The right of secession?
-
States Rights rears its ugly head, again. Can secession be far behind? But can the Unites States disunite? 1. The Founding Fathers thought so: When a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the duty — of the people to alter or abolish that government. They went on to secede from the British Empire and found a nation. When that first government didn't work out the way they wanted it to, they seceded from it and joined the one we have now. 2. The U.N. thinks so: The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people should be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated status, such as by being citizens of a country from which they are disaffected. We seen this in practice in Slovakia, in Ireland, and in East Timor. In every case, international opinion and international law has come down on the side of those who wished to break away. 3. The U.S. Supreme Court thinks so. The decesion handed down when regarding Texas's special right to secession read like this: <i>The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.</i> So the Supreme decided that Texas had no more right to secede, but no less, either. Its "indissoluble" union with the other states <u>can</u> be disolved, either through rebellion or consent of the other states. Please note that I am not saying that secession would be a good thing. I can think of a number of surprises built into the concept - like the large Latino population of Texas voting to secede from the Union in order to join up with Mexico. I doubt that would thrill the Daughters of the Alamo. I am saying that it is not unthinkable. There are deep divisions in this country - that are mirrored in the Back Room. There are very few "purple states" and it is when they switch in the Presidential elections, that we get a landslide. There are plenty of places in this country that are one-party only. There were parts of this country that Obama could not impress if he walked on water and fed the masses with 5 loaves and three fishes. There are other parts where Bush would be reviled if it was revealed that he personally brought about the end of AIDS, the end of World Hunger, and
-
States Rights rears its ugly head, again. Can secession be far behind? But can the Unites States disunite? 1. The Founding Fathers thought so: When a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the duty — of the people to alter or abolish that government. They went on to secede from the British Empire and found a nation. When that first government didn't work out the way they wanted it to, they seceded from it and joined the one we have now. 2. The U.N. thinks so: The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people should be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated status, such as by being citizens of a country from which they are disaffected. We seen this in practice in Slovakia, in Ireland, and in East Timor. In every case, international opinion and international law has come down on the side of those who wished to break away. 3. The U.S. Supreme Court thinks so. The decesion handed down when regarding Texas's special right to secession read like this: <i>The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.</i> So the Supreme decided that Texas had no more right to secede, but no less, either. Its "indissoluble" union with the other states <u>can</u> be disolved, either through rebellion or consent of the other states. Please note that I am not saying that secession would be a good thing. I can think of a number of surprises built into the concept - like the large Latino population of Texas voting to secede from the Union in order to join up with Mexico. I doubt that would thrill the Daughters of the Alamo. I am saying that it is not unthinkable. There are deep divisions in this country - that are mirrored in the Back Room. There are very few "purple states" and it is when they switch in the Presidential elections, that we get a landslide. There are plenty of places in this country that are one-party only. There were parts of this country that Obama could not impress if he walked on water and fed the masses with 5 loaves and three fishes. There are other parts where Bush would be reviled if it was revealed that he personally brought about the end of AIDS, the end of World Hunger, and
Of course the right exists, natural law would dictate that individual states if not an individual himself / herself has the right to throw off tryanny.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
States Rights rears its ugly head, again. Can secession be far behind? But can the Unites States disunite? 1. The Founding Fathers thought so: When a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the duty — of the people to alter or abolish that government. They went on to secede from the British Empire and found a nation. When that first government didn't work out the way they wanted it to, they seceded from it and joined the one we have now. 2. The U.N. thinks so: The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates that all people have the right to a country. A corollary of this is that no people should be kept in nationless status, e.g., the Palestinians. A further corollary of this is that no people should long be kept in any subjugated status, such as by being citizens of a country from which they are disaffected. We seen this in practice in Slovakia, in Ireland, and in East Timor. In every case, international opinion and international law has come down on the side of those who wished to break away. 3. The U.S. Supreme Court thinks so. The decesion handed down when regarding Texas's special right to secession read like this: <i>The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.</i> So the Supreme decided that Texas had no more right to secede, but no less, either. Its "indissoluble" union with the other states <u>can</u> be disolved, either through rebellion or consent of the other states. Please note that I am not saying that secession would be a good thing. I can think of a number of surprises built into the concept - like the large Latino population of Texas voting to secede from the Union in order to join up with Mexico. I doubt that would thrill the Daughters of the Alamo. I am saying that it is not unthinkable. There are deep divisions in this country - that are mirrored in the Back Room. There are very few "purple states" and it is when they switch in the Presidential elections, that we get a landslide. There are plenty of places in this country that are one-party only. There were parts of this country that Obama could not impress if he walked on water and fed the masses with 5 loaves and three fishes. There are other parts where Bush would be reviled if it was revealed that he personally brought about the end of AIDS, the end of World Hunger, and
I think secession is inevitable at this point. The differences between the various sections of the nation are growing ever more extreme. There are simply no longer and binding economic or cultural reasons to stay together. In my own mind, I have already seceeded. I don't believe that the people of California or New England are my countrymen. Quite the contrary in fact. I consider them to be little more than an enemy occupying force in my country. I think we red staters could easily force the issue merely by asserting our constitutional rights. There are enough red states to compel certain constitutional amendments that the the north east and the west coast would simpy never accept. They would have to secceed from us or accept our amendments.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I think secession is inevitable at this point. The differences between the various sections of the nation are growing ever more extreme. There are simply no longer and binding economic or cultural reasons to stay together. In my own mind, I have already seceeded. I don't believe that the people of California or New England are my countrymen. Quite the contrary in fact. I consider them to be little more than an enemy occupying force in my country. I think we red staters could easily force the issue merely by asserting our constitutional rights. There are enough red states to compel certain constitutional amendments that the the north east and the west coast would simpy never accept. They would have to secceed from us or accept our amendments.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote: There are enough red states to compel certain constitutional amendments that the the north east and the west coast would simpy never accept. The Constitution gets amended by a 2/3rds vote of both houses or a special convention called by 2/3rds of all states. It then gets ratified either by a similar special convention (if proposed by the Congress and Congress so orders) or by 2/3rds of all state legislatures. Do. The. Math.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote: There are enough red states to compel certain constitutional amendments that the the north east and the west coast would simpy never accept. The Constitution gets amended by a 2/3rds vote of both houses or a special convention called by 2/3rds of all states. It then gets ratified either by a similar special convention (if proposed by the Congress and Congress so orders) or by 2/3rds of all state legislatures. Do. The. Math.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
The math isn't actually all that bad. In the last election we had 22 solid conservative states. If Obama screws thing up bad enough, there could easily be 12 states willing to join them in an effort to protect themselves from the federal government. And of the 15 or so states committed to collectivist state governments, there are large segments of their populations who want none of it. The truth is that the country consists of a couple of dozen large metropolitan areas with large collectivist majorities and a lot of pissed off conservatives in between. It really isn't much of a prescription for social stability.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.