Was slavery horrible? Yes. Was it immoral? Yes. But the one thing it was not is *unlawful*, and to put today’s American taxpayers under the onus of a crime for what was *legal behavior at the time* goes against not only an important principle clearly embedded in our Constitution but also our understanding of what living in a truly free society means.
In 2003, more than a decade before it legalized gay marriage, the Supreme Court declared all anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. The United States could no longer punish a same-sex couple for engaging in homosexual acts. And that, combined with Roe v. Wade, is when America ceased to be a Christian nation.
We human beings are simply not angels, as some would like to believe. And the more power we aggregate to a government run by human beings — the more we put government in control of our lives by making us more and more reliant upon it, even for basic necessities — the more we find ourselves in danger of seeing a very human devil take control of all that power.
Because the possibility of a complete progressive takeover of American government is realistically looming ahead, it behooves us to ask, “What exactly do progressives want?” Ask a progressive that question, and you’ll probably get this answer: “Evolution. We want to see society evolve.” But going all the way back to FDR, “evolution” has really meant something else: Call it “dependency”. Call it “absorption”. Call it “assimilation”.
Some people complain about the Electoral College, “My state has been overwhelmingly [political party] for YEARZ, so my vote doesn’t count!” But how true is that assertion? I did some research and, playing the averages, it takes about 25 years for a state to cycle from one political party to the other.
That there’s no mention of secession in the Constitution doesn’t rule out the power to secede. But the Articles of Confederation, which the Constitution replaced, enjoyed little more than treaty status — any one signatory could shatter the treaty. That a new pact with the explicit intent “to form a more perfect union” would have created an equally feeble bond seems counterintuitive. The Constitution was intended to be something binding and lasting.