IRRECONCILABLE
DIFFERENCES
by
Gary Peer
At
what point do we Americans begin thinking about (or admit that we are thinking
about) the unthinkable – the heresy of all heresies? When do we confront the possibility that the United States of
America may no longer be united? When
will our cultural war “morph” into physical confrontation?
These are questions that fill my mind more and more lately as I confront
an America that I find increasingly hostile to the traditional values that have
made this Country the model of modern civilization.
Or is it really America that is changing?
Must we believe that our traditional values are out of step with
post-modern enlightenment thinking? Is
our thinking being manipulated by the large population centers that control (or
at least attempt to control) our politics, media and business interests?
It is well known in both marketing and psychological warfare that when
people hear something over and over without a counterbalance, they will begin to
accept it as truth or fact. With
subtle variations in the delivery methodology, this is nothing less than
brainwashing.
It
is an ominous task to fight this evil trinity.
Indeed, it may be a conflict that cannot be won on a national scale.
In a pure democracy, the majority control, regardless of the merits of
their position or the righteousness of their cause.
In a republic like ours, certain curbs have been interposed to mitigate
the contagion that can develop over certain issues of desire or ideology.
This interposition is partly our form of representative government and
partly our Constitution. But what
happens if the system is so emasculated as to prove inadequate to prevent the
“will of the people” (or at least the will of the majority) from running
amuck? What is our response when the legal system that was
established to protect the people is turned toward their abuse? What do we do when our government uses the virtually
unlimited funds taken from its people to fund this abuse to unleash an unlimited
army of lawyers to wage war on those with limited resources? What happens when those with all the power abuse it and
enough of the populace, either through apathy, ignorance or ill intention, go
along? What happens when the states
are stripped of the powers granted them under the Constitution and are precluded
from enacting legislation that is the “will of their people?”
The
simple answer, and correct one in principle, is to turn to the federal courts.
The federal courts where the judges are appointed by the President
without regard to ideological leanings. Judges
that are so purely objective that their personal beliefs cannot weigh on their
legal opinions. Certainly there is
a Supreme Court that “we the people” can count on to come to a “clearly
just” conclusion – never mind a 5 to 4 vote.
But what if, just for discussion purposes, some, or all Justices are
burdened by a social, political, or even judicial agenda?
What if a decision is rendered that is artfully articulated based on
esoteric legal theories, but is simply wrong and clearly justifies a
predetermined ideology?
Now
for the tough stuff! Each territory
that petitioned for statehood did so with the understanding that the contract
was clear and understood, and that it was a sacred covenant - unambiguous and
unchanging. Even those without a
legal background understand that if a party to an agreement breeches that
agreement the other party is no longer bound by all the terms of the agreement,
and perhaps none of them. A state,
or states, that find the Constitution (i.e., the agreement that governs the
performance by, and the responsibilities of, the state and federal governments)
not being honored by the other party to the agreement, need consider the
withdrawal from the arrangement. That
state can go it alone or bargain with other like minded states to enter into an
identical agreement with those terms and responsibilities clearly stated and
agreed to.
Perhaps
it is time for the people to begin addressing their legislators with the idea
that there may be values and ideals that cannot be compromised –
“irreconcilable differences” that are emerging through the smoke of this
culture war. While there are
numerous areas where this culture war is raging, the 2nd Amendment is
certainly one of the three or four serious issues that threaten to divide our
Country, and rightly so since it addresses this breech of contract head on.
Other issues that will not be addressed here but are worth noting are
abortion, homosexual “rights”, education and the place of our God and
Creator in our Country (all of which address the issue of States Rights).
As states take positions precluding frivolous lawsuits against gun makers
and dealers, contrary to positions by the federal government (and some other
states for that matter), a line is already being drawn.
As
a businessman, I understand that if an agreement is beneficial to all parties,
everyone works hard to keep the agreement in place by honoring commitments under
the agreement. Knowing full well
that doing otherwise risks of the disintegration of the arrangement to the
detriment of one or all parties. When
there is a loss at stake, there is incentive to perform.
The stakes need to be put on the table by state legislatures for this
national debate. What is the
disincentive for the federal government’s pursuit of the elimination of our
right to bear arms if there are no negative repercussions for doing so?
There must be a downside. Try
to stop a child form pursuing unacceptable behavior by just saying no, or
scolding after the fact. More often
than not a disincentive needs to be introduced.
I realize this concept may be contrary to my fellow Californians who are
advocating some of our cities be designated as “no spanking zones”, but this
truth is as old as time.
The
serious threat of dividing our nation needs to be put on the table.
It needs to be considered with open eyes and, I would suggest, with time
on our knees. It is not too soon to
seriously consider in our state legislatures the end game of this culture war.
To not do so will surely lead to one inevitable outcome, regardless of
whom is our President for the next four years.
