PDA

View Full Version : talk of secession


sewerman
May 17, 2009, 08:49 PM
considering the recent talk of texas and montana seceding from the union this may prove to be an informative read. i do remember having a smidgen of the consititution taught in 9th grade civics class but only enough in a very dry format to bore everyone including the instructor.

i wish this knowledge was again taught in school from grades 7-12. each year going a little deeper into the birth and development of our nation.

i'm betting most readers are not aware of the 10th amendment...............and the rights and power it gives each citizen in each state.

On secession and southern independence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



12 May 2009

In light of the recent interest in secession, there are some fundamental points we need to understand in order to counter those who claim that this time-honoured remedy against tyranny is un-American and even treasonous.

The voluntary union (or confederacy) of States known as the United States was born of a secessionist movement against Great Britain, and our Declaration of Independence is, at base, a secessionist document. How, then, can secession legitimately be called un-American?

When our Founding Fathers broke the bonds of political association with the British Empire in 1776, the former colonies became free and independent States constituting thirteen separate communities, each asserting its sovereignty. This arrangement received confirmation in the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Treaty of Paris (1783). Americans themselves, as well as their British foe, acknowledged that each State was a separate and sovereign entity.

The sovereignty of the separate States is an important issue in understanding how the United States was formed under its Constitution of 1787-88. When delegates met in Philadelphia in May 1787, they came as representatives selected by the people (i.e. citizens) of their respective States. The people of the States did not give their delegates any authority to make binding agreements; rather, they could only discuss proposed changes to the Articles of Confederation. Any changes to the Articles would become effective only if ratified in convention by the citizens of the separate States.

The result of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was, of course, the U.S. Constitution. However, the document was not binding until nine of the thirteen States ratified it for themselves. That happened in 1788, and those nine States entered into a compact (or contract) with each other and, by doing so, created the political union known as the United States (or, more accurately, the States United). Four States, for a time, remained outside of the union and thus were not bound by the compact. Eventually, though, all thirteen States ratified and united.

It is important to note that no State (or States) could answer for another State. Each State acceded to the compact by its own sovereign will. Moreover, all of them understood that they might secede from the compact by those same means-by a ratifying convention of their citizens or representatives.

Nowhere does the Constitution forbid a State from seceding from the union. In fact, the Tenth Amendment (contained in the Bill of Rights of 1791) expressly confirms that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The power to force a State against its will to remain in the union is absent among the powers delegated to the general (or federal) government; therefore, the right of secession is reserved to the States, or more precisely, to the people of the States.

Some of the New England States threatened to secede several times before 1860 (e.g. 1803, 1807, 1814, and 1844-45). At no time did the Southern States deny them this right. However, when a number of Southern States seceded in 1860-61, Lincoln and the Republican Party went to war to prevent them from exercising their Constitutional right. Simply put, Lincoln placed the forced "unity" of the States above the Constitution itself, and this action set him in opposition to the principles of the American Founders.

Northern victory in 1865 marked the end of true Constitutional government in America. In its place, the American Empire now defines the limits of its own power without serious regard to the Constitution. Formerly free and sovereign States have become little more than administrative provinces of an all-powerful central government in Washington, DC.

Without a serious challenge to its authority, which the acknowledged right of secession is, our government will not reform itself. We are not free people if we are not free to leave.

Our colonial ancestors acknowledged what our present government (and popular opinion) denies: that, at some time, dissolving our political bonds might be a necessary and proper course. That time came in 1860-61, and The League of the South believes it has come again.

Secession, as Thomas Jefferson acknowledged, is the assertion of the inalienable right of a people to change their form of government whenever it ceases to fulfill the purposes for which they created it. Under our Constitution this should be a peaceful remedy. The decision of a State or States to withdraw peacefully from a political association is not revolutionary or rebellious. On the contrary, the government that is no longer responsive to its people, a government that denies its people their inalienable rights, is revolutionary. The right of secession is never more necessary than when it is denied.

Some say that secession is impractical and/or unattainable. It certainly is both as long as the people of the States remain ignorant of it as a remedy to tyranny handed down to them by earlier generations.

We, the people of the States, still have the weapon and the legitimate power of reform (sovereignty). The only thing we lack is the collective will to wield it.

Dr. Michael Hill, President
The League of the South
(800) 888-3163
www.dixienet.org

__________________
sewerman

Dust Monkey
May 17, 2009, 10:01 PM
Federal aid for hurricanes, IMO, goes against the states rights idea the founders intended. States running their own business, aid being a coordinated effort between the states, not mandated.

For this to even work, it would have to be several states doing it. Not one or two, but a dozen or more. It wouldn't even get that far. If a dozen states would take this to the mat, DC might just change some of their tune.

I am worried about the eventual bail out of CA. Glen Beck echoed my opinion on that if the FED bails out CA, it's taxation without representation for me in AR.

SteelJM1
May 17, 2009, 10:23 PM
And me in AZ, who has to deal enough with the californians trying to change AZ into little CA already. Luckily they can't take the heat in the summer ;)

Point being, why should the rest of the states have to bail out the one who's citizens voted for an approved the politicians who drove them into financial ruin? I didn't get to vote for them, I shouldn't have to pay for their mistake. Like Dust Monkey said, its taxation without representation.

madmo44mag
May 17, 2009, 10:25 PM
And me in AZ, who has to deal enough with the californians trying to change AZ into little CA already. Luckily they can't take the heat in the summer

Point being, why should the rest of the states have to bail out the one who's citizens voted for an approved the politicians who drove them into financial ruin? I didn't get to vote for them, I shouldn't have to pay for their mistake. Like Dust Monkey said, its taxation without representation.

Well said!!!!

Hunley
May 17, 2009, 10:32 PM
From the Articles of Confederation:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

For those of you who don't recall from history class, the Articles of Confederation had many Weaknesses. HOWEVER, they were used as a frame upon which to build the Constitution. There are several items that run over, and several that are tossed aside. Regardless of what gets tossed out, the concept of a union/confederation of the states remained the same.

Now, read the Preamble to he Constitution:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is nothing in the Constitution allowing for a state to leave. Only to enter. Think about it, if you were trying to develop a coalition of states upon which you were to build a national government to protect a new, developing colony, would YOU want everyone to be able to come and go as they please?! NO! It's a government you're running, not a hippie colony! There's no open-door policy!

Also, what message would it send to the world? Do you think we would be getting loans from China to support our forever indebted selves if California decided it just wanted to leave? What message does that say to people you are trying to make contracts with? This isn't some street gang where you get hazed in and can get beat out. You're in forever. They put a whole lot in the Constitution about how to join, but you won't find ANYTHING about how to leave...

And before anyone says, "Well what if the government is being oppressive and starts hurting the people?", remember this. The Constitution of this great country contains all the tools needed to change it. You don't like the people in power, vote em out! Is someone overstepping their powers? Checks and balances, investigative committees, and the judicial branch can look into it. And if things get REALLY bad, you can have a Constitutional Convention.

Trust me, if push came to shove, the President and all of Congress could be forced out of office by resignation or impeachment. Americans have a breaking point. They will only put up with so much BS before somebody is getting there butt whipped.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 17, 2009, 10:37 PM
Well said Hunley. Statehood is a one way door. No exit from the union ever. The south found that out the hard way.

My question is why do all these folk want to fight a war with the government when all they need to do is vote and change it. Is it easier to fight than vote? Unreal!:confused:

FALPhil
May 17, 2009, 10:43 PM
There is nothing in the Constitution allowing for a state to leave. Only to enter. Think about it, if you were trying to develop a coalition of states upon which you were to build a national government to protect a new, developing colony, would YOU want everyone to be able to come and go as they please?! NO! It's a government you're running, not a hippie colony! There's no open-door policy!


It is absolutely incredible to me that someone can believe that any association that is entered into voluntarily cannot be dissolved voluntarily. In fact, it not only defies logic, it's downright despotic.

Dust Monkey
May 17, 2009, 10:49 PM
May I remind you of another founding document, The Declaration of Independence.

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...


And from President James Buchanan:


President James Buchanan stated succinctly in a speech before Congress, December 1860 that the Constitution does not delegate to the Federal government the power to use force against a state:

"The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not " necessary and proper for carrying into execution " any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution."

But hey, if you want to rely on only the documents that support your views, be my guest. Our founding fathers ideals are set against your views..

csmsss
May 17, 2009, 11:06 PM
The Constitution doesn't speak to secession at all. And at the end of the day, the legality/constitutionality of one or more states' secession from the Union is irrelevant - it's all about what the U.S. government decides to do in response to those states' actions.

As I see it, the Constitution is not a surrender treaty by the states to the Union, it's the framework of the agreement under which the states agree to be part of the Union - a contract, if you will. The federal government has breached its part of this contract repeatedly over the years - the states made a fatal error in not demanding a role in the determination of the composition of the Supreme Court, as well as an oversight component of same, such that the federal judiciary has been allowed to essentially run amok in its analysis and constructive (call it creative if you will) interpretation of the Constitution.

Hunley
May 17, 2009, 11:24 PM
It is absolutely incredible to me that someone can believe that any association that is entered into voluntarily cannot be dissolved voluntarily. In fact, it not only defies logic, it's downright despotic.

It was a contract. It created the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and the rule of law all federal and state officials (and subsequently all states) were sworn to uphold and protect. (Articl VI) The Constitution has within it the means to change itself (Article I). Just because the public may think that the government is not doing its job anymore does not mean that they have the right automatically secede. The American Revolution occurred as a result of many things, not just taxation, that the colonies tried REPEATEDLY to fix through the proper legal process. It was only when all avenues of change had been explored that they, as a whole, could justify secession from Britain. Benjamin Franklin himself was in Britain trying to persuade Parliament to repeal the dreaded Stamp Act in 1765, returning only after failing to do so. Revolution/secession was a last resort.

Our nation may have been born from the concept of liberty, but it was developed into a Union out of necessity. There was a necessity for protection, regulation of commerce, controlling imports/exports, etc. There were too many conflicting ideas amongst the states about how to run things at our founding (and there still are!) for them to get along in a civil manner. Slavery was already being looked at as a dividing factor LONG before the Civil War broke out. We would have eaten each other alive by now.

csmsss
May 17, 2009, 11:51 PM
The Constitution has within it the means to change itself (Article I). Just because the public may think that the government is not doing its job anymore does not mean that they have the right automatically secede.Nor does it mean the states DON'T have the right to secede. It only means that the Constitution is mute on the subject.

But if you're acknowledging that the Constitution is, itself, a contract, then you must acknowledge that under contracts law, when one party to a contract commits a substantial breach, that contract may become voidable.

I find your argument to be entirely superficial and without foundation and, to be honest, irrelevant. As I said in an earlier post, the entire idea of secession rests not on legality or constitutionality but upon the projection of force by the federal government.

Hunley
May 18, 2009, 12:35 AM
But if you're acknowledging that the Constitution is, itself, a contract, then you must acknowledge that under contracts law, when one party to a contract commits a substantial breach, that contract may become voidable.
Both sides are tit-for-tat on breaches. You can crack open a history book and find incidents of the states overstepping their bounds. Did the fed say "We don't what this state anymore"? No.

I find your argument to be entirely superficial and without foundation and, to be honest, irrelevant. As I said in an earlier post, the entire idea of secession rests not on legality or constitutionality but upon the projection of force by the federal government.

It all comes down to interpretation.:rolleyes:

To the OP... How is this firearms related?

stevelyn
May 18, 2009, 02:38 AM
If a dozen states would take this to the mat, DC might just change some of their tune.

Which is the real objective.

RedneckFur
May 18, 2009, 02:52 AM
To the OP... How is this firearms related?

Read the forum description. It doesn't have to be.

That said, I feel that It it legal for a state to leave the union, as that is the basis on which the US was founded. Colonies leaving the crown because they were not reciving fair representation for their taxes. It would be silly at best to assume that country founded from those colonies wouldnt uphold the same principles.

Dust Monkey
May 18, 2009, 03:25 AM
When states joined the Union, each state ratified the Constitution. And yes it is a contract. And yes, we are stronger together as a union IF everyone pulls their own a part of the load. The Federal Govt is supposed to be an agent of the states. What we have now is the exact opposite. States are agents of the Fed who hold states hostage with things like no more funding.

Read up on states rights. I suggest the Federalists Papers to start. A state has the right to leave the Union. I don't care if it's not spelled out in the constitution. Its implied plain as day by our founding fathers in their writngs.

Take Montana. Their compact with the Union was based on the ratified constitution. The Montana AG a while back sent a letter to DC with regards to any attempts to usurp the 2nd amendment and take away that right would violate the compact (contract) in which Montana agreed to join the Union. This is the same with every state. The Constitution gives out limited powers to the congress/Fed govt. And they have pushed, they have distorted, they have disregarded the constitution to the Nth degree. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

I am not calling for a armed rebellion. I pray that such does not happen in my lifetime. But, where we have the best chance to change things is within the states legislatures. If we can get enough states, say more than a dozen or even half, to stand up to DC, no matter the consequences, I can guarantee you change will happen. Congress critters would pee their pants, wanting to keep their jobs. And all this could be done without a shot being fired. I would work. Because the next move is one that everyone would regret and suffer for a very long time.

(I apologize foe spellng and grammar mistakes. It's late and my big fingers don't do so well ony iPhone qwerty keyboard )

vranasaurus
May 18, 2009, 07:16 AM
Outside of the original 13 colonies and Texas every single state was created out of territory owned by the federal government. How can a state that was created by congress out of federal territory leave the union?

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 08:30 AM
Outside of the original 13 colonies and Texas every single state was created out of territory owned by the federal government.

Your statement would seem to imply that the federal government is some sort of stand-alone entity, like a big corporation?

I believe that is the "meat" of the issue. The federal government was never supposed to be autonomous,but rather the combined voice of "we the people".

Under the notion you put forth it would be more like;
"Here is a piece of land we will grant you to make a state"

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that was the mechanism for development. Someone will correct me I am sure.

Al Norris
May 18, 2009, 08:40 AM
There is case law on this subject. See Texas v. White (http://law.jrank.org/pages/10759/Texas-v-White.html), 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1869), for a good summary of that case.

The full decision may be read here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html).

Chief Justice Chase, in his majority opinion stated, the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." He goes on to say that the only means for a State to leave the union was by (successful) revolution or by consent of Congress.

Like it or not, the logic of the situation is inescapable. It took an act of Congress to admit the State, and it would likewise take an act of Congress to dissolve the State.

The breach of contract (or compact) argument is unique to these days. In bringing such a claim, a State would necessarily be challenging the Court to undue many decisions it has already made, as regards to constitutional interpretation. Good luck with that.

Hunley
May 18, 2009, 09:57 AM
Chief Justice Chase, in his majority opinion stated, the Constitution "in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States." He goes on to say that the only means for a State to leave the union was by (successful) revolution or by consent of Congress.

Thanks for posting that. I was trying to remember the case from Con. Law, but couldn't think of the name.

sewerman
May 18, 2009, 10:01 AM
wasn't the basis of the government founded on each state having full sovereignty with the union only being used for in these instances:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
other then for the above reasons/situations the states were to be independent acting on their own in the welfare and governance of those that reside within the states borders.

"Good luck getting federal disaster aid after a hurricane strikes if you have seceded from the Union."

the above is just how the centralized excutive federal government has blackmailed the states for years to knuckle under to the federal system.

highway monies, education monies, all dangled in front of each state to be used to bribe each state into following the federal mandates. example as:
55mph speed limit, seat belt laws, busing of children just to name a few that are popular.l

when reading the whole senario ... isn't the union meantr to be a voluntary contact between the states only, as long as the federal government doesn't impede into the states governing powers. when the states decide they have been wronged, then they have all rights to disengage from the union.

same principle as the writings of the maga charta of 1215 except the feds represent the king.......

a forcible action of keeping the states within this union is the same principle used by stalin, and all the other despots of the 20th century. berlin wall......

sorry, but doesn't freedom....mean choice of will whether a contact is implied or not.
remember a contact is an agreement between two or more CONSENTING parties. when the means of the contact are violated then the contract has no power upon either party forcing them into agreement.

such is the princple which our earlier grand ol' union was based upon :rolleyes:

sewerman

Tennessee Gentleman
May 18, 2009, 10:13 AM
Here is a good article on the subject: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20041124.html

Bottom line: Does the Constitution Permit States to Secede? With Permission, Perhaps; Unilaterally, No

BTW IMO if any states were allowed to secede it would mean the end of our country. If you think it is bad now, it could be far worse after secession.

Mike Irwin
May 18, 2009, 10:31 AM
A state, or a group of states, has every right to attempt to leave the United States and for their own nation, whether by resolution or, if they're stupid enough, by force.

The other states, however, acting as the United States, have every right to use all means necessary to enforce preservation of the union, up to and including use of force.

I've always loved the arguments that some have used to try to claim that secession is legal, but a response to secession, i.e., moving to enforce the union, is somehow the most horrid and illegal thing since Judas sold Jesus out for an egg salad sandwich and a New Coke.


I really think that when stuff like this comes up, maybe 5% of the people in a state say "Wow! It's about time!", another 5% say "This is a horrible idea!" and the remaining 90% say "Holy crap, we actually elected this 'tard?"

Dragon55
May 18, 2009, 10:33 AM
I think we are too quick to call out something as radical as secession before we exercise fully the rights we do have... those being:
1. Voting
2. Petitioning our congressmen/congresswomen.

I suspect less than half of conservative thinking registered voters actually voted last Fall. I can't cite any specific statistics but most of what I've read puts the figure around 48%.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 18, 2009, 11:25 AM
IMHO _ talk of secession usually comes from a social conservative agenda wanting for the good old days (which stunk for a lot of folks outside of this group and their halcyon fantasies). Oh, only if certain folk knew their place and we all had guns. They are stamping and hissing because our form of government and legislation hasn't gone their way. Wah, wah!

I remember the so-called loyalty views when folks were told: America, love it or leave it! Probably by the same ilk that want secession. So take your own advice. Save your money - and buy an island or raise Atlantis.

I have no use for those who want revolution or secession because they feel they cannot be convincing in the normal give and take of the political process. Other groups have managed to convince the country of their position and through amendments, legislation and cultural change of the legitimacy and value of their views.

Pragmatically, a separate new state would be an economic disaster. Get ready to live on the land. Dumb idea.

Wildalaska
May 18, 2009, 11:59 AM
I think talk of secession is a waste of air and/or bandwidth. And ya cant have secession without firing squads either

WildandwiththatofftofindandimportantzombiethreadAlaska ™

sewerman
May 18, 2009, 12:20 PM
here's a web site dedicated to the 10th amendment.......

seems there's must abuzz........

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/


sewerman

hogdogs
May 18, 2009, 12:26 PM
secessionLemme know how that works out for ya'...
That is all I got to say on the matter...
Brent

Bartholomew Roberts
May 18, 2009, 12:29 PM
Texas talking secession? All I saw was a Texas Governor who has not been entirely popular in his own party facing a tough primary election against a more moderate Republican. The Governor has nowhere to go but further right if he wants new votes. He has absolutely zero intention of secession.

CortJestir
May 18, 2009, 12:32 PM
Texas talking secession? All I saw was a Texas Governor who has not been entirely popular in his own party facing a tough primary election against a more moderate Republican. The Governor has nowhere to go but further right if he wants new votes. He has absolutely zero intention of secession.

And after all the big talk about secession, he has the gall to ask the feds $$$ to battle Swine Flu... :D

Glenn E. Meyer
May 18, 2009, 12:35 PM
The polls in TX are solidly against secession if you consider the entire state. There is support in the most conservative wing of some of the GOP. Perry is probably trying to get them to turn out for them, thus he panders.

A friend of mine was talking about secession in TX and I told him the demographics are clearly against the idea of the return of the South type of secession, esp. with our Hispanic population. He said maybe the Hispanics would join in.

And I told him, put his Anglo tushy on the bus back to Iowa if he is lucky.

Such silliness. :D

madmo44mag
May 18, 2009, 03:13 PM
OK everyone CHILL!!!!!!!!!!

Let me say this and maybe we can all agree.

It is very unlikely any state including my own (TEXAS) is going to go through and attempt secession for a number of reasons.

The point of all this posturing is to gain attention to the fact the Fed has stepped so far over the bounds of the constitution and forcibly imposed it’s will upon the states that some states such as Montana, Texas soon the be Oklahoma and others want to be heard and the Fed to acknowledged their states rights as states.

We can go on for days like this with each other and each one of us have a valid point.
The real point of all this secession talk is to gain media attention and to hopefully awaken the sheeple of their state to the fact they are being unjustly treated by the Fed Govm’t.

If these states stand their ground and force these issues into federal court there is more ink and face time in the media. The majority of main stream media is bias but when these type of issues end up in the public eye, the media has only limited control and manipulation.

Now some of you are going to disagree with that last statement but hold on.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans deep with in their heart and soul believe in the principles behind the constitution and KNOW their liberties are in jeopardy.

The problem is no one is willing to speak out openly, publicly for fear of being branded a nut job.
With states taking the lead and speaking out, “WE THE PEOPLE” can now come out of our closets and say “hey, I agree and you Mr. Federal Government need to get back in line or through our power as THE PEOPLE will remove you and replace you with leaders more in line with our interests and prosperity at heart.

People are people as long as they fear ridicule they will hunker down and mumble under their breath so they fit in with everyone else.

When the state stands up and makes these types of bold statements then the people no longer feel afraid and / or branded as a nut case because the STATE is a large group of people and they are part of the STATE.

OK, got my fire suite on, lets go!!! LOL!!!

P.S. many of you have seen some of my post that are "Angry" that's because I don't live in a closet and speak my mind and let my alligator mouth over run my humming bird ass! Why, because I do care and sometime just get plain unadulterated mad.

OK, fire proof gloves back on.

OuTcAsT
May 18, 2009, 03:50 PM
^^^ YUP, that pretty much sums it up. Nicely said !

USAFNoDak
May 18, 2009, 04:08 PM
It is an attention getter. I'm not sure how many posters here are aware of it, but a part of Minnesota threatened to leave the union and join Canada. "What?" you say. Yup. It was an attention gathering plea.

The little piece of land up in the "tip" of northern Minnesota, is called the northwest angle. It's there because of a surveying mistake, but no one made a fuss over the mistake, so there it is. It's the only state west of the Great Leaks (except the far Northwest of Washington) which doesn't have a "straight" border with Canada. But I digress.

The only way you can drive to the piece of land called the Northwest Angle is to go through Canada because Lake of the Woods cuts off the NWA from the rest of Minnesota. So, when Americans drove to the NWA to fish on Lake of the Woods, they had to come back through Canada which has different fish limits than does Minnesota. Lake of the Woods is an international boundaries lake. You can fish for Walleyes in the American side in the tip of Minnesota, but then you have to drive through Canada to get back to the US (assuming you didn't go by boat up to the NWA). The Canadians were nailing people with having over their limit of fish, and this was hurting the resorts up there. They petitioned to have the Feds negotiate a solution with Canada, but the Feds were dragging their feet. So the governing bodies in the NWA petitioned the Feds to let them join Canada. I'm not sure what ever happened as the news has died down now. I know they didn't join Canada.

By the way, to keep this firearms related, if you hunt ducks, geese, deer, or Bear up in the NWA, you're subject to Canadian laws when you try to drive back to the US with your game.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 18, 2009, 05:09 PM
With states taking the lead and speaking out, “WE THE PEOPLE” can now come out of our closets and say “hey, I agree and you Mr. Federal Government need to get back in line or through our power as THE PEOPLE will remove you and replace you with leaders more in line with our interests and prosperity at heart.

Here's some novel ideas. VOTE! Nobody can call you a nut job because your vote is secret. ORGANIZE! Join the NRA and any local firearms association. I have personally seen the power of the Tennessee Firearms Association turn back gun legislation. Maybe they will call you a nut but you'll be in good company.

Our system works folks, use it. A lot of others have and they got what they wanted and are getting stronger. We can too.

Sermon over.:D

Al Norris
May 18, 2009, 06:52 PM
If your post seems to be missing, it's because I've just gone through and deleted all irrelevent or off topic posts or responses to those off topic posts.

Stick to the topic at hand - the lawful means of leaving (seceeding) the Union.

Al Norris
May 18, 2009, 07:11 PM
[W]asn't the basis of the government founded on each state having full sovereignty[?]
Emphatically, No.

It was, from the start, shared sovereignty. Could the States treat with foreign nations? No. Could they declare war? No. Could they set their own weights and measures? No. Could they employ their own armies or navies? No.

Those things alone are proof that the States were not sovereign. Those sovereign powers were ceded to the central government.

johnwilliamson062
May 18, 2009, 07:44 PM
there is no legal route to secession. Secession is throwing out the rule book and saying, 'the old game is over we are starting a new one'.

Al Norris
May 18, 2009, 08:01 PM
Yes John, there is.

vranasaurus
May 18, 2009, 08:06 PM
The issue of whether or not states could secede without the consent of the rest of the union was settled in 1865.

If membership in the union were so fluid what would stop congress from revoking statehood or kicking a state out of the union? A majority vote in congress is required to admit a state why noit a majority vote to remove a state?

Tom Servo
May 18, 2009, 08:10 PM
I don't think the current 10th Amendment movement is about secession (*), so much as it is about reclaiming some degree of independence from a bloated and overbearing Federal government.

So, here's a question. Say, Montana (just as an example) rejects the authority of the BATFE to some extent, and allows the manufacture of weapons in their state that are not regulated by the Feds. How well will that really work out, and for how long?

What happens when a Montana-only gun is used in a crime in New York? Do the Feds conduct raids? At what point is the line drawn in the sand, and if it's crossed, what is the state prepared to do? Will we have 20 repeats of Waco, or will the Feds back down? At what point do states recall their Congressmen from Washinton?

In either case, what are the long-term consequences?

At the very least, this whole phenomenon (what is it, 36 states now?) certainly makes a strong statement to the Federal government, and one I hope they take a lesson from. I just don't see it spiraling into full-blown secession, which would be a logistical nightmare.

Of course, my home state gleefully signed such a resolution with one hand, while holding out the other for stimulus funds.

(*) OK, maybe New Hampshire. Their resolution (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html) didn't mince many words :eek:

alloy
May 18, 2009, 08:28 PM
Yes John, there is.

That's the ugly catch-22 though isn't it?

madmo44mag
May 18, 2009, 08:43 PM
Tennessee Gentleman people do vote.
Problem is society has breed Americans to follow popular follies, beliefs, ideologies. They no longer think for themselves.
It will take some sort of media - political upheaval in the public eve with no holds bared before the average American goes - Duhhh, I must have missed something - back up, what's this, ect...
I believe all this talk of secession and soon to be court hearings, ect... will shake these Americans. Not all of them but enough that the current political socialist BS will come to an abrupt halt.
When this occurs there will enough media coverage the people will once again start to question the rights they lost and the rights they are about to lose.
Look at us right now on this forum.
Perfect example of how when people become aware they take notice and speak up.
By the way Tennessee I do value your point of view!;)

Our system works folks, use it. A lot of others have and they got what they wanted and are getting stronger. We can too.

Are these the federally protected minorities???
Gay, black, Hispanics, tree huggers - the list goes on.
Just who are these folks???

BryanP
May 18, 2009, 08:45 PM
Talk of secession is nothing more than a bunch of posturing hot air. Bovine scatology. I can't believe anyone takes it seriously.

johnwilliamson062
May 18, 2009, 09:26 PM
with this discussion now being strictly limited to the legal aspect of secession, here is my question:
Does it matter if secession is legal or not?
If it comes down to a state thinking it is in their best interest to secede are they going to pause at the fact that they will be breaking the laws of a nation they are abandoning? Will the federal government pause at trying to reclaim the state if they find secession to be legal, but not in the interest of the federal government?

Arguing this point is like arguing whether a run away breaks curfew at their parents house when they do not come home at all. Then arguing whether the parents have the right to restrict that runaways access to their clothes and other items which were left behind.

Whether it breaks the rules or not, is right or wrong, it isn't going to change the situation b/c one actor has abandoned the system and the other has total control within the system.

We are discussing this as if the UN or NATO is going to step in and lay down the law for everyone to abide by.

madmo44mag
May 18, 2009, 10:18 PM
We are discussing this as if the UN or NATO is going to step in and lay down the law for everyone to abide by.

Quite, that's an up coming thread. LOL!!!!:D

Tennessee Gentleman
May 18, 2009, 10:45 PM
Tennessee Gentleman people do vote.

Way too many don't and then bitch about the results. How many people who post and lurk on here are NRA members? Sadly,I bet a lot less than you might think.:mad: I am a life member and proud of it. They are my lobby group.

Are these the federally protected minorities??? Gay, black, Hispanics, tree huggers - the list goes on. Just who are these folks???

Yes, yes and yes. And others too. Michael Bane said on his podcast that he met with and discussed political tactics with some Gay Rights folk. Whether you are sympathetic to them or not you cannot deny that they have really turned public opinion about since the 1960s. And I believe they are only about 3% of the population (that number is debated but they are small). These guys told Michael how they changed public opinion by changing the language. We could and should do the same for guns. This is the much better path to change than this crazy secession talk IMO.

By the way Tennessee I do value your point of view!

Thank you sir.:) We are I think on the same side.

BlueTrain
May 19, 2009, 07:19 AM
It is sort of undefined to expect everyone to do something that is unpopular, isn't it? Rather like expecting everyone to vote for the candidate they like the least. Oh, I know it isn't supposed to be a popularity contest but I usually don't feel very compelled to vote for people I don't like. But maybe I'm just not thinking for themselves but just listening to the right-wing media on shout radio.

I haven't found it yet but do you suppose there is something in the constitution that allows a state to be expelled?

Tennessee Gentleman
May 19, 2009, 09:38 AM
It is sort of undefined to expect everyone to do something that is unpopular, isn't it?

We live in an unprecedented participatory democracy. One man, one vote. If you won't participate then you can't bitch about the results.

do you suppose there is something in the constitution that allows a state to be expelled?

Read the article I posted earlier. The short answer is no a state may not be expelled.

USAFNoDak
May 19, 2009, 10:03 AM
Tennessee Gentleman posted:We live in an unprecedented participatory democracy. One man, one vote. If you won't participate then you can't bitch about the results.


Yes, one man one vote, but a constitution hovering over those votes to make sure that the majority doesn't vote away the rights of the "people". Also, a constitution that specifically spells out that the federal government has limited powers and the states and "the people" also have the powers which are not ceded to the feds. This is the problem with the federal government and their public schools. They don't teach the students about the constitution and what it means, so when those students become of voting age, they will vote in a manner which tends to strengthen the federal government. The courts and the states don't seem to mind all that much in many cases.

However, there are still glimmers of hope and sparks of freedom out there. We can see this in the Heller decision and the Nordyke decision, where the courts have gone a little further than they had recently in protecting "some" of our rights. I view the federal government as still operating beyond where it was ever intended to. This is directly related to how voters have managed to sway policies to involve the federal government in more and more of our private lives. That is where the courts and the constitution are supposed to limit the powers of the feds, but it's not working as well as it was hoped for by the founders.

madmo44mag
May 19, 2009, 10:17 AM
Yes, yes and yes. And others too. Michael Bane said on his podcast that he met with and discussed political tactics with some Gay Rights folk. Whether you are sympathetic to them or not you cannot deny that they have really turned public opinion about since the 1960s. And I believe they are only about 3% of the population (that number is debated but they are small). These guys told Michael how they changed public opinion by changing the language. We could and should do the same for guns. This is the much better path to change than this crazy secession talk IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madmo44mag
By the way Tennessee I do value your point of view!

Thank you sir. We are I think on the same side.

Well Tennessee you may have a point there.
I need to ponder that a while, but it has merit.

And trust me - we are on the same side just less than a 1/2 row apart. LOL!!!!:D

Tennessee Gentleman
May 19, 2009, 10:42 AM
I view the federal government as still operating beyond where it was ever intended to.

Maybe, or maybe the world has changed sufficiently since 1789 to warrant such extensions of power. One thing is for sure, the Fed will operate as far as we allow it to.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 19, 2009, 10:59 AM
Dear Lord - if a moderator sees a nightmare thread it will be the UN invading us to stop states from secession. Rather have the Zombies attack.

Michael Bane (a fine gentleman) has an excellent point. I've always thought that a focus on the positives of firearms ownership has more traction than saying if I can't have a gun I want some disruptive and apocalyptic end of the current Union.

vranasaurus
May 19, 2009, 12:24 PM
We are discussing this as if the UN or NATO is going to step in and lay down the law for everyone to abide by.

No one is saying that some international organization will step in and keep the union together.

But the international community is unlikely to recognize the independence of some seceding state(s). Without international recognition any seceding state will struggle to survive.

johnwilliamson062
May 19, 2009, 04:07 PM
But the international community is unlikely to recognize the independence of some seceding state(s). Without international recognition any seceding state will struggle to survive.
Yeah, Israel, and Taiwan have been on the brink of collapse for decades...
There are certainly circumstances where a country can survive with no problem with limited official recognition. I really don't think that would be Texas's problem.

vranasaurus
May 19, 2009, 04:26 PM
The only people that don't recognize Israel are a few muslim countries.

And as for Taiwan, I doubt they would be in the position they are in without tremendous military aid that comes from the United States. The United States recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty in all but name. I doubt China or anyone else with a substantial military capcity is going to rush in and provide aid to a secessionist government in the US.

D.Delozier
May 19, 2009, 11:23 PM
For those who say to use your vote to change things, I can only say your vote changes nothing. With our political system you have 2 choices in front of you, you can vote for Crook-A or Scumbag-B , The only real choice here is where do you want your money to go? The mid income people like me and a large chunck of the rest of this country,that shoulder most of the tax burden here only have to choose- Reps. they take my money and give it to rich people and big companies in the form of tax breaks for them. Dems- take my money and give it to Bums and welfare suckers. So I ask, where's the party thats looking out for the poor slob in the center (ie ME!) nowhere to be found as far as I can see! Or maybe I'm just getting jaded in my older age,But I fear I have lost faith in our system all together. I dont think it can be fixed the corruption and greed has spread too deeply to ever be removed I'm affraid.

CortJestir
May 20, 2009, 08:29 AM
For those who say to use your vote to change things, I can only say your vote changes nothing....<snip>....I fear I have lost faith in our system all together.

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." :p

Our system still works. We still are/have one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, countries/economies/armies. People should stop taking this country for granted and realize just how good you have it here. Seceding just because some radicals in one party are a bunch of sore losers solves nothing. Vote, write your congresspeople, contribute and make your voice heard. Aside from Molon Labe, the Spartans also said "He who shouts loudest and longest wins." If we shout loud enough, things will change in 2010, hopefully.

vranasaurus
May 20, 2009, 08:41 AM
"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

Our system still works. We still are/have one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, countries/economies/armies. People should stop taking this country for granted and realize just how good you have it here. Seceding just because some radicals in one party are a bunch of sore losers solves nothing. Vote, write your congresspeople, contribute and make your voice heard. Aside from Molon Labe, the Spartans also said "He who shouts loudest and longest wins." If we shout loud enough, things will change in 2010, hopefully.

And let's not forget the American Revolution was preceded by mnay years of the colonial governemnts and leaders pleading with the king to redress the colonial grievances. They shouted a long time before resorting to the sword. And the key difference between them and us is that they had no vote or voice in parliament while we have substantial rights to vote and be heard.

If you cannot convince a sufficient number of your countrymen to vote your ideas victorious how do expect to convince a sufficient number to fight your ideas victoriuos in a bloody war. It is far easier to convince most Americans to get off their fat asses and vote than it is to fight a bloody war, just ask any armed service recruiter.

D.Delozier
May 20, 2009, 04:47 PM
As I said ,vote for who? nobody's going to do anything to change things. sure they all promise the moon and the stars but as soon as they get elected they go right back to pandering to thier own special interest groups,all of them. I'll share a short firsthand story with you all, I work as a self employed builder for the last 3 years I've been flipping houses for a retired couple that moved here from D.C she was a loan Exc. He was a Contract lawyer/lobbyist.
In his house I've seen pics of him with everybody whos anybody in D.C ,once while we were BSing at the job I asked him are there any politicians in washington that really truely care about whats best for the country,He looked me right in the eye and said " I know this is not what you want to hear but no there is not, sure you get the occasional freshman/rookie congressman or senator that thinks they're gonna change the world they quickly get pulled into good ol boy network or they just fade away as in dont get re elected. Its all about money who has it and who wants it "
And thats straight from the horses mouth, this man made a life long carrear in the inner circle of this nest of crooks,He knows all too well how things work there,I have'nt been the same since that coversation. I feel more hopeless than ever before in my life, sad to say.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 20, 2009, 07:09 PM
Maybe most politicians are out for themselves and that is why we have groups like the NRA to make sure they do what we want. Because no matter how you cut it they want to keep their jobs and that is always priority number one. IF they don't as did several in 1994 when they voted for the AWB. In 1995 they lost there seats and Clinton himself acknowledged that in a State of the Union.

Anyway, what other sane options do you have?

Shane Tuttle
May 20, 2009, 09:57 PM
We live in an unprecedented participatory democracy. One man, one vote. If you won't participate then you can't bitch about the results.

1. I believe we live under a Republic. Also, if this were a one man, one vote, we wouldn't need an electoral college in place.

2. You are absolutely, positively, without a doubt WRONG. Just because someone doesn't vote, doesn't mean they lose the right to gripe. You have no supporting documentation to support your claim, do you?

BryanP
May 20, 2009, 10:26 PM
2. You are absolutely, positively, without a doubt WRONG. Just because someone doesn't vote, doesn't mean they lose the right to gripe. You have no supporting documentation to support your claim, do you?

If someone doesn't vote they do indeed still have the right to gripe. They also suck as a citizen and I have no interest in listening to them gripe.

johnwilliamson062
May 20, 2009, 11:00 PM
I love the 'if we just elect the republicans next time' responses. Republicans had an unbelievable amount of control from 1996 until at least 2004 and did absolutely nothing to turn this country from the self destructive path it was on. How can you believe they would turn it around now? I have seen naive local politicians head to Washington planning to turn things around and two years later they are hooked on the system and doing everything they can to protect it.
I want the documentation of how secession is legal. I can't break a contract just because I entered into it of free will. Telling me the South was going to let New England states secede without putting up a fight doesn't mean it is legal either. As proved 30 years down the road, they were in no shape to stop it. The constitution is mute on the point, and it is the only document that could set up a system for legal secession.

What if the southern cavalry units had been outfitted with lever action rifles at the beginning of the civil war... Wouldn't that be interesting.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 20, 2009, 11:12 PM
If someone doesn't vote they do indeed still have the right to gripe. They also suck as a citizen and I have no interest in listening to them gripe.

Couldn't have said it better myself.:D In another life we used to say: Go see the Chaplain!

hogdogs
May 21, 2009, 08:34 AM
It is absolute fantasy to think a single state could become a nation. First off the place will need to convert from USD to their own concept of money. Then the rest of the world will need to recognize it and put a value on it. That is going to be a volatile situation for a long time. To avoid spending all the money you have to export as much as you import. No single state has the products to accomplish this.

As for the gun laws etc. being passed, they may fly for a while. But fed dollars will soon be removed.
Brent

johnwilliamson062
May 21, 2009, 02:42 PM
First off the place will need to convert from USD to their own concept of money.
There are many economies in the world that use US dollars. When I have travelled abroad I have had no trouble spending US dollars. I have not been to Europe and I have heard it is a problem in Europe. Several countries at one time or another have adopted US dollars as the de facto currency for periods of time when their own currency was unstable(Cuba in the mid to late 90's being a good example). Other countries have backed their currency with US dollars(Argentina did this in the late 90's I believe, and there are several still doing it).

If they wanted to make their own currency it would be very difficult, but the country could easily adopt a foreign currency without trouble and it eliminates a good part of the countries overhead related to currency controls/market. There is of course the downfall of not being able to implement those controls.

To avoid spending all the money you have to export as much as you import. No single state has the products to accomplish this.
The US in its entirety does not come close to doing that either. This would be a problem, but it would be a problem that would follow them from the US, not be created when they leave.

The real problems would be border patrol and national defense. Right now Kentucky and even Ohio's federal tax dollars subsidize programs like the border patrol which they basically don't use(Kentucky has no international border, but maybe Ohio has a few BP agents on lake Erie). I doubt Texas would want to fight the Mexican drug cartels on its own, even if the US did not directly attempt to pull it back into the union by force. Montana would be in a better position, but even they would have some trouble. On the other hand Texas would probably go for a little more extreme border protection policies than the nation in general(along with the other SW border states).

If the US sealed the border and cut off all trade that would obviously create huge short term problems. Probably long term, but at least short term. Of course, there would be pipelines the US would have trouble doing without. I believe a large amount of Texas's water supply flows from rivers which are outside its territory. Of course many would likely leave the state diminishing its water problems. Many many more problems. Again, Montana does not share many of these likely problems. It also doesn't have much of anything in general(Beautiful country aside).

Where is my explanation of how it is legal with citations? I would really like to know where people are getting that secession is legal. Not saying all other things considered in favor of secession a state should not secede simply b/c it is illegal. Rather it is one of those situations where you knowingly break the law and hope you get a way with it, in this case win, so you do not suffer the consequences.


Originally Posted by BryanP
They also suck as a citizen and I have no interest in listening to them gripe.
Well at least we all see to have found one thing to agree on

hogdogs
May 21, 2009, 02:53 PM
I was just naming a few problems... If texas, for instance, left the USA... you can bet the cash they have would be quickly devalued by the bad mouthing from the "union".
No state could quietly set up for an overnight divorce from the union. Infrastructure alone is a big part. But let texas try to divorce with so many refineries and watch the missiles fly. The Fed gub could never allow such a thing!
Brent

johnwilliamson062
May 21, 2009, 03:00 PM
The cash would be identical to US currency, there would be no way to devalue it without devaluing all the other currency. The US has not always been very happy about some other countries using it's currency on a large scale, but there is little they/we can do about it.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 22, 2009, 09:50 AM
Texas isn't going to secede. I live in San Antonio and work at a nice university. Withdraw from the Union and a very large proportion of my students disappear. The economy here has a large military component. That vanishes. The same happens across the state. All the defense industries go away.

So I get to live in tent so someone can prattle about political theories?

Nope.

Leif
May 22, 2009, 10:27 AM
I really just don't understand the fringe gun culture element that seems fascinated with secession. What amuses me is that the states that frequently are bandied about as possible candidates for secession receive more federal funding than they pay in federal taxes (see http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html), and they do so largely at the expense of the states that many of the same people regard as unfree and full of sheeple. Go figure.

USAFNoDak
May 22, 2009, 10:56 AM
Regarding the state receiving federal dollars as a ratio of federal taxes, I think there needs to be some explanation as to what those received federal dollars are for and how they might benefit the nation vs. just the state and local populations.

Let me take North Dakota and Minnesota for a comparison, as I've spent time in both. Both states are heavily agricultural states, so they would be likely to get farm subsidies or other government dollars spent under our federal farm programs. North Dakota has two air force bases, Grand Forks and Minot. Minnesota has no air force bases. I'm guessing it costs quite a bit of money to run an Air Force base and this may be a big part of what tilts north dakota to being a "winner" vs. Minnesota being a "loser" state. That is just one example of where the federal government spends money. I'm guessing that there are others. But those Air Force bases are part of our national defense, and Minnesotans benefit from those bases even though they are in our neighboring state. Thus, I don't think this comparison carries all that much water other than being a political football that can be tossed around when necessary to help promote some political agenda or issue. Also, since Minnesota tends to have more wealthy people, I'm guessing that on average, our per capita federal income taxes are higher than North Dakotas. That doesn't mean our middle classes live much different lifestyles when comparing the two states. North Dakota has less strict gun control, but that point is only raised to make sure this has some gun related content. ;)

Leif
May 22, 2009, 11:18 AM
I don't think that federal funding of military bases counts as state receipt of federal funding for the purposes of the cited study.

OuTcAsT
May 22, 2009, 11:40 AM
I really just don't understand the fringe gun culture element that seems fascinated with secession.

(Hmm, over a thousand posts on a firearms discussion forum and you are not part of the gun culture ? )

Speaking from over here on the "fringe" let's see if we can enlighten you.



I don't think it is so much a "fascination" as much as a reality check. Look around at the other events that are unfolding in addition to all this secession speculation, the social climate is changing rapidly. At some point, there is a possibility that things may turn into a state of "civil unrest"
for any number of reasons, just as there is a possibility that you could be a target of violent crime. This is one of the reasons that many of us own firearms correct ?

I think that just like any other self defense situation, awareness of what is going on around you is critical to your survival. Those of us who (whom?) are armed, and aware, may be forced to protect ourselves either personally, or collectively.

I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail, if not, I certainly want to be prepared to defend which ever side of the fence I happen to choose.

Leif
May 22, 2009, 11:54 AM
I said fringe gun culture, i.e., not the entire gun culture.

Reality is realizing that discussion of secession as a viable political option or alternative is nonsense and fantasy - that's your reality check.

OuTcAsT
May 22, 2009, 12:06 PM
Reality is realizing that discussion of secession as a viable political option or alternative is nonsense and fantasy - that's your reality check.

I will agree that any singular state, or even a small handful of states could not possibly expect to pull off such a move.

However, there are currently a large number of states that are flexing the "states rights" muscles. They are sending a strong message that other states are hearing, and following. Could this lead to a massive secession movement ? Who knows ? I don't think anyone honestly is advocating such a movement but it is encouraging to see so many states willing to tell .gov to pound sand :D

Lets speculate for a moment about the impact of...let's say 25 or 30 states making such a paradigm shift would cause ?
Sorta changes the fantasy a bit eh ?

Leif
May 22, 2009, 12:10 PM
... and yet, they're the same states receiving so much Federal funding. Somehow I don't find anything remotely encouraging about hollow chest-thumping about secessionist fantasies and threats by hypocrites and fringe elements, and I don't see the other states paying a whole lot of serious attention to their ramblings. More of in the vein of "are they nuts?" than "gee, we should pay close attention to that, they might be on to something."

OuTcAsT
May 22, 2009, 12:25 PM
and yet, they're the same states receiving so much Federal funding

And yet this seems to be such a strange concept ?

Let's say I have been paying you money since my birth, and you want to give me back some of it for my own use, should I say NO just because I don't like you, or we have different points of view ? Federal funding starts out in the pockets of folks in those same states. Should they refuse to take it back on principle ?

Leif
May 22, 2009, 12:36 PM
They absolutely should refuse on principle. The whole point of this discussion is about principle. On a further note, I certainly don't want my Federal tax dollars going to a state that thinks it should leave the country and form its own. Actually, I want my Federal tax dollars going to dragging their rebellious, secessionist selves back into the union, by any means necessary. What happened to all that talk about enemies foreign and domestic?

If some state is bound and determined to secede, then they should start making strides to cut all Federal ties, monetary included. Otherwise, what's the point?

It's like this silly line in the sand threads that crops up from time to time. The secessionists, if there are even that many of them (thank god there aren't), should practice what they preach or shut up. Otherwise, its just so much counterproductive nonsense.

OuTcAsT
May 22, 2009, 12:51 PM
What happened to all that talk about enemies foreign and domestic?


I think that's the point, the perceived enemy seems to be "domestic"


They absolutely should refuse on principle.

If some state is bound and determined to secede, then they should start making strides to cut all Federal ties, monetary included.

No doubt, but I think I would want to get as much of my read= States' money back as I could before preparing to Biotch-slap .gov back to it's senses.

Actually, I want my Federal tax dollars going to dragging their rebellious, secessionist selves back into the union, by any means necessary.

"Yankee" Huh ? :D

Leif
May 22, 2009, 12:52 PM
And people wonder why there aren't more blue state or black shooters?

OuTcAsT
May 22, 2009, 01:04 PM
blue state shooters


LOL That would be a classic oxymoron.


Seriously, I don't think this has as much to do with "partisan" politics as much as it does a runaway federal government (irregardless of who's in charge) stomping on the states rights.

USAFNoDak
May 22, 2009, 04:38 PM
What happened to all that talk about enemies foreign and domestic?


Just because a certain set of states has started to rebel against what they see as abusive federal power, doesn't mean they've become domestic enemies of the other states or the federal government for that matter. I have to reign in my kids once in a while by exercising my God given power as their father. That doesn't mean I'm their enemy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not lobbying for a massive seccession as we had in the civil war. But I kind of like some of these states pushing back against the feds, even if they are blustering a little bit. We all know the federal government blusters about it's power and rights all the time. A little turn about is fair play. Remember, states are nothing more than an official collection of their people. People are herd or pack animals. Once they see one of their neighbors doing something successfully, that they were afraid to do themselves, they are likely to follow suit. This is really what federalism is about. We have 50 states to conduct experiments. We are much more likely to get the right answers faster and more efficiently with 50 different experiments being conducted than we are by having a central power who conducts one experiment according to the way they see it. That's not to say the feds couldn't or wouldn't get it right, but look at most of their history. They are CF'rs, which is my abreviation for a term which originated in military circles and indicates a cluster of people who are screwing up.

If some of these states suffer no penalties in pushing back against the federal government, more states will begin to do the same things or create their own inventive ideas on how to put themselves ahead of the feds again. I am very interested in watching this play out.

Hugh Damright
May 26, 2009, 11:40 AM
I seem unable to separate a belief in secession from a belief in the Second Amendment. If a State cannot secede, then how can it be a free State? I don't see how freedom and bondange can coexist in such a manner. And what would be the purpose of State militia if a State was not ultimately sovereign with a right to secede? It seems to me that if there was no right to secession then the Second Amendment should say something like "A federal standing army being necessary to secure federal domination over the States, no State shall have militia; but the individual right to keep personal arms for personal defense, hunting, and other personal uses shall not be infringed".

BlueTrain
May 26, 2009, 11:52 AM
As a matter of principle, why do you like state governments more than national governments, anyone?

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 12:02 PM
As a matter of principle, the federal gubmint isn't supposed to have much say in how the citizens of the states conduct themselves. The feds are just to make sure the states conduct themselves fairly with the other states. And to do as WE TELL THEM!
But that is just my uneducated redneck patriotic view of it all.
Brent

Hugh Damright
May 26, 2009, 02:02 PM
As a matter of principle, why do you like state governments more than national governments, anyone?
In a sense, I tend to think of national government and state government as the same frame of government. For me, it's more of a question of why I like federal goverment more than national government. There are many reasons ... for one thing, the US Constitution frames a federal government, so I think it is subversive/despotic to try to have it some other way. People whom I respect, such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Robert E. Lee, said that to consolidate the States into one sovereignty i.e. to subert our federal system into a national system can only result in despotism. I do not pretend to fully understand why this is true, but I think the idea is that with State sovereignty there will be people who don't like what the majority in their State does but police powers can keep things in check, whereas with national sovereignty there will be whole States and regions which are disenfranchised and it will take military powers to keep things in check. It just seems that regionalism provides for a much higher degree of free/consentual government i.e. liberty.

USAFNoDak
May 26, 2009, 02:24 PM
As a matter of principle, why do you like state governments more than national governments, anyone?


1. The state governments are closer to the people they govern than the Federal government. We have a little more influence as citizens of a particular state than we do as citizens of a national government. As a citizen of Minnesota, I don't necessarily have to worry about California and New York playing a huge factor in dictating how I am forced to live my life.

2. The state governments are not as powerful in a military sense as are the feds. Thus, more power in state governments is less threatening to the freedom of "The People".

3. State governments are supposed to have the power to punish various crimes such as murder, rape, etc. If one state wants to abolish the death penalty for 1st degree murder, I can always move to a state that has the death penalty if that is something I deem necessary. If the feds declare the death penalty to be null and void, then I can go nowhere to resolve my personal issue.

4. 50 experiments have a much higher shot at getting it right than does a one size fits all approach which is necessary at the federal level.