Walter E. Williams column: there are irreconciliable differences between liberty-loving Americans and leftists

[rangerrebew]

Walter E. Williams Column: There Are Irreconciliable Differences Between Liberty-Loving Americans and Leftists

By Walter E. Williams

Created 01/02/2014 - 5:32pm


 

 
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 part company and 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 to mend his 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 been a Democrat-controlled Washington or a 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 magnitude of 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 authority 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 they 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 the dustbin of 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.

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 the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

http://newsbusters.org/print/69480

[olde north church]

and I would submit, if anything were that important, explanation or otherwise, it shouldn't have been in the Federalist Papers, it should have been in the Constitution.  Otherwise, I do agree with William's position.

[aligncare]

Williams is a smart man and I like his analogy. However, I don't know there's much we can do about serving divorce papers. Intriguing idea, though.

[massadvj]

A civil war was fought over precisely this issue.  Unfortunately, the side in favor of freedom from federal tyranny lost that war, possibly because it was fatally flawed by its peculiar institution.  Nonetheless, the federal government has already indicated the extent to which it will go to protect the establishment.  It's simply cheaper and wiser for the rest of us to try to figure out how to exploit the system we were born into and make the best of our lives.  As individuals we are powerless against the Wall Street/DC axis.  By design.

[Bigun]

A civil war was fought over precisely this issue.  Unfortunately, the side in favor of freedom from federal tyranny lost that war, possibly because it was fatally flawed by its peculiar institution.  Nonetheless, the federal government has already indicated the extent to which it will go to protect the establishment.  It's simply cheaper and wiser for the rest of us to try to figure out how to exploit the system we were born into and make the best of our lives.  As individuals we are powerless against the Wall Street/DC axis.  By design.

Everything you say is true Victor but I strongly object to the use of the term "Civil War" in describing what happened here between 1861 and 1865.  That term has a very specific definition and nothing like that has yet happened in this country although it still might at some point in the future.

[massadvj]

Everything you say is true Victor but I strongly object to the use of the term "Civil War" in describing what happened here between 1861 and 1865.  That term has a very specific definition and nothing like that has yet happened in this country although it still might at some point in the future.

Whatever you want to call what happened in the early 1860's, the side in favor of states rights lost, and there has been no appetite among freedom-loving people to take the feds on again, even as federal power has expanded exponentially.  So what would you call that war?  The federal invasion?

[Bigun]

Whatever you want to call what happened in the early 1860's, the side in favor of states rights lost, and there has been no appetite among freedom-loving people to take the feds on again, even as federal power has expanded exponentially.  So what would you call that war?  The federal invasion?

I prefer to call it Mr. Lincoln's War as that is the most precise and correct way to describe it and what happened during that period was nothing less than the overthrow of the Republic in favor of the mercantile empire we now endure.

[massadvj]

I prefer to call it Mr. Lincoln's War as that is the most precise and correct way to describe it and what happened during that period was nothing less than the overthrow of the Republic in favor of the mercantile empire we now endure.

OK, then.  Mr. Lincoln's War it is (or was).

[Bigun]

OK, then.  Mr. Lincoln's War it is (or was).

    

[rangerrebew]

Ironically, prior to the Civil War (or Mr. Lincoln's War), when speaking about America, the phrase was "the United States ARE" and after the phrase was the United States IS, depending on your definition of is .  One correction, the CW or MLW, was not fought over states rights.  That excuse didn't come until after the war.  It was about slavery, or "the South's peculiar institution."

[Bigun]

Ironically, prior to the Civil War (or Mr. Lincoln's War), when speaking about America, the phrase was "the United States ARE" and after the phrase was the United States IS, depending on your definition of is .  One correction, the CW or MLW, was not fought over states rights.  That excuse didn't come until after the war.  It was about slavery, or "the South's peculiar institution."

Sorry but you are incorrect!

At the outset it was almost entirely about the protectionist tariffs, the Morell in particular, that were bleeding huge quantities of money out of the agrarian South into the pockets of Northern industrialists. They brought the old Whig Lincoln to power entirely because he swore to enforce them at ALL costs!

[massadvj]

If the South had won MLW would we be saying it was about slavery?  No way.  Winning a war gives the victor the privilege of writing history.  But that history is often at odds with the truth.  Very few soldiers who fought in that war from either side would claim they were fighting for or against slavery.

[Cincinnatus]

Very few soldiers who fought in that war from either side would claim they were fighting for or against slavery.

I don't know the exact number but only something like 3-5% of Southerners owned slaves. Hard for me to believe the other 95% were willing to risk their lives in order to protect the economic interests of the 5%.

No, retaining slavery was not what impelled the South. BigUn has it correct when he says, At the outset it was almost entirely about the protectionist tariffs, the Morell in particular, that were bleeding huge quantities of money out of the agrarian South into the pockets of Northern industrialists., and the trouble began with the Tariff of Abominations (1828).

[Bigun]

If the South had won MLW would we be saying it was about slavery?  No way.  Winning a war gives the victor the privilege of writing history.  But that history is often at odds with the truth.  Very few soldiers who fought in that war from either side would claim they were fighting for or against slavery.

If anyone had told them they were fighting for/against slavery they would have all gone home!

[massadvj]

If anyone had told them they were fighting for/against slavery they would have all gone home!

There were probably a few abolitionists in the union ranks, but ironically a large portion of the abolitionists were pacifists.

[Fishrrman]

[[ Williams is a smart man and I like his analogy. However, I don't know there's much we can do about serving divorce papers. ]]

It's been done before.

It may very well be done again.

It's not quite time, yet.

[Fishrrman]

[[ So what would you call that war?  The federal invasion? ]]

War For Southern Independence.

War Between The States.

[Cincinnatus]

[[ So what would you call that war?  The federal invasion? ]]

War For Southern Independence.

War Between The States.

I have also seen it referred to, quite accurately, as the War of Northern Aggression.