Posted on 02/18/2010 6:38:39 AM PST by 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”.
Why is it funny it is olny the truth.
ping 4 later
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
” 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.
>>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?
When I say we should hold a convention, I mean a convention to adopt a new constitution.
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.
No way to ensure that a new one is adopted and if not you are still stuck with the old one.
If the government refuses to follow the law, changing the law will not help. IMO
“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.
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.
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.