Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Secessionists
Whiskey and Gunpowder ^ | 18 Feb 2010 | Linda Brady Traynham

Posted on 02/18/2010 6:38:39 AM PST by Politically Correct

The New Secessionists

Feb 18th, 2010 | By Linda Brady Traynham | Category: Featured, Morning Whiskey

Shooters, Ron Holland is the most reading fun I’ve had since discovering C. S. Stirling, and a couple of more articles like the last two may set that mark back to C. Northcote Parkinson. Dear glory, a man who writes elegant prose, has a brilliantly logical mind, and understands the true causes of the War of the Rebellion?! I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he keeps goats, smokes, and had served with the French Foreign Legion or with our guys in Viet Nam as a gunny, making him practically perfect if anything happens to my darling Charles. (I know…odd, the things ladies find attractive…)

Ron also introduced a subject I have been itching to discuss here for at least six months, bless him.

Strangely enough, given that paean, I’m going to begin by disagreeing with my new candidate for hero. He wrote, “We need to forget the causes of the earlier War Between the States, regional differences, slavery, tariffs and other related issues.”

No, no, dear man, we must not forget the causes of the First War of the Rebellion because we are still at odds over precisely the same issues. We still have very strong regional differences and an even larger one of city rats and illegals vs. country mice; slavery now comes in the form of wage and welfare plantation, tariffs are still a big issue (see my modest archived discussion of the nasty jump in the price of tires), and consider that now, as then, the root cause was a corrupt, big money-controlled Congress that had out-run what it could confiscate from the citizens easily. Two ways of solving the problem occurred to the in-crowd back then, the first being to declare that the western border of the US was the Mississippi River permanently and pluck those caged off at their leisure, while the second was to conquer and rape the Southern states which were the wealthy area at that time.

No contest.

A population-dense industrial nation expected to find the less-populated agrarian portion of the nation far easier pickings than they turned out to be, a mistake Washington continues to make in backwaters ranging from Viet Nam to Afghanistan.

Slavery was being phased out as quickly as was feasible primarily because slaves are the most expensive–and least productive–form of labor, and let us not forget that all of the slavers were Yankees, who not only had virtually all the shipping but a great many slaves themselves. Yankees are the ones who came up with a solution to King Cotton’s demand for employees; we didn’t like it, but we had no alternative; everybody down here was already working. Lincoln’s (in)famous “Emancipation Proclamation” didn’t free a single slave in Yankee-held territory and it didn’t free any in the South at the time, either. I am not a fan of the original Illinois politico (or any of his successors), and Lincoln used the slavery issue cynically for emotional effect and spin. READ his opinion of blacks; it is well documented. (Ronald and Donald Kennedy’s The South Was Right is meticulously documented and official correspondence between Lincoln and his generals will turn your stomachs. Their idea, carried out brilliantly in war efforts and “Reconstruction” was to beat the South so far into submission that it would never recover. They were quite successful.) Ah, yesss, the Rothschilds and similar friends have made out well for centuries by funding both sides of wars while Krupps et al. provided munitions to both combatants and both stirred up conflict. That’s why I suggested investing in “defense” stocks in “Juggling Act.”

There is, indeed, a large and growing feeling that fiscal and cultural sanity can be regained only by going our separate ways. North Carolina has a vigorous movement, as do other South’n states and the Montana-Idaho-Wyoming-Utah area, and even Hawaii wants Liliuokalani’s throne and Iolani Palace back. (Chuckle…I say give it to ‘em. An island kingdom 5,000 miles from anywhere that has been firmly under the control of Democrats and the Japanese for half a century is something we need to support about as much as we do southern California.)

There is a very easy, obvious solution to getting the ball rolling, and if there is anything we have an amplitude of at present it is snow, literally and figuratively.

We start with the Republic of Texas.

Pay close attention now, because the facts I am going to give you–and they are facts–are not in any of the history books the winners have written for 150 years. Gentle smile…sounds like a good anniversary to celebrate, to me. Quite a few states would like the simple no-fault divorce the South asked for last time, but Texas has an advantage. We’ve only been living in sin all these years. That’s right: we weren’t married, or, to stop being colorful, Texas has never been a legal part of “those United States.”

1. The Republic of Texas is not, has never been, and could never have been admitted legally to the USA. There is no provision in the Constitution for annexing or admitting another nation. True, there was an unconstitutional Bill drafted to do so, but it has been buried in committee for many a long decade and had a time clause in it. No one has ever dared bring it out for obvious political reasons.

2. Our flag does not fly at the same height as that of the US in recognition of the fact that we “were” once a sovereign nation or to advertise a failing amusement park, Six Flags Over Texas, but because we are still one, albeit under occupation since about six months after the rest of the South submitted. (I started to replace “one” with a more precise “sovereign nation,” but realized that our capitol, Austin, is also a failing amusement park. And we still went into the present deepening depression last and have felt the effects least.)

3. Our current Capitol building was constructed in 1939, and in the Great Rotunda is an enormous, splendid marble and brass mosaic that proclaims proudly “The Republic of Texas.” Once again, that wasn’t “history,” it is how a lot of us see the matter. Confederate General Albert Sydney Johnston reposes in the adjoining cemetery. That was when what you think of as the “Texas” flag was foisted upon us. The true Republic of Texas flag, the Burnett, a single golden star on a field of blue, flies in front of the ranch house and quite a few other places. I don’t tilt at windmills or I would prepare a brochure to hand yahoos who fly the US flag above the false flag on a single pole.

Hopeful look. Is anyone expostulating, “Now, Mrs. Traynham, all of that was long ago and isn’t relevant?”

How relevant are treaties–nations deal with each other by treaty, as you should have learned in Civics classes, if those are still taught–between the Republic of Texas and the US? How relevant is the decision of a Federal Judge? He takes himself pretty seriously and as far as I know he is still behind the bench over in West Texas. Is 2004 recent enough for you?! Yes, indeed, you may not have heard about it through the MSM, but in this century that splendid gentleman ordered the Feds “to cease and desist hostilities against the land and people of the Republic of Texas.” The Washington gang didn’t do it–regulations and taxes being very hostile, indeed, to say nothing of troops quartered on our soil–but they went back to D. C. a very unhappy bunch.

Some of you have read my remarks about the project I was engaged upon when I realized we had better shelve it because my analysis said that we were going to have either The Greater Depression or dictatorship before we completed the last two steps (three, if you count a wide-spread education effort) to free our nation. The RoT was it. I had reached the point of preparing a packet for volunteers covering the twenty top concerns of most citizens, and in every instance the answer is “Restore the Republic.” If it will amuse you, send me your question on how an independent Republic of Texas operating under a real, unsullied Constitution would improve the lives of all those who are honest, law-abiding, hard-working, and oppressed under current conditions.

Take heart, America, in how close we are. ALL that need be done is a Resolution from the Legislature calling for a public vote on the matter, and to conduct that vote. If we have a successful outcome Texas will cease to be a “for profit corporation” subsidiary to the for profit corporation known as the federal government. (Look them up in Dun & Bradstreet, along with the Federal Reserve.) We will revert instantly to the 1837 Constitution which has been updated very slightly and quite legally to allow suffrage for females and non-whites. Well over a hundred taxes and millions of pages of regulations will be rendered null and void immediately. (One slight problem is to keep the first Legislature elected and sworn in from restoring a bunch of in-crowd regulations wholesale and thoughtlessly. See Tex Norton’s upcoming article on how and why regulations are promulgated.)

The new President–who will not be the current governor unless he or she runs for that position and wins–will have a mansion and a salary of $10,000/year! The cream of the jest is that the new Legislature cannot raise salaries effective during their terms of office. We’ve got good stuff in our Constitution. For another example, it says simply that we have to come up with a plan to educate children, and it doesn’t say a thing about forbidding prayer or teaching fifth- graders the joys of sex. I’ve got a great plan for educating the children; I figure I can volunteer to be Secretary of Education and have all half dozen choices parents will have up and running in two weeks, at which point I will resign. No salary, no staff, set it up and let it work from home-schooling to on-line schooling to private schools to smiling sweetly and telling local neighborhoods that if they want traditional “free” neighborhood schools, by all means fund them out of their personal budgets no longer subject to income tax, sales tax, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, or property taxes. Nothing in life is free, people.

We have just a few possibilities for President that a lot of Texans (or “Texians,” in ancient parlance) might be excited about, including Dr. Ron Paul and a conservative writer who has a ranch not far from mine, a fellow named Chuck Norris. It could be that Ross Perot could make a comeback, I suppose…

If you look at the Red vs. Blue map you will discover–no surprise–that the Bluebellies hold the major cities and the area which has been invaded by Mexicans. The Red has everything else. Yes, we tend to vote Democrat but that is ancient rebellion against “the party of Lincoln.” In all save the big cities we’re a conservative, old-fashioned, pretty self-sufficient bunch. When I was a girl we called ourselves “conservative states-rights Democrats” rather than Republicans to differentiate ourselves from the “Progressives.”

We have a year before the next Legislature meets, and a useful pastime will be seeking candidates who are receptive to the notion of disentangling ourselves from an arrogant, oppressive government (two of them, actually), and starting over. Reclaiming our freedom is do-able. If I hadn’t thought so I wouldn’t have spent over a year working out details.

If we gain our independence again Texas will become, overnight, the ninth richest country in the world. Not only can we claim a 200-mile limit for oil exploration through international law, but we have a Supreme Court Decision that says the same thing–and the railroad commission controls such funds with schools having first call. There will be lots left over. We have deep water ports and nuclear facilities, tourism, wineries, and many miles of golden corn we won’t turn into Ethanol. We have plenty of gas and sweet, light crude left; the problem at present is Greenie legislation and transportation to refineries, which we also have. Texas has far more than our “fair share” of small farms and ranches, major universities, superb medical and vetinerary schools, and our own distinctive culture. There isn’t any good way for the US to pack up a few handy airbases when we toss their minions over our borders with jovial civility. We have the only independent power grid and several vast wind farms. We even have salt domes which hold “strategic reserves,” although my numerous oil friends tell me that it will be a miracle if 25% of the contents can be recovered, and Washington can try suing us in our courts if it wants first dibs on them.

Courts? Our Constitution calls for a series of common law courts. To simplify, all that is needed to try most cases is an elected Judge/Justice, half a dozen citizens gathered at random, no lawyers allowed, and the decision of the Jury is final. No lengthy waits, no incessant appeals…and one of my bright little ideas is that we outsource prisons for anything more complicated than sleeping it off over night in the drunk tank to Mexico. This would be extraordinarily cost-effective (not that the Republic of Texas Constitution calls for coddling criminals and terrorists, and it certainly does not mandate “Miranda” warnings), and most instructive. Mexican jails are exceptionally unpleasant places, that being the point of incarceration. Recidivism rates for the survivors should be very low; in addition being sentenced for crimes of violence will carry automatic revocation of citizenship if some of us persuade the rest. Let those who are inclined moan over lousy childhoods and evil companions elsewhere because real Texans believe we are responsible for our own actions. Golly…that would mean we didn’t need parole boards or parole officers, either, further reducing the payroll…and our stance will be that Social Security checks–but not taxes–will be enforceable contracts between the US and citizens of the Republic of Texas. Our Constitution calls specifically for minting our own gold and silver money–and the first serious country to revert to the gold standard will have a commanding role in world politics. Everything that needs doing can be funded handily by a 15% tax on non-resident corporations and a 10% tax for two years on those who apply for citizenship.

The breakup of any long-term relationship is at best painful and expensive. At worst it is messy and violent. The advantage the North held last time in terms of armaments was nothing compared to the current disparity between citizens and governments the Founding Fathers dreaded would come to be. Last time, until “we” had access to arms captured on the field of battle, fortunate Southerners used the accurate sniper rifles made by Whitworth, in England, while Lincoln had the precursor to the Winchester, went to the trials for the Spencer repeating rifle and got it into the field, as well as the Colt revolving rifle, Sharps made his sniper guns, and he had Dahlgreens and Parrot to cast canons. A descendant of Dahlgreens’ technology of exterior banding to strengthen barrels is in use currently. Texas is at the same apparent disadvantage multiplied many times.

Think long and well, fellow citizens, before deciding that we cannot, in conscience and in self-preservation, do other than echo Patrick Henry. IS life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

Those are the words which preceded “As for me, give me liberty or give me death.” It is highly unlikely that Pharoah will let the people go in peace this time, either. It is certain that should hostilities develop once again those who do not care one way or the other will be caught in the middle. Yes, I agree with Mr. Holland that secession is the most efficient way out of the fiat currency mess and many others, but I cannot see it as an “easy” way out. I must point out as calmly as one can say such a thing that a government which staged the tragedy at Waco under the code name “Operation Showboat” might well not eschew a homegrown version of Tienamen Square if it feels threatened.

Despite the strictures of Janet Napolitano and her ilk I do not regard myself as a Bible-thumping, gun-toting domestic terrorist. I love my country and I love our heritage. A primary reason I write is because those of us who can see most clearly what American can be do so from firm grounding in what America was. If left to my own devices I would raise cattle and goats, be happy, and do private charitable good works. All I have ever asked is laissez faire and common sense.

A diplomatic solution is at hand; all the Feds have to do is abide by the court order while we have our vote unsupervised and we will all see whether ending our version of apartheid could be a rousing success. There are at least face-saving legal grounds for acquiescing while Texas and Hawaii strike out on their own. Perhaps, given a fair vote, the preponderance of citizens will come down on the side of enormous, intrusive government. A lot of us have the nerve to put the issue to a test.

Still, I fear that the growing call for secession is on the order of nuclear deterrence, which thus far has deterred nothing but nuclear wars. Heavy sigh…we’re talking about a different sort of nuclear fission, the desire of the nucleus to throw off the useless atoms which have attached themselves to our core principles. I’m no Neville Chamberlain, but the wrath of those who hold the US Constitution prisoner must be taken seriously. That is a question for individuals, whether or not “we hold these truths to be self-evident.”

Sober regards,
Linda Brady Traynham

February 18, 2010


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: cwii; kkk; klan; republic; secession; texas
I just wonder about Texas' share of the debt run up while they were part of the US of A?
1 posted on 02/18/2010 6:38:39 AM PST by Politically Correct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

marked for later


2 posted on 02/18/2010 6:44:00 AM PST by piroque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

Secession is the sort of shock therapy that might save this country. I support it.


3 posted on 02/18/2010 6:45:59 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (I was born in America, but now I live in Declinistan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct
There is, indeed, a large and growing feeling that fiscal and cultural sanity can be regained only by going our separate ways.

Which is another way of saying the Constitution was a mistake. I agree with that. Not sure about completely separate ways. We benefit greatly from being a federal union. We should return to that model. Ditch the supreme national government. Ditch "mixed sovereignty". Return to a confederation of states.

By the way, the Confederate Constitution was a joke. It wasn't even a confederacy! It was a consolidated national government just as bad as ours!

4 posted on 02/18/2010 6:46:42 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

It’s a losing battle. There’s a reason it’s called the Lost Cause. What we need is a Constitutional Convention. That’s the proper way to begin again.


5 posted on 02/18/2010 6:47:55 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Respectfully disagree. I believe that the first pronouncement from any Constitutional Convention will be: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”


6 posted on 02/18/2010 6:51:39 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (I was born in America, but now I live in Declinistan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck
What we need is a Constitutional Convention.

That is the very LAST thing this nation needs.

7 posted on 02/18/2010 6:53:50 AM PST by Roccus (POLITICIAN.....................a four letter word spelled with ten letters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
A constitutional convention is the forum whereby the people can change their government. The fact that you are unwilling to hold such a convention demonstrates that self-government, in your own opinion, is futile. If you don't trust the people, who can you trust?

That said, in my view, a convention would also be the avenue to secession. Set the ratification requirements accordingly, and if you don't like what you get, don't ratify. Then you're out of the union.

8 posted on 02/18/2010 6:56:24 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Roccus

No, it’s actually the very thing we need.


9 posted on 02/18/2010 6:56:49 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Roccus
That is the very LAST thing this nation needs.

Amen,
The current constitution is just fine.
We just need the federal gov to abide by it.

10 posted on 02/18/2010 6:58:24 AM PST by Politically Correct (A member of the rabble in good standing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I believe that the first pronouncement from any Constitutional Convention will be: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

By the way, isn't that what we have now? Seems like it to me.

11 posted on 02/18/2010 7:00:12 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct
We just need the federal gov to abide by it.

LOL. That's funny every time I hear it.

12 posted on 02/18/2010 7:00:59 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

I have little doubt Texas will leave the union someday,

unfortunately it won’t leave as a free country but instead due to demographics it will leave as part as Aztlan


13 posted on 02/18/2010 7:01:18 AM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

The way things are going these days, secession and/or another civil war may be the only way to fix what’s been going on. Our last chance is in November, and if we do not vote people into Congress who respect the Constitution, then we might just as well find a way to bring the whole thing down.

The Constitution is only a problem because of the constant diddling with it. One good example is the 17th Amendment. When we supposedly gave the people direct election of Senators, we effectively surrendered them to the control of the National political parties. Originally, Senators were selected by the State legislatures, which made them accountable to the people back home via their elected representatives, and they were expected to look out for the State’s interests.

I don’t know about you, but I could not get close to my Senator much less engage her in conversation or even get her to listen to my concerns much less get a meaningful answer. Same goes for my State legislators.

A Constitutional Convention would be an unmitigated disaster in my view, because too many extremists who do not have the best interests of the Country in mind would have direct access to the very document that we base our whole society on. I’d rather fight the libs in the streets first.


14 posted on 02/18/2010 7:03:44 AM PST by Bean Counter (I keeps mah feathers numbered, for just such an emergency...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I think the biggest problem with a Constitutional Convention is there are no longer any God-fearing educated men that are smart enough to do a better job than the original.


15 posted on 02/18/2010 7:10:56 AM PST by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Huck
If you don't trust the people, who can you trust?

I certainly don't want to contradict myself, but I will say this:

I like self government. I do trust the people.
But between public education and the Left-dominated media, I'm not sure the people would get a fair opportunity to understand their own self-interest. Saying so does not invalidate the position that "self government is good".

I believe that a Constitutional Convention would be dominated by professional politicians (Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, etc) and that private citiziens (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Huck, ClearCase_Guy, etc.) would be squeezed out.

The resulting document would be trumpeted by Chris Matthews and Jay Leno as the best thing ever, and would probably be ratified by NY, CA, MI and MA pretty quickly. With that kind of momentum, I bet a lot of other states would quickly follow.

The risks are too great. Our current Constitution isn't perfect but it lays out a framework of limited government, and it is still a fine idea. I look at the world around me and I see that the problem is with the men in power and the voters who put them there. The content of our current Constitution is NOT central to our current problems, IMO.

16 posted on 02/18/2010 7:11:09 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (I was born in America, but now I live in Declinistan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I like self government. I do trust the people. But between public education and the Left-dominated media, I'm not sure the people would get a fair opportunity to understand their own self-interest. Saying so does not invalidate the position that "self government is good".

I'm not trying to hassle you, and I do appreciate your thoughtful reply, but I have to say, I think it DOES invalidate your position. We have to deal in reality. You can't say you believe in self-government, so long as it's not with the actual people. Theoretical people, yes. Real people, no. It doesn't work.

I believe that a Constitutional Convention would be dominated by professional politicians (Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Olympia Snowe, John McCain, etc) and that private citiziens (Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Huck, ClearCase_Guy, etc.) would be squeezed out.

I wouldn't expect to be a delegate. The original convention was comprised of professional politicians, as well. Hell, in the original process, the people didn't even get to vote on the Constitution--that was done by state convention. We the people? Don't make me laugh.

The resulting document would be trumpeted by Chris Matthews and Jay Leno as the best thing ever, and would probably be ratified by NY, CA, MI and MA pretty quickly. With that kind of momentum, I bet a lot of other states would quickly follow.

In other words, the people are stupid and can be easily mislead. I might agree with you there, but it doesn't do much to bolster the self-government argument.

The risks are too great. Our current Constitution isn't perfect but it lays out a framework of limited government, and it is still a fine idea.

This is where I strongly disagree. The Constitution lays out a framework for national consolidated government. It does not accomplish its stated objectives of "few and defined" powers. Article 3 blows the whole thing out of the water.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that the product of a modern Convention would be superior to what we have (it would most likely make explicit the implicit powers that already exist.) I'm arguing that it's the proper route to the exit. Simply don't ratify it, and withdraw from the union.

17 posted on 02/18/2010 7:22:22 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher
I think the biggest problem with a Constitutional Convention is there are no longer any God-fearing educated men that are smart enough to do a better job than the original.

I think you are probably correct. The problem is that no one on "our" side is even seriously considering the question. All you get is moony love-odes to the founders, and to the Federalists, even though they were gravely mistaken about many things. Mixed sovereignty, the supreme judiciary, implied powers, etc.

All the way down to the grass roots, it is impossible for people to imagine a better system. They just rattle on absurdly about how great it would be "if only" people would follow the Constitution. As if everything that has occurred hasn't occurred under the Constitution.

18 posted on 02/18/2010 7:25:09 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I'm arguing that it's the proper route to the exit. Simply don't ratify it, and withdraw from the union.

AHHHHH! I see! I would strongly endorse such an approach.

19 posted on 02/18/2010 7:26:01 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (I was born in America, but now I live in Declinistan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
AHHHHH! I see! I would strongly endorse such an approach.

The key would be setting the terms of ratification. And if a state didn't like the agreed terms of ratification, they could walk out of the convention and be done with it. They would need foreign support in case of trouble. They'd have to go to Russia or China or someplace and form an alliance as protection against aggression from the new US system.

The founders who forged our revolution against Britain, and then forged the revolution of consolidation (The Constitution) were THE players in America. The rich, the powerful, the famous. Middle class people like us won't make such a change occur. We don't know the right people. We're too busy making a living. It's really just a fantasy. But personally, I'd love to get out from under the Constitution and have an opportunity to make something better.

20 posted on 02/18/2010 7:31:25 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

Those West Texans will secede from them East Texans as fast as you can say “hotter than two rats in a wool sock”.


21 posted on 02/18/2010 7:31:55 AM PST by campaignPete R-CT ("pray without ceasing" - Paul of Tarsus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Why is it funny it is olny the truth.


22 posted on 02/18/2010 7:34:48 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

ping 4 later


23 posted on 02/18/2010 7:44:26 AM PST by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
It's funny because it's absurd. The national government under the Constitution is virtually unchecked. The way the system is set up, they assume whatever power they want, THEN it is tested for constitutionality. And who is the final decider on constitutionality? The federal judiciary! The inmates run the asylum.

And it's not as if it is a new phenomenon. Have you ever read George Washington's state of the union addresses? Every year he promoted the idea that Congress should build a national university. Where is that in the Constitution?

Go back and re-read the history of the First National Bank of the US. Madison and Jefferson opposed it, Hamilton and Washington supported it. This was the first use of the "implied powers" doctrine, which opens up the whole can of worms. The old Articles of Confederation, by contrast, consisted of "expressed powers" only. The change was not by accident.

So you had two founders saying a national bank was constitutional, two saying it wasn't. What does that prove? It proves that the limits on the national government provided by the Constitution were unclear, even to its authors and signers. It became a political question.

Then you have the all-powerful federal judiciary. CJ Marshall was a signer of the Constitution, and pretty much set the tone early for how the Court would serve the interests of national power. We now have over 200 years of SCOTUS precedent, which, under the Constitution, carries the full force of law. A long-standing and accepted SCOTUS decision is just as powerful as an amendment to the Constitution---more so, even, because an amendment doesn't get to decide for itself what it means, but the court gets to decide the meaning of all constitutional text---without appeal!

Interestingly, Madison later supported the creation of the Second Bank of the US. You could say he was against a national bank before he was for it. But hey, war debts will make a politician soften his constitutional zeal.

So Madison, the so-called father of the constitution, couldn't even agree with himself on a constitutional question. What does that tell you? It tells you the meaning is up for grabs.

So when one says the feds should "follow the Constitution", what exactly do they mean? Whose interpretation? Which SCOTUS decisions are you going to toss out, and by what authority? What remedy is provided IN the constitution for bad judicial decisions? It seems to me the only means of correction is by amendment. But what does that mean? It means that under the Constitution, whatever the court decides is by definition constitutional until amended or reversed.

In short, it has from day one been a political question. The Constitution is hopelessly vague and open-ended, and is ultimately unchecked, except by amendment. It's no wonder they made amendments so hard to get.

In the Declaration they said " it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish" their government. But in the Constitution, they said it is the right of the people to alter their government if they can get 2/3rds of both houses to agree, plus 3/4ths of the state legislatures. Power was centralizing as soon as the British surrendered.

So yeah, to me the "if only they'd follow it" canard is funny, because it's meaningless and absurd. Look at the history.

24 posted on 02/18/2010 7:52:36 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Huck

No it is not funny it is depressign and is the reason many feel that we should just start over and sh$tcan what we have. The constitution convetion route only leads you in a circle back to where you start because it still does not allow you to leave.


25 posted on 02/18/2010 8:02:34 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Huck
As if everything that has occurred hasn't occurred under the Constitution.

We the people have allowed this to happen. The founders expected the people to be educated and throw out any politician that attempted to usurp the Constitution. Therefor there were no formal penalties for doing so. The states should have pushed back vigorously every time the feds tried to overstep their authority. Instead they slowly gave away more and more power. Now the federal genie is totally out of the bottle and it will be difficult to put it back in. All states need to re-exert their 10th amendment power and refuse to obey or enforce any federal law that is un-Constitutional. Let's amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, and add penalties for any un-Constitutional act. We should also make impeachment of Supreme Court Justices a more frequent occurrence.

26 posted on 02/18/2010 8:03:45 AM PST by BubbaBasher ("Liberty will not long survive the total extinction of morals" - Sam Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BubbaBasher
The founders expected the people to be educated and throw out any politician that attempted to usurp the Constitution.

But that begs the question of when the Constitution is being violated and when it is not. If the founders themselves couldn't agree, how can the people at large be expected to do so? In short, the scope of power has been an open question from the start.

The states should have pushed back vigorously every time the feds tried to overstep their authority. Instead they slowly gave away more and more power.

The states gave their power away when they ratified the Constitution. Supreme law of the land. The states tried pushing back here and there. But what gives one state's opinion more weight than another? If one state says something is constitutional, and another disagrees, which state wins the argument, and on what basis?

All states need to re-exert their 10th amendment power and refuse to obey or enforce any federal law that is un-Constitutional.

Again, it begs the question. If one state decides a law is unconstitutional, but others believe it is constitutional, which state should prevail? Under the Constitution, the decider of such controversies is the Supreme Court! The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, state laws and constitutions notwithstanding. Nullification is not constitutional.

Let's amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, and add penalties for any un-Constitutional act. We should also make impeachment of Supreme Court Justices a more frequent occurrence.

Impeachment of SCOTUS judges for error of opinion is a bad idea. Basically, then, that would put every Supreme Court justice up for a re-vote with each Congress. It would further politicize the role of the judiciary. Is that a good thing?

I think we should eliminate direct taxation by the national government. We should return to a real federal system where national taxes are collected from the states, not from the people. That is a REAL check on federal power. That is REAL state sovereignty.

The Constitution created a consolidated national government with supreme power. That is the problem. It's not a federal system at all.

27 posted on 02/18/2010 8:31:47 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
The constitution convetion route only leads you in a circle back to where you start because it still does not allow you to leave.

I disagree. I think it's the best way to leave. Secession is already a proven failure. With a convention, you set the terms of ratification. If you don't like the terms, you walk out. With the whole system up in the air, it's the best time to leave.

As I said, any states who leave will need foreign alliances as protection, but I would think those could be had.

I'm in favor of scrapping the Constitution. I see it as a failure.

28 posted on 02/18/2010 8:35:54 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

But I don’t think it’s depressing. It’s just the facts of life. What is somewhat depressing is the unwillingness of people to imagine something better. The unwillingness to admit the inherent flaws. But that’s all just life, as well. I don’t let it depress me.


29 posted on 02/18/2010 8:37:04 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Huck

” I disagree. I think it’s the best way to leave. Secession is already a proven failure. With a convention, you set the terms of ratification. If you don’t like the terms, you walk out. With the whole system up in the air, it’s the best time to leave. “

But you have not ended the original constitution so according to you you are still bound by it. No change.


30 posted on 02/18/2010 8:49:51 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

>>I just wonder about Texas’ share of the debt run up while they were part of the US of A?<<

Their share is absolutely ZERO! Did the people of Texas - or any other state - have any say in the spending binge? I don’t recall any vote to incur massive, crippling debt being held. As such, the debt is Washington’s and the remaining slaves who want to be taxed into extinction.

Besides, who holds all the gold reserves?


31 posted on 02/18/2010 8:50:34 AM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
But you have not ended the original constitution so according to you you are still bound by it. No change.

When I say we should hold a convention, I mean a convention to adopt a new constitution.

32 posted on 02/18/2010 8:51:46 AM PST by Huck (Q: How can you tell a party is in the majority? A: They're complaining about the fillibuster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

You’re right. The name on the dotted line of the debt agreement belongs to the federal/feral government of the United States of America, not to the several states.


33 posted on 02/18/2010 8:52:59 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Huck

No way to ensure that a new one is adopted and if not you are still stuck with the old one.


34 posted on 02/18/2010 9:26:58 AM PST by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Roccus; Huck

If the government refuses to follow the law, changing the law will not help. IMO


35 posted on 02/18/2010 9:49:06 AM PST by Chuckster (Domari nolo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

“If the government refuses to follow the law, changing the law will not help. IMO”

Truer words can’t be spoke. Although the government may simply “miss understand” the law. and thus changing the law to clarify can help.

The problem is it is a lot easier for 9 Federal employees in black robes to ignore the law, then it is for 38 States to agree on how to “clarify” the law to them.

And the truth is those 9 judges need only make a change that is agreeable/beneficial to more then 12 of them states and the renaming states the majority are held hostage as effective slaves with out the inalienable right of Secession.

This is to say nothing of the inherit risks of a constitutional convention, (the only alternative for proposal of an amendment if the federal congress won’t give up power.)
At this point however, I don’t see how we have anything left to lose. We anti got a Federal Constitution to protect our rights in effect anymore anyway. There is pretty much nothing that they can do in a new Constitutional convention that would make our situation worse then it already effectively is in Constitutional lawlessness.

Beyond that our only option and perhaps if the majority be against us and our liberty the only option all together is secession. Now of course we’ve been down this road before where Mister Lincoln demonstrated that might makes right.

If that be the case and might does make right, then it would be clearly necessarily that we secure, prior to our secession, sufficient might to at least deter the might of our slave master from usurping our right of self-determination.

In the case of Texas there is a large supply of Nuclear Weapons not too far from Amarillo. If you want to leave, I suggest you get yer hands on them, as your best hope at Peacefully securing that independents, thou implementation of a MAD policy.


36 posted on 02/18/2010 11:21:03 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Politically Correct

At this point, any “conservative” who isn’t willing to talk openly and LOUDLY about secession and reorganization will be shown to be a TRAITOR and/or a COWARD.

Under a secession and reorganization plan, a number of states would secede and then re-assemble under the U.S. Constitution (AS WRITTEN) as the Reorganized United States of America. All U.S. states would be invited to join - and most would.

The R-USA would have no obligation to pay the unconstitutionally acquired debts of old USA.

That would leave the Kenyan Usurper to preside over Vermont, TAXachusetts, bankrupt California and maybe a couple other states including Hawaii.


37 posted on 02/22/2010 6:20:31 PM PST by USALiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson