Right of Separation and Constitutional Relevance

The right to leave the union assumes that the union allows this peacefully. Force gives no moral rights, thus by force anyone may dissolve any political bands whether or not they have this right. To secure the moral right, the union must violate some inalienable right or the constitution which binds the union. The right of individual agency to act and judge with sovereignty is an inalienable right, not a political right. If political powers attempt to remove this inalienable individual right, then the individual and his state retain thu right to forcefully oppose this defiance of nature. To secure any right (moral or not) as a political right, all political powers must surrender their commitment to forceful opposition. Colonies earned their political right to separation by convincing (usually only possible by force) Britain to release her claim upon their governance. States are justified in rebellion and separation from the union when defending their citizen's rights of representation and suffrage, or other issues of justice which which the union forcefully opposes. On that note, if the union forcefully enforces submission to a just constitution or to just laws, such as the protection of her citizens from slavery, the states who oppose this use of force are not justified in holding grievances against her. By this argument, the Southern States of America stand corrected. There was never any violation of the constitution, and their cause of perpetuating slavery was unjust, therefore they had no moral right to separation.

If the constitution were ignored (as my father also believes), then all laws supported by it would crumble; without the constitutional foundation, the entire government must immediately collapse. Even if the "ignoring" is not misinterpreting, then the parts being ignored are isolated and not likely to be important "cornerstones." Either way, this perception provides clear evidence of the need for re-engineering because it reveals that the judicial branch lacks the power to defend and uphold the constitution. We need you to help re-engineer the constitution to give the courts sufficient power to uphold the constitution as we intend it to be interpreted and in no other way. The constitution works, not because the citizenry police their government, but because of checks and balances, she (government) polices herself. Failures in checking government is not our fault, but the fault of a constitution which needs re-balancing of powers (like a regular car tune-up). That "paper" has real power whether Bush or anyone else chooses to believe it or not. For one thing, it gave him the power to do what he did, otherwise no one would call him President or obey his orders.

The reason that a larger body has become so corrupt by mob rule is because representatives do not derive their power from the people and are so free to be sold out to the highest contributing special interest groups. I have an effective amendment correcting that problem. PS: The Californians who are "people migrating from places of tyranny to places of freedom" are by definition political refugees, though not in the sense of exiles or fugitives.

While uniform, universal law has been abused (see Hitler, WW2) and is no argument by itself, the promises of a well-written constitution are great if government can be held to check all those who would corrupt or ignore the re-engineered constitution. The alternative is to do nothing or constantly run (voting with our feet) from local mobs, cartels, and tyrants, wherever we go. Isolation is not acceptable, so why not continually make a stand here and now (instead of feet voting) and improve the current political system so that tyrants less easily thrive and justice reigns with greater power?

I think that a strong central state preserves a stronger union and the re-engineered justices at all levels of justices. Rest assured that I hold zero tolerance for wealth distribution, yet it is clear that resources must be pooled for the benefit of the society as a whole, and not of small factions who would have us believe that their benefit is our benefit, too. Rest assured that we can engineer a constitution which cannot be interpreted except to advance good and harm evil.