State of Rebellion

Prescott had been able to convince all sides that she was in favor of the Union, while at the same time favorably disposed to correcting the intrusions that the federal government had imposed on all individual states, not limited to just California.

“You did break some new ground, Bill,” Clarene responded. “That requires one to break up the dirt clods first.”

“Haven’t let your farm roots get far away, have you?” Eastman said.

“Something like your ‘Alaska sled dog’ stories, I suppose. Remembering where I came from helps me to keep things in perspective.”

Entering the press room, Eastman moved toward the stand. “You’re about to discover a new perspective, Clarene,” he whispered as he took his place behind the lectern.

“Ladies and gentleman, it is my privilege and distinct honor to introduce to you the vice president of the United States, Clarene Elizabeth Prescott.”

The Washington press corps, cynical from years of ferreting out the truth in a town that thrived on leaks and intentional deception, rose as a body to applaud Vice President Prescott as she took the stand. She understood that some of the applause was prompted by her having become the first female vice president. But perhaps, she reflected, part of the accolade grew out of their recognition of her nearly thirty years of service to the country-as deputy under secretary of defense, deputy secretary of state, ambassador to the United Nations, and for the most recent seven years, national security advisor to the president. Prescott had served in four presidential administrations, two Republican and two Democrat. A Democrat herself, she had earned the respect of both parties through the performance of her duties and her ability to work both camps without sacrificing principle-no simple feat in Washington.

The deference paid by the press lasted nearly sixty seconds before it became business as usual. After offering some brief introductory remarks, including some self-deprecating humor, Vice President Prescott opened the floor for questions. Henry Schikman, UPI, stood first.

“Madam Vice President, congratulations on your appointment. It comes at a time of great domestic turmoil and international change, the likes of which the world has not experienced. In the face of the continuing war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the domestic attacks against federal law enforcement agencies, specifically the attack on the ATF in California, and the murder of numerous congressional representatives by those who favor the secession, how do you respond to those who actually applauded these actions as well-deserved, and what will you recommend be done to punish those who perpetrated these acts of war against the United States?”

Clarene glanced at President Eastman, not so much for direction as to acknowledge his earlier comment and recognize the brevity of her appointment honeymoon.

“Thank you, Henry,” she said. “I believe it was Andy Warhol who said, ‘Everyone is entitled to their fifteen minutes of fame.’ As the president predicted, I’ve had less than two minutes of honeymoon in office,” she replied, eliciting mild laughter from her inquisitors. “You are correct, however, that we are passing through a period of unprecedented international and domestic political upheaval. The breakup of the former Soviet Union over twenty years ago presaged a separatist movement among other nations, including some that had been politically aligned since the turn of the last century. Ethnic diversity, historical geography, and, certainly, philosophical and religious variations have called into question many traditional national alignments-some of them longstanding. The terrorist activities in the Middle East, Europe, and even within our own borders have brought us face to face with some hard choices.

“While not all bad in its context, these actions have certainly given rise to a worldwide instability, which often, as history has shown, causes the turmoil of which you speak. We are, of course as you know, withdrawing our troops from the Middle East, as quickly as the security of those nations allows.

“The president is on record as being supportive of the need to assess each situation as it develops and has assured the American people of his determination to provide a secure and stable domestic environment and to evaluate each international development with an eye toward the strategic interests of the United States. Beyond that, Henry, I feel it inappropriate to project our response as to the proposed intentions of the federal government, or indeed, to preclude any necessary specific measures, other than to say that we firmly believe that all citizens, including those in California, have the right to live peaceful, normal lives and to live free of the fear of military or government-sponsored organizations inserting themselves into their lives.”

“A follow-up, if I may, Madam Vice President,” Schikman almost shouted, as a din rose from others wishing to pose their question. “It is well-known that Senator Turner, a fellow Californian, has supported your nomination and appointment to the office of vice president. Have you agreed to reciprocate by supporting his agenda for California’s secession? Does his support of your appointment indicate that you agree with his stance? And finally, as VP, what is your official stance on California?”

“Henry,” Prescott said, “Senator Turner has represented the State of California for nearly twenty-five years. He understands their problems perhaps better than I, notwithstanding our common agricultural origins. I intend to work closely with the Senator and, where his recommendations further the interest of both California and the United States, will be supportive of his legislation. As regards California’s position vis-a-vis the Union, my stand before the Senate committee is a matter of record, and I’ll reserve any further comments until the chief justice has issued a statement on the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of the referendum.”

Clarene looked away from Schikman and called on Ann Wallingford of the Seattle Post- Intelligencer. Press comments continued regarding the most pressing issues, including California’s secession plans, Australia’s republican movement, and the United States’ intentions with regard to the rising Irish debate in the aftermath of the IRA’s killing of the vice president.

“Good evening. I’m Paul Spackman, and welcome to the Six O’ Clock Eyewitness News. The battle lines have been drawn, and the strategy has become clear. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a six-to-three split decision, has overturned the California election approving secession. Representing the minority opinion, Justice Harlan Michaels declared that the California secession vote was constitutional, citing as a precedent the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago of 1848, wherein Mexico ascribed certain rights with regard to the California territories, among those being the right to divide into multiple jurisdictions.

“Justice Harlan has opined that the United States assumed the obligations of that treaty when California was acquired from Mexico. Supporters of the secession movement have claimed that by extension, the treaty affords them the right to separate from the United States. The minority opinion confirmed the validity of that treaty and its applicability to the current situation.

“Speaking for the majority, Justice Holcomb cited a later Supreme Court case, Texas vs. White, et al., 1868, wherein Texas was deemed to have rights to certain United States financial instruments despite the fact that Texas had seceded during the Civil War. Declaring Texas’ statehood indissoluble, the court in the 1868 post-Civil-War decision honored Texas’ claim to federal bonds procured prior to the secession. Justice Holcomb’s opinion is that if Texas’ statehood remained intact during the course of the Civil War, California would inherit that indissolubility and void the election results. In other words, the original congressional contract approving California’s entrance into the Union in 1850 is irrevocable.”

Spackman shuffled a few papers and continued. “Last year, the California Supreme Court basically ducked the question and ordered a statewide election for the single purpose of determining support for secession. Immediately following the overwhelming vote to secede, thirty-eight United States Congressmen from California filed a motion to overturn, and the matter was elevated to the United States Supreme Court. Faced with an even larger majority in favor of secession, the U.S. Supreme Court nevertheless addressed the issue, rendering, at noon today, their decision to overturn the California election.

“California House Speaker James Huntington, who has voiced his opposition to secession, was contacted at his office today. In a terse comment, Huntington said the California legislature would proceed with the formation of a constitutional committee. U.S. Senator Malcolm Turner, a long-time proponent of secession, indicated that he has been in touch with the governor’s office, urging the California chief executive to proceed without delay to implement the will of the people and not to be deterred by the Supreme Court’s actions.

“In a related story, FBI sources today reported that the Western Patriot Movement has declared unqualified support for the secession, warning that attempts by agencies of the United States government to thwart the will of the California people will not be tolerated and will be met with military force.”