AndreusMaximus
Master
Well, if the federal government was actually being abusive, it changes my logic significantly, but so far, unless I've missed it, I haven't really seen any significant evidence of that.Iffy. Using my marriage analogy above the south told their "spouse" they wanted a divorce and no longer wanted them in their part of the "house", the north said heck with that and tried to move more of their buddies into that part of the house and supply them with pizza and beer. If that happened in a marriage would you fault the spouse that took a bat to the offending spouses buddies? Even if the spouse wanted a divorce for what is an abhorrent reason.
If we're using a marriage analogy*, I think a fair analogy would go something like this: Mrs. South and Mr. North get married, and sign a pre-nuptial contract that says they'll combine all their income and split it evenly. Now Mrs. South is working a much higher paying job, and after several years of it she goes to Mr. North and says, "I'm sick of you getting so much of my money while you bring in hardly anything, so I'm divorcing you, and I'm also taking our 3 children and sending them to work in a factory so I can take their wages." Mr. North says, "No way I'm letting you do that. Oh, and that guestroom upstairs that we agreed my buddies could stay in, I'm having more of them move in to help stop you." So Mrs. South grabs her pistol, goes upstairs, and tell his buddies to clear out or start dodging bullets, and when they refuse, she makes good on her threat.
(*I'm also not sure I like the marriage analogy, either, because while marriage vows are permanent with no escape clause, I have to say that despite my persistent objections to what I view as an illogical reading of the 10th Amendment, there is still other evidence out there that leads me to at least somewhat question the notion that the Constitution was meant to be perpetually binding and irrevocable.)