Posted on 04/01/2007 2:11:31 AM PDT by Timeout
Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans' fundamental freedoms.
Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.
Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"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."
Maybe they should study up on Texas and see how that worked out for them(and the other ten for that matter).
And so is the federal government.
And so are the people.
Just because one thing is sovereign, doesn't translate into only that one thing being sovereign (except for God, who is de facto the the only being who is completely and fully sovereign).
Exactly. The South was an agrarian economy (for the most part) whose only major export was cotton. They seceded from the Union at the time when the Industrial Revolution was just taking hold. Not a lot of foresight went into their decision.
The same would hold true for Vermont. What commodities do they control that the world would demand, yet aren't obtainable elsewhere? How would they set up an economy and government that could sustain itself in the world?
No, this is just a bunch of moonbats who have, again, shown their inability to think beyond their next pizza delivery.
Beat me to it. We (Virginia) tried this once.
A: Cuban peso's
Ahhhhh, But!! What about Vermont Maid Maple Syrup??
Dry waffles are a bummer!
Do you want to be dependent upon FOREIGN maple syrup??
For an idiosyncratic, but interesting, view of how the US got its constitution, read:
http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf
Even if you don't buy into the theological prism through which the story is told, the footnotes, quotes, and narrative provide some fascinating details of a history that is not very well known, given that "the victors write the histories" that dominate what we have been taught in our formal educations.
As for Vermont, I wish them well, and leave them with the bumper sticker advice I saw on a car with a SC license plate several years ago: "If at first you don't secede, try, try again!"
Author's commentary:
I have just posted my latest book,
Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Origins of the U.S. Constitution.
The book is complete, except for the index. I am hoping that all of you will download it, print it out, read it, and spot typographical and other errors. Send these errors to me, so that I can make the corrections, print out a final version, and index it. I don’t want to do a second index.
The book’s thesis is, even for me, controversial. I provide 400+ pages of evidence that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact an illegal coup d’état. The participants knew this. This is why they took a lifetime oath of secrecy, walked upstairs to the second floor of the State House (so that eavesdroppers could not report what was going on), closed the doors, and hammered out the design for a replacement government. Newspaper reporters were excluded.
These men had been authorized by Congress and by several state legislatures only to revise the Articles of Confederation (1781), but not replace them. Knowing full well that they planned to replace the Articles with a new form of government, the leaders of the Convention nevertheless agreed to the terms laid down by the state legislatures, and then went off to Philadelphia to begin the first stage of a political revolution.
The story of this second American revolution is not told in the public school textbooks or in the "Christian America" seminars that are dear to the hearts of Christian home schoolers.
But what about Verna Hall’s book, A Christian History of the Constitution? Its documentation ends in 1774. It is also worth noting that the book was edited by her colleague, Joseph Montgomery, who was a Christian Scientist. Why did he edit it? Because Miss Hall was a Christian Scientist at the time she began compiling her book. I discuss this little-known background in my book.
In 1787, the states, with one exception (Rhode Island), were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new Constitution made all such oaths illegal for Federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments, completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso v. Watkins (1961).
I told this story 15 years ago. In response, the silence has been deafening. The "Christian America" promoters have steadfastly avoided any reference to my 1989 book. So, I decided to create a stand-alone volume, add more documentation, put a title on it that might break through this wall of silence, and give it away.
Q: what will they use for money?
A: Cuban peso's
= = = = = = = = = = =
Perhaps after repudiating their share of the Federal debt, along with the promised benefits, they can issue a gold-backed currency?
Fair enough. My point was that it's a constant question of balance, not a fight that will be won by one side or the other or a question that can be finally answered. I think we're on pretty much the same page there.
On most of these issues, I believe that never-ending debate and balancing and compromise are the way of the world. We're 230 years and counting into our American experiment, and it is still an experiment. We are tweaking the balance every hour of every day, in the Congress, in the courts, and on Free Republic.
The people who talk about a perfect end, a "final solution," a static and permanent state are the ones who scare me. They're Utopians. Utopians scare me, and the fact that they're Utopians worries me far more than whether they're left-Utopians or right-Utopians. Civilization is a journey, not a race, and there ain't no finish line.
This section of the editorial sounds like plagiary from a Ron Paul campaign speech:
Today, however, Vermont no longer controls even its own National Guard, a domestic emergency force that is now employed in an imperial war 6,000 miles away. The 9/11 commission report says that "the American homeland is the planet." To defend this "homeland," the United States spends six times as much on its military as China, the next highest-spending nation, funding more than 730 military bases in more than 130 countries, abetted by more than 100 military space satellites and more than 100,000 seaborne battle-ready forces. This is the greatest military colossus ever forged.
Few heed George Washington's Farewell Address, which warned against the danger of a permanent large standing army that "can be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." Or that of a later general-become-president: "We must never let the weight of [the military-industrial complex] endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Dwight D. Eisenhower pointedly included the word "congressional" after "military-industrial" but allowed his advisers to excise it. That word completes a true description of the hidden threat to democracy in the United States.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Maybe Rep. Paul has a good chance of getting the electoral votes for Vermont? Does Vermont have a primary? Perhaps Ron Paul will become the Gene McCarthy of the 2008 campaign? I suppose the analogy breaks down, given that Bush cannot run again anyway.
Just a gallon....:-)
Gee, that has a familiar ring. I'm pretty sure I've read it before.
If the people want to alter or abolish the current form of government, the mechanisms of constitutional convention and constitutional amendment are well-established.
If you think that it's time to replace Constitution 1.27 with Constitution 2.0, you first have to write it and then convince folks they should buy in.
Get to work.
Which arguably is not a constitutionally sanctioned answer.
Vermonts moonbat socialists are anything but the same kind of people. That is why their voting in town meetings, and all their posturing press is so laughable. In my town meeting I pointed this out to those who keep wanting to place a town meeting resolution of succession up for a vote, that its all about propaganda.
I pointed out that propaganda at a town meeting is a waste of time.I asked my town meeting of citizens, how many there were willing to take up arms for Vermont independence, and was met with an astounding silence, then laughter. That was the end of it.
This is how one can tell these are socialist morons...they insert "democratic" for "republican."
We were never intended to be a democracy.
Think purge. As in Vermont should be purged from the Union.
Lehey is an American enemy.
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.