Yeah, geopgraphy has NOTHING to do with it, considering NE is ALL BLUE right! I guess you're a socialist Yankee too. Truth hurts.
Posted on 02/11/2009 4:23:28 PM PST by ADReditor
Two days ago Sheridan Folger, one of our Senior Writers and the Co-Founder of Let’s Get Theis Right.com and Conservative Solutions.org, wrote a very thought provoking article concerning the desire of many New Hampshire citizens to declare their sovereignty from the leftist Obama influenced law makers of Washington DC and their attempts to put a stranglehold on their state should they decide to further infringe on their states rights.
Much like my state of Texas, the voters of New Hampshire have always considered themselves “keepers of the flame” when it comes to preserving and reserving the right of the state to withdraw their support for an over-reaching federal government by force should it be necessary.
(Excerpt) Read more at americandailyreview.com ...
Senate Passes Legislation Aimed at Protecting Gun Owners and hard working Mississippians
LLS
--John Stuart Mill
Wake me when/if the shooting starts.....
Arrogantsob is a typical Yankee, forcing their socialist big govt. views down the rest of the countries throat. If we in the south don't go along, I guess we'll be invaded again. Well come on then....
Thanks for the ping, and thanks to all for some very enlightening comments/ opinions/ quotes.
One quick (and trivial) note:
Typo in the first line (Let’s Get Theis Right).
I have never understood........why states would be happy about sending a dollar and receiving back only 77%.
Baffling, you make our laws or you won't get any money back......then keep the money!
Thanks.
All good here.
If you're serious about participating in discussions concerning efforts to reclaim our sovereignty, personal attacks based on geography, or any other unrelated issue will only serve to distract from or even hijack those discussion. Is that what you really want???
You probably realize not all, or even most, "Yankees" are marxist driven idealogues but would not admit it because of some deeper resentments from long ago. Similar to muzzies. Irrational behavior that will serve no good purpose, IMHO. So please, can we discuss idealogy and not geography?
Yeah, geopgraphy has NOTHING to do with it, considering NE is ALL BLUE right! I guess you're a socialist Yankee too. Truth hurts.
As a point of fact, the term “union” is the only term used in the text of the Constitution to refer to the United States, while the word “nation” never appears a single time.
Thus, the force and effectiveness of this sovereignty which was thus “retained” from the Declaration of Independence, was equivalent to that of any other nation; this was made clear in the Declaration, via the statement:
“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 do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do”
Note that the term “state” used here in the Declaration, is clearly used synonymously with the term “nation” for the purposes of this document; as such, the United States had no more claim in binding South Carolina or Virginia, than it had in binding England or France, and the term “United States” literally meant “United Nations.”
You then, must believe that the states somehow “surrendered” their status as sovereign nations, in the act of ratifying the Constitution
However this is negated by the 10th Amendment specification that powers were merely delegated,
“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”
In this context, therefore, powers were delegated to the federal government via the Constitution by the states ratifying it, not out in the interest of any sort of collectivism, but merely for the purposes of practical harmony in co-existence – with both union and non-union nations – solely for advancing the individual benefit of the respective delegating state.
Meanwhile, the 9th amendment likewise states that:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Since the term “others” as used here, clearly refers to rights not enumerated in the text of the Constitution, then it thus implicitly preserves those rights enumerated via prior documents – such as the Articles of Confederation, which specifically retains the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of every state – which the Constitution does not exclude anywhere (but rather preserves, since states would have to retain their sovereign powers in order to delegate them.
Articles of Confederation, which under Article II states that:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
To claim otherwise, i.e., that every state committed itself to the supreme and final binding arbitration (and mercy) of the Federal government in settling disputes – under force of law wielded by such – would not only be nonsensical for the purposes of protecting the states from possible abuses by this same Federal government, but moreover is nowhere expressed – or even implied – in the Constitution or any other document.
I cannot imagine why anyone would imagine that separate nations, would knowingly and willingly surrender their individual sovereignty – particularly, as in the case of the United States, after their having just won it via bloodshed from centralized and consolidated tyranny firsthand.
“”BTW that “sovereignty” Madison mentions was ONLY in relation to the ratification. It could not be coerced by another state. And there was no other mechanism available for the expression of the political will EXCEPT through state mechanisms.
But Congress was clear that it wanted the decision taken OUT of the hands of the states. It specified special conventions out of the control of state governments.””
Madison helped write the “DECLARATION AND PROTEST”
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS, March 4, 1801
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand, undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it~ Thomas Jefferson
DECLARATION AND PROTEST OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
The States of North America which confederated to establish their independence of the government of Great Britain, of which Virginia was one, became, on that acquisition free and independent States, and as such, authorized to constitute governments, each for itself, in such form as it thought best.
They entered into a compact (which is called the Constitution of the United States of America), by which they agreed to unite in a single government as to their relations with each other, and with foreign nations, and as to certain other articles particularly specified. They retained at the same time, each to itself, the other rights of independent government, comprehending mainly their domestic interests.~Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican and staunch advocate of democracy, and believing that the Union was a group of sovereign States that had carefully delegated specific powers to an administrative agent, stated his view of States’ rights within the Union as follows, “My plan would be to make the states one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic”
Prior to ratifying the new constitution, the State of Massachusetts insisted “that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised.”
Pennsylvania likewise insisted that the new constitution be amended to include language guaranteeing that “[a]ll the rights of sovereignty which are not, by the said Constitution, expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with, and shall be exercised by the several states in the Union.”
James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” expressed his view of the proposed new government and the sovereign status of the States as they ratified the new constitution when he stated,
“In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
“On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.
“That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation [...] Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its voluntary act” (James Madison, Federalist Papers, Number 39).
There’s a different map showing more detail.
It’s the sixth one down here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/
Or more directly here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymappurpler512.png
(I got tired of trying and failing to link the thing.)
It shows a lot of purple to try an indicate areas of the country that may have been red or blue based on the winner, but the win was relatively close.
If or when the trouble comes, I don’t think it will turn out to be along regional geographic lines. I think it’ll be county against county, county against city, neighbor against neighbor. I think it’ll be nasty.
arrogantsob,
What does the Declaration of Independence mean when it says that governments derive their just powers “from the consent of the governed”?
There are many powers which are associated with those specifically mentioned. My view of what is Constitutional and what not are those of Hamilton as expressed in the Essay on the Constitutionality of the National Bank. Fedgov can neither do things prohibited by the Constitution nor those things against the spirit of the document. YOUR opinion of what a violation of the Constitution is is only that. Such a state does not become reality for the rest of the world until the US Supreme Court says it has.
Since importants elements of Federalist structure have been constitutionally destroyed I see little chance of stopping the juggernaut until disaster happens. Allowing popular election of Senators turned the nation Left as did giving women the right to vote.
With the Left in control of most of the important institutions including the religious ones there is no viable chance of an intellectual opposition winning the support of the masses. They are bought off and good. Only 50% of us pay ANY federal income taxes. Those that do are screwed.
Your own quote shows I am correct. “The Ratifications of the CONVENTIONS of nine States,...” These were special institutions set up in the States for this one purpose. Do you think I am denying that States existed as political institutions?
Congress called for the Convention and established the rules of ratification. It also was tasked with receiving the finished document. What else could you have in mind?
What I find intriguing is the fact that the states which get the least from the fed gov are the ones voting heavily RAT.
My background is South Arkansas and you have the picture upside down. I took conservativism North to Chicago from there. Of course, my family, like most southerners of that day, were yellow dog Democrats.
Just because I married a Yankee wife didn’t mean I became one. She bore me a couple of fantastic Yankee boys one of whom is now protecting your butt on a nuclear submarine.
Don’t confuse stupidity in 1861 with anything happening today.
See above.
States claimed sovereign powers during the Revolution but it soon became clear that they could only exercise them partially and destructively. The Union formed by these states was also considered to be perpetual. The Constitution strengthened that perpetual Union by removing certain powers from the states and vesting them in the federal government. These powers are exactly those most important in forming a nation.
It was the intention of the Founders to strengthen that NATION which called itself the United States of America. The reality was there were not thirteen sovereign nations which became free nor did they act as if there were.
The tenth amendment essentially means that the local police and regulatory powers are reserved to the states when there is no federal impact. It reserved no right of secession a concept explicitly refuted by Madison during the New York ratification fight.
Nor does the ninth amendment allow secession except through a constitutional means. A constitution is a fundamental act which cannot be changed unilaterally or by means outside its framework of amendment. A state declaring secession has unilaterally done just that by changing the composition of the UNION.
Madison deviated from the true faith of the founding when Jefferson returned to the country from France. He afterwards supported all manner of nonsense such as the KY and VA resolutions which the country rejected contemptuously. But even he reigned in some of Jefferson’s crazier followers when they started talking secession.
As far as your inability to imagine others’ imagining it is inconceivable to me that one could have believed the US would have survived without a strong central government. Otherwise we would all be speaking German no doubt.
Madison explained in the Federalist that the new government was both federal and national. It was a combination something new like so much else in it.
None of the Founders wanted a tyrannic government controlling all elements of life. Nor did they foresee how extensive its powers would become.
But the excessive democratization which followed allowed more popular control and move to the Left. Without taking votes away from women I don’t see it moving back. And property restrictions on votes regarding taxation is similiar.
Voters have wanted the feds to ammume more power and that is what has happened. But world events also pushed things in that direction.
Until they change the government won’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
