Secession, anyone?

[Elaine_s_Cross]

When our country’s Contstitution was drawn up, the central government was supposed to be somewhat weak, with the bulk of the real power vested in the states and the people. The nation was more or less a loose union of sovereign states. I am afraid that that concept died at Appomatox.

The incursions on and shredding of our constitution have accelerated, first under Clinton and now under Bush. What can be done to rein in the federal government?

I have heard talk of at least 3 secession movements. One would have the left coast either secede and be an independent nation or secede and affiliate with Canada. Another would have the left coast and the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland northward secede and sign on Canada. A conservative-libertarian movement would have followers move to New Hampshire and once enough supporters control the legislature, the state would secede. The last is a Christian-Right type group that looks to South Carolina. This is largely made up of Southern Baptist-Assembly of God types.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

It’ll never happen.

 

[midwest_mom]

You better look back to your history lessons.

When the Constitution was written, it needed a more powerful national government. After Shay’s rebellion, the national government called for money and arms and the states ignored the request. The national government had no way to enforce anything. Thats why explicite powers were given to the national government such as, the power to raise money through taxes, to raise a militia, to protect the national government.

I am a supporter of states rights. But I don’t see what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the war in Iraq again?

 

[geezerbob]

Since 1865, states’ rights have been steadily eroded, sometimes by congress, but more often by bureaucrats and activist judges. The days of states’ rights are gone forever.

I find it sad that some people hate an elected president so much that they talk seriously of seceding rather than working within the system to try to reach their goals. I don’t like the way the federal government has taken over everything but I’m not ready to throw in the towel and leave the country over it.

 

[fix]

Elaine's Cross:

When our country’s Contstitution was drawn up, the central government was supposed to be somewhat weak, with the bulk of the real power vested in the states and the people. The nation was more or less a loose union of sovereign states. I am afraid that that concept died at Appomatox.

The incursions on and shredding of our constitution have accelerated, first under Clinton and now under Bush. What can be done to rein in the federal government?

I have heard talk of at least 3 secession movements. One would have the left coast either secede and be an independent nation or secede and affiliate with Canada. Another would have the left coast and the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland northward secede and sign on Canada. A conservative-libertarian movement would have followers move to New Hampshire and once enough supporters control the legislature, the state would secede. The last is a Christian-Right type group that looks to South Carolina. This is largely made up of Southern Baptist-Assembly of God types.

Lemme know how it works out for them.

 

[jrabs]

Elaine's Cross:

I have heard talk of at least 3 secession movements. One would have the left coast either secede and be an independent nation or secede and affiliate with Canada. Another would have the left coast and the Eastern Seaboard from Maryland northward secede and sign on Canada. A conservative-libertarian movement would have followers move to New Hampshire and once enough supporters control the legislature, the state would secede. The last is a Christian-Right type group that looks to South Carolina. This is largely made up of Southern Baptist-Assembly of God types.

The idea of seceding to Canada seems pointless to me. Does anyone really feel that Canada is better off currently then the US?

Then the idea of an individual state seceding seems equally hard to swallow.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

midwest mom:

You better look back to your history lessons.

When the Constitution was written, it needed a more powerful national government. After Shay’s rebellion, the national government called for money and arms and the states ignored the request. The national government had no way to enforce anything. Thats why explicite powers were given to the national government such as, the power to raise money through taxes, to raise a militia, to protect the national government.

I am a supporter of states rights. But I don’t see what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the war in Iraq again?

You are correct about the more powerful government, but nothing like we have today.

I am specifically talking about states’ rights and not anything to do with Iraq.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

I am also musing, asking for discussion about what to do, if anything, about the restoration of states’ rights and curbing the growing power of the federal government.

 

[jrabs]

Elaine's Cross:

I am also musing, asking for discussion about what to do, if anything, about the restoration of states’ rights and curbing the growing power of the federal government.

Now, that I favor.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

geezerbob:

I find it sad that some people hate an elected president so much that they talk seriously of seceding rather than working within the system to try to reach their goals.

Myself, I don’t hate Mr. Bush and I don’t think that is the reason for the movement. If you notice, the different movements are comprised of different types of people: liberals, conservative libertarians, and religious-right conservatives.

I do think Mr. Bush is a willing co-conspirator in the enormous growth of the federal govt’s power.

 

[Elaine_s_Cross]

geezerbob:

I find it sad that some people hate an elected president so much

I don’t think hating the president has much to do with it, at least not in my case. If you notice, the different movements are made up of people from different points of the political spectrum; liberals, conservative libertarians, religious right conservatives.

As to Mr Bush, I think it is unfortunate that he appears to be a willing co-conspirator with those who want to grow the federal govt in size and power.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If you don’t like our nation, then you need to do a better job convincing the voters that your position ought to the policy of our government.

Either that or you can move to Canada. They have the room for you and are rather open to any wacky belief systems, as my Canadian counterparts in NORAD have pointed out to me time and again, much to their own personal dissappointment. I belief one even jokingly asked if he could have asylum here in Colorado.

 

[INRI]

Any state seceding from the United States would damage itself economically far beyond any benefit it would gain. Could you imagine California having to provide its own national defense?

Such talk is a whole lot of nonsense by a bunch of sore losers.

As for the expansion of federal government, I’m more afraid of the judicial branch than any other. That’s where the true erosion of federalism has come in. They are the most powerful branch of government; originally they were conceived of as the weakest. At least with the legislative branch, we can have some say in how our laws are made. Now our laws are basically made by an unelected oligarchy of nine…

 

[caroljm36]

jrabs:

The idea of seceding to Canada seems pointless to me. Does anyone really feel that Canada is better off currently then the US?

Many people assume, because they don’t really pay attention to Canada, that everything is better in every way up there. Seriously.

 

[jrabs]

caroljm36:

Many people assume, because they don’t really pay attention to Canada, that everything is better in every way up there. Seriously.

Excellent point. Something like the grass up North is always greener…

 

[Timidity]

Re: Restoring States’ Rights

The reason that the States’ have lost so many of their rights is because they no longer have any (name removed by moderator)ut into the federal legislative process.

When the Contitution was drafted, the states had a voice in the legislature. It was called the Senate. Senators were not elected by the people, but they were selected by the legislatures ofthe various states. This makes a lot of sense when one keeps in mind that the USA is a federal democratic republic, not a democracy. You had one house to represent the people (the House of Representatives) and another to represent the States.

Since the Senate has changed to direct election, the States have lost their voice in the legislative process.

The way to fix that?

The simple fix would be to repeal the 17th Admendment. Whereas that would be political suicide for anyone who tried, we can take that option off the table.

The next best way would be what I call the States’ Veto. It would involve a constitutional amendment that would grant states veto power over any new law. Basically it would work like this: Congress passes a bill and the President signs it (or not) and it becomes law. From the date of the bill becoming a law, the states would have X number of days to veto it. If a simple majority of the states vetos the law, it’s dead. There would be no overturn provision.

Ideally the admendment would grant to the states the power to determine the manner in which that state would veto such a law.

Just my :twocents:

 

[geezerbob]

Timidity, besides being extremely cumbersome, your solution does not address the problem of activist judges and bureaucrats. For instance, once upon a time in our fair state, the legislature was modeled after the congress - the house had members elected from each county proportional to the population in of that county while there was one senator from each county, regardless of population. The purpose, of course, was to keep the heavily populated urban counties from running over the rural counties. Some time back, the 60’s, I think, the courts declared that anything other than “one man, one vote” was unconstitutional - never mind that our process was patterned after the constitution.

Then, you get into the bureaucracies extending their reach into everything they can, and that reach then being upheld by some judge, and you’ve got no states’ rights at all.

The constitution clearly states that all rights not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, but apparently a lot of people cannot or will not read it. I think the battle of states’ rights was lost with the civil war.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Today in 2005, we live in a Judicial Dictatorship. The unelected judges have all the power. These judicial activists dictate terms to all our elected leaders.

Case in point: Homosexual Marriages were defeated in Massachusetts by the State House; yet six members of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned the decision of our lawfully elected representatives, and imposed homosexual marriage on Massachusetts registered voters. Now we have to wait for the 2006 referendum to do it all over again and defeat homosexual marriages. Despite the fact that Massachusetts does not want homosexual marriages, six non-elected judicial activists have forced it on us.

Coupled with court ordered forced busing, affirmative action, minority quotas, and forced housing (racism against white people), I’m all for secession!

 

[gnjsdad]

I welcome the secession talk, although I agree with the posters who think it’s unlikely. The possibility of secession was implicit in the debates leading up to the Constitution’s adoption. The Civil War effectively ended secession as a viable option

 

[pnewton]

INRI:

Any state seceding from the United States would damage itself economically far beyond any benefit it would gain. Could you imagine California having to provide its own national defense?

Or electricty? Last I heard they had areas in that area.

This is all moot. Secession will never happen. Texas might have the best claim, since we were an independant nation. The economic toll would be too great, though. I don’t know how the rest of you would make it without us.