Search This Blog

Friday, July 9, 2010

Two observations (touching on the Obamanation)

I have two observations that I wish to share with Gentle Reader, which I recently made on the 'Reflecting Light' blog in response to Rick Darby's post about the suit against Arizona by the administration of alleged-President Obama.

The first observation is more general and isn't directly about the suit; and, of course, the observation is not unique or original to me: "The only thing [in this world that] a man ever really owns is his tax liability."

Here is the context in which I said that:
Rick Darby: ... The federal government under Mad King Barack has asserted its power to stop a state from protecting its citizens from illegal immigration unofficially sanctioned by Washington. Worse than that: it has declared that no state - and by extension, no individual or locality - can insist that Washington fulfill its own duties required by the Constitution. ...

Ilíon: Federal courts have already ruled that mere US citizens do not have "standing" to petition the courts to order that the Constitution's provisions be enforced.

Rick Darby: But U.S. citizens have the privilege of supporting a federal government that regulates or owns almost everything.

Ilíon: The only thing a man ever really owns is his tax liability.



The second observation I wish to share with Gentle Reader is the thought that the administration of alleged-President Obama has, for all practical purposes, with its suit against Arizona, just asserted the dissolution of the Union. Should the suit succeed, then, other than the formalities, the Union is no more. Here is the context and my reasoning:
Martin B: ... Arizona is not claiming the right to deport illegal aliens. Arizona state troopers will not be depositing bus-loads of mexicans in Nogales. They are only proposing to help enforce federal laws already on the books.

Well, if the Federal government says that Arizona should not be allowed to, then I propose that Arizona abstain from enforcing ANY federal law. Don't want to pay federal income taxes? Come to Arizona - our state won't cooperate with the IRS. Federal Drug Laws? Never heard of 'em. Federally mandated affirmative action? We won't participate.


Rick Darby: If a serious secession movement gets going, it would be great if Arizona were the first to declare its independence - from Mexico.

Ilíon: It seems to me that Martin's point is not that any State ought to contemplate secession from the Union, but rather that the "logic" of alleged-President Obama's suit against Arizona implicitly dissolves the Union.
The United States are not a democracy (one of the horrible things the "Progressives" of a century ago managed to do is to hood-wink the majority of US citizens into worshipping at the altar of "democracy"); rather, the Constitution of the US establishes a representative republic. Moreover, the United States are not a unitary state, but rather a federation -- this is *why* our ancestors always said "the United States are" and not "the United States is" (and why I am trying to train myself to do likewise).

Thus, since the United States *are* a federal (representative) republic, the several States which comprise that federation are not provinces ruled from D.C. but rather are sovereign states in their own right. The federal government is a creature of the States, the States are not creatures of the federal government. And thus, and despite the "lesson" of the Civil War, all of the States have the legal and moral right to secede the Union at their own discretion.

Except for very restricted powers and authority, explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, the federal government has no other authority over the States -- it is *their* creature, not they its.

Yet, since at least the "Progressive" era of a century ago, and picking up speed in the "New Deal" and "Great Society" eras, the politicians, and especially the bureaucrats, of the federal government have been working to turn the several States into provincesof D.C., rather than sovereign states; and the politicians of the several States, being whores bought and paid for with *your* taxes, have been cooperating in the on-going subordination of the sovereignty of their own State governments. Such an outcome for the States, along with subordination of the US Constitution itself, as actually written, were, in fact, two of the primary goals of the "Progressives" (here is a paper recently published on NRO discussing some of the "progressive" roots of our current problems: The Progressives’ Legacy of Bankruptcy).

Now, what the logic (such as it is) of the federal suit against the State of Arizona concerning Arizona's law S.B.1070 does is assert that no State has the authority to enforce any provision of any federal law. This is a far different claim than the Constitutional provision that no State law shall be held valid if it contradicts either the US Constitution or a law duly enacted by Congress.

Since the fools in this administration are too clever by half, I'm sure they imagine that what they're asserting -- which assertion, if accepted and endorsed by the federal courts, is itself damaging to stable and just government in the Union -- is that if the federal Executive declines to enforce a law or provision duly enacted by Congress, then no State or other entity may enforce its provisions, either.

I'm sure these fools believe that they're making the last necessary "argument" to turn the States into provinces of D.C. -- and turn the President into an Emperor -- and thus complete the "progressive" dream (and start the nightmare for all of us), and thereby dissolve the Union in practice, while keeping the forms and pretending nothing has changed. You know, in like manner to how the Roman Empire pretended to still be the Roman Republic.

And, if the ultimate ruling on this case goes in their favor, it is likely that for a time things will operate in this manner -- that only those acts of Congress which the current president wishes to enforce will be enforced at either federal or state level. But, eventually, ambitious and restive politicians in the States will figure out what the "logic" of the lawsuit *really* asserts. And then the Union is disolved in practice and in fact.

4 comments:

nicholas said...

That's a good argument, Ilion.

Ilíon said...

Thank you for giving it your consideration.

Ilíon said...

More fun and games related to this -- Lawrence Auster (quoting a New York Post article): For 15 years the federal government has been training and deputizing local law enforcement officials to round up illegal aliens

Drew said...

Your terminology is slightly confusing near the end. "Dissolve the union" would ordinarily mean to declare the states free from the bonds imposed on them by each other and by the federal government. Yet you also suggest that the goal of the progressives is to dissolve the union. I think you just mean that they want to dissolve the Constitution, or abolish federalism, or something.

I wonder to what extent the states really do help enforce tax laws. I guess the main form of help would come from police officers who arrest the offenders. I doubt the FBI would waste its time arresting regular tax withholders. I think the more practical aspect of a Pro-Obama ruling here would mean that states would have almost free reign to legalize drugs. The local cops really do the bulk of that.

But why do you think the Obama people would make such a counterproductive argument? Any idiot should expect a leftist to SEEK help from the states, not prohibit it. Or do you think the next step would be to create a new national police force to enforce all federal laws? You suggested that you imagine they have already thought about your argument. But if they have already thought of it, it's hard to see why they'd be making the argument.