A recent contributor to the Daily Inter Lake opinion page tossed into the  fire pit of political discussion a conundrum regarding a state’s ability to tear up the agreement that binds the entity to the United States of America. 

Today, both a state wishing to secede from the Union and Congress would have to mutually agree to any act of secession (which is highly unlikely since the laboring citizens of each state are a vital source of revenue for the latter).  The states discovered after the Civil War that, once you join, it is virtually impossible to get out. 

But what about the special case where one entity clearly violates terms of the contractual agreement binding the state and federal government together? A federal mandate that citizens must purchase health insurance against their will or a federal restriction on the possession of firearms would be examples of such a transgression.

When Montana (and other states) joined the Union, both parties entered into a special contract called a compact, which is an agreement with obligations and rights binding the two entities together. Proponents of the compact theory (including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), hold that the nation was formed through a compact agreed upon by all the states, and thus the federal government is a creation of the states.  States should therefore have the final say over whether the federal government oversteps the limits of its authority as set forth in the binding compact.

This theory was the basis of argument for the Southern states to secede from the union (over the issue of slavery and state’s rights) that ultimately led to the Civil war.  If, instead, the federal government had acknowledged their limited powers, retracted its anti-slavery legislation that adversely affected Southern states and not others, and instead  waited for evolutionary public opinion to resolve the contentious issue, there never would have been a bloody conflict.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention “permanent states” nor does it mention powers granted to Congress to prevent the secession of states. (Remember that powers not specifically granted to Congress are granted to the states and citizens.) Indeed, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island were granted this option as a condition for the representatives of those states to sign the Constitution.   No one disputed the right of secession of states up to the Civil War when all this changed. It is worth noting that no Confederate soldier was ever charged with treason because doing so would have brought the issue of the right of secession and the ability of Congress to prevent it before the Supreme Court. Since that time, the “permanence” of statehood became a de facto law without any constitutional basis.

Opponents of compact theory point to the wording of the Constitution wherein it mentions that the government was created by the people (not the states).  Ignoring the 10th Amendment, these opponents argue that states thus have no standing in the matter of sovereignty and therefore lack the ability to chart their own destiny (including divorce from a federal government that no longer abides by the conditions of the annexation agreement or the laws of the U.S. Constitution). This group  refuses to address the scenario wherein a majority of citizens within a state seek a separation from the Union by referendum other than to argue that all the citizens of the nation (through their elected representatives) would have the final say regarding the wishes of the citizens within any particular state. 

With respect to the U.S. Constitution, if the Founding Fathers wished to endow the federal government with omnipotent power, why did they even bother with states? They could have dissolved state sovereignty outright and made all the land and the inhabitants one nation, perhaps calling the new republic “Big Brother” rather than the United States of America.  I believe it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to create a minimalistic federal government with each state government determining how best to manage their unique area based on available natural resources, geological challenges and the wants and needs of the state’s citizens.  The sole purpose of the federal government was not intended to micro-manage the states as is done in the socialist European Union, but to provide limited, basic services such as national defense, a sound monetary system and arbiter of international affairs that are common needs of the collective states. Looking at America today, the federal government is, without question, exceeding its authority.

I find it hard to believe the Founders would construct a law of the land wherein the only option citizens have to escape a rogue federal government is to flee as expatriates, acquiesce to the military supremacy of the federal government or commit acts of anarchy (civil war).  The role of government is to protect the citizens from oppression or physical harm and yet none of today’s options satisfy this criteria. The only peaceful resolution would be for the federal government to correct its overreach of power or to permit dissenting states (the majority of citizens within the state) to secede without the threat or use of military force by either side.

Today’s reality is that, regardless of how convincing the argument, Congress and the federal government would never peacefully permit one or several states to secede from the Union and start over as a truly constitutional republic.  The argument that the loss of even one state weakens “the formation of a more perfect union” (as stated in the preamble of the Constitution), becomes a moot point when the policies of the government are causing far greater harm to the nation than the loss of Montana would be. There must be a nonviolent way citizens can escape a failing country before going down with a sinking ship of state.

I have heard suggestions that a constitutional convention should be convened to address and rewrite problematic and outdated portions of the law of the land. While this certainly could be justified today, I fear that, in the control of academics, politicians and lawyers, the result would be fewer freedoms and more bureaucracy. All I can envision is the word ‘COMPROMISE’ flashing on my mental PCWS (Politically Correct Warning System). Nevertheless, I believe that a pragmatic solution to this unresolved quandary is long overdue. The issue should be formally argued before the U.S. Supreme Court for a ruling. The question that must be answered is: “Under the U.S. Constitution, does a state have the right to secede from the Union?”  If the response is no, the justices must then point out where in the Constitution powers are granted to Congress to prevent one or more states from breaking the compact that binds them.

The weak challenges to voting by illegals, prisoners and even dead people joining the rapidly growing majority of Americans who have sold their soul to an omnipotent socialist entity for the few shekels they receive, spells the doom of America remaining a free constitutional republic. America’s near-term destiny is an economic implosion that will permanently alter the lives of everyone living here. The line drawn in the dirt varies for everybody’s level of tolerance but, eventually, everyone will be adversely affected. Will it be when nobody is allowed to leave with or transfer out of the country more than a trivial amount of money as is happening right now in Greece? What will your life be like when you no longer receive any financial support from the federal government?

I am not advocating that Montana or any state secede from the Union.  My goal of this opinion letter is to inform and inspire the readers to learn more about our government and its history and to help prepare yourself for the inevitable.

Merlette is a resident of Bigfork.