Federalism vs. Secessionnby Ronin Colmann”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitednby it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”n—The Tenth AmendmentnFollowing the passage of the national gun ban wrapped innpork, Representatives Gingrich and Gephardt congratulatedneach other for their bipartisan cooperation and remarkednhow much they looked forward to working together on thennationalization of health care. But they failed to account fornone political reality: a large number of citizens, concentrated innthe Intermountain West, persist in behaving as if the Constitutionnwere still the law of the land. They interpret the Constitutionnas a document that severely restricts the purview of thenfederal government, and it is on that basis that they consent tonbe governed.nBefore Ronald Reagan’s ascension to nominal control of thenexecutive branch in 1980, conservatives devoted much effort tonpromoting the seemingly lost cause of states’ rights and federalism.nCentered in the South, the battle encompassed everythingnfrom the usurpation of state sovereignty by the nationalngovernment in the enforcement, by the standing army, of desegregationnto the passage of the various “civil rights” acts in then1960’s. While conservative Southerners correctly saw thisn”Second Reconstruction” as a fight for the preservation of theirnregional culture and defense of their legal sovereignty, thenphilosopher kings of the day succeeded in portraying whitenSoutherners as ignorant, inbred, gun-toting, militant racistsnRonin Colman is a businessman in the Republic of Texas.n22/CHRONICLESnnnbent on keeping good, decent, hardworking, original thinkersnlike “Dr.” King from sitting next to them at the local soda fountain.nIgnorant of the Constitution and unwilling to see theirnown future in the subjugated South, the majority of Americansnturned their back on the Southern states and congratulatednthemselves on their own liberalism.nDuring the Reagan/Bush years, many conservatives, thinkingnthey had won the ball game, stopped talking about federalismnand fell into the trap of believing in federally mandated “onensize fits all” solutions to local problems. Take, for example, thennational “War on Drugs.” This resulted in the creation of anhost of new federal crimes and draconian asset forfeiture lawsnthat make targets out of citizens who have the misfortune tonpossess land coveted by some bureaucratic—or rather kleptocratic—agency.nHaving accepted the “federalization” of criminalnlaw, these same conservatives turn a blind eye to the increasingnmilitarization of federal law enforcement. Ournlegislature, once very hesitant to allow the FBI to carry guns,nnow permits 53 federal agencies to arm its agents and make arrests.nEven the Environmental Protection Agency has a SWATnteam. Indeed, scarcely a murmur is heard from Congress whennits minions act like soldiers of an occupying military force, conductingnno-knock raids dressed in masks and ninja suits whilenbrandishing German submachine guns.nIn the absence of objections from either national politicaln