Political Science

Introduction
The article considered for discussion is a piece of writing entitled Firestorm brewing between US States and Federal Governments, written by Lance L Landon on February 9, 2009. It discusses the perennial areas of conflict between states and Federal government and the obdurate stances adopted by both, which do little to solve impasses and deadlocks.

What is the authors main argument
The authors main argument is that the Federal Government is steadily losing control over the jurisdiction of states. Although Federal Government seems to be omnipotent, the reality is something else and it would not be wrong to suggest that it exists at the will and whims of states, who could, if they wish, unite together to dissolve the Federal Government and seek a fresh mandate.

Thesis statement
There are moves among many states, including prominent ones to, break away from the Federal Union and reaffirm their autonomy and suzerainty.

What evidenceproof is the author using to substantiate (back- up) their arguments
The State of Washington on Wednesday - 11 February 2009 and most recently, New Hampshire 2009, Montana 2009, Hawaii 2009, Michigan 2009, Missouri 2009, Arizona 2008, Oklahoma 2008, Georgia 1996, and California 1994 all of which have introduced bills and resolutions declaring and reaffirming their sovereignty.  Besides, it is also been evidenced that The Arizona State Legislature is currently formulating a bill that declares their state sovereignty. Their bill further asserts their states right during martial law to call back servicemen to protect Arizona state, if the President or any other federal entity attempts to institute martial law or its equivalent without an official declaration in one or more of the states without the consent of that state 

Are there any side-stories the author is providing If so, what are they and how do they relate to the authors main argument

The side stories that the author is providing forms the corollaries of the main story of the bid for autonomy declared by many prominent states. This comes in the wake of wanton autocracy, reservation of power centralized by the Federal government and the dictates of many laws and legislations by which powers that should have been decentralized with States remain with them, thus making states unable to enforce their own laws, and work out matters according to the specific demands of situations and issues that crop up in their own states. Federal interference without seeking the real goals and objectives of states have led to impasse in many states, even conflicts in ideals , which have left states with not much options but to seek autonomy within the ambit of the tenth Amendment and other laws that could be a solace for such states seeking disintegration from the Federal Union.

Analysis part
The justification of states is in terms of protection of their own interests and not always needing to fall in line with the dictates of the Federal Government. This could also be seen in seeking to further the rights of citizens which need to be protected at all costs and which may be jeopardized due to restrictive and authoritarian dictates of the Federal Government. Besides, it is seen that different states have different kinds of laws, and the attempts of the Federal Government to seek standard laws and consolidation may not always work out in tandem with other state laws. Moreover, the Federal government also needs to seek out the fact that different states have discrete issues that besiege them and therefore it would be unwise and injudicious to seek out a common approach that may not in reality provide real solutions.

What are the short term and long term consequences of what you have analyzed 
The short term consequences of what I have analyzed is that the conflict zones between the Federal government and the states would, in all probabilities, be a perennial one, unless one party is ready to seek a compromising attitude and adopt ways and means to end the stalemate. Besides, it is not in every case that the Federal Government would be willing to enter into meaningful dialogue or adopt a reconciliatory attitude towards States. This being so, where states also have hardliners who are unable to toe the Federal line, there may not be much scope left for dialogue or compromises. Under such circumstances, the secession of some states seems quite apparent, at least in the long term. This could not only conserve human and other rights for the citizens of these states but could also usher in a relatively democratic and free statehood where people could live in peaceful co-existence, without the dictates of the Federal government or the Damocles sword hanging above the head of state administrators. Freedom and autonomy, however, should not be abused and states need to preserve their heritage and work towards the common good of the citizens.

Conclusions
It is seen that a common approach needs to be taken that could ensure the common good of all citizens of both the Federal and the States. Obama has Abraham Lincoln perhaps as his role model and it is now the best opportunity for him to prove that he is as good, if not better, an administrator as this mentor was.