Is the headline hyperbole? Sure. But I have heard the word “secession” in a few places lately. I’m not promoting it and it’s a fringe opinion right now, but it has prompted me to ask a few questions: What warranted secession in our history? Why would an average citizen desire secession at this point? Can we put a stop to the discussion and how?
Historical Secession
The two examples of secession in our history are the colonies declaring their independence from the British crown and the Confederate states seceding from the Union. According to the Declaration of Independence, separation from the British crown was necessary because their rights were being infringed upon via “a long train of abuses and usurpations.” The Confederate states similarly cite infringement on their Constitutional rights as grounds for secession, and while the foundation of their arguments (the legality of slavery) was faulty, the underlining argument of the government violating the Constitution as grounds for secession holds. So the question remains, is our current federal government infringing on our rights and/or violating the Constitution?
Constitutional Powers of Congress and the Executive
The powers of Congress are succinctly listed in Article 1 of the Constitution, and the powers of the President are similarly listed in Article 2. These powers are meant to be finite. The remainder of power was meant to be placed in the hands of the individual states or the people themselves (see the 10th Amendment). As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #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 power of the President is far more limited than it is often made out to be. The duties of the Executive as outlined in Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution are to act as the Commander in Chief of the military, to issues pardons, to make treaties, to make appointments, and to fill vacancies in the Senate. The only reason the Presidency of the United States is considered the most powerful position in the world is that it controls the most powerful military force. Even the legitimacy of emergency powers of the President could be a matter of debate as this language appears nowhere in the Constitution.
The powers granted to Congress in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution largely concern foreign policy, military operations, the treasury and mint, the post office, roads, and patents. In place of listing them in their entirety, I will encourage you to read them for yourself here. I will note, however, that what I do not see is any mention of mandating health coverage, of educating our children, or of regulating when and where we can do business or who we can do it with.
The federal government has incrementally expanded its reach beyond these powers for decades, leveraging crises of all kinds to work their way into more and more areas of our lives and not pulling back once the crises are averted.
Powers Exercised Today
Every administration in my lifetime has issued Executive Orders far outside of the scope of their duties. The way these so-called Executive Orders have been issued is reminiscent of the monarchy the colonists shed, “subject[ing] us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation," and “suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with the power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.”
As for Congress, I must assume they are using their first duty of collecting taxes to “provide for the…general Welfare of the United States” to do all that is not expressly included in the Constitution. Like most citizens, I do not have a degree in Constitutional Law, so to many of us, it seems our government has taken extreme liberties with what constitutes promoting the general welfare. For starters, the entire “welfare state” was invented from this clause. At the time of the writing, “welfare” wasn’t a reference to handouts and aid; it was the well-being, happiness, and prosperity of the general population. I'm not opposed to helping people in times of need, but it's not beneficial to the general welfare of the majority of the population to offer so much that it disincentivizes them from getting back on their own feet.
The liberties taken, however, do not just stop at welfare programs. For instance, Senator Rand Paul issues an annual reporton government spending waste that not only included wasteful expenditures but unconstitutional ones as well. Hundreds of millions are spent on efforts such as learning “why stress makes hair turn grey,” the creation of a “smart toilet,” getting “adults to stop watching so much TV,” or “walking lizards on a treadmill.” Yes, Congress is tasked with the promotion of “the Progress of Science and useful Arts;” however, this is specified as protecting the exclusive rights of authors and inventors which is accomplished with copyrights, trademarks, and the patent office. The funding of these initiatives must then fall under the “general Welfare” clause. Are we to believe that the "general Welfare” requires $1,557,083.00 of our tax-payer dollars to walk lizards on a treadmill?
While our situation may not be as dire as that of the colonists, if the federal government is allowed to continue power grubbing at their current pace, there will come a day that a significant number of people will advocate for secession, and I may stand alongside them. However, my hope instead would be to prevent this by first stopping the federal government in its track, then returning legislative decisions to states and municipalities.
The Alternative of Decentralization
America was founded for the very purpose of removing ourselves from the rule of a monarch with centralized power. Most issues were left out of the Constitution because there is not only one right way to do it. Implementing legislation or Executive Orders on the entire populace which half of them disagree with only sows distrust and resentment. The beauty of decentralization is that everyone wins. If you want to enact a policy not explicitly addressed in the Constitution, you can do so on your local level, provided it does not infringe on the God-given rights of others. You can have the community you’d like and don’t have to worry about me pushing my opinions on you because I’ll live elsewhere, exercising my own freedoms to create the community I desire. We are not the Homogeneous State of America, we were meant to be a collective of sovereign states, united under the values of justice, tranquility, safety, and liberty. Let us once again become the United States of America.
I've been enjoying the term "decentralized" get used more and more. It's so close to the ideal of subsidiarity that you'd find in Distributist circles, albeit approached from a much more pragmatist angle. "Federation" mimics the autocephalous nature of the East.
"Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do" - Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno