A couple of weeks ago, I reviewed Loyola University (Maryland) professor of economics Thomas DiLorenzo's ""The Real Lincoln," a book that presented abundant evidence that most of the Founders took the right of state secession for granted.


Despite that evidence, some readers concluded differently. Let's consider an alternative to secession in response to federal government encroachment on our liberties.


Suppose Congress enacted the Federal Clean Thoughts Act (FCTA) and President Bush signed it. Under its provisions, before books and newspaper reports could be published, and before television and radio programs could be broadcasted, prior approval of their "fitness" would have to be obtained from the Federal Clean Thoughts Commission. Several parties bring a lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court charging FCTA is a violation of the First Amendment. However, the court finds that under the Constitution's "general welfare clause," the law is constitutional.


What do Americans do? Do we accept the tyranny or pick up the sword, or do we think about state secession again? I would hope that the response of my fellow Americans wouldn't be: "Williams, the law is the law. The Court has said FCTA is constitutional, and our job is to obey." What's clear in this scenario is that the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government are joined with one another to undermine our Constitution and destroy our liberties.


Do we allow the federal government to determine the scope of its own powers? Should we accept whatever Congress, the White House and the courts say is constitutional? Not according to Alexander Hamilton, who in Federalist Paper 28 said, "The State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."

See the rest at [url]www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp[/url]

Lincoln was a control freak.[flame]away.

Yes he was, and we are living in his legacy now.