talk of secession

[Leif]

... 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]

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]

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]

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 ?

[Leif]

And people wonder why there aren't more blue state or black shooters?

[OuTcAsT]

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]

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]

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]

As a matter of principle, why do you like state governments more than national governments, anyone?

[hogdogs]

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]

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]

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.