Illinois' policies: A form of modern secession? Discover more.
The Illinois House and Senate have recently approved a contentious bill, HB3751, which is now awaiting the governor's signature. This proposed law would allow recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to apply for roles as police officers or deputy sheriffs. This shift in law enforcement hiring practices marks a significant change and has sparked debates about its potential impact on public safety and adherence to the law. Similar legislation has either been enacted or is under serious consideration in other states such as California, Colorado, Nevada, and Wisconsin. It's worth noting that potential DACA law enforcement officers could have initially entered or remained in the U.S. illegally and have the power to arrest citizens.
This legislative move in Illinois and other states represents a clear disregard for the mutual agreement that binds the 50 states. It is akin to the notion of secession, which involves a group's withdrawal from a larger, particularly political, entity. The most significant example of secession in U.S. history occurred when 11 Southern states seceded from the Union between 1860-1861, sparking the American Civil War. This act wasn't impulsive but the climax of years of escalating tension over the issue of slavery.
Today, some states are enacting policies that significantly diverge from the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, creating a landscape that could be seen as a form of modern secession.
Illinois is widely recognized as a sanctuary state for immigrants. In the summer after President Donald Trump's 2017 inauguration, the state enacted the Trust Act. This law prevents state and local police from arresting, detaining, or prolonging the detention of an individual solely based on their immigration status. This law, which restricts cooperation between local and state law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, unconstitutionally establishes Illinois as a sanctuary state.
Immigration affects every state in the union, which is why it is regulated federally. If states can make independent decisions violating the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, just to name a couple, the federal government shouldn't be recognized as having any power at all.
Illinois isn't the only state that has divorced the nation without notification. New York City has passed a law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, extending voting rights to about 800,000 noncitizens who are legal residents of the city. This law undermines the value of citizenship and blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens.
In Minnesota, the Minneapolis Public Schools district introduced a new discriminatory contract presented as a way to address racial disparities. The contract includes provisions that protect teachers of color from seniority-based layoffs, aiming to ensure that students from racial minorities have teachers who resemble them. This provision has been met with fierce criticism, with detractors labeling it as racist and unconstitutional discrimination against white educators.
In Michigan, the state's Democratic House passed a law, House Bill 4474, that enables attorneys to prosecute what they define as "hate speech." The law is particularly controversial because it determines "feeling threatened" as reasonable grounds for prosecution. This law is an arrogant violation of the first and most important amendment.
These legislative actions are creating an environment that is increasingly disconnected from the foundational principles of the nation, leading to a metaphorical secession from the Union. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) serves as a critical pillar holding the union together, but the societal chasm is too vast for it to bridge alone.
For instance, SCOTUS does not have the power to prevent the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from issuing guidelines on vile and immoral ideas such as releasing guidelines legitimizing biological men 'chestfeeding'. This represents a shift in societal norms that diverges from traditional values and portrays a country experiencing a psychotic break from reality.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is unable to resolve societal debates regarding fundamental questions that should be easily understood, as evidenced by the contentious discussions during Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing. Supreme Justice Jackson, who acknowledges she is a woman, avoided a straightforward question regarding the definition of a woman. We have a member of the highest court in the land who does not feel comfortable providing a biological definition of a woman. These intricate matters highlight a societal division that surpasses the jurisdiction of any human much less the court, emphasizing the complexity of the issue.
Despite the court's earnest efforts to steer this Titanic nation away from the metaphorical iceberg through judicious constitutional rulings, it faces unwarranted critique from insincere entities across media, entertainment, and politics, who seem more interested in currying favor with corporate interests than upholding justice.
The Dobbs case, officially known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, is a significant development that allows states to assert their autonomy. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in this case overturned 50 years of precedent, thereby shifting the power to regulate abortion from the federal level to the states. This landmark ruling allows states to enact policies that either severely restrict, outright ban, or even make legal all the way through, the practice of abortion.
Rather than honoring the sovereignty of each state to enact laws not explicitly addressed by the Constitution, certain states have taken to publicly chastising others for their abortion policies. A case in point is California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has openly rebuked states like Florida for their stringent abortion laws. The Constitution, as it stands, does not expressly safeguard abortion rights. If we, as a collective, desired to either protect these rights or outlaw them, we could do so through a constitutional amendment. Given that such rights are not constitutionally protected and no amendment has been made, the issue falls under state jurisdiction. To maintain harmony within our union, it is imperative that we respect the rights of individual states in such circumstances.
This disregard for state autonomy and diversity signals a broader trend. Through their legislative actions, these states are crafting a landscape that increasingly diverges from the nation's foundational principles. They are implementing policies that significantly deviate from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, effectively initiating an undeclared secession.
These states cloak their secessionist actions under the guise of "saving democracy" and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Their legislative decisions and public statements suggest a secession in progress, marked not by a formal declaration, but by a gradual departure from the principles of Western Culture. A shared culture and moral framework are the bedrock upon which we can harmonize laws across states. Without this shared culture, which cannot be legislated, our coexistence becomes challenging.
An earnest and scholarly discourse on the topic of peaceful secession, particularly among state legislators and federal representatives, can indeed be a productive endeavor. However, a covert secession, orchestrated with the hidden intent of gaining dominance over those who dissent, is far from advantageous. The implications of this trend for the future of the United States are of pressing concern. Will this path lead to a more fragmented nation, or could it potentially catalyze a decentralization of the nation, thus heralding a new era of state autonomy and diversity? The resolution to this complex issue lies in the collective wisdom and action of all citizens.