Could it be time for a part­ing of ways?

The Covington News - - OPINION - WAL­TER WIL­LIAMS COLUM­NIST Wal­ter E. Wil­liams is a pro­fes­sor of eco­nom­ics at Ge­orge Ma­son Univer­sity. To find out more about Wal­ter E. Wil­liams and read fea­tures by other Creators Syn­di­cate writ­ers and car­toon­ists, visit www.creators.com.

Here’s a ques­tion that I’ve asked in the past that needs to be re­vis­ited. Un­less one wishes to ob­fus­cate, it has a sim­ple yes or no an­swer. If one group of peo­ple prefers strong gov­ern­ment con­trol and man­age­ment of peo­ple’s lives, while another group prefers lib­erty and de­sires to be left alone, should they be re­quired to en­ter into con­flict with one another and risk blood­shed and loss of life in or­der to im­pose their pref­er­ences on the other group? Yes or no. My an­swer is no; they should be able to peace­ably go their sep­a­rate ways.

The prob­lem our na­tion faces is very much like a mar­riage in which one part­ner has an es­tab­lished pat­tern of ig­nor­ing and break­ing the mar­i­tal vows. More­over, the of­fend­ing part­ner has no in­ten­tion of mend­ing his/her ways.

Of course, the mar­riage can re­main in­tact while one party tries to im­pose his will on the other and en­gages in the de­vi­ous­ness of one-up­s­man­ship and re­tal­i­a­tion. Rather than dom­i­na­tion or sub­mis­sion by one party, or do­mes­tic vi­o­lence, a more peaceable al­ter­na­tive is sep­a­ra­tion.

I be­lieve our na­tion is at a point where there are enough ir­rec­on­cil­able dif­fer­ences be­tween those Amer­i­cans who want to con­trol other Amer­i­cans and those Amer­i­cans who want to be left alone that sep­a­ra­tion is the only peaceable al­ter­na­tive. Just as in a mar­riage where vows are bro­ken, our rights guar­an­teed by the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion have been grossly vi­o­lated by a gov­ern­ment in­sti­tuted to pro­tect them. Th­ese con­sti­tu­tional vi­o­la­tions have in­creased in­de­pen­dent of whether there’s a Demo­cratic-con­trolled or Repub­li­can-con­trolled Wash­ing­ton.

There is no ev­i­dence that Amer­i­cans who are re­spon­si­ble for and sup­port con­sti­tu­tional ab­ro­ga­tion have any in­ten­tion of mend­ing their ways.

You say, “Wil­liams, what do you mean by con­sti­tu­tional ab­ro­ga­tion?” Let’s look at the vi­o­la­tions.

Ar­ti­cle I, Sec­tion 8 of our Con­sti­tu­tion lists the ac­tiv­i­ties for which Congress is au­tho­rized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is there au­thor- ity for Congress to tax and spend for: Medi­care, So­cial Se­cu­rity, pub­lic ed­u­ca­tion, farm sub­si­dies, bank and busi­ness bailouts, food stamps and thou­sands of other ac­tiv­i­ties that ac­count for roughly two-thirds of the fed­eral bud­get. Nei­ther is there au­thor­ity for con­gres­sional man­dates to cit­i­zens about what type of health insurance they must pur­chase, how states and peo­ple 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. The list of con­gres­sional vi­o­la­tions of both the let­ter and spirit of the Con­sti­tu­tion is vir­tu­ally with­out end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanc­tion to do just about any­thing for which law­mak­ers can muster a ma­jor­ity vote.

James Madi­son, the ac­knowl­edged fa­ther of the Con­sti­tu­tion, ex­plained in Fed­er­al­ist Pa­per No. 45: “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.” Our founder’s con­sti­tu­tional vi­sion of lim­ited fed­eral gov­ern­ment has been con­signed to his­tory.

Amer­i­cans have sev­eral op­tions. We can like sheep sub­mit to those who have con­tempt for lib­erty and our Con­sti­tu­tion. We can re­sist, fight and risk blood­shed and death in an at­tempt to force Amer­ica’s tyrants to re­spect our lib­er­ties and Con­sti­tu­tion.

A su­pe­rior al­ter­na­tive is to find a way to peace­ably sep­a­rate into states whose cit­i­zens re­spect lib­erty and the Con­sti­tu­tion. My per­sonal pref­er­ence is a restora­tion of the con­sti­tu­tional val­ues of lim­ited gov­ern­ment that made us a great na­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.