Posted under Politics
Now this has some fascinating implications:
The state Assembly voted Monday to place a measure on California’s Feb. 5 ballot urging President George W. Bush to immediately withdraw American troops from Iraq.
The 43-32 roll call vote left the proposal one step from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk.
It now goes back to the Senate, which approved a slightly different version of the bill in June. … The bill asks California voters if Bush should “achieve the immediate, complete, safe and orderly withdrawal of United States forces†from Iraq.
California has taken some significant steps toward self-government recently, which we’ve dutifully and cheerfully reported (see California steps closer toward self-government), but this takes things to a whole new level. Oddly, an equally earth-shaking event in the California Senate merited a throwaway line at the end of the article:
While the Assembly was debating whether to pull out of Iraq, the Senate approved a resolution urging the president to stop sending National Guard troops to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Whoa! Actually, there are some important historical precedents for State opposition to DC’s wars. During the highly unpopular War of 1812, several New England States threatened secession, and Vermont and Massachusetts refused to send their militias to fight a war they considered an immoral and illegal campaign to forcibly annex Canada.
Bush has vowed that he will not end his glorious little war of “liberation†in Iraq, which will leave it to his successor (Hillary and Obama?) to clean up after him. But Hillary, as a leftist Democrat and woman, will have unbearable pressure on her to prove her toughness, which may well put her in the position of Lyndon Johnson, who had to expand the war in Vietnam to prove his “anti-communist†credentials. That may in turn force anti-war States to resume control of their own militias, or prohibiting military operations being launched from their territories. This should be interesting.
Patroon on 28 Aug 2007 at 8:00 pm #
Good for them!
C Bowen on 28 Aug 2007 at 8:47 pm #
…now to register some Republicans and its good for Ron Paul…
HarrisonBergeron on 28 Aug 2007 at 9:17 pm #
Patroon,
Yes, it’s good that someone, somewhere in this sprawling extended-stay motel we call the US is actually doing something to stop the madness.
C Bowen,
I think this could be an opportunity for many different types — Greens, libertarians, paleocons, localists, etc — to do something practical to put an end to this endless war.
St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister on 28 Aug 2007 at 10:20 pm #
Would these same California libs think as well of Mississippi if they put a proposal on the ballot to re-establish segregation? You mentioned the War of 1812 example; trouble is, the “state” National Guards are appendages of the U.S. Armed Forces, funded by the Feds, on loan to state governors, whose members swear allegiance to the whole country, not their state.
HarrisonBergeron on 29 Aug 2007 at 1:34 pm #
Yes, the central government has all the advantages, so we don’t have a chance. King George III owns all the armed forces, and all of them have sworn personal loyalty to him. You’re right, there’s nothing we can do to preserve our liberty.
tomnchrist on 29 Aug 2007 at 3:29 pm #
Being from Mississippi, and retired from from the National Guard, I can vouch for Blogmeister, that the Guard is funded and the leadership is controlled by the Feds. Also Mississippi is dependent on Fed military monies more than other states.
I do think the best solution for regaining civilian control of our government lies in first gaining control of our state governments.
My philosophy is to vote against anyone in office, and vote for a third party candidate if available.