As the GOP Turns – The Old Guard and New Guard – Nothing More than Evolution

There’s that old adage: “history repeats itself”, that should be taken into account prior to ringing death knells on political brands, or “rebranding” if one prefers to parse words. The fact that, as we age, younger individuals move up the ladder, so to speak, bringing with them a “new” (or old, as the case may be), political point of view – one that fits neither of today’s establishment parties. Therefore, of one individual in that generation tends to lead in the political arena, it is what it is, a changing of the guard and with that a whole can of worms opens. Suffice it to say, that there has always been a right and a left, liberal and conservative thought, which those in power generally use to divide and conquer – some to their own demise (consider the French revolution). The Old Democrat party has been long gone for decades, only no one apparently noticed. The brand is there – the dutiful “D” printed on each ballot – but the formerly fiscally sound, social justice fighters, working class party – is now the party ruled by academic elitist, who have little experience outside of a classroom, and a philosophy that is decidedly socialist. The Democrat brand was co-opted by the rise of one Ronald Reagan, who, at the same time, rebranded the Republican Party – leaning on the tax cuts of John F. Kennedy, and challenging the establishment GOP, he embodied the working man - he drove the party elites and the media crazy. Over the following decades the two parties appeared to meld into the ebb and flow of partisan politics, with rare exceptions, one was either a “Democrat or a Republican” – there was no challenge to the status quo, and the political dynasties emerged – the Bushes, the Clintons, their respective allies in the Senate and the Congress and on K Street (where the lobbyist and political action committees reside.) Reagan was the last reformer, otherwise the Republican Party, like the Democrat Party, has been the dutiful “R” on the ballot.

Suddenly the media and Washington are on high alert, as a group of individuals who are not necessarily Republican, as in “rich old white men” (as opposed to the “rich old white men” that run the Democrat Party.) are suddenly calling themselves “conservatives” running as “Republicans” and winning elections, hearts and minds. There is about to be a shift – one would hope that the scenario of three or four (optimal) parties emerging from the two old behemoths would emerge, yet, the common approach would be to co-opt one or both of the established parties. Enter the “libertarians”.

Libertarians follow a political thought process based on personal liberty, with a strong emphasis on the U.S. Constitution. Those millions of Tea Party Strict Constructionists are also likely to lean “Libertarian” – so are most 18 to 25 year olds, a demographic that rarely votes, but if, as a group, they find someone relatable, they will vote in droves. (An unintended consequence seen under Reagan.)

Although the dutiful academics, installed in the schools across the nation, from kindergarten through one’s Doctorate, have been preaching the message of “progressive” philosophy for the past 40 years, it has become stale in its practice. The economic impact of the progressive Congress under Nancy Pelosi, followed by the election and reelection of President Obama, and the consequences of “bigger, more encroaching, government”, has begun to wear thin. For some it is the lack of opportunities, for others, it is the obvious installation of a “class system” – those who have, those how have not. Those who would promise to make everyone equal, everyone wealthy, and everyone on the same playing field, by virtue of the all important government - apparently cannot deliver on that promise.

Therefore, the sudden emergence and popularity of Rand Paul and Dr. Ben Carson are seen by the media as upheaval in the Republican Party – as dutiful “Democrats”, they report on the demise of the GOP, or the “upheaval” within the GOP – it is nothing more than growing pains, or an evolution – of a more centric, inclusionary political party, one that is based upon a fiscal policy that is morally sound, while holding the 10th amendment sacrosanct.

Therefore, one might suggests, that those that would be king, the McCain’s, the Clinton’s, will have to make way for those Doctors who will stand up for both fiscal sanity and humanity, but most importantly individual liberty and responsibility – the opportunity to become a success (rather than one of the “masses” – yes, Libertarian, and/or Conservative – but appealing to those who are sick and tired of the “old brands” that have run the nation with little differences between the two political parties since Reagan left office.

White House Bombarded with Petitions to Secede – Is Secession Constitutional? – The Cases and Interpretation rest on Lincoln Address!

The Illustrated Republic of Texas - image: rightlinkblogs.com – see article from Tree of Mamre

State’s Petitions for Secession from the United States of America is nothing new, and the Secession of the Southern States and subsequent formation of an independent nation, as a Confederacy – and subsequent Civil War are part and parcel of history and myth. President Abraham Lincoln is lauded for his fight to free the slaves, yet little is known about the economic incentives that drove the battle between the States, nor the manner in which Lincoln shredded the Constitution, which today’s naysayers insist prevents Secession.

As of November 13th, 34 States had submitted Petitions to the White House to secede. The States now include: Nebraska, Ohio, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Pennsylvania, California, Utah, South Dakota, Delaware, Nevada and Alaska. Colorado, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, New York, Oregon, New Jersey, North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arizona, Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Texas. (Greeley Gazette).

However, these are petitions that are signed by Citizens of the States in Question, and, although an answer from the White House is allegedly required upon attainment of 25,000 signatures, it is doubtful they carry more weight than a protest. That protest however, is economic in purpose and the ends to the means is noting disapproval of a job not well done by the President and the Federal Government in general. It is a peaceful protest in scope, requiring nothing more than an internet connection. That said it does carry weight in certain states that have asserted their rights under the Second Amendment, which is the first step towards actual secession.

There were, at last count, 20 states that had drafted, and filed legislation asserting these rights. Although Rick Perry the Governor of the State of Texas has ”dimissed the petitions for secession (Austin Statesman), the Governor was the first to sign and certify Texas’ Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment. Rick Perry, of all individuals in the State of Texas understands the rights of States (DMS). In fact up to 20 of these “United States”, have suggested their sovereignty, in 2009. That would be the first step in a process that would lead to a break between the State and Federal Government allowed under the 10th amendment.

But what of the Constitution? That’s interesting as there is no specific mention or suggestion in the actual document that does not allow for a State to secede should they so choose. The courts have weighed in, of course, and noted it is “not constitutional”, yet the citing from a recent (2002) case in Alaska, where a ballot initiative was struck down by the State’s AG, suggests that what these judges have based their “constitutional opinion” upon, is a letter or address from none other than Abraham Lincoln.

Refer to the treatment on the case here: at FindLaw:

The constitutionality of secession was “intensely debated and ․ unresolved” until the end of the Civil War.17 As President Abraham Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address, “A disruption of the Federal Union heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.” 18  President Lincoln tried to persuade the country to reject threats of secession from southern states, arguing that “no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union,-that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void,” 19 and that “the Union of these States is perpetual.” 20  While a state's ability to secede was an unsettled question before the end of the Civil War, subsequent United States Supreme Court opinions have concluded that secession is clearly unconstitutional, and Lincoln's belief in a perpetual Union is reflected in what we have described as “a plenitude of Supreme Court cases holding as completely null” the acts of secession by Confederate states.21  In Texas v. White, an opinion issued just after the Civil War, the United States Supreme Court stated:

The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.   When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.   All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State.   The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact;  it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body.   And it was final.   The union between Texas and other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.   There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

This is the law to which we Alaskans bound ourselves at the moment we achieved statehood.   We recognized in Kohlhaas I:  “When the forty-nine-star flag was first raised at Juneau, we Alaskans committed ourselves to that indestructible Union, for good or ill, in perpetuity.” 23  We concluded that because “[s]ecession is clearly unconstitutional” 24 and “[b]ecause the initiative [sought] a clearly unconstitutional end, the lieutenant governor correctly declined to certify it.”

Nowhere in the above decision and background footnotes on the decision in the Kohlhasss case, suggests that there is a provision written into the Constitution, rather, it is the address of Abraham Lincoln to which those justices refer, and an interpretation by justices of the provisions, rather than an actual article, which suggest the States may never leave. Apparently, these justices gave little heed to the 10th amendment and States’ rights to Sovereignty.

How reasonable is Secession? It really depends on how much the State in question is dependent upon the Federal Government? At this point in the nation’s economic history, one would suggest it may be the other way around (as it was with Lincoln) whereby the Federal Government needs these States more than the States need the Federal Government. Those that fear “Civil War” might wonder how on earth that might be accomplished – given the Presidents propensity to weigh decisions requiring military action and/or strongly worded statements for weeks if not months! More over it is this opinion that the State’s do have the right under the 10th Amendment, and there are no specific directions within the document to restrain a State from leaving the Union.

The expenses incurred, from the printing of money, the care of the citizens, the defense of the newly formed State (or for lack of a better word, and stemming from the document preceding the Constitution), or Confederacy of States, would not be worth the headache. The Petitions however, are worth this as a protest given the “Fiscal Cliff” and a media, that many believe, is less than forthcoming when it comes to this Administration.

Are they serious – yes, talk to friends in Texas who are Independent in nature, or any other state and they are convinced that secession is “doable” Buy property in Texas, as a hedge, or pick a state where the legislature and Governor have declared Sovereignty. It may be a hedge against inflation, or should one wish to take sides, a home “abroad”, or in the very least, an investment. Consider that this election was close, and this election was based on ideology rather than any other issue. Consider that 48% of the citizens of these United States were convinced the direction of the nation was wrong. It’s 2001 all over again, and instead of those insisting they have Bush Derangement Syndrome and must take three weeks off, or go to France – these disgruntled or fearful, individuals are seeking to stay closer to home.

No kidding, this blogger now has property in Texas.

Oklahoma House Passes HCR1028 Sovereignty Resolution – Other States Follow

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, affirms the rights of the State and its respective citizens over the powers of the Federal Government as outlined in that same document. In the past two months, the 10th Amendment has become a rallying point for those states declaring sovereignty as the Federal Government increases its power over the states and its citizens. Oklahoma’s House passed HCR 1028, a Resolution (veto proof) declaring sovereignty, on the 4th of May. The Oklahoma Senate is moving fast, they are taking up the Resolution on on May 11, 2009. Should the Resolution pass the Senate (which appears likely), Oklahoma will be the first state in the Union to officially declare independence from Washington, DC.

Oklahoma is not alone in the desire to distance the State from Federal Powers, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. According to the 10th Amendment Center blog, other states that have similar resolutions are : South Dakota, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina and North Dakota.

Ben Smith of Politico characterizes the states seeking sovereignty as “Red States”, or those states that have legislatures which are controlled by the Republican Party – a party that has, with the exception of the period 2000-2008, been one which believed in the State autonomy – less Federal government. The call for Sovereignty is a direct result of the actions (primarily fiscal), of the federal government vis a vis budgets and bailouts, which will ultimately adversely affect each State government that participates or receives stimulus funding.

The stimulus, otherwise known as the Great American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is outlined by the administration at Recovery.gov. On the face of it, the bill appears to be a bridge to recovery, but the key is the length of time the bridge will be available: 2 years. States that accept the federal funds, will, in two years, be looking to their respective citizens to kick in the money to keep the jobs and projects solvent – otherwise known as “taxes”. The Federal government, seeking a way to pay for their generosity, will also have no other choice but to also ask for an increase in taxes. Additionally, the acceptance of the Stimulus gives no incentive to those States that are “Blue” (controlled by Democrat Legislators and/or Governor) to tighten their belt – rather, continue to spend, oftentimes in ways which are contrary to the concept of “commons sense”.

Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, has recently asked for additional funds in order to provide cars for those receiving state assistance. Providing cars in an effort to lift someone out of poverty is one thing, however, Massachusetts goes so far as to foot the bill for the insurance and a subscription to Triple AAA! The blog, Red Tide speaks to the Commonwealth’s taxpayers growing angst against Governor Deval Patrick, and the ever increasing spending and corruption of that administration.

Massachusetts, will in all likelihood, retain its full protection under the Federal Government (given the close association of the Governor and the President Obama), until November of 2010. The likelihood of Deval Patrick being re-elected at this point in time is minimal at best; with members of his own Party considering a run in order to salvage the position. One has to ask, how long will it be before States (either the legislator or the citizens) like the “bluest state” of Massachusetts, also consider a declaration invoking the 10th amendment?

Although it is highly doubtful the legislature of Massachusetts would ever consider such a measure, it is highly conceivable that the people will – voicing their displeasure in the voting booth. The first to take the blame for fiscally incompetent federal policies that certain States embrace, are the respective State Leadership (both on a state and federal level) followed by those at the top of the Federal Heap. Historically speaking, once Jimmy Carter’s stimulus resulted in the phenomena known as the “misery Index”, the bridge to recovery that collapsed was slowly built up by an opposition party, swept into power by those that bore the brunt of the “stimulus” – the actual taxpayer.

Thomas Jefferson (Ironically touted as the man who inspired the Democrat Party): "The Federal is, in truth, our foreign government, which department alone is taken from the sovereignty of the separate States." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824. ME 16:15 (Source: University of Virginia