One political question we have to answer is whether George W. Bush or
Albert Gore shall be president, and just which party will control the
House of Representatives and the Senate. But I’d suggest that there’s a
far more important long-run question we must answer: If one group of
people prefers government control and management of people’s lives, and
another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be
required to fight, antagonize one another, and risk bloodshed and loss
of life in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to
peaceably part company and go their separate ways?

Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough
irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those
want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative.
Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights
protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly
violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are
responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention
of mending their ways.

Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article
1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which
Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged
father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: “The
powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government
are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments
are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on
external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. …
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects
which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and
liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order,
improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Congress is there authority to
tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies,
bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly
two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for
Congress’ mandates to the states and people about how they may use their
land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has
wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list
of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution
is virtually without end.

Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist,
fight and risk bloodshed to force America’s tyrants to respect our
liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our
irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling
several states, say Texas and Louisiana, controlling their legislatures
and then issuing a unilateral declaration of independence just as the
Founders did in 1776.

You say, “Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in
the political process and vote for the right person.” That’s nonsense.
Liberty shouldn’t require a vote. It’s a God-given or natural right.

Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war
with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but
they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded
from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863).
Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is
probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together.
There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn’t peaceably
secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.

The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or
continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.