in this Union of States has a "state constitution", each one being unique.
Some state constitutions have guarantees that if the state legislature voted to leave the Union, they could do so. When such a thing was pulled off in the 1860's, though, it was met with absolute hostility, and the most insane war this nation has ever seen ensued.
Now, the Sovereign State of Montana is threatening secession if the Supreme Court of the United States of America rules against the United States Constitution. More than forty politicians, including the Secretary of State, are saying that secession would be their response, because Montana’s statehood hinged on the 2nd amendment when it first became a state.
This, I feel, is the best response that any state in the Union could give to tyrannical despotism.
No bloodshed, no civil riots, just a quiet bowing out.
But what do you think?
Take the poll on the right side of the screen, and if your answer isn’t there, or you want to explain your answer, please place your comments on this post.
[UPDATE] The poll has ended in a tie.
2 comments:
I think that it is the prerogative of the State of Montana to secede. As to the question of whether or not the state would benefit: I think so.
Certainly, the people of Montana would benefit, as the real estate value would increase, more freedoms would be guaranteed, no Federal taxation, and perhaps, if Washington would bring itself to obey the Constitution, they could rejoin the Union.
If Montana's elected officials decide to secede because of blatent criminality in high places, then I'm all for it.
They became a state with an understanding of being under common-sense laws and level headed leaders, Washington guaranteed this and then broke every law in the book.
The sovereignty of any state should never be undermined, as it is the very core of the most basic understanding of our government.
Boy, the poll is really neck and neck now!
Post a Comment