Posted on 04/16/2009 6:50:11 AM PDT by rrdog
What is the root of the secessionist movement? The driving force at the grass roots level is of course money. Many Americans are rightly disturbed by the transfer of their wealth, and the wealth of their children, to companies that made risky investments, or were poorly managed. This is new territory for the government. The transfer started under George W. Bush with his bank bailout and auto makers bailouts, and the Obama administration has really poured on the spending with additional bailouts and stimulus packages. Citizens of more fiscally conservative states are finding that there money is being redirected from their pockets, and sent to other states.
In years past politicians from both parties have used the guilt factor to increase spending for the "needy". This tempers the backlash from the populace as they realize they are to sacrifice a new boat, or nicer home, for the greater good of society. Today, citizens are being asked to sacrifice their children's education, vacations, and even the home they are in, so that money can be transferred from their wallets to multi-billion dollar corporations.
When we add more government controls and regulations on everything from cigarettes, to fast food and guns, we begin to see the problem. Government is now coming at everyone at some level, over some issue. This piling on is causing those fringe secessionist movements to became mainstream very quickly.
(Excerpt) Read more at u4prez.com ...
I think we should simply relocate the Capitol of the United States to somewhere like Kansas or Missouri. Turn DC into a huge museum, but move the actual government to the middle of the country. Get it as far as possible from the coastal elites -- that'd help quite a bit, I think.
I agree.
In the process, force a change with all politicians. In other words.....all of them must be changed. Along with that, change our laws back to what they were 50 years ago. A complete change to what the people want....not what the politicians want.
You misunderstand. I have never said secession is not allowed, so long as it is done with the consent of the states in the same manner that states are allowed in to begin with. There is no Constitutional support for the concept of unilateral secession.
If there is an implication, the implication has to be sourced in the actual wording of the section.
The Constitution clearly states that the power to admit states and to change their status once they've been allowed to join lies with Congress, in Article I and Article IV. Implied is the need to approve the change in status involved with leaving the Union as well.
Secession? That was settled in 1865. What’s the matter? Not enough hair on your arse to stand up and DEFEND the constitution?
Our constitution defines this country and how the states and federal government are supposed to function TOGETHER. Those constructs have been bastardized over the last 70 years and this is the problem that must be addressed.
Secede and those in the seceding states will still argue over who knows best what to do and all of the little factions that divide conservatives now will still be there causing division; you will centralize the infighting and be on your own trying to accomplish anything.
Get past or set aside your single-minded focus on single issues and focus on removing those who are obstacles to conservative solidarity. We have to come together as a nation of conservatives and not a bunch of single issue nadless groups.
Secede and the democrat party will laugh at you; they have succeeded in driving you out and they have one less group to contend with in their drive to fragment the nation, dissolve the constitution and create their dictatorship of the proletariat. This is exactly the kind of crises they would welcome as an excuse to smash any opposition.
Secede and you prove to all that you don’t give a crap about supporting and defending the constitution; you’ve simply given up to the democrats.
Who gets to say that they are no longer abiding by it? You may think that they don't. I may think that they don't. They say that they do. What makes us right and them wrong?
You have failed to meet the challenge. There is no language in Art IV Sec 3 that such an implication is hung on. All clauses in Sec 3 are concerned with the formation or admission of States.
If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to disallow secession of individual States, then Congress does not have the power.
Please don’t let the debate devolve into a long discussion of the War Between the States, but in 1861, States seceded individually, and after the War, Congress passed legislation to readmit them. If the Constitution forbade secession, why was it necessary for Congress to readmit the States?
BTW, thank you for helping to keep this as a civil debate. I appreciate it.
I beg to differ. Article IV makes it clear that only Congress can admit a state. Their approval is all that is necessary, and with out it then the people of a territory can petition all they want and they aren't admitted to anything. Once in, Article I and IV make it clear that any change of status like conbining states, splitting states, changing any state border in any regards at all requires consent of Congress. Clearly that power is reserved to Congress by the Constitution, there can be no question of that. The implication is that if Congressional approval is required to join, then it should be required to leave. That if permission is required for each and every other change in status, then it should be required for the ultimate change, removal from the body politic altogether.
And let me point out that this is not my opinion alone. James Madison was quite clear that in his opinion secession required the consent of the states.
If the Constitution does not give Congress the power to disallow secession of individual States, then Congress does not have the power.
But in my opinion the Constitution does give Congress that power.
States seceded individually, and after the War, Congress passed legislation to readmit them. If the Constitution forbade secession, why was it necessary for Congress to readmit the States?
Because if you read the Reconstruction Acts, Congress did not readmit the states. There was no need to. What Congress did was to readmit their delegations to Congress, once they had completed the requirements placed on them. The states themselves were never out of the Union for one minute.
BTW, thank you for helping to keep this as a civil debate. I appreciate it.
No reason why we can't. It was a Civil War after all.
At some point it becomes patently obvious that the government no longer gives a damn about the Constitution. We actually crossed that line a long time ago in this country, but there's admittedly enough of the document remaining that it's worth staying in the Republic and fighting for. But that won't necessarily remain the case in the future. That's true both here and in the EU.
In both places, the government is importing new constituents for itself. In both places opposition to this practice has been either criminalized (Europe) or suppressed via soft totalitarianism (America, where you can lose your job for not “celebrating diversity”). We're a hate speech law or two away from having it criminalized here, and possibly one Supreme Court justice away from having that law upheld.
Just how far to the left does the government have to go before you'd agree that it's now broken free from the chains Jefferson hoped to tie it down with? It seems to me that the only thing that would light a fire under you would be if the government moved to the far right (which ain't gonna happen). But as long as it's moving steadily leftward, getting bigger and usurping more authority, ignoring the law on certain issues (illegal migration) while over enforcing the law on others (equating conservative single issue voters with “terrorists”), you'll just meekly go along and say that the government is constitutional because it says it is.
Some of us simply foresee a day when there are only a few conservative pockets left in our nation, thanks to mass immigration and the use of the schools & media for political indoctrination. We might seek our peaceful leave from the nation at that point. Do you seriously believe that a liberal Democrat government locked into perpetual power by an imported, dependent, and imprinted 60% of the electorate is going to abide by the Constitution? "Gee, Nancy, we can't pass this law, it might violate the Constitution." As someone told you earlier, wake up and smell the coffee.
NS, thanks for the discussion.
Secession can also be defined as a breaking away, or seperation form an alliance. You can withdraw formally without approval of the alliance or organization. The implication of legality is simply that, an implication—not part of the definition. But, we split hairs.
My point about the reabsorption of the South into the North was that the speed of it was due to pragmatic concerns. The North was just as sick of war as the South by this time. After the 1864 election, it was obvious that the appetite for war was diminished even in the North. In the mercy shown to the South, Grant and Lincoln proved to be great statesmen and practical men.
The suffering of others, whether in China, or in history, is interesting, but not germane to the discussion. The suffering of the South was no less real, especially to them.
You cannot deny that the South suffered. Many in the North felt it was justifiable. Whether or not is was, it was horrible suffering that crippled them for decades afterwards economically. There was no equivalent damage done by the South to Northern civilian populations even when Lee invaded the North.
Your view of the shallowness of the South’s rebellion is quite evident, but to them at the time, it was the key issue of the survival of their way of life. There are endless arguments about the rightness or wrongness of their point of view, but there was something there that men died for.
That you diminish that is unfortunate. 11 States felt moved enough to rebel—no small feat at a time when the telegraph was not even in wide use, and the only communication was a newspaper with week old news for most of the country.
We are fortunate to have the prism of history and time to focus our views. They did not. They lived it.
Our leaving the Crown was successful only because we prevailed. The Civil War ended in defeat for the South because they did not.
At the beginning of those two conflicts, the end was not predetermined. If anything, the colonists had no chance to win, and the South had an even chance to win, or better.
Events proved otherwise. Events that were lived one day at a time, one life at a time.
Whether secession is legal or not has no bearing. People will do what they feel compelled to do to protect their own self interests. Except for four years, we have for 232 years managed to find common ground in spite of regional and local differences to advance our greater self interests as a free nation.
When that self interest is no longer served, all the courts in the world will not stop what comes next.
Without representation a State is not a member of the United States. Before they were allowed back in, they were forced to vote to ratify the 13th and 14th Amendments.
they asked the criminals of the DAMNyankee, arrogant, SELF-righteous, SELF-impressed "lincoln coven of crooks,bigots,drunken louts, shyster lawyers & south-HATERS" for NOTHING except to "go in peace".
the BLOOD of a MILLION Americans is indelibly upon the hands of lincoln & the DAMNEDyankee south-HATERS of 1861-65 & NOW & upon the hands of no other persons.
NO state NEEDS the approval of ANYONE to secede, except of course a vote of it's OWN citizens.
secession remains ONE of the RIGHTS of free states/people to FREELY leave the current union of states "at it's own motion" (for ANY reason or NO reason whatever!), as the power of secession was NEVER ceded to the central government.(for any readers, who don't understand what i'm talking about, go read the TENTH AMENDMENT to the BOR!)
as for me & my house, we will continue to serve THE TRUE CAUSE of dixie FREEDOM as long as i'm able to breathe.
free dixie,sw
free dixie NOW,sw
free dixie,sw
Just once couldn’t you agree with me....
Once that’s all I ask.
Did the all southerners vote on secession? No.
Did they address their grievances before congress and the president? No.
Did they give the US government any possibility of reconciliation with them? No.
Did they attempt to solve their issues via legal means? No.
If Texas truly wants to secede, and I hope they do, I would hope that they do everything in their power to make it as bloodless a secession as is humanly possible, that means not following the mistakes of the confederacy and actually attempting to work their way out of the union legally and properly.
It’s too late. When swattie entered the room, this thread was doomed to irrelevance. It (and he) is FreeRepublic’s version of “Godwin’s Law”...
THE BARNEY FRANK GUARDS fighting for TAXatuecetts in PRETTY PINK uniforms & will absolutely SWISH toward the front lines,
the LOMA LINDA (CA) RIFLES will have 3,000 colonels but NO privates/weapons
&
THE TEDDY KENNEDY MOUNTED HUSSARS will drive off of & drown at the first bridge that they try to cross.
it will be, given the makeup of the LEFTISTS of DAMNyankeeland & the LEFT coast, a REALLY short war.
free dixie,sw
I actually invited him to this thread in the hopes that we could for once have a reasoned discussion.
Oh Well!
try reading the C ONSTITUTION, focusing on the BILL OF RIGHTS. give especial attention to the TENTH AMENDMENT, thereto.
then come back here & apologize to everyone for being a BLIND FOOL.
btw, WHERE are YOU going to go when AZ joins Los Estados Unidos de Azatlan (in about 10-15 years) & decides that "NO ANGLOS or PROTESTANTS ALLOWED" will be the NEW national policy???
free dixie,sw
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.