Perhaps, we can have our cake and eat it too?
I’m sure everyone is aware of statements made by the mayors of major cities across the nation, they seek to form The United States Climate Alliance. They’ve decided that they don’t mind giving money to regimes like those of Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Democratic republic of Congo for “Climate change related expenses.” Luckily, the rest of us know better.
Whether its climate change, immigration, drug policies, gun rights, or a list of other issues, these cities seem hell bent on going a different direction than the rest of the country. They vote in complete opposition to the rest of the country, and on occasion dictate the fate of 95 percent of the nation or more. Being a student of history, I see an old solution, to this modern day dilemma: City-states
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and the like, would go the way of Puerto Rico – bankrupt within a decade! These cities would still be sovereign United States territory, and entitled to the protection our military provides, but would be able to legislate themselves into the oligarchic socialist state they so desire, without ruining the rest of the nation! Don’t want to deport illegal , want to give them the benefits of citizenry? Go for it, gonna be rough without picking the rest of the nations pockets! Want to have open borders? have at it champ, hope the ones coming in don’t realize you banned firearms!
The Malta Model
I imagine this Alliance of City States functioning much like Malta within the European Union, or Gibraltar within the UK. They would be required to abide by certain trade protocols, pay taxes to the parent state, etc… but would retain self governance. We might also see a Westminster style Parliamentary system established. Why? Because the prime minister wields much greater power, having control over virtually everything during their reign, so long as they keep their party happy. The only person capable of checking the power of the PM is the head of state -the queen in the UK. In the case of the United City States, this head of state could be either the US Congress, or the President of the United States. This check would be essential to ensure the Bolsheviks – or Progressives as they like to call themselves – do not take full control.
Why would they need to leave?
There is something different about people who have spent their lives insulated within the confines of a city, an ignorance per se. Liberalism spreads within the urban sprawl like the many diseases that for centuries have hampered their growth to current levels. There are fundamental ideological differences between the inner city liberal, and the rest of us. Their elected officials echo these differences through their numerous bad – and in most cases unconstitutional – policy decisions.
- The harboring of criminal aliens.
The Sanctuary city phenomenon is one that has swept our nations large cities over the last decade or two, but has really come to the forefront, as most divisions have, since the election of Donald Trump. A separate class of statehood for jurisdictions wishing to untangle themselves from the various federal laws and national standards would solve this issue. In fact, should these city states so desire, they could pay for the detainment of criminal aliens at the border, and pay for resettlement in their jurisdiction.
- The right of citizens to be armed.
An American right that is commonly taken by unlawful means by left wing governance, is the fundamental right to gun ownership. The founding fathers clearly state in the second amendment, that this is not for sporting purposes, but is in fact for self defense from common criminals, foreign invaders, as well as tyrannical government. the constitution, according to itself is the supreme law of the land. These cities could ban guns for good as they invite in swarms of criminal aliens and refugees from nations engaged in civil war with Islamist factions, and the rest of us could sit back and watch them deteriorate into the Mogadishu’s of the west. I mean hey, these same policies are working out just fine in London, Paris, and Brussels right?
How long did Trump say that wall was gonna be? might want to expand the project to a few future localities..
- Legalization of Marijuana
As much as I personally wish state rights were above federal rights, the civil war squarely destroyed that argument… Thanks Obam… Lincoln. I also believe that the medicinal and industrial uses of Cannabis should be thoroughly researched as an alternative to dangerous narcotics, as well as the destruction of hardwood forest. However, that’s not what the legalization of marijuana has been about, has it? There was all this debate and rhetoric about the miracle of medical marijuana, and instead of legalizing its use for research, medical trials, etc.. All of these states legalized its recreational use. For this reason, I cannot accept the legalization of marijuana as a legitimate issue. If these jurisdictions, again, wish to subvert federal law than they should seek to form a new status of statehood within the union.
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” -Article VI, United States Constitution.
Article VI in itself destroys the liberal narrative.
Whilst the 9th circuit court of appeals has halted president Trumps revised travel ban, their objection to it should readily be struck down by constitutional law. The president, by virtue of the constitution is the sole determiner of immigration law and procedure. He also has the right to refuse entry to any persons, of any nationality or ideology based on national security concerns.
Just to clarify: The bill of rights pertains only the US citizens – That is what makes our nation so great, the freedoms guaranteed to our citizens. Therefore, there is nothing unconstitutional about refusing entry to refugees based on country of origin or religion, were that to be the case. This indisputable fact can be seen by anyone reading the constitution. Partisan politics and adherence to ideology over the good of the nation, is the only explanation. The judges of our nation becoming so politicized, may spell the end of judicial legitimacy in America.
How do these places secede?
Hopefully through a skillful interpretation of Article IV of the US constitution! While Article IV prohibits unilateral secession, it does perhaps allow for states, or parts of states, to secede by mutual agreement.
“… No new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.” – Article IV, section III, US constitution.
Texas vs. White
In 1869 the supreme court oversaw a case between Texas, and various holders of federal bonds issued to Texas, then sold during the Confederate years. The outcomes being, that Article IV was written from the perspective of an indestructible union. The constitution contains no language on the steps for secession, and the language of article IV might not be compelling enough to form a new US territory, so an amendment to the constitution would likely be necessary.
But why give these places the boot?
Because less than half of one percent of the United States, should not determine the fate of the other 99.6%. The 2016 election showed all too well how this handful of large cities could potentially rob the bulk of America from their desired future – as they did during the last 8 dark years.
An area no larger than 1400 sq. miles out of 3,800,000 nearly determined the outcome of the presidential election. They’ve been kicking and screaming like children ever since. These people live in a fantasy world, and have zero understanding of what the American government even is, or how it operates!
The founding fathers attempted to remedy some of these potential thorns in our side with the advent of the electoral college, possibly one of the most brilliant assurances of liberty, since the advent of republican ideals themselves. These people call for an end to the electoral college, claiming its obsolete because they didn’t get their way.
The founders for all of their brilliance, could’ve never envisioned that so many millions of people would live in this handful of cities; they couldn’t envision that the American populous would be comprehensively mislead about how their government functions, and what their rights and responsibilities are as citizens of a free society; They could’ve never foreseen the advent of the radio or television, let alone the internet, and its ability to misinform and control the people, it would take another 200 years for men like Hitler, Stalin, or Obama to obtain such means of mass control.
You may say I’m a dreamer…
But I’m not the only one. At least I hope not. There has to be a solution to the numerous issues being caused throughout our nation by a very small percentage who will never agree with the rest of us. They’ve done a damn good job so far running their cities into the ground, I say we wash our hands, and let them fail!