View Full Version : Secession
Roguish Lawyer
11-09-2012, 13:16
With the country so polarized and divided, does anyone think it would be a good idea for a group of states to secede?
:munchin :munchin :munchin :D
With the country so polarized and divided, does anyone think it would be a good idea for a group of states to secede?
:munchin :munchin :munchin :D
Yep. Every damn one of them who came in for Obama.
I truly think before states or citizens talk of Secession they should consider Nullification first.
Roguish Lawyer
11-09-2012, 13:40
I truly think before states or citizens talk of Secession they should consider Nullification first.
What, like a coup?
RL,
Just looked up Secession history in the United States, and found this bit of information interesting. I think it points to a mind-set, weather then or now, that if folks truly believe in something, they can force change. Interesting data to say the least.:munchin
Holly
Order of Secession During the American Civil War
Order of Seceding States
By Martin Kelly
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarmenu/a/secession_order.htm
The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 was the final straw for many southerners. In all 11 states seceded from the Union. Four of these (Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee) did not secede until after the Battle of Fort Sumter that occurred on April 12, 1861. Five additional states were Border Slave States that did not secede from the Union: Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and Delaware.
Order of Secession During the American Civil War
State Date of Secession
South Carolina December 20, 1860
Mississippi January 9, 1861
Florida January 10, 1861
Alabama January 11, 1861
Georgia January 19, 1861
Louisiana January 26, 1861
Texas February 1, 1861
Virginia April 17, 1861
Arkansas May 6, 1861
North Carolina May 20, 1861
Tennessee June 8, 1861
What, like a coup?
Oh I meant that in the 1830’s South Carolina context t and not that 2011 filibuster crap the Repubs did during the Cordray hearings.
State refusals to implement Federal statutes. This is not a “party” issue, this is States standing up for their sovereign status and pushing back on Federal encroachment. Several states have begun this type of initiative with the Affordable Care Act! Those states just need to start coordinating and synchronizing their efforts!
State refusals to implement Federal statutes. This is not a “party” issue
Except in the case where reefer's been legalized. :D
Badger52
11-09-2012, 14:02
State refusals to implement Federal statutes. This is not a “party” issue, this is States standing up for their sovereign status and pushing back on Federal encroachment. Several states have begun this type of initiative with the Affordable Care Act! Those states just need to start coordinating and synchronizing their efforts!State here "went" for Obama, and Gov. had been waiting to see how election panned out as to whether and how much push-back would be needed for the so-called ObamaCare mandates that are to be driven down to the states. I say so-called because, like many other things, states have been known to successfully tell G to pound sand if they're willing to accept that some carrot is taken away. (We did it here with the light-rail welfare boondoggle.)
The interesting thing that happened up here (my county is already probably the 'reddest' in the state) is that - while O got votes and the idiots are sending Tammy Baldwin to the Senate as a pox on you all - Gov. Walker now has BOTH houses of the state legislature.
As you allude, this could get sporty.
:cool:
With the country so polarized and divided, does anyone think it would be a good idea for a group of states to secede?
:munchin :munchin :munchin :D
Yes! California, Vermont, New York, and Maryland.
ZonieDiver
11-09-2012, 14:20
The interesting thing that happened up here (my county is already probably the 'reddest' in the state) is that - while O got votes and the idiots are sending Tammy Baldwin to the Senate as a pox on you all - Gov. Walker now has BOTH houses of the state legislature.
As a resident, how do you explain this seeming dichotomy?
The problem is with the successful obfuscation of the 10th amendment, the States are way too beholden to the Fed "sugar-Daddy" to tell it to pound sand. Those states able to fiscally withstand a Federal boycott may be able to successfully pull this off. Look to the Dakota's (new energy industry), Texas, and some possible south-west states that don't have squat and don't mind giving up squat. (math: null from squat yields jack-schitt).
Can't count on the Supremes to hold the line anymore, Roberts saw to that. Things are looking grim for the next few years. We'll survive simply due to the fact that ultimately the savages will be unable to fend for themselves and we will inevitably achieve homeostasis.
Yes! California, Vermont, New York, and Maryland.
I agree but believe that Mass and CT need to be added to the list.
State here "went" for Obama, and Gov. had been waiting to see how election panned out as to whether and how much push-back would be needed for the so-called ObamaCare mandates that are to be driven down to the states. I say so-called because, like many other things, states have been known to successfully tell G to pound sand if they're willing to accept that some carrot is taken away. (We did it here with the light-rail welfare boondoggle.)
The interesting thing that happened up here (my county is already probably the 'reddest' in the state) is that - while O got votes and the idiots are sending Tammy Baldwin to the Senate as a pox on you all - Gov. Walker now has BOTH houses of the state legislature.
As you allude, this could get sporty.
:cool:
Well if a state wants to stand on its own then don’t take the tainted boatloads of Fed MONEY!
Don’t like the Dept of Education…don’t accept those Fedral funds for schools!
Don’t want to set the legal drinking age to 21…give up those Federal Highway funds!
Don’t want to set up the exchange for Obamacare…do not count on the Medicade money!
Not all money is good money and the Fed doesn’t give up funds without strings attached. But when the dollar gets involved then the true character and values come out!!!
Now here is where Nullification has its power…you (and your neighbors) are much “closer” to your state congress than you are to your state Senator. If your state passes laws standing up to Federal encroachment ( and giving up that Fed$$$) at some point the Feds have to figure out how to enforce their will beyond the purse. Do you think they will send in tanks to enforce Obamacare???? (scary thought actually)
The problem is with the successful obfuscation of the 10th amendment, the States are way too beholden to the Fed "sugar-Daddy" to tell it to pound sand. Those states able to fiscally withstand a Federal boycott may be able to successfully pull this off. Look to the Dakota's (new energy industry), Texas, and some possible south-west states that don't have squat and don't mind giving up squat. (math: null from squat yields jack-schitt).
Can't count on the Supremes to hold the line anymore, Roberts saw to that. Things are looking grim for the next few years. We'll survive simply due to the fact that ultimately the savages will be unable to fend for themselves and we will inevitably achieve homeostasis.
And Jim to me that is the truer problem…loss of the 10th amendment and the fact that the Fed has suckered in the state legislators and made them dependant on the Fed Sugar-daddy. Even to the point of giving some states LESS than what is TAKEN from that state!!! Kinda sounds like how a Pimp works! http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/
Here is good summation of my feeling on the issue:
http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/nullification-is-the-word/
Roguish Lawyer
11-09-2012, 14:43
Oh I meant that in the 1830’s South Carolina context t and not that 2011 filibuster crap the Repubs did during the Cordray hearings.
State refusals to implement Federal statutes. This is not a “party” issue, this is States standing up for their sovereign status and pushing back on Federal encroachment. Several states have begun this type of initiative with the Affordable Care Act! Those states just need to start coordinating and synchronizing their efforts!
I don't see this as anything close to a solution. Just wishful thinking. The only thing that might get the federal government's attention would be widescale refusal to pay taxes.
Roguish Lawyer
11-09-2012, 14:43
I agree but believe that Mass and CT need to be added to the list.
Guys, liberal states have no reason to secede. They are in power.
Roguish Lawyer
11-09-2012, 14:46
Just to get some of you revved up a little . . .
I don't see this as anything close to a solution. Just wishful thinking. The only thing that might get the federal government's attention would be widescale refusal to pay taxes.
True but States do not ”pay” taxes, individuals do! When you think about it, it is a great system for the Statist to remain in power!
Plus there is the issue that the Federal leviathan will come after you (with GUNS) if you don’t pay your tax money!!!
Guys, liberal states have no reason to secede. They are in power.
You're missing the point - we want them seceded out!
Roguish Lawyer
11-09-2012, 15:21
You're missing the point - we want them seceded out!
LOL, no I'm not, I want them out too! But if anyone is leaving, it's those states that are unhappy being affiliated with the NYs and CAs of the world.
The good news coming out of all of this is that my wife is finally actually giving some thought to agreeing to a move out of CA at least.
Roguish Lawyer
11-09-2012, 15:22
Where is The Reaper on this? The South may rise again!!!! :munchin
IMO .... the only state to look at (or even think about) secession would be Texas.
As been posted above, states are too dependant on Federal dollars and wouldn't even think about pissing off the momma hog and the teet they're feeding from.
Whereas Texas, all joking aside, has done it before.
They were a sovereign nation (just like Hawaii) when they were brought into the Union.
Also....
There is no provision in the Texas Constitution (current or former) that reserves the right of secession, but it does state that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States" ... not to the President of the US or even the Congress of the US.
Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) "the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_secede_from_the_union
... and not to be flippant but, they've got the attitude, the Texas Attitude, to do it.
ZonieDiver
11-09-2012, 15:37
Where is The Reaper on this? The South may rise again!!!! :munchin
Not if Jethro has his way!:D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sov-B8flEmc
The problem is with the successful obfuscation of the 10th amendment, the States are way too beholden to the Fed "sugar-Daddy" to tell it to pound sand. Those states able to fiscally withstand a Federal boycott may be able to successfully pull this off. Look to the Dakota's (new energy industry), Texas, and some possible south-west states that don't have squat and don't mind giving up squat. (math: null from squat yields jack-schitt).
Very well said Sir!
Holly:munchin
ironyoshi
11-09-2012, 15:40
Can't count on the Supremes to hold the line anymore, Roberts saw to that. Things are looking grim for the next few years. We'll survive simply due to the fact that ultimately the savages will be unable to fend for themselves and we will inevitably achieve homeostasis.
From the Great Hope of the Bush years to a political suckup. That betrayal really hurt.
ZonieDiver
11-09-2012, 15:45
We'll survive simply due to the fact that ultimately the savages will be unable to fend for themselves and we will inevitably achieve homeostasis.
With the repeal of DADT, I thought we'd already arrived at "homeostasis"!
Dang...there he goes...we went GAY in record time. Only thing left to discuss is the sex life of farm animals. Man - is this a great place or what!!??
Destrier
11-09-2012, 16:28
I don't see this as anything close to a solution. Just wishful thinking. The only thing that might get the federal government's attention would be widescale refusal to pay taxes.
You mean 51% not paying taxes is not widespread enough?
ZonieDiver
11-09-2012, 16:32
Dang...there he goes...we went GAY in record time. Only thing left to discuss is the sex life of farm animals. Man - is this a great place or what!!??
Ironyoshi is an expert on everything, maybe he can enlighten us on that portion of the discussion!
Ironyoshi is an expert on everything, maybe he can enlighten us on that portion of the discussion!
Did someone just say baaaa?
The only thing that might get the federal government's attention would be widescale refusal to pay taxes.IMO, something else states could do to get .GOV's attention would be to form coalitions centered around solving specific problems in ways that defied the president's policy preferences and crossed ideological lines.
What I have in mind is states coming up with common solutions to common problems (illegal immigration, sex slaves, environmental issues, traffic, union agreements that threaten to bankrupt state budgets, and so forth) in such a way that the current president couldn't just "punish" red states without also having to deal with blue states.
From these types of collaborative efforts, governors and state legislators with an established record for reaching across the aisle AND getting things done would emerge in both parties. Voters could then put these politicians into Congress, if not also the White House. If all goes according to plan, the game of "Gotcha!" would give way to the business of responsible governance.
GratefulCitizen
11-09-2012, 18:40
Are those New England Federalists at it again?
Don't they realize that their efforts to secede and form a northern confederation in 1803 failed?
Those idiotic northerners need to just give up and realize that a nation under a powerful central govenment will be more united, not divided.
They need to quit re-fighting that would-be war and realize that Jefferson was not a tyrant.
:D
http://www.ditext.com/dilorenzo/yankee.html
The Reaper
11-09-2012, 18:56
Just to get some of you revved up a little . . .
WoooHooo!
Free Bird!!
Where is The Reaper on this? The South may rise again!!!! :munchin
I was at work, counsel. What do you do in the middle of the day? Sit on the front porch of your trailer on a discarded sofa, smoking Marlboros and sipping PBRs from a can?
My question is, if the military is mostly Southern, as are the privately owned weapons, how could you stop it this time?
The States Rights issue returns.
TR
WoooHooo!
Free Bird!!
I was at work, counsel. What do you do in the middle of the day? Sit on the front porch of your trailer on a discarded sofa, smoking Marlboros and sipping PBRs from a can?
My question is, if the military is mostly Southern, as are the privately owned weapons, how could you stop it this time?
The States Rights issue returns.
TR
Don't forget we also have more trucks, bird dogs, and bass boats. :eek:Damn Yankees live in those big fangled cities and can not feed them selfs without going to the grocery store...... Sorry Supper Market.....
Don't forget we also have more trucks, bird dogs, and bass boats. :eek:Damn Yankees live in those big fangled cities and can not feed them selfs without going to the grocery store...... Sorry Supper Market.....
BAAAHAAAHAAA:lifter Just look at New York City right now.:eek:
Ambush Master
11-09-2012, 20:24
Check this out:
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm
Radar Rider
11-09-2012, 21:21
I am a proud American that continues to serve my nation following 24 years of military service. Secession is not the answer; our forefathers spilt too much blood and sacrificed too much for us to give up on the greatest country in the history of the world.
Empires rise and fall; when states leaving the nation becomes reality, we are truly finished. History shows that it is inevitable; good thing I'm dying soon. The Stars and Stripes will be my banner upon death.
Secession is not the answer; our forefathers spilt too much blood and sacrificed too much for us to give up on the greatest country in the history of the world.
If there were a way to bring the founding fathers, forward to today, I'm sure they would be be dumbfounded at what has happened.
In some "circles", our country is known as the "Great Experiment". Well, sometimes experiments don't work out so well. When that happens, one learns from the mistakes and attempts the experiment again, knowing NOT what to do to make that experiment fail again. But there seems to be a Status-Quo to keep this "Great Experiment" failing.
I'm sure if it were possible to travel Andy "By God" Jackson to today he'd say ...."Okay ... Everyone out of the Pool !!!!", among other things.
If there were a way to bring the founding fathers, forward to today, I'm sure they would be be dumbfounded at what has happened. How so?
How so?
Either 1.21 Giga Watts or a TARDIS.
How else do you expect to travel through time ????
HellooooOOOOOooooo.
Badger52
11-09-2012, 22:00
As a resident, how do you explain this seeming dichotomy?Great question. Interesting that today the main newspaper ran a blog article asking exactly that and, taking it further, cited many of the counties that O took in 2008 were taken by Bush in 2004.
Many of the counties that can be counted on for Dems are, as usual, the most populous. (Forget the sheep & guppy analogies for the moment.) These areas are hugely populated and almost driven by their ties to the University system. A few similar less-populated counties up north are peopled by what I call "semi-green thinkers of lofty thoughts." (Yes, I am being semi-sarcastic when I say that, but it's just me.)
Over the past couple of years I've tried to understand this and I do think it's event-driven in the most recent examples. In '04 folks were more reluctant to "seemingly" vote against a POTUS at war, particularly when we had alot of our treasure getting deployed - kids we watched grow up, took to hockey practice, etc. The state-level switcheroo by '06 was conversely driven by a tantrum at Bush (by this time over OIF) and taken out on anything with (R) within 50m of its name.
Watching closely how well the hankie-wringers in Madison could screw it up it was time for a change in 2010 yielding Walker. (One of the first things he did was tell the G "please take back your boondoggle light-rail grant and don't send anymore.")
The issue with the recall was interesting because quite a few Dems I personally engaged with told me that they were sickened by the behavior of the Dem legislature who went AWOL into N. Illinois right afterward, and the recall effort taking off right after that. They saw that as too much whining too soon and cowardly. They told me that they still believed in the process and that Walker deserved a chance - they NOTICED that the little babies started the crocodile tears from minute-one. It didn't hurt that the same nincompoop he previously ran against was trotted out for the recall - but being just the Milwaukee mayor in a town headed even further south over civil rights abuses there was no good side for Barrett to play outside his own moat. Walker wins the recall.
For O it didn't hurt that his motto happens to be Wisconsin's and the traditional High Church of Academia and the unions were in play again. Obama's campaign ads hammered Romney on things that were never really refuted and, moo, the Romney campaign never hammered Obama's presidency on anything other than the debt number.
Not to quibble, but I think a major mistake by R was that his campaign had him VERY EARLY saying an actual number of jobs he would create (12 million). Anyone not in a coma knows that was a mistake. It was also a mistake in the way he put it. HE was going to create 12 million new jobs, not the conditions that will be prevalent in the country to facilitate that. I had people tell me sticking himself on a number "sounded like Obama" and they didn't take that seriously either.
BTW, Rick Santorum had been the candidate that really resonated with "the folks" up here. So those sitting on the fence viewed Romney as a consolation prize offered up by the Republicans. I don't think the WI electorate (with the above big-city exceptions) is necessarily fickle. I think they're quietly a bit smarter than most politicians give them credit for. They don't like to be patronized and if you insult their intelligence they will make you pay.
EXAMPLE: Pols can come in here all they want & talk of renewable energy - up here that means proposals for wind farms just like it means sustaining the stupid ethanol subsidies in Iowa. The fact is, most politicians don't pay attention to local stuff up here until they're walking down the ramp of the aircraft. If they did they'd know that a HUGE piece of the population want nothing to do with f'n wind farms.
My views are based on small samplings but they are real humans I've spoken with about this.*
* I think they're all ate-up and full of shit but, hey, we can have a dialogue.
:D
Either 1.21 Giga Watts or a TARDIS.
How else to you expect to travel through time ????
HellooooOOOOOooooo.You made a counter factual argument that the founding fathers would be surprised with what they'd see today.
The point of my rhetorical question was to suggest the slight possibility that the turmoil of their day was actually worse, the political divisions were deeper, the challenges they faced were greater, and that they made even bigger mistakes--including a discussion of secession during the Hartford Convention--than the ones politicians are making today.
In short, strident political, social, economic, and cultural conflict have been persistent features of America's past. The interpretation that there was a halcyon period in which Americans broadly agreed on most issues is an idyllic myth.
MOO, if they were to be dumbfounded, it would be over the angst-ridden woe-is-me-the-end-is-neigh hand wringing of ideologues on the left and the right in the face of relatively straightforward issues, the impact of Jacksoniasm Democracy [Andrew, not Jessie], and Sofia Vergara's bountiful, ah, er, accent.
You made a counter factual argument that the founding fathers would be surprised with what they'd see today.
Ohhhhhh .... That's what you were eluding to.
The point of my rhetorical question was to suggest the slight possibility that the turmoil of their day was actually worse, the political divisions were deeper, the challenges they faced were greater, and that they made even bigger mistakes--including a discussion of secession during the Hartford Convention--than the ones politicians are making today.
In short, strident political, social, economic, and cultural conflict have been persistent features of America's past. The interpretation that there was a halcyon period in which Americans broadly agreed on most issues is an idyllic myth.
MOO, if they were to be dumbfounded, it would be over the angst-ridden woe-is-me-the-end-is-neigh hand wringing of ideologues on the left and the right in the face of relatively straightforward issues, the impact of Jacksoniasm Democracy [Andrew, not Jessie], and Sofia Vergara's bountiful, ah, er, accent.
Damn I wish your posts came with sub-titles or at least a "Press 3 for Comprehensive English" button.
Of course there were pitfalls that they faced when the country was first starting out and of course this country the Nirvana everyone wished it were to be. Republics usually are strife with conflict, within and with out, therein lies the "experiment". But the "dumbfoundedness" that the founding fathers would see today, career politicians (it was an HONOR to serve the people back then, NOT a career), super/special interest groups, lobbyist and major companies/corporations (the pharmaceutical companies come to mind) making policy, (although one could argue that the cotton industry dictated policy back then).
Also, the enormous size of the government today, and yes BOTH the left and the right have had a hand in that. How state representatives don't represent the people in their districts, that they're more interested in pushing through their own agenda. That old saying, "There's no Honor among thieves" comes to mind.
I might also point out that these "leaders" don't lead. I bring to example "Obamacare", which is scheduled to be enforced in 2014. If this "plan" is so wonderful for the American people, why is it that they are EXEMPT from having to follow it ???
Leadership is action, not position. Remember, a Boss says "GO"; a Leader says "Let's Go".
There really isn't a lot of "Let's Go" followed by action coming from D.C.
That, I think would be the straw that breaks the dumbfounded camels back that would knock the stockings off our Founding Fathers. For they said "Let's Go" .... and DID IT.
MOO, if they were to be dumbfounded, it would be over the angst-ridden woe-is-me-the-end-is-neigh hand wringing of ideologues on the left and the right in the face of relatively straightforward issues, the impact of Jacksoniasm Democracy [Andrew, not Jessie], and Sofia Vergara's bountiful, ah, er, accent.
I'll admit it. I googled Sofia Vergara. Didn't regret it. I wouldn't mind speaking in her accent.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know if I should be using pink font. I'm speaking in jest but I'm also not kidding.
More food for thought.
- Dan P.
But the "dumbfoundedness" that the founding fathers would see today, career politicians (it was an HONOR to serve the people back then, NOT a career), super/special interest groups, lobbyist and major companies/corporations (the pharmaceutical companies come to mind) making policy, (although one could argue that the cotton industry dictated policy back then).You're over looking the experiences of the founding fathers as subjects of the British Empire in which they were willing (and active) participants in a political/economic system that had all of the features you mention above.
You're also over looking the fact that the push of many of the founders for "disinterested" politicians was not formed from a vacuum. Not only were they thinking of their former countrymen across the Atlantic, they were also well aware of the intertwined relationships between members of the private sector and local governments. The lines of separation among personal ambition, entrepreneurial spirit, and public service were often blurred in ways that would be absolutely unacceptable today.
Also, the enormous size of the government today, and yes BOTH the left and the right have had a hand in that. How state representatives don't represent the people in their districts, that they're more interested in pushing through their own agenda. That old saying, "There's no Honor among thieves" comes to mind. What makes you think that elected legislators represented the people in their district when significant portions of the population could not vote? And are you certain that bureaucratic bloat and the spoils of patronage did not immediately start to manifest themselves from the jump? That is, while the sheer size and reach of today's federal government would likely startle the founders, many of them might also say "See, this is what we were worried about."
I might also point out that these "leaders" don't lead. I bring to example [The Affordable Health Care Act], which is scheduled to be enforced in 2014. If this "plan" is so wonderful for the American people, why is it that they are EXEMPT from having to follow it ???Is it your position that before this president was elected that members of elite groups didn't find ways to exempt themselves from the laws they put into place? Or are you arguing that they didn't promote public policies that served their interests directly?
That I think would be the straw that breaks the dumbfounded camels back that would knock the stockings off our Founding Fathers. For they said "Let's Go" .... and DID IT.They did some of it but on some core issues--in particular in matters of national security affairs--they punted and/or put into place policies that were unsustainable given the geopolitical environment of the day.
My broader point here is that I think too many Americans argue that things are getting better/worse based upon political narratives of our past as opposed to the careful study of U.S. history.
My $0.02. YMMV.
My broader point here is that I think too many Americans argue that things are getting better/worse based upon political narratives of our past as opposed to the careful study of U.S. history.
My $0.02. YMMV.
Well, Obama's about to make some they'll be studying for a while.
All of this falls apart if the nation divides.
Well we are already divided and things have been falling apart for sometime.
Some folks in Louisiana are already talking about it and have posted their request on a WH website.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/peacefully-grant-state-louisiana-withdraw-united-states-america-and-create-its-own-new-government/1wrvtngl
Ahh...nothing like waking up on a Saturday morning to see snow on the Sierras being backlit by the rising sun and a high dose of Paslodean angst to give balance to the coming day.
Ffolkes hereabouts in the good ol' US of A have been talking secessionist blather for centuries when things weren't quite going the way this particular interest group or that particular interest group wanted them to go and they weren't inclined to simply apply their freedom of movement to pack up and go live somewhere else - some have even tried it a time or two with predictably ill gained results.
As for whoever Michael E is - blah, blah, blah...I'm sure he represents the desires of the people of Louisiana and not just his own fantasies - try and get LA to secede and give up the Saints, the Army Corps of Engineers, and FEMA $$$. Ha! Glub...glub...glub... (that would be the sound of LA sinking into greater debt, obscurity, the return of the ghost of The Kingfish, and the Gulf of Mexico). :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
ZonieDiver
11-10-2012, 08:25
Ahh...nothing like waking up on a Saturday morning to see snow on the Sierras being backlit by the rising sun and a high dose of Paslodean angst to give balance to the coming day.
<snip>
As for whoever Michael E is - blah, blah, blah...I'm sure he represents the desires of the people of Louisiana and not just his own fantasies - try and get LA to secede and give up the Saints, the Army Corps of Engineers, and FEMA $$$. Ha! Glub...glub...glub... (that would be the sound of LA sinking into greater debt, obscurity, the return of the ghost of The Kingfish, and the Gulf of Mexico). :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
And that would be a BAD thing? :D
(Sorry, Big Teddy... just kiddin'!)
Ahh...nothing like waking up on a Saturday morning to see snow on the Sierras being backlit by the rising sun and a high dose of Paslodean angst to give balance to the coming day.
:munchin
No offense Sir, but you must have started drinking early if you consider that a High Dose.
Glad to hear you are enjoying a well deserved retirement ;)
Utah Bob
11-11-2012, 17:05
secessionist blather :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
That's exactly what it is.:rolleyes:
If I thought some friends of mine who spout this silly shit over coffee were serious, I'd butt stroke 'em and put them on a bus for Tijuana. But I just smile at them.;)
Stargazer
11-12-2012, 13:47
Well we are already divided and things have been falling apart for sometime.
Some folks in Louisiana are already talking about it and have posted their request on a WH website.
It appears 20 states have now started petitions.
Similar petitions from 18 other states began arriving Nov. 9, bringing the total — for the moment — to 20.
What began as a pair of parallel stunts appears to have gathered steam. Other than Louisiana and Texas, states with secession-related petitions pending on the White House website now include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Three states — Georgia, Missouri and South Carolina are each represented by two competing petitions.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/
I don't believe people are near this point, but am a little surprised that this number of petitions have been started. Perhaps the use of the word 'stunt' is fitting.
It appears 20 states have now started petitions.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/
I don't believe people are near this point, but am a little surprised that this number of petitions have been started. Perhaps the use of the word 'stunt' is fitting.
New York? :eek::confused:
It appears 20 states have now started petitions.
States? Or individuals/groups within some states?
BIG difference.
Richard :munchin
Stargazer
11-12-2012, 14:21
States? Or individuals/groups within some states?
BIG difference.
Richard :munchin
Agreed, Richard. Based on the article, there are 23 petitions representing 20 different states. To your point, 3 states highlighted in green, have competing petitions. No "STATE" has formally began the process. The reason I shared the information (as I hope it means little in the larger scheme of things) is to illustrate the increase in the number of individual petitions that are requesting to 'peacefully' secede. It's a voice but I do not consider it a movement at this point.
What began as a pair of parallel stunts appears to have gathered steam. Other than Louisiana and Texas, states with secession-related petitions pending on the White House website now include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Three states — Georgia, Missouri and South Carolina are each represented by two competing petitions.
............... is to illustrate the increase in the number of individual petitions that are requesting to 'peacefully' secede. It's a voice but I do not consider it a movement at this point.
That's what Ron Paul supporters say each election season.
And they are about as yippy-yappy as you can get and look how far it's gotten them.
My money is on Texas. Grand old republic!
Sure will miss the Ft. Hood PX, though, and the links at Clear Creek...
Doc,
You could always move.
Help them with the "transition". You've got a skill I'm sure they'd like to see, and use down there.
To be honest, I've been entertaining the idea myself. ;)
My money is on Texas.
Not unless the Fed cuts off its disbursement of $$$$ - Texas receives far more $$$$ back from the Fed than it puts into that kitty! ;)
Richard :munchin
Not unless the Fed cuts off its disbursement of $$$$ - Texas receives far more $$$$ back from the Fed than it puts into that kitty! ;)
Richard :munchin
Really? I have heard Texas gets less than it her taxpayers put in, something to the tune of 92 cents for every dollar.
Also, not to be a ninny, but for those with a govt job (and clearance) signing up for secessionist efforts or tax resistance could cause one to lose that job!
Army Regulation 381–12
Of course it is fun to watch with guys like this running around
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014297794
charlietwo
11-12-2012, 15:35
The Texas petition is currently at >27,000, which requires a response from the WH.
Not unless the Fed cuts off its disbursement of $$$$ - Texas receives far more $$$$ back from the Fed than it puts into that kitty! ;)
Richard :munchin
The chart on this site shows Texas as a net giver (for every $1 of revenue they put into the federal tax kitty, they get back .91 cents in benefits):
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/
This one had them at .94 cents:
http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/
The Economist has an interesting graph that shows net give/take from 1990-2009, with Texas as a net giver over that span (Delaware was the #1 giver):
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
ZonieDiver
11-12-2012, 16:41
These charts never tell the full story, however. More of our tax dollars are spent on things other than direct benefits to citizens as those listed, which the chart calls "Personal Government Benefits" and include: " Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Income Assistance, SNAP, Unemployment Insurance, Veterans' Benefits, Education Assistance Program, Payments to Native Populations, etc."
This is NOT the sum total of US tax dollars that flow INTO any given state.
For example, how many US military and government jobs, or government-related (defense contractor) jobs are there in Texas (or any other state)?
I'm assuming that IF Texas seceded from the Union, military posts would be closed and the personnel moved or released from service. Federal government offices would be closed as well, and the employees moved or laid off. There would be a severe impact on the state's citizens and economy if this were to happen. Wouldn't it?:confused:
Dozer523
11-12-2012, 16:54
The Texas petition is currently at >27,000, which requires a response from the WH.
I hope it's one a cowboy can understand.
"f you and the horse you rode in on. Hood and Bliss are on alert and your National Guard has been Federalized."
It appears 20 states have now started petitions.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/11/white-house-website-deluged-with-secession-petitions-from-19-states/
I don't believe people are near this point, but am a little surprised that this number of petitions have been started. Perhaps the use of the word 'stunt' is fitting.
I saw that this morning as well. It's is interesting and there may be a slight chance we could see it happen if the Feds were to push some States too far....but if that instance comes to pass I don't believe it is going to come from a online petition from average Joe Citizen and it won't be a request for secession.
As has been mentioned in this topic State, Local and the Federal government is a tangled mess and cutting those ties won't be easy. If it gets bad enough to secede, I figure bullets flying likely figures into the equation as well.
Ba careful what you wish for.
Paragrouper
11-12-2012, 18:11
Not unless the Fed cuts off its disbursement of $$$$ - Texas receives far more $$$$ back from the Fed than it puts into that kitty! ;)
Richard :munchin
Not a problem, we'll just sell weed to Colorado.
Not a problem, we'll just sell weed to Colorado.
Better yet, Cheetos and Goldfish crackers .... there's plenty of enough weed up here already. :munchin
The $.91-$.94 on the $1 return may be accurate, but realizing the history of the Feds inability to accurately track its fiscal behavior and knowing how much Fed $$$$ is big business in Texas, I'm not sure the 'official' figures include all the $$$$ received through areas such as subcontracted defense systems and components development and manufacturing, KBR-sized sub-contracted projects, contract prisons and prison industries, DHS funding (FEMA Western US TOC operations, INS and border security), DOE and DOEd funds (e.g., producing standardized testing materials contracted for other states IAW NCLB mandates and fed $$), federal retirees, TDY fed employees, DOD ED $$ (dependent school children, Texas Central College), etc.
It's a lot of $$$$ and I saw it first-hand in the public and private ed sectors - and Texas plays the game well.
MOO, of course, but it has been my experience that Texans like to talk secession and their 'right' to secede, but Texas enjoys being a big fish in a big pond and I don't foresee them wanting to change that anytime soon.
Richard :munchin
mark46th
11-13-2012, 09:35
I was in downtown Los Angeles last week. Southern California has already seceded and become part of Mexico.
I was in downtown Los Angeles last week. Southern California has already seceded and become part of Mexico.
Come to NorCal - a bit more of a variety up here.
My contractors for the remodel were Swiss, the guys who refinished my maple floors were Romanian (we used German as the best common language to communicate), my painter was Portugese, the guy who tiled the kitchen and bathroom was Irish, my mover was Hungarian and his assistants were Mexican and African American, and the satellite installer was Japanese from Orange County in SoCal (claimed the opportuities were better in NorCal at the moment) - but they were all American citizens.
OBTW - none of them wanted to secede - they all thought they were fortunate to be working and living in America. Go figure. ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Thats how we started!
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Blue
Team Sergeant
11-13-2012, 18:00
Petitions seeking White House approval to ‘secede’
now come from all 57 states and Al Qaeda
Ret10Echo
11-13-2012, 18:52
Petitions seeking White House approval to ‘secede’
now come from all 57 states and Al Qaeda
But what of the Phrench..??
RE Post #76 - to a Monarchist, perhaps. ;)
If we 'cry wolf' over every instance of disagreement with our system of government or those we elect to represent us, no matter how petty the argument may be, will there be anyone to listen to our alarms when a wolf actually shows up?
Richard :munchin
Roguish Lawyer
11-14-2012, 09:22
RE Post #76 - to a Monarchist, perhaps. ;)
If we 'cry wolf' over every instance of disagreement with our system of government or those we elect to represent us, no matter how petty the argument may be, will there be anyone to listen to our alarms when a wolf actually shows up?
Richard :munchin
Obviously you don't see your fellow socialists as wolves. :munchin
...fellow socialists...
I may be many things, but a "socialist" or an alarmist are not two of them...
Richard :munchin
Roguish Lawyer
11-14-2012, 09:55
I may be many things, but a "socialist" or an alarmist are not two of them...
Richard :munchin
Lib? :munchin :D ;)
Lib? :munchin :D ;)
Not according to my voter registration and voting record. :D
Go Devil
11-14-2012, 10:43
The first failure of this modern secession is the asking of permission.
These collective petitions are a passive protest to keep the angry constituents appeased.
Here's an idea, stop accepting federal aid and stop supporting federal programs.
What is your currency going to be and what is your time frame for implementing the new currency?
Infrastructure?
Power/Petroleum?
Food?
Exports?
International travel?
How about those multiple borders?
Insurgency?
Embargo?
PIPE DREAMS.
This would be a more effective discourse if Reaper were to pose this as one of his scenarios.
How would you implement and maintain the secession of Indiana?
The bad guys in the modern age don't come as wolves anymore...
...its more like the old fable of putting a frog in cool water and turning up the heat until you boil him alive.
The American citizenry is slowly morphing into a creature that is just not equipped to realize how hot the water really is.
...just my two cents. I could be wrong.
Can a state secede from the Union?
The short answer is:
No. We settled that at Appomattox.
My sons asked me about that in connection with a school assignment.
And the fact is: Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a provision for secession.
Our founding fathers provided "the finest document ever struck off at one time by the mind of man."
It provides for the formation of the Union.
It provides for the addition of a state from a territory. (like Arizona, or Hawaii).
It provides for the addition of a state from another republic asking to join. (like Texas).
It even provides for the formation of a state by spliting one state into two states. (like Virginia and West Virginia).
But nowhere in the Constitution are there any provisions for secession.
It is obvious that our founding fathers did not feel that joining the Union was revocable, or they would have provided for it in the Constitution.
Think it through.
If secession were to be allowed, there should be a provision for it in the Constitution, perhaps on the order of:
"Any state seeking to remove itself from the Union may make application to the Congress of the United States, by legislation approved by [majority] [2/3][3/4] of the legislature of said state, and signed by the Governor thereof.; or by a referendum of the voters of said state, when passed by a [majority][2/3][3/4] of the state. Whereupon the Congress of the United States, [House][Senate][both] shall take the yeas and nays, and a vote of [majority][2/3][3/4] shall be sufficient to remove said state from membership in the Union."
The fact that the Constitution is totally silent on the process of secession tells me that the framers of our Constitution considered entry into the Union to be a one way street.
The fact that the Constitution is totally silent on the process of secession tells me that the framers of our Constitution considered entry into the Union to be a one way street.
I guess a no fault divorce is out of the question then?
The Reaper
11-14-2012, 21:45
The fact that the Constitution is totally silent on the process of secession tells me that the framers of our Constitution considered entry into the Union to be a one way street.
Yeah, but they sure contemplated removing governments that were oppressive, by violent overthrow, if necessary.
TR
Nowhere in the Constitution will you find a provision for secession.
Our founding fathers provided "the finest document ever struck off at one time by the mind of man."
It provides for the formation of the Union.
The fact that the Constitution is totally silent on the process of secession tells me that the framers of our Constitution considered entry into the Union to be a one way street.
I do agree with everything you stated but just who in DC has been reading/applying the Constitution lately? I think that is the source of the frustration.
But nowhere in the Constitution are there any provisions for secession.
See post 76
Blue
Badger52
11-15-2012, 07:40
The fact that the Constitution is totally silent on the process of secession tells me that the framers of our Constitution considered entry into the Union to be a one way street.Just differing perspectives I suppose. Some folks take a body of law (or the Consitution in this case) and regard it as, "That which is not explicity prohibited is permitted."
(We have lots of micro-management of human kind on the books to not dispute this.)
If the Constitution stands mute, is it not left to the states? (I could be mistaken but seem to recall that a provision to allow withdrawal from the union was made part of a few states' constitutions. Perhaps a more encompassing view of the issue is called for.)
If WI residents had heretofore taken their own constitution's silence on openly carrying a handgun in the way you suggest no one would've been carrying until the recent shall-issue law was passed (except the special class of people under the Fed LEOSA).
The question then is does silence on a subject indicate prohibition, or lack of? I think the latter. Opinions vary.
But nowhere in the Constitution are there any provisions for secession.
I think there is, but it is 'implicit' in that either Congress or the collective majority will of the States can amend the Constitution to allow such an action - although I don't see it happening at any point in the near future.
See post 76
That's not the Constitution but a petition of grievances - the Constitution was not produced for another 11 years.
Our so-called 'Founding Fathers' were some right astute politicians in their time; I wonder how they'd fare in today's media and blogospheric driven culture.
Richard :munchin
i think secession would be a mistake. However, for sake of discussion: I'm not a constitutional lawyer by any means, but it would seem like the 10th amendment, though not aproviding for secession, seems as if it certainly leaves the door open for that and other things.
10th Amendment:
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.
mark46th
11-15-2012, 10:10
Richard- My plumber is Mexican, my wood floor guy is Bolivian and my gardener is Mexican. I use Spanish to communicate with them. Remember- I got kicked out of Mexico for working without proper documentation so if my cynicism and disgust with the U.S.'s current immigration policy and enforcement seems harsh, I have good reason...
1stindoor
11-15-2012, 10:59
Richard- My plumber is Mexican, ...
Not to change the subject of the thread, but I had to laugh when I read that because I remember my dad telling me when I was a kid that you can't outsource your plumbing, (i.e. it was a good skill to have)...of course nowadays you can...it's just that the workers are being brought in from the outside.
Ret10Echo
11-15-2012, 12:30
I'm not a constitutional lawyer by any means
Sin...don't fret... There are those who consider themselves "Constitutional Law Professors" that couldn't describe the contents of the document if they were locked in the National Archives.
Pericles
11-15-2012, 13:27
I find William Rawle (Washington's forst choice for Attorney General) in his work, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829), to be a good source for what the founders thought on many questions;
As to secession:
"The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.
This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood, and the doctrine heretofore presented to the reader in regard to the indefeasible nature of personal allegiance, is so far qualified in respect to allegiance to the United States. It was observed, that it was competent for a state to make a compact with its citizens, that the reciprocal obligations of protection and allegiance might cease on certain events; and it was further observed, that allegiance would necessarily cease on the dissolution of the society to which it was due.
The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics. Governments of dissimilar forms and principles cannot long maintain a binding coalition. "Greece," says Montesquieu, "was undone as soon as the king of Macedon obtained a seat in the amphyctionic council." It is probable, however, that the disproportionate force as well as the monarchical form of the new confederate had its share of influence in the event. But whether the historical fact supports the theory or not, the principle in respect to ourselves is unquestionable."
"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions of the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents.
But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case--as in the case of an unconditional secession,--the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power."
That's not the Constitution but a petition of grievances - the Constitution was not produced for another 11 years.
You are correct it is not the Constitution but it is the document that lays out the God given right of every human being to determine their own fate. Without the Declaration of Independence (or the list o' grievances as you call it) we would have no Constitution. While I view this current secession business as silly, I do not view the idea of secession as something that could not be done without good reason.
If people find the idea of the citizens of Los Angeles and San Francisco (California), Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Chicago, (Illinois) Miami (Florida) and Fairfax County (Virginia) with 146 electoral votes deciding the vote abhorrent to them, then it is their right to secede.
And if you don’t agree with me then you are a communist of the rankest ilk. :p
Blue
Well, La Raza thinks CA should be broken off from the US - along with a few other states.
mark46th
11-15-2012, 15:47
Yup Then we can all smoke dope and trip into Aztlan... Viva la Raza!
And if you don’t agree with me then you are a communist of the rankest ilk.
Spasibo, Kamerad. :)
Richard
dollarbill
11-15-2012, 23:24
Just checked out this site, petitions.whitehouse.gov Unreal the petitions that have been filed. Close to half of the states have petitions wanting a "peaceful secession" from the US. Doesn't say who filed petitions. The number of people that have electronically signed the petitions vs the amount needed by Dec. 31, just don't see it going anywhere. However, the amount need to have pot legalized across the country is more than enough. Maybe people are thinking if they stay stoned, they want remember the upcoming four years.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
You got it all wrong Richard, they're democrats advertising for Kerry. They just brought the "E" instead of the "F". :D
You got it all wrong Richard, they're democrats advertising for Kerry. They just brought the "E" instead of the "F". :D
Well played...
Trapper John
11-26-2012, 09:53
I think there is, but it is 'implicit' in that either Congress or the collective majority will of the States can amend the Constitution to allow such an action - although I don't see it happening at any point in the near future.
I agree. I also don't think that secession is a viable option, although I completely agree with sentiment. There is an alternative and that will require patience. First, we need to understand the opposition, his strengths, weakness, strategy, weapons, numbers, etc. A good read is the Curley effect [see JSMosby "Looters War Against Wealth" in the General Discussion Forum]. This is the new reality and permanent political power for the opposition is at hand. The next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton - 2 terms :eek: The opposition's numbers are 53% (est) of the electorate. Their principle weapon is the tax code. Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support). The major weakness lies in the fatal flaw of their goal. Every socialist society has imploded! Unfortunately, we need to wait until this happens - timing is everything.
So what do we do. First, be patient. In the meantime become organized, conduct our own Psyops, and develop a plan for the end-game. As to the end-game - a Constitutional Convention. Risky? I know, but consider the alternatives. The tactic - Article V of the US Constitution. At the latest count I think there are 32 states behind the petition in Congress for a balanced budget amendment. This is 2 short of the needed 2/3 for a Constitutional Convention. If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.
None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.
Dozer523
11-26-2012, 13:46
. I agree. I also don't think that secession is a viable option, although I completely agree with sentiment. There is an alternative and that will require patience. First, we need to understand the opposition, his strengths, weakness, strategy, weapons, numbers, etc. A good read is the Curley effect [see JSMosby "Looters War Against Wealth" in the General Discussion Forum]. This is the new reality and permanent political power for the opposition is at hand. The next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton - 2 terms :eek: The opposition's numbers are 53% (est) of the electorate. Their principle weapon is the tax code. Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support). The major weakness lies in the fatal flaw of their goal. Every socialist society has imploded! Unfortunately, we need to wait until this happens - timing is everything.
So what do we do. First, be patient. In the meantime become organized, conduct our own Psyops, and develop a plan for the end-game. As to the end-game - a Constitutional Convention. Risky? I know, but consider the alternatives. The tactic - Article V of the US Constitution. At the latest count I think there are 32 states behind the petition in Congress for a balanced budget amendment. This is 2 short of the needed 2/3 for a Constitutional Convention. If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.
None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.i fixed it for you.
Badger52
11-26-2012, 13:47
Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support)
.....
If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.
None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.Your words resonate. I would surmise this includes disseminating ground-truth to others and being able to talk, on one's feet without notes (or teleprompter), to specific history & current facts, versus a nebulous hope & change wish-list.
The Declaration of Independence (vs the Constitution) was, as mentioned, a grievance list. It also seems to me that it was, on another level, a press-release to those not on the "To:" line. "Here's what's gone on, fact. Here's what we've tried, fact. We've not been successful, the situation continues to worsen rather than improve & things are about to get sporty."
I could be mistaken but continuing to carry a factual message - personally, via the web, or hand-written letter, by whatever means - seems crucial, lest someone else craft it for you. Constantly trying to return their power-serve doesn't seem very productive. Is that in the scope of your PSYOPs?
Trapper John
11-26-2012, 14:21
Your words resonate. I would surmise this includes disseminating ground-truth to others and being able to talk, on one's feet without notes (or teleprompter), to specific history & current facts, versus a nebulous hope & change wish-list.
The Declaration of Independence (vs the Constitution) was, as mentioned, a grievance list. It also seems to me that it was, on another level, a press-release to those not on the "To:" line. "Here's what's gone on, fact. Here's what we've tried, fact. We've not been successful, the situation continues to worsen rather than improve & things are about to get sporty."
I could be mistaken but continuing to carry a factual message - personally, via the web, or hand-written letter, by whatever means - seems crucial, lest someone else craft it for you. Constantly trying to return their power-serve doesn't seem very productive. Is that in the scope of your PSYOPs?
Right on target. Fire for effect. {Salute}
Trapper John
11-26-2012, 14:23
[/COLOR]i fixed it for you.
Thanks Dozer523 {Salute}
I agree. I also don't think that secession is a viable option, although I completely agree with sentiment. There is an alternative and that will require patience. First, we need to understand the opposition, his strengths, weakness, strategy, weapons, numbers, etc. A good read is the Curley effect [see JSMosby "Looters War Against Wealth" in the General Discussion Forum]. This is the new reality and permanent political power for the opposition is at hand. The next POTUS will be Hillary Clinton - 2 terms :eek: The opposition's numbers are 53% (est) of the electorate. Their principle weapon is the tax code. Their tactics are good Psyops (w/MSM support). The major weakness lies in the fatal flaw of their goal. Every socialist society has imploded! Unfortunately, we need to wait until this happens - timing is everything.
So what do we do. First, be patient. In the meantime become organized, conduct our own Psyops, and develop a plan for the end-game. As to the end-game - a Constitutional Convention. Risky? I know, but consider the alternatives. The tactic - Article V of the US Constitution. At the latest count I think there are 32 states behind the petition in Congress for a balanced budget amendment. This is 2 short of the needed 2/3 for a Constitutional Convention. If we can force this at the right time and if we have conducted our Psyops effectively then such things as term limits to dismantle the political class, repeal of income tax and replacing it with a Fed excise tax that is capped to GDP, balanced budget, forbiding Congress from passing any law that does not equally apply to its members, etc. can be had.
None of this is easy. The only easy day was yesterday.
Maybe it is just me, but my feeling is that if we actually were able to convince those in politics to follow the Constitution as written, we wouldn't need a Constitutional Convention. And be careful what you ask for, it might just happen, but not in the way you hope.
We have enough laws as it is. We don't need anymore to enforce the ones already on the books.
We don't need term limits, we already have them. It is called voting the bastards out. A couple go arounds of the incumbents being voted out, regardless of the party, and they might come to realize they aren't guaranteed a job. And if the majority doesn't want to do that, well that is why it is a majority and we have the government we deserve.
If the Congress would do their jobs, and pass a reasonable budget every year, we wouldn't need a balanced budget ammendment.
I personally believe the Republicans should get out of the way, and let the Dems have every damn thing they want for the next two years. Then mabe the majority will begin to see that socialism is not the answer to our problems, and they can't blame the Repubs for stonewalling. The dems will own it all. I don't think the Repubs will have a problem taking the Senate after that as long as they aren't stupid enough to run the same type of folks they did this time around. When your choices are Todd Akin and Claire Mckaskill, it isn't too difficult of a decision if you ask me.
Trapper John
11-26-2012, 16:04
afchic-
You have more faith in the electorate than I do. There are a lot of "ifs" in your premise though.
I have always thought that significant progress in any endeavor is brought about by a highly motivated and courageous minority with a plan.
You are correct, this will need to get a whole lot worse first. :(
Trapper John
11-26-2012, 20:56
We have enough laws as it is. We don't need anymore to enforce the ones already on the books. Agree. I am certainly not suggesting more laws.
We don't need term limits, we already have them. It is called voting the bastards out. You must recognize that we have a permanent political class where holding office is a career choice successfully achieved with no skills other than the skill to be elected. Whatever happened to the notion of "sacrificing" for public service?
And if the majority doesn't want to do that, well that is why it is a majority and we have the government we deserve. One of the great notions in our foundation (see Federalist Papers) was the protection of the minority from the "tyranny" of the majority.
If the Congress would do their jobs, and pass a reasonable budget every year, we wouldn't need a balanced budget ammendment. Well, how's that been working out?
I personally believe the Republicans should get out of the way, and let the Dems have every damn thing they want for the next two years. Then mabe the majority will begin to see that socialism is not the answer to our problems, Assuming the majority can think critically :rolleyes::rolleyes:.:rolleyes: and they can't blame the Repubs for stonewalling. Maybe, but that is a big MAYBE? It is far more likely that the Libs and their PR machine (MSM)will still twist the facts and blame Bush, the Republicans, the Man in the Moon, etc.
Hope this is clarifying.
When speaking of secession, perhaps remembering the words of a complex builder of our great Republic, Sam Houston, may have merit. He became the Republic of Texas' first president after its interim government and one of its first senators after Texas joined the union.
Although a slave holder, Houston was a strong Union supporter and fought against legislation to expand slavery to other parts of the country, a position that would later cost him his Senate seat. He also strongly resisted the movement toward secession. After being re-elected governor, he called a special session of the Legislature to speak out against such action.
In an 1860 speech before the Texas state legislature, he posed some questions that might also be asked of today's secessionists.
"What do these men propose to give you in exchange for this Government? All are ready to admit their ability to pull down, but can they build up? I have read of the glory of a Southern Confederacy, and seen the schemes of rash enthusiasts; but no rational basis has been presented.... [W]here are their Washingtons, their Jeffersons, and Madisons? Where is the spirit of sacrifice and patriotism which brought the Union into existence, and maintained it amid privation and danger? Look at the men who are crying out disunion, and then ask yourselves whether they are the men you would chose to create a new government."
Something worth pondering...I think.
Richard :munchin
Trapper John
11-30-2012, 08:50
Very well said, Richard. A true teacher are you and we can all learn a few things from Sam Houston too ;)