In Part 1 of What If We Had A Redstate Rebellion? we talked about the need for the most conservative states to lead a rebellion to take back states rights per the constitution, the law of the land. The idea is to eventually make the Federal Government live by their constitutional enumerated powers and that we do this by using the constitutionally supported power of nullification. Furthermore, we learned that constitutional scholar Plubius-Huldah has done the yeoman’s task pf preparing a template, a blue print if you wish, of exactly how states could go about taking back their rights; including all the clauses from the constitution and the Federalist Papers that support these actions.
Obviously this rebellion would be resisted by the Federal government. Those that took our states-rights are not going to give up their power over us with out a fight. In the worst case the feds could send troops to enforce their will. I don’t know how likely that would be; but, it might be prudent for the redstate(s) that lead this rebellion to do so under a Republican administration. A Republican president would be less inclined to send troops against a Republican governor and there would be at least a few voices in the House and Senate that would be in support of the rebellion.
The feds don’t need to send troops. They have another very potent weapon. They could and would cut-off all federal funds to the rebellious states. States receive federal funds for highways, for education and, for a myriad of other things. These funds have always come with strings attached. This is one of the important ways the feds have usurped the rights of the states. But, this is why this rebellion can only be led by the reddest of the redstates. The governor. the state legislature and, the people of the rebellious states would have to understand they would lose their federal funds and have a plan to adjust for that. they would also be nullifying federal mandates which would help mitigate the federal funds lost.
It would be nice if the redstate rebellion I am proposing was brought on by several redstates at the same time. There is always strength in numbers. However, getting several states to coordinate their efforts might be difficult. Different states have different problems. My dream assumes a longer road back to the constitution. In my dream, one or two redstates would sucessfully take back their states rights and demonstrate to the rest the benefits of not having to live under the heavy hand of the all-powerful central government. Then other redstates would follow and then purple states and then blue dog states. Eventually we would want at least two-thirds of the states to reclaim their states rights. With two-thirds of the states we could then pass some constitutional amendments that would solidify that the federal government was restrained by their enumerated powers.
One amendment would be to revoke the 17th amendment so that once again the Senate would represent the states as the original constitution established. We would also pass a Balanced Budget amendment, at last! The other amendment we would pass is an idea I picked up from one of the smartest conservative bloggers I know. His handle is Anti-Fed and he write the Spellchek blog. Back in November of last year, Anti-Fed wrote this article in which he suggest that an important tool for controlling the federal government would be for the federal government to have to depend on the states for their revenue rather than by taxing the incomes of individuals and businesses. This would require a constitutional amendment to revoke the 16th Amendment. I think his plan is brilliant and I hope you will the complete article. For now let me share this part:
I don’t wish for a return to insolvency. How to avoid it? A two-pronged approach. The balanced budget amendment is one part. The other is what the federal government would fight to the death to avoid. All federal funding must come from the states themselves. No more federal income tax. No federal corporate tax. No capital gains tax. All gone. Where I differ from Ron Paul is that I choose a more practical option on federal funding. I don’t eliminate the people funding it. Rather, I eliminate the direct tax on income and move to an indirect tax through the states that is weighed in a completely unbiased manner that is not regressive or progressive. Why is this a good idea?
- The enumerated powers would be restored by shifting the power to the states and the people
- The federal government would be restricted by a balanced budget requirement just like the states
- The federal government funding would be determined by the census
- Census based apportioning is unbiased, fair and equal
- The states would set the dollar amount per person for federal funding
- No more $3.6 trillion dollar out of control Obama spending free for all
- The states could raise their portion of the federal funding burden in any manner they choose
- If a state has a tax structure that is too high, residents will vote with their feet
So that , my friends, is how my dream of a Redstate rebellion ends. We finally have the country our Founders envisioned.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Original Post: Conservatives on Fire