South Carolina right to criminalize Obamacare

You've all heard of South Carolina, haven't you? It's that quaint little state jigsaw pieced between Georgia and North Carolina, home of Myrtle Beach, Parris Island, and some great golf. It also has an interesting history within the sphere of state and federal relations in our nation.

In 1832 South Carolina threatened to secede because of the so-called Tariff of Abominations which the Congress had passed. The tariff was liked by many northern states because it was designed to protect its industry but hated in the south because it increased the prices of goods it wanted. This led to the Nullification Crisis, where South Carolina went so far as to declare the tariff null and void, as it was unconstitutional. Under the threat of military action against her because of this, South Carolina backed down.

Fast forward to 1860. Abraham Lincoln is elected President, and the south expects that he will do all he can to stop the practice of slavery. Many southern states left the Union, of course. The first to go was South Carolina.

This is not to defend South Carolina in these cases. Slavery was wrong and should have been illegal; arguably it is not wise to go to war against your own government simply over a tax, the American Revolution notwithstanding (and which was about much more than forms of taxation anyway). But it is to point out that when Washington has overextended itself South Carolina has been at the forefront of those challenging federal authority at least twice in our history.

Now the South Carolina House has passed a bill which would outlaw the implementation of Obamacare. The proposed law, the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act, declares Obamacare 'null and void' and would criminally prosecute anyone who attempts to enforce the measure there. Yet unlike the other two instances in which the Palmetto State, South Carolina is quite correct on this one. Obamacare is an offensive intrusion into the lives of the American people, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that only the will of the American people can force President Barack Obama and the behemoth that Washington has become to back down. We must force a Constitutional crisis on the issue.

To that point, what is there to say to South Carolina today?

Third time's a charm.

Gettysburg at 150

One Hundred and Fifty years ago today saw the start of what may have been the most significant battle ever fought on the United States mainland. The only rival, probably, is the Battle of Yorktown, which effectively ended the American Revolution. The three day conflict at Gettysburg seems to be the most important of the two, other than that, without Yorktown, there likely would not have been a Gettysburg. But if we're going to think of history as merely chronological, we aren't really think about it contextually enough. In that sense, let's call Gettysburg the most important of the two.

What has it wrought? That's fairly easy to answer in retrospect: if nothing else, it gave the North enough of a victory to keep the Union in the game. Yet more than that; what has happened as a result of the battle?

Clearly, that the federal government was shown as superior to the several states. That has been a real mixed bag, to say the least. True, it ended slavery. Yet from our vantage point a century and a half later, it seems that Washington has become too powerful because of the War. We are no longer a nation of consensual independent bodies, and with that we don't have the amount of freedom we should.

The real shame is that the South, the Confederacy, had a legitimate enough point in fighting: states' rights. But what went with that call at that time? Human bondage. On the whole, the concept of states rights within our governing system isn't bad; yet it is almost nonexistent anymore. And why? Because it is associated with the South and slavery.

This is exactly the sort of thing which happens when men apply good ideas to bad notions. They become corrupted, even if perfectly rational (as they of course almost surely may be) seen without the taint of evil. In short, when the South went to war for the rights of the states yet with the specter of men and women in chains behind it, it was employing a good point to an evil end, and in very practical terms that has led to the loss of our freedoms today.

We would not have Obamacare today, we would not have abortion so prevalent nor gay marriage forced upon us so totally, without the Civil War, because many of these things would be left to the states. There would be a mix of laws on those and other very important matters, to be sure. But that would also mean that at least some of the states would get things right, and citizens could move into the states which most well stood for what is right and true and where they might hold the hope of one day convincing their peers to emulate them. As it is, it no longer matters, because we have a massive federal establishment telling all of us what to support. It will not be easily swayed, if ever, as it is too strong.

The Confederacy lost the battle and the seceding states lost with it any real ability to control their own destiny. The Union won the battle but, as is famously said in other places, lost the peace, as its member states have lost so much of their power as well. Evil begets evil. We are all, each of us, the poorer for it. That is the real lesson of Gettysburg.

Idaho leads the Way

In what may well become one the foremost Constitutional crises in our history, the State of Idaho has put into law an act calling on its Attorney General to sue the federal government over any health insurance mandates from Washington. Similar legislation is being considered in 37 other states.

Good show, Boise. It is high time that we bring states rights back to the fore. It is absurd to argue that states have no rights against the federal establishment, and where those rights exist they must be reaffirmed.

Sure, the doctrine has been battered and abused over time; liberal historians would love to keep the idea linked with the slavery crisis in nothing less than a guilt by association scheme. But the fact is that the call of states rights can well be legitimate if and when the circumstances call for it. We are a federal system; by our political nature, localities have certain basic rights. Even the Constitution recognizes as much, as seen in those two forgotten Amendments at the end of the Bill of Rights.

Let us hope that Idaho's bold move will stiffen the spines of many other states, and remind the Congress and the President that they are not all powerful. If nothing else, perhaps this move will be the seed from which will grow a better understanding of who we are as a nation. Perhaps it will, in the end, speak to Washington as we once spoke to London, Don't Tread On Me.