Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Non-Thinking American: Nobody has the right to secede! It isn’t in the Constitution!

Me: You’re right. It isn’t in there. Neither is your right to breathe, your right to eat, your right to raise your children, or your right to wear an orange shirt next Tuesday. Actually almost every right you have isn’t in the Constitution. The Constitution wasn’t written to “give” us rights. Our rights are already given to us by the Creator. The Constitution was written to give the government certain limited responsibilities and powers. So you can say ‘if a power isn’t in there, they don’t have it’, but you can not say ‘if a right isn’t in there, we don’t have it’. What you’ve done here is you’ve actually subverted the entire purpose and point of the Constitution, converting it from a document meant to limit the government, to a document meant to limit the citizenry. In truth, the Constitution doesn’t give the government the POWER to STOP states from leaving the union. Therefore, they do not have that legal power (although they may still have that physical power). Which, when you think about it, makes sense. After all, this country was born in secession by a bunch of men who themselves seceded from the British Empire. The foundation of American political philosophy is the right to self governance. 

Non-Thinking American: Psssh. That’s a lot of fancy talk, TRAITOR. Besides, this is a UNION. You can’t break up a UNION. UNIONS ARE PERMANENT. 

Me: Political and governmental unions are not permanent. They never are. They never have been. They never can be. And any attempt to MAKE them permanent only leads to death, destruction and evil. Read a history book some time. I mean, other than the Communist Manifesto. 

Non-Thinking American: OK but unions SHOULD be permanent. 

Me: Some unions should be permanent. Geez, you seem to have quite a bit of respect for the concept of a union. Hey, speaking of which, how are your ex-wives doing? 

Non-Thinking American: Fine. Why do you ask? 


Does anyone else find it odd that in this country we seem to hold up political unions as sacred while marital unions are seen as temporary and negotiable? Once again, another subject where I have to struggle mightily to take people seriously.