Alternatives to Civil War

I suspect that President Clinton may cause civil war in the United States. Her campaign promises for much stricter gun control laws passed by executive order and Australian-style confiscation are not going to go over well with most of the population west of the Mississippi, and even some of the population east of the Mississippi. One result is likely to be bloody confrontations with federal law enforcement agencies, and potentially, guerrilla warfare and terrorist attacks on federal agencies.  Are there any alternatives to civil war?  Continuance of open borders and attempts to enforce transgender bathrooms are already creating substantial upset as the Trump campaign has shown.  At some point, the billionaires and their Democratic & Republican puppets are going to lose their control.

I have been thinking about this pretty seriously since I finished reading Ernest Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls. Secession is pretty clearly not going to happen at least in the initial phases of any sort of resistance.  In spite of all the Democrats' hostility towards the death penalty, I am sure any governor who had such a bill on his desk would recognize the risk of an overreaching federal judiciary treating secession as treason, which is a capital crime, written into U.S. Constitution, Article III, sec. 3..  And I am sure Democrats would suddenly be full of enthusiasm for it.  Of course the Art. III, sec. 3 definition of treason is "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."  Resisting laws not pursuant to the Constitution, without warlike acts, can hardly qualify as either.

What makes more sense would be for state legislatures to pass Federalism Enforcement statutes, generally of this form:

Statement of Intent

This is not an act of secession, but an attempt to restore the division of powers between the national and state governments provided for in the Constitution of 1787, with most matters of primarily local concern reserved to the state governments, and only matters affecting multiple states or citizens or foreign relations within the domain of the national government.   While the Bill of Rights was originally intended as a limitation on the national government, the Civil War and its aftermath demonstrated the hazards of relying on majority rule to protect minorities from majoritarian excesses, judicial expansion of the "privileges or immunities" clause and anti-originalist extension of the "equal protection" clause have created its own set of minority oppression problems, sometimes at the hands of majorities, unrestrained by federal judges who are partial to oppression of religious minorities.  While majority oppression remains a problem at the hands of the state legislature, it is at least closer to the electorate, and more readily correctable by regular elections than when imposed by unelected lifetime tenure federal judges who mistake their personal preferences for Constitutional law.  At the same time, a lawless desire to rewrite the laws of Congress by executive orders and "signing statements" have created the absurd situation of the national government refusing to enforce the law of the land while federal judges prohibit states from enforcing these now largely meaningless laws.

What Is the Proper Division of Power in a Federal Republic?

1. The primary responsibility for the health and welfare of the people of each state is the state government and its subsidiary governments.  This is the reason that the U.S. Constitution limited the powers of Congress,  in Article I, sec. 8, clauses 1-17 of the U.S. Constitution, leaving other powers to the states.  In addition, Amendment Ten: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." .

2. Art.I, sec. 8, clause 18:"the necessary and proper" or "endlessly elastic" clause has clearly been abused to absurd levels to extend the national government to areas that would have been recognized as unjustified tyranny by the original thirteen states that ratified the Constitution and which necessarily create conflicts with the principal of federalism.

3. Art.I, sec. 8, clause 3, upon which Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce, even when a farmer is only growing wheat for his own consumption [Wickard v. Filburn (1942)], was originally intended to preclude states from interfering in commerce between states [Gibbon v. Ogden (1824)].  Commerce crossing state lines is within the authority of Congress to regulate, but not simply any commerce that might indirectly impact commerce in other states.

4. Article V asserts that the U.S. Constitution and the laws "which shall be made in pursuance thereof... 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,"  Our position is that laws contrary to the U.S. Constitution's very limited authority cannot be considered "in pursuance thereof," much like unconstitutional laws cannot be considered legally binding.

Limiting National Government Power

To protect the rights of the people of [fill-in-the blank] State, all officials of this government, including law enforcement officers, will not only refuse to assist federal officials in enforcing laws that violate the rights of its people, but will actively assist its people in the exercise of their rights as articulated in our state constitution [for Idaho, Article I through XXI].  The Attorney-General will provide legal defense in cases where federal law enforcement prosecutes our residents for actions where federal authority is not explicitly listed in Article I, sec, 1-17 as well as defending state officials and employees prosecuted for providing assistance.  Attempts to arrest persons contrary to this will be vigorously opposed by law enforcement agencies, and if necessary, the unorganized militia of the State of [fill-in-the blank].

Attempts to enforce laws outside the U.S. Constitution's limits on federal power within this state are unlawful and will be resisted with the minimum necessary force.  Existing decisions of the Supreme Court of Idaho and its inferior courts stand.

We also call for a Convention of the States to clarify the misappropriation of power that several generations of well-intentioned but erroneous Congressmen, Presidents, and federal judges have made.