Does Section 11 of the proposed amendment imply that the state of Ohio would be authorized to use force against the federal government?
This is a matter requiring some delicacy in answering. Certainly, we do not support, in the ordinary course of events, that the state of Ohio should ever use force against the federal government. Nor do we encourage people to use force against each other. However, that does not imply that force should never be used. I believe it is reasonable to conclude that there are times when force, properly and justly applied, is appropriate. Such would be the case in a situation where those in federal government would attempt to enforce mandates upon the state or its Citizens which are clearly unconstitutional in nature and rectification of such matters by due course of law has been denied. For example, if the federal government decided to declare martial law and force people into detention camps against their will, certainly this would be such an occasion where the use of force by the state to protect its Citizens would have proper application. Generally, the federal government serves the states
Related Questions
- Does Section 11 of the proposed amendment imply that the state of Ohio would be authorized to use force against the federal government?
- My organization has a federal exemption under IRC Section 501(c)(3). What do I need to do to get California state tax exemption?
- Can a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution be declared unconstitutional?
