A Further Examination on the Path of Succession

About a week ago I had posted in this blog, the cautioning to those that propose succession as the solution to our current political crisis. One would like to expound on some of the things that should need be thought through before embarking on such a course of action.

Part One - States Rights

The US Constitution (10th amendment) provides for the individual members of the Federal Union, aka the states, to maintain sovereignty and the right to do what it is thought best for the citizens that reside within it’s borders. That is to say, the voice of it’s people via their elected representatives to speak for them in both that state’s and the Federal legislature. The original intent of the US constitution had those states selecting the Senators who would thereby have the interests of said state first and foremost in mind. This is as it should still be, but as we know, isn’t how things are today.

So first the question is that lies in the way is that if succession were the route to be taken, (and possibly agreed upon by proponents of both ideologies) would the new constitution, be more like the Articles of Confederation or more resemble the intent of the original constitution?

Many of the Anti-Federalists (Patrick Henry I think was one of the more vocal ones), suggested that individual rights, and by extension states rights trumped any need for any form or creation of a Federal Union. Yet as we have seen so far in the readings of Hamilton et al, the very passions used in this argument were the very passions that the Federalist authors pointed out as being dangerous. By this it is meant that the human flaws and failings that are within each of us, would come out to fruition, aka, “me first and everyone else second”. Such a way of thinking would not be conducive to the effectual, governance of a unified body of states, but would, in all eventuality, degenerate into the norm, wherein even within the states the could be calls for succession by various counties, cites etc. if certain things did not go the way one group had hoped, thereby splitting the Confederacy of States into even smaller and smaller states. One need only look at the former republic of Yugoslavia, (the Balkans area) to get an idea of what could possibly happen under such a system of government. To further illustrate this point the examples of the Greek city/states as put forth by the Federalist authors should serve well the dangers of such a course of action.


Without the commitment on the part of the individual members, the states, to the obligations of a Federal Union, we will indeed descend into an “every man for himself” republic. This is not without a good Biblical warning as put forth in both Judges 17:6 and Proverbs 21:2

“In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes”
“Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the Lord pondereth the hearts.”

But for a moment let us say that such a course of action is indeed taken and states rights trump any form federal unity. Would each state be free to make trade, and treaty agreements? Could each state provide for the defense of her citizens? Could each state protect and/or guarantee the protection of the individual rights of its electorate? What would be the national norm for trade agreements between states? These are indeed heavy questions upon which to ponder.

I would only add here that I am a major supporter of states rights as put forth in the US Constitution and additionally, for states to take matters into their own hands when and ONLY when, the Federal government fails in its obligations. Hence, for example, my support for the Arizona Immigration Bill, which btw, mirrors the Federal Regulations almost to a “t”. Since the Feds have basically abandoned any hope or pretense thereof in the enforcement of law, thereby failing to do it’s prime duty, that of protecting it’s citizens, then it is indeed up to the state or states and their DUTY, to do what the Federal authority cannot or will not do.