Where does the majority of your loyalty lay, your home state or the federal government?

Question

The federal government outlaws the possession and ownership of widgets (imaginary item). The majority of your state, including yourself supports the ownership and enjoyment of widgets. What if it got to the point that the federal government was ready to send the national guard in to force the residents of your state to relinquish all widgets. Who would you support? I know, its a stupid question, but I'm curious of how people think. People used to consider themselves a, for instance, New Yorker first and an American second.

Answer 1

The last time a few States tried to take on the Federal government, they got their beast of burden handed to them in a wicker basket. The Founding Fathers wisely gave the Feds the ultimate power or you would have some States practicing slavery or a mandatory religion or closing their borders, etc. But the Fathers also included restrictions on the Federal proboscis being inserted where it didn't belong. It is up to the people to see that this balance is not abused as it currently is. It is fixable but one might have to take a break from  TV to manage it and stop leaving everything up to the partisan cigar puffers.

Answer 2

That is a tough question.  I don't know.  I can't ever imagine myself opposing the government of the United States but I couldn't stand to sit back and let my home state be attacked and subdued by out of staters.  If it came to wah suh, I will side with my State.

Answer 3

Since the Federal government owns or controls 85% of the land in my State, my loyalties are with my State. No one loves his landlord. But, having served 25 years in the Navy and taken an oath to defend the document, my prime loyalty is to the U.S. Constitution.

In order for the Federal government to send in the National Guard to enforce such a law as you propose would require Federalizing that State's National Guard or using Federal troops in the first place. Funny you shoud ask this question since this month is the anniversary of President Eisenhower doing exactly that to enforce the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown versus Topeka Board of Education and using an airborne division at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Answer 4

GREAT QUESTION!

I'm always interested how the American public has forgotten the importance of the state government.  If we want a law changed, we scream to federal government.  We have a problem with local trade we call our Senator in DC.  

I think a big part of this can be found in the fact that our nation is now very mobile.  In the past MOST Americans died mere miles from where they were born.  If you were born in New York, you lived in New York for all of your life.  Even when people did migrate to another state (say from New York to Michigan in the 1820s), they were helping to found a new state and local govenment that they would have loyalty to.

This question you posed reminds me of the 'g*y Marriage' debate.  This has become a HUGE debate in the last few presidential elections.  The problem is that it isn't a federal matter.  The Constitution lists out the ONLY law making powers that the federal government has, regulating marriage is not one of them, and every thing else falls to the states.  

So back to your question about widgets.  The federal government has the legal right to ban the manufacture (through the Food & Drug Adminstration), importation, and the distrubtion over state lines of drugs.  When some one gets arrested for drugs in the U.S. it is a state or local felony.  It takes an amendment to the Constitution (like in Prohibition) for the feds to ban an item.

Personally...if the events you asked unfolded like you said, I would back the state government.  

One problem with your question however, the federal government is banned (unless authorized by Congress) from using any military forces to police the laws of the nation.  The national guard is sent ONLY by state governors.