The deadline for the White House to begin responding to secession petitions is drawing near. Immediately following the 2012 election, residents in Texas and Louisiana began petitioning the White House for peaceful secession from the Union. This quickly spread across all fifty states within a matter of days and the White House petition site's guidelines indicate that there should be a response within 30 days of initiation of the petition, provided it gets the number of signatures it needs. In this case it was 25,000.
Texas easily dwarfed the needed number of signatures. As of the writing of this article the Texas petition has 118,524 signatures and growing.
But Texas was just one among many that have more than reached their quota of signatures. But just what sort of response should we expect from the White House? The truth is we shouldn't expect very much. That doesn't mean there is no real secession movement nor does it mean that those Americans who are sick and tired of the federal government and want them to either stop their intrusiveness into our lives or for their state to peacefully secede are unAmerican. It just means for those who signed the petitions that they should recognize that they are petitioning the one that they want to be rid of.
Not only were there petitions for secession, but sadly there were backlash petitions created in which some were calling for stripping those of their citizenship for wanting to secede. I even received emails from people all high and mighty claiming that it was unConstitutional for states to secede, to which I simply asked for Article and Section. Obviously I never heard back from these people because there is no such thing.
In fact, you might be interested to know that according to Texassecede.com, when asked "Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State?" the reply was:
No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several years of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce. Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.
The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.
It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
So what should we expect from the White House? Well consider this petition and its response from the White House. By the way, this is almost form letter responses, so more than likely this is how the numerous responses will be to the secession petitions that have passed the threshold. The following response is to a petition regarding "Restore democracy by ending corporate personhood."
"Building a Government that Serves Ordinary Americans, Not Special Interests"
By Tonya Robinson
Thank you for taking the time to participate in the We the People petition process. We launched this online tool as a way of hearing directly from you and are pleased to see that it has been effective in soliciting your feedback. We understand your interest in the petition to support "ending corporate personhood," and we appreciate this opportunity to share the Obama Administration's stance on this issue.
First, you should know that the President believes the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case that you referenced is contrary to the public interest, in large part because it has resulted in lobbyists and special interest groups having greater, and less transparent, influence on elections. As soon as the Court announced its decision in 2010, the President instructed his Administration to get to work immediately to forge a bipartisan response to this decision. The Administration continues to work with Members of Congress and other stakeholders to find a negotiated solution to the dire results of Citizens United.
The President's disagreement with Citizens United is consistent with his long-standing commitment to make government decision-making more accessible and responsible to ordinary Americans. Under his direction, this Administration has taken historic steps to close the "revolving door" that carries special interest influence in and out of the government. For the first time in history, we now publicly disclose the names of everyone who visits the White House. The President also strongly supported a bill in Congress that would have required the disclosure of the names of corporate donors that finance political ads – legislation that Congress failed to enact.
President Obama has repeatedly challenged business as usual in Washington, and will continue to fight to preserve the American democratic tradition. Thank you once again for signing the online petition."
One would think that with only 82 petitions that have actually received a response that Barack Obama himself would be involved in the response, but I guess he can't be bothered with, what he would refer in his mind, the "little people" and so passes it off to people like Ms. Robinson. The site informs us that "Tonya Robinson is Special Assistant to the President for Justice and Regulatory Policy."
So as the deadline approaches, I would say that we should not be looking for the White House to actually give a serious response to the petition. I am curious though as to what the response will be and whether or not it would even be a constitutional response. I'm guessing not, even though I know Obama has been hailed as a "Constitutional scholar." We have witnessed that he is no such thing, but rather twists the language of the Constitution to be what he wants it to be and when he can't get that, then he completely dismisses it.
But there is hope! I highly recommend an article by Tiffany Madison titled Where secession petitions failed, nullification succeeds in which she interviews Mike Maharrey, Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center on the issue of nullification, which has become increasingly popular and effective at staving off the ever encroaching federal government.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.