Rep. Ron Paul is upsetting people once again with some of his libertarian ideas. This time the hot button is secession. Texas Governor, Rick Perry, after speaking at a tea party rally in Austin, dared to use the “s” word. No, he didn’t actually use the “s” word, he just made a reference to the idea of secession:
“When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.
“My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?”
Gov. Perry took a lot of heat for his comments. And then Dr. Paul stood up to defend him:
“I don’t think anybody called for secession, and I don’t think the governor called for it. But he brings up an important issue. The biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed over an individual who thinks along these lines, because I heard people say, well, this is treasonous and this was un-American. But don’t they remember how we came in to our being? We used secession, we seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society. It’s a shame we don’t have it anymore. I argue that if you had the principle of secession, our federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into state affairs and to me that would be very good.”
Oh my. Did THAT raise even more of an uproar!
Texas is not the only state that has been hinting at the “s” word lately. Montana hinted at it last year over the Supreme Court Case DC v Heller, which addressed whether the 2nd Amendment provided individual or collective rights. The decision ultimately stated that the right to bear arms is, indeed an individual right. The following appeared in an amicus brief filed to the Supreme Court:
“A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of “any person” to bear arms, clearly an individual right.
“There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of “any person” to bear arms.
“As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states.”
I think my husband’s comment on the Ron Paul interview blog sums up what I believe quite eloquently, better than I could have said it myself.
“Bravo Ron Paul for once again saying what needs to be said that few want to hear, and judging from most of the comments here, even fewer understand.
“His comparison of American independence to secession is correct. So what that the word “secession” wasn’t used to describe that. It’s the same concept. So if Texas or Alaska or whomever declared their “independence” instead of using the “s” word, that silly argument goes away…
“The only two organizations I know of that allow you to join but will kill you if you want to quit are the mafia and the United States. [emphasis added -k] A state that was allowed to freely request admission to the United States should be allowed to leave if its people want that. Congressman Paul is so right that even the threat of this would make the authoritarians in Washington more respectful of our federal system that was intended to have a much smaller, less intrusive federal government and preserve much autonomy and indepence for the states.”
