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 2^nd 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.