Secession, not convention, offers salvation

mercer_ilanaby Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

The healthiest and most intuitive response to deep-seated, irreconcilable unhappiness—political or personal—is not to hold a constitutional convention, Mark Levin, but to leave; to exit the abusive relationship.

It is indeed inexplicable how the famous broadcaster trashes secession but, at the same time, looks to the states for salvation.

To reclaim the republic, Levin and his listeners hold out hope for the atrophied states and their unexercised role in the amendment process, as stipulated in Article V of the Constitution.

Never mind that the states, contrary to the mistaken predictions and hopes of the Constitution makers, have never initiated a constitutional amendment; and never mind that even in the event that the states demand a constitutional convention, there is no mechanism to compel Congress to act.

The great constitutional scholar James McClellan was no “neo-confederate.” Yet even an ardent defender of the Constitution as was McClellan conceded that, sadly, “the Framers relied on the good faith of Congress for the observance of the requirement” and that, when it came to a constitutional convention, “there was no way to force Congress to act.” (“Liberty, Order, And Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” p. 310.)

Into the Cannibal's Pot

Ultimately, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states have to unite to call on Congress to hold a national constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the dead-letter Constitution. Levin and his listeners are deluded if they think that the states, which are hardly bastions of freedom, will unite for this purpose; salvation is more likely to come from dissolving dysfunctional political bonds.

Still, what a force for liberty Levin would be were he a libertarian.

Alas, in one of his magnificent rants against the regime the radio mouth wanted to know why no Democrat had protested Obama’s overweening ways.

This is not quite true. As this column has pointed out, the late, great, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was driven to distraction by Big Man Obama and said as much. Byrd, RIP, was “a stern constitutional scholar who always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House.”

This old Southern gentleman, whom Republicans continually berated for his past indiscretions, warned about Obama’s executive-branch power grab and the extra-constitutional creation of a number of new White-House fiefdoms: on health reform, urban affairs policy, energy and climate change, on and on.

In 2009, “Sen. Byrd issued this warning regarding the procedural shenanigans the Democrats tried to deploy to pass the healthscare bill”:

“I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation…. As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose.”

The frail senator had taken to the floor of the United States Senate on October 14, 2009, “to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and voice his concerns over the possibility of a major increase in U.S. forces into Afghanistan”:

“General McChrystal, our current military commander in Afghanistan, has requested 30,000-40,000 additional American troops to bolster the more than 65,000 American troops already there. I am not clear as to his reasons and I have many, many questions. What does General McChrystal actually aim to achieve?” “So I am compelled to ask: does it really, really take 100,000 U.S. troops to find Osama bin Laden?”

Magnificent too has been liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who has protested the emergence of the Über-Presidency in the person of Barack Obama.

Then there is WND columnist Nat Hentoff. I know not whether he is a Democrat, but Hentoff has long been considered liberal and now labels himself a libertarian. He has accused Obama of “an unprecedented abuse of powers,” calling him the “most un-American president in the nation’s history.”

… The journalist said he doesn’t think any other president has acted so lawlessly as a matter of habit.

“So, if this isn’t a reason for at least the start of an independent investigation that would lead to impeachment, what is?”

Hentoff is baffled that Obama should escape such scrutiny when former President Bill Clinton faced impeachment just for being “a lousy liar.”

A big part of the problem, the journalist believes, is what he calls the utter ignorance of a huge portion of the population, which is not outraged at losing its basic right to be self-governing.

Obama “doesn’t give a damn, because he can get away with whatever he wants.”

And that’s why Hentoff surmised—and Levin would indubitably agree—that this was the worst state the country has ever been in: “Even worse than Woodrow Wilson’s regime, when people could be arrested for speaking German.”

© by Ilana Mercer

[followbutton username=’IlanaMercer’ count=’true’ lang=’en’ theme=’light’]

Like Ilana Mercer’s Facebook page

Independence and the Declaration of Secession

Ilana Mercer
Ilana Mercer

by Ilana Mercer

“Tea party,” “patriot,” “Constitution” and “Bill of Rights”: these keywords are the very stuff of the American Revolution, which took place during the last half of the 18th century. They are also some of the words that cued the “Infernal Revenue Service” to target the philosophical descendants of the Revolutionaries, in 21st century America.

Had they been aware that in 2012 not all Americans are created equal, the targeted not-for-profit organizations, aiming to fly beneath the IRS radar, would have also avoided any references to “The Declaration of Independence,” whose proclamation, on July 4, 1776, we celebrate as Independence Day.

Ordinary Americans of a certain age are already in compliance with the anti-American program carried out by their government, Democratic or Republican. Having been conditioned by our country’s many Orwellian Ministries of Truth, they celebrate July 4th firecrackers, fire-sale prices and cookouts. The Declaration doesn’t feature. As this column once remarked, contemporary Americans are less likely to read the Declaration of Independence now that it is easily available on the Internet, than when it relied on horseback riders for its distribution.

Back in 1776, gallopers carried the Declaration through the country. As historian David Hackett Fischer recounted in “Liberty and Freedom,” printer John Dunlap had worked “through the night” to set the full text on “a handsome folio sheet.” And John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress, urged that the “people be universally informed.”

And so the people were.

“From the beginning,” wrote James McClellan, “American Constitution-makers had the general support of their countrymen. The principles of government they espoused during the Revolution and implemented after the British surrender at Yorktown were widely shared in every town and village. It was on the basis of this remarkable consensus, this serene moment of creation, this fertile ground of American political experience, that the new Constitution was established.” (page 59)

The excerpt is from McClellan’s magisterial “Liberty, Order, And Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government,” published by Liberty Fund. Like many of this country’s greatest patriots, McClellan wrote from a farm in Virginia.

While Mark Levin, the radio man lauded by his Republican adherents as “The Great One,” has denounced the secessionists among us (check), McClellan (a real scholar) seconded the Declaration’s secessionist impetus. The Declaration’s first part, he argued, “offered a philosophical justification for secession, based on the theory that all men are entitled to basic rights, that the purpose of government is to protect those rights, and that the people have the right to abolish that government if it fails to fulfill its obligation.” (page 122)

The provision of the Declaration of Independence that has aroused the greatest controversy is Thomas Jefferson’s statement “that all men are created equal. This was a poor choice of words,” admits McClellan, for “neither Jefferson nor any other members of the Continental Congress seriously believed that all people are equal.”

“Nor could Jefferson have possibly had in mind the “type of ‘égalité’ proclaimed by the French revolutionaries a decade later – that is, a radical leveling of society to a common stratum through government imposition of political, social, and economic equality.”

According to McClellan, the florid phrase “all men are created equal” meant only that “the American people, as a nation, were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen.” This demand for equal rights is the main thrust of the Declaration of Independence.

Order lIana Mercer’s brilliant polemical work, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”

“Some forms of equality,” explained McClellan, “are clearly compatible with individual liberty, equality before the law or equal rights being the most obvious. … These forms of equality are generally consistent with the ideal of individual liberty because they may be attained without coercion.”

“Social and economic equality, on the other hand, finds no support in the Constitution or in the political tradition that grew out of the Declaration of Independence. … To reduce the entire American population to a single class of people, devoid of all social and economic distinctions, would have required massive and interminable coercion, resulting in a loss of individual liberty.”

Such “drastic measures” drove the Jacobin French Revolution. “They were never contemplated by those who wrote and approved the founding documents.” (page 136)

With the Declaration of Independence, the colonists were advancing a constitutional argument whereby Americans would be “entitled to the rights of Englishmen”: “the right to trial by jury, the right to self-government, the right of taxation by consent, and the right against quartering troops in private household. Theirs was a philosophical appeal resting on the claim of equal rights and the republican principles of government by consent.” (page 137)

The tenet of equality before the law served as a catalyst for the anti-slavery movement. Equally and justifiably is the preamble invoked “to support secession, the theory being that the States in 1861, as in 1776, had a fundamental or natural right to ‘change their form of government and institute a new [or no] government whenever necessary for their safety and happiness.”

Sadly – and as the existence of the IRS, an agency devoted to legalized thuggery attests – what remains of the sublime ideals “shared in every town and village” in early America is a deracinated, fragmented and demoralized people, managed to their detriment by a despotic State.

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, called it “an expression of the American Mind.” Judging from their enemy lists, unceasing evil and dark schemes, IRS apparatchiks and their masters in government consider the Declaration an expression of a subversive American mind.