So, a few weeks ago, some of you may remember that I posted a blog entry about the nullification duel that New Hampshire started with the Feds. I'm not here to repeat myself with that, though some themes from it will probably roll over into this nonetheless. As it turns out, 22 states have adopted something similar. Needless to say, I am uber, uber excited about this. Almost half the states now think that the federal government is too big and outside Constitutional limitations. If it keeps up at this rate, we'll have enough states for an Amendment!
But still: Why, oh WHY, is there NO news coverage of this? This is a huge movement that has the potential to change the underlying order in which our government works, and growing fast! We went from just a few states to nearly half the country in under a month!
The last time there was a nullification crisis, it directly lead to the American Civil War. Now, I doubt we'll have a Civil War over this, partly because the states signing onto this are NOT just the Dixies: there's California, Maine, Hawaii, Washington, and Pennsylvania in on this, as well. (Source.) This isn't just a case of The-South-Will-Rise-Again Fever. This is scattered all over the country, among Democratic and Republican states alike. It seems to me that both parties are adopting more conservative and Libertarian-esque views with regards to the role of government, regardless of their social views.
Oh boy, am I wicked pumped for this. Granted, we're probably not going to see one of these from my own Massachusetts, but going from two or three to twenty-two in less than a month is huge enough regardless.
I want to take this moment to say thank you for bringing this to my attention so that I can look into it and possibly write my people and see if I can help pass and push this through...BUT I have to look into it so my real comment might have more too it....later.
Again thank you and Good Find.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
Somewhat related to the sovereinty movement is all the Tea Party Protests that are suddenly starting to pop up across the country to protest the massive expansion of the Federal Government that is taking place.
I've heard about those, too. I wish Boston would get back into that swing of things, because I'd be over there in an instant if there was one anywhere nearby to where I live.
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
That will be a sight to see the people all liberals, conservatives and moderates alike coming together to tell the government that they are to big that will be great. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." ~Arabic proverb,
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
You said...
As it turns out, 22 states have adopted something similar.
This is false. What you source ACTUALLY says is this...
As I pointed out to you in your other blog on this subject, this kind of secessionist rhetoric is really quite common, but it rarely serves to do more than excite the conspiracy theorists.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
... Not the point. And I don't think it's really "secessionist." It's not about seceding from the union. It's about keeping the Feds out of state and personal business. The fact is, the movement's growing faster than ever since the Civil War, and it's not geographically concentrated.
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
...the fact is that the bills you are referencing ARE secessionist in nature and they are regularly introduced into legislatures all around the country. I have seen no evidence that these bills are any more likely to pass THIS year than they were last year, or the year before, etc. If you have some actual evidence that this "movement" is growing, I would be interested in seeing it.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
No, they're NOT secessionist because they're not promoting secession. In fact, I cited another source that said exactly that.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2009/02/17/122853.php
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
Here is a direct quote from House Resolution 6, which Representative Itse sponsored...
Itse denial of the secessionist tone of this bill is an equivocation. In interviews, Itse has said this bill isn't about secession only because "there is no union if the Constitution isn't followed."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I think Itse has a point with the Constitution thing, being the supreme law of the land and all. The way America was originally founded, the states who didn't want the Constitution didn't have to join the Union in the first place. America was founded on secession from Britain, so I definitely understand it having a legal (though, for our purposes, not very logical) basis.
And the New Hampshire resolution is among the more radical of the Resolutions, anyway. There's 21 others with one, all written differently. The tone isn't secessionist as much as it is in favor of the limited government we were intended to be, which we have seriously strayed from. Quoting just the New Hampshire version of this will by no means prove that the entire movement is secessionist in nature.
Besides, isn't a government "not be[ing] binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government" a basic principle of liberty? Not being forced into a government without the consent of the people or the existing government?
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
I think Itse has a point with the Constitution thing, being the supreme law of the land and all.
Oh, wait...we already did that...
In other words, you (and Mr. Itse) are completely incorrect.
And the New Hampshire resolution is among the more radical of the Resolutions, anyway. There's 21 others with one, all written differently.
Are you sure? How many of these proposals have you actually read? Can you provide us with link to the ones that you have studied?
Besides, isn't a government "not be[ing] binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government" a basic principle of liberty? Not being forced into a government without the consent of the people or the existing government?
I think you are confusing liberty with anarchy, and I will refer you to the explanation of the Supreme Court, above, to explain why your assertion is incorrect.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
That whole Supreme Court decision refers perpetuation only when the government is following the Constitution in the first place. There are very good arguments even now that the Constitution is not being followed. I mean, if the Feds aren't following their own central law, why does anyone else have to? It all seems hypocritical to me for the Feds to force the Constitution on people if they aren't following it themselves, kind of a "Do as I say, not as I do," sort of thing. Also, let me refer you to Article VII of the Constitution, regarding ratification:
Note the bold: the Constitution would only apply to "the states so ratifying the same," assuming at least nine states ratified. The states that wouldn't ratify would, hypothetically, be left as sovereign nations outside of the Union. America was founded by a secession from Great Britain, so I see it as hypocritical in the least to say that secession is illegal.
But this movement isn't secessionist, and your arguing that secession is illegal is off the point. I will ignore arguments about secession now because they're irrelevant. No one is saying that these states should all-out secede from the Union. They want the Feds to be back in their place. The states created the Federal Government mostly for common defense. Otherwise, the Framers wanted the states to be able to make most decisions on their own. State governments aren't stupid. They are comprised of capable politicians.
My point is: Where is government's limit? Big government is nowhere near what the Framers wanted when they created the Constitution; after all, didn't they just break away from a big government in the first place? It seems to me that after some early misconstruction of the necessary and proper clause, the government's power was limited only by their imagination and politicians with Constitutional sense.
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
That whole Supreme Court decision refers perpetuation only when the government is following the Constitution in the first place.
The Constituition provides us with a means to determine whether any given action by our government is un-Constitutional. That means is the Supreme Court of the United States.
There are very good arguments even now that the Constitution is not being followed. I mean, if the Feds aren't following their own central law, why does anyone else have to? It all seems hypocritical to me for the Feds to force the Constitution on people if they aren't following it themselves, kind of a "Do as I say, not as I do," sort of thing.
If you have a specific example, please provide it and explain to us why you think it is unconstitutional.
Also, let me refer you to Article VII of the Constitution, regarding ratification:
Note the bold: the Constitution would only apply to "the states so ratifying the same," assuming at least nine states ratified. The states that wouldn't ratify would, hypothetically, be left as sovereign nations outside of the Union.
That's actually a very interesting argument, but it is ultimately a moot one since all 13 of the original States did in fact ratify the Constitution, thus binding themselves in peretuity to its governance.
America was founded by a secession from Great Britain, so I see it as hypocritical in the least to say that secession is illegal.
Technically, the United States did not secede from Great Britian. Secession is, by definition, a constitutional process. The inalienable right of Revolution is by nature an extraconstitutional exercise. Also, it would only be hypocritical if the Revolutionary States had agreed to include the option of secession in the Constitution. They did not. The Constiution provides both citizens and States with the means to seek redress when the Federal Government oversteps its bounds. Secession is not one of those means.
But this movement isn't secessionist, and your arguing that secession is illegal is off the point. I will ignore arguments about secession now because they're irrelevant.
I disagree, based on the clear expression of secessionist intent in the bill authored by your source. I will also roll my eyes slightly at your detemination to ignore this issue, and suppose aloud that it is more likely that you simply lack an effective rebuttal to these observations.
No one is saying that these states should all-out secede from the Union. They want the Feds to be back in their place. The states created the Federal Government mostly for common defense.
That seem to me to be a rather myopic expression of the purpose behind our Constitution. The Framers were quite clear about that purpose, and expressed it, thus...
The common defense is certainly ONE of the motivating justifcations behind the Constitution, but it certainly isn't the only one, and there's nothing in that document that would suggest its preeminence over the other reasons given, unlike the desire to establish a "more perfect Union," which one would could hardly have if the bonds of the States to each other within the framework of the Federal System were inherently assumed to be impermanent.
Otherwise, the Framers wanted the states to be able to make most decisions on their own. State governments aren't stupid. They are comprised of capable politicians.
I would suggest that the various State governments are just as prone to folly as our Federal legislators, with Mr. Itse's bill serving as a perfect example of this fact.
My point is: Where is government's limit? Big government is nowhere near what the Framers wanted when they created the Constitution; after all, didn't they just break away from a big government in the first place? It seems to me that after some early misconstruction of the necessary and proper clause, the government's power was limited only by their imagination and politicians with Constitutional sense.
There are now and always have been two polar divisions in the philosophies behind the Government of the United States, those being of course the diametrically opposed principles of Federalism and Anti-Federalism. There were prominent Founders and Framers on BOTH sides of this divide, with such prominent names as George Washingtyon, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Adams among the Federalists, and Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and George mason among the Anti-Federalists.
Our government is a melange of the conflicting forces arrayed behind these two philosophies, and our Constituion allows for a great deal of play back-and-forth between them. There are certainly limits placed upon the federal government, and that limit is spelled out rather plainly in the Tenth Amendment...
Nothing you have suggested thus far seems to violate that stricture, but again...if you would be more specific, perhaps? In any case, the question of the relative weight of Federal vs. State power is enumerated in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution...
I would also like to point to something that you said elsewhere in this discussion (emphasis mine)...
It is interesting that you brought up the Fourteenth Amendment, since your arguments would carry significantly more weight if they had been offered prior to its passage. The Fourteenth Amenemdent did much to undermine the position of State's Rights advocates. Everone remembers the Fourteenth's most famous clauses that enumerate the rights of Equal Protection and Due Process, but many people forget that this was a part of the Amdendment as well...
In essense, Section 3. makes in nearly impossible for any elected official to legally pursue any serious goal of separation from the perpetual union that unites our various States under the single flag of our Great Nation. This is one of the reasons that I approach bills like Mr. Itse's with such contempt. Bills like the one he is proposing are in truth nothing but an attempt at political grandstanding. There is no current legal basis for his Bill, and even if it did pass it would likely be struck down in short order by the Courts. Itse's appeal is threat designed to exaccerbate anti-federalist sentiments for political clout. In any real sense, Mr. Itse's bill is a hollow threat. It is unlikely that even he truly expects his bill to be seriously considered by New Hampsire's legislature (though it would be kind of scary, if he did).
I would like to note that on the issue of State's Rights, I am actually quite partial to Jefferson's philosophy of Anti-Federalism. I am a Libertarian. I think that both our Federal AND State Goverments are too big. I do NOT think that big government is "illegal." Its BAD in my opinion, but that option does exist within the framework of our Republic, if that is where The People chose to take us. All we can do is argue for smaller government, and offer our support to politicians who can honestly and realistically advocate for us in the appropriate forums. I do NOT however think that it is productive to attach my personal preferences to the coat-tails of crazy people, and I think that secessionists like Mr. Itse fall squarely into that category.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I still don't see any "secessionist intent" here. No one is saying that they should secede from the Union. All these 22 states want is states' rights while still within the Union. Moreover, with regards to my Article VII argument, sure, its literal application is moot now, but you still can't deny the clear intent of the Framers to keep the Federal government out of state business. And since this movement grown to nearly half the country, I don't think you should be dismissing it as just a secessionist fever. I and many others agree that the federal government has grown far outside of its Constitutional limits:
1. The Bailout: There are provisions which put the Secretary of State above the law, violate the Tenth Amendment and more, finances terrorists, etc. The bailout also just stinks of a huge conflict of interest.
2. Gun control: I'm sure you've heard these arguments a million times. A "well regulated militia" (not a military) was intended to just be the people's army. The second amendment was added, arguably, to always allow the people to defend themselves against an oligarchy or something of the like, similar to the one they had just broken away from. Moreover, assume for a minute that someone invades us. The army can't be there in five seconds to save the day, so what are the civilians supposed to do in the meantime, sit around like ducks to get killed? No. The Second Amendment clearly allows individuals to own firearms (as long as they're not criminals in the first place).
3. Social Security: Roosevelt's New Deal, though with good social intent, infringed the States' right to finance themselves, as does the bailout. The federal government has no right to take money from citizens of one state and give it to citizens or businesses of another. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/attarian7.html)
4. A number of other actions also have good arguments against them: voter fraud, "forc[ing] non productive old people including veterans to die homeless, hungry and in pain without proper treatment just as dictated by the Nazi philosophy of the “Useless Eaters” that led to Euthanasia of the old and disabled" because of the stimulus bill. Hell, even early on with our First National Bank was a usurpation of the necessary and proper clause. (I'm sure you've heard this, too, but the necessary and proper clause basically reads as "convenient and useful.")
Both parties, I think, are usurping their Constitutional authority: Bush with his wars for oil, Obama with his bailing out of companies that will financially benefit fellow bailout-proponents. This is why so many of the states are fed up. The Feds are forcing unconstitutional actions upon them, and I understand their view completely. However, no one is suggesting an all-out secession, just a reform in the way the federal government runs things.
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
***Edited by Blackout: Fixed HTML Tag on 10/06/2009.***
...and so will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The statists will be out to squelch any such thinking. And while I support this general idea, I think we need to be careful about formulating it. Objectors may point out that if states are totally sovereign, does that mean that they can legalize slavery, strip citizenship from a certain group, or close their borders? The answer is no, of course, since the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution covers that. New Hampshire's resolution is a step in the right direction, but I would certainly not automatically advocate implementing it in its current form without careful debate and consideration.
Oh, and while we're at it, we should start diluting the power of the executive branch. We really should have started doing that years ago (before Bush, but alas...). Of course, from my perspective, giving more control to Congress at the current time isn't exactly an exciting prospect.
Well, we obviously can't legalize slavery because of the Fourteenth Amendment. It's unconstitutional in every way, and no one really wants to try anymore, either way. I don't think secession is illegal, though; America was founded on secession from Britain, so to ban it, I see as hypocritical. A secession attempt would never go over well, though. The states were not intended to be [i]totally[/i] sovereign. All the states must conform to the Federal Constitution, but they still have their own Constitutions and Bills of Rights. The point of local rule was that local people know what they need locally a lot better than the Feds, and they should be allowed to do it however they see fit, as long as it's within the Federal Constitution.
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
I still don't see any "secessionist intent" here.
Then you aren't reading very closely. Here it is again (and I'll bold the relevant specific clause for you)...
It really can't be said much more clearly than that.
All these 22 states want is states' rights while still within the Union.
I will ask you again to please tell us how many of these bills you have actually read, and to please provide us with links to a few of them (preferrably your favorites).
Now, let's take your links in order...
1. The Bailout: There are provisions which put the Secretary of State above the law,
Your link says...
The Consitution says what it says, and the last time I checked, it didn't require any particular standard of oversight or transparency, at least in any immediate sense. Now, it is true that the American people, by and large, don't like it when the government chooses not to follow these principles, but neither of them are in fact illegal in the sense you suggest.
violate the Tenth Amendment and more,
Your source says...
Have you ever actually read the Constitution?
We'll come back to this one again, below...
finances terrorists, etc.
Your source says...
Now, this is the kind of weird, conspiracy theory hyperbole that makes it difficult to take some people seriously. I would note that this action was filed by the Thomas Moore Law Center (who doesn't have a particularly good track record when it comes to their attempts at Constitutional activism). It has not been decided. Anyone can file an action...but there is no real chance that the complaint will stand up in court. This one is really so flimsy that it is almost laughable.
The bailout also just stinks of a huge conflict of interest.
You appear to be grasping at straws. Your own source notes that...
There is no evidence presented in your source that would indicate any actual wrong-doing. I will say that your suspicion is admirable (everyone should mistrust their government, at least a little), but the innuendo seems more partisan that substantial.
2. Gun control: I'm sure you've heard these arguments a million times.
We can start (and stop) with the title on this one...
I think your sourse is a little bit out of date (from 2004), because in 2008, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that...
In general, this was a BIG victory for the pro-gun crowd (hooray!). But, the Court did specifically note that...
You really do seem to have a knack for picking whack-jobs. I found this comment too good to pass up...
3. Social Security:
I don't understand why you keep picking sources that only prove that you are wrong. In this case, your source notes...
...and points you to Helvering v. Davis (1937).
4. A number of other actions also have good arguments against them:
Most of this one falls in the "too nutty to merit a serious response" category, but I'll pull out one of your source's less unstable comments...
Please refer again to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which I provided to you above. The government DOES have the right to tax and spend...its annoying and even intrusive...but it isn't illegal.
The Feds are forcing unconstitutional actions upon them, and I understand their view completely.
Actually, we're still waiting for you to point to something that acutally might be unconstitutional. So far, nothing you have alleged would seem to qualify.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I still don't see any "secessionist intent" here.
Then you aren't reading very closely. Here it is again (and I'll bold the relevant specific clause for you)...
It really can't be said much more clearly than that.
No, that's just paraphrasing the Tenth Amendment. That makes complete sense. The Tenth Amendment says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The intent of the Framers should be obvious: they wanted local and state rule, not a powerful national government.
All these 22 states want is states' rights while still within the Union.
I will ask you again to please tell us how many of these bills you have actually read, and to please provide us with links to a few of them (preferrably your favorites).
I'm quoting a more general blog about the Sovereignty Movement with this:
So, with Hawaii as the only exception, these (now thirty) states just want sovereignty, NOT to secede. (http://www.mrstep.com/politics/az-wa-mo-nh-ok-claiming-sovereignty/)
And here's one from Pennsylvania.
Right there. Anything that the Constitution does not give the Feds the power to do, as per the Tenth Amendment, they CAN'T do.
Now, let's take your links in order...
1. The Bailout: There are provisions which put the Secretary of State above the law,
Your link says...
The Consitution says what it says, and the last time I checked, it didn't require any particular standard of oversight or transparency, at least in any immediate sense. Now, it is true that the American people, by and large, don't like it when the government chooses not to follow these principles, but neither of them are in fact illegal in the sense you suggest.
This part of the Bill allowed for the Secretary of State to have his Bailout-related actions non-reviewable by a court of law, which violates Judicial Review.
violate the Tenth Amendment and more,
Your source says...
Have you ever actually read the Constitution?
That would work if the Bailout was actually stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Most of the money is going to places which will not create many jobs, like the CDC. On paper, creating jobs sounds good, but what is actually happening is that some people decide to work harder to pay higher taxes while those who benefit from the Stimulus do no work at all. Clearly, that's not "common welfare."
We'll come back to this one again, below...
finances terrorists, etc.
Your source says...
Now, this is the kind of weird, conspiracy theory hyperbole that makes it difficult to take some people seriously. I would note that this action was filed by the Thomas Moore Law Center (who doesn't have a particularly good track record when it comes to their attempts at Constitutional activism). It has not been decided. Anyone can file an action...but there is no real chance that the complaint will stand up in court. This one is really so flimsy that it is almost laughable.
The fact still remains that the AIG bailout indirectly supports terrorist action by giving some of its funding to organizations which must follow Shariah terrorist action.
The bailout also just stinks of a huge conflict of interest.
You appear to be grasping at straws. Your own source notes that...
There is no evidence presented in your source that would indicate any actual wrong-doing. I will say that your suspicion is admirable (everyone should mistrust their government, at least a little), but the innuendo seems more partisan that substantial.
I know it doesn't legally disqualify them, but seriously, the conflict of interest is still apparent. So many of the lawmakers seem to be voting on what benefits them the most instead of what benefits the people they were elected to represent.
2. Gun control: I'm sure you've heard these arguments a million times.
We can start (and stop) with the title on this one...
I think your sourse is a little bit out of date (from 2004), because in 2008, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that...
In general, this was a BIG victory for the pro-gun crowd (hooray!). But, the Court did specifically note that...
Okay, so that isn't very applicable now. I still find the fact that it ever was allowed rather outrageous, though.
You really do seem to have a knack for picking whack-jobs. I found this comment too good to pass up...
Now you're just throwing names around. I'm not trying to instigate a conspiracy here. In fact, I do consider most of our current "conspiracies" incorrect.
3. Social Security:
I don't understand why you keep picking sources that only prove that you are wrong. In this case, your source notes...
...and points you to Helvering v. Davis (1937).
Wow, I just love your use of separation periods. Just because they found it Constitutional doesn't make it Constitutional, as they found gun control, abortion bans, Japanese internment, the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc. all Constitutional at one point, as well. I've already explained why I think it's unconstitutional. Your turn.
4. A number of other actions also have good arguments against them:
Most of this one falls in the "too nutty to merit a serious response" category, but I'll pull out one of your source's less unstable comments...
Please refer again to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which I provided to you above. The government DOES have the right to tax and spend...its annoying and even intrusive...but it isn't illegal.
I'm not saying they don't have the right, but it's not "promoting general Welfare" if it will only plunge us into a further debt that we'll be paying off for generations.
The Feds are forcing unconstitutional actions upon them, and I understand their view completely.
Actually, we're still waiting for you to point to something that acutally might be unconstitutional. So far, nothing you have alleged would seem to qualify.
But I have. You're just dancing around the Tenth Amendment.
Also, I'd like to point out the Patriot Act, an obvious violation of the right to privacy as enumerated by the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, as well as various Supreme Court cases, like Griswold v. Connecticut and even Roe v. Wade. The Patriot Act doesn't arrest you for having an abortion, sure, but all of the aforementioned items specify the right to privacy which the Patriot Act violates. Movement against it is bi-partisan.
"Limit your servings, or you'll DIEEEE!!!" Marilyn Manson should do kids' shows.
I'm Libertarian.
No, that's just paraphrasing the Tenth Amendment. That makes complete sense. The Tenth Amendment says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment says nothing about powers "reverting" to the States if the States think that the Federal Government is behaving inappropriately. This phraseology is commonplace among the secessionist movement. It is NOT simply an assertion of State sovereignty, but also a (fortunately hollow) political threat.
The intent of the Framers should be obvious: they wanted local and state rule, not a powerful national government.
That was the intent of SOME of the Framers, i.e. the Anti-Federalists. But the Federalists were just as much a part of the Founding, and they very clearly preferred a stronger central government with the States being subordinate. Our first President was a federalist, which makes your recounting of the "Founder's" intentions seem markedly one-sided.
NOTE: Sovereignty is NOT the same as Secession.
You're right..."Sovereignty is NOT the same as Secession." However, if your bills include threats to transfer territory, population or Constitutionally delegated powers from the Federal Government back to the State, that IS a threat of secession.
So, with Hawaii as the only exception, these (now thirty) states just want sovereignty, NOT to secede.
I doubt that Hawaii is the "only exception." Let's see...I won't bother with the one's you cherry-picked, but I will use the list provided by your source...
From Georgia...
Secessionist.
I figured Texas would be a good one, too...and it is...
Secessionist.
The Texas bill is particularly interesting, since your source also links to the main orgainzation that is pushing this legislation, i.e. The Republic of Texas. The very page linked to by your source includes this...
Now...like MOST of these movements and the bills that they support, The Republic of Texas is trying to avoid the patently illegal claim of secession by equivocating on the meaning of that term. In their own words (also from the web page linked by your source)...
This dissembling is just a convenient political ploy used to stay out of the hot water that comes with sedition.
And, with these two examples, you claim that Hawaii is the "only" one of the States actually seeking secession is proved false, and the TRUE motivation behind the bills offered us by your source is revealed.
But, moving on...
This part of the Bill allowed for the Secretary of State to have his Bailout-related actions non-reviewable by a court of law, which violates Judicial Review.
Actually, Congress does have the right to place particular issues outside of the reach of the Judiciary. That power is located in Article III, Section 2...
It is a power that Congress uses only rarely, but it IS an enumerated power of the Federal Government.
That would work if the Bailout was actually stimulating the economy and creating jobs.
There is still a lot of debate about whether the bailout will create as many jobs as its supporters claim. Even IF the bill is unsuccessful in regards to that goal, that doesn't make the legislation "illegal."
Most of the money is going to places which will not create many jobs,
Please provide us with a statistical analysis that supports the claim that "most" of the money in the bailout will not create "many" jobs...and while your at it, define for us your threshold with the word "many."
like the CDC.
We may not like legislative riders, but they are perfectly legal. I would also suggest that the immunization and clean-up and wellness programs do in fact employ real people, and money directed towards these programs do create and protect jobs.
On paper, creating jobs sounds good, but what is actually happening is that some people decide to work harder to pay higher taxes while those who benefit from the Stimulus do no work at all. Clearly, that's not "common welfare."
You have provided nothing thus far that would lead me to take this statement as anything more than another spurious charge that is motivated by political ideology rather than an objective evalusation of the actual Bill and its effects.
The fact still remains that the AIG bailout indirectly supports terrorist action by giving some of its funding to organizations which must follow Shariah terrorist action.
Horsepuckey. This is the kind of hysteria thak keeps me from taking your positions seriously. The charge is convoluted in the extreme, and implies a complicity without any reasonable evidence. It is purely speculative fear-mongering that has little to no basis in fact.
I know it doesn't legally disqualify them, but seriously, the conflict of interest is still apparent. So many of the lawmakers seem to be voting on what benefits them the most instead of what benefits the people they were elected to represent.
It may SEEM apparent to YOU, but the FACT is that conflicts of interest are ACCEPTABLE, so long as they are below the established legal and ethical thresholds. Conveniently applying a higher standard whenever something comes up that you don't like is just as unethical as anything that you are charging.
Okay, so that isn't very applicable now. I still find the fact that it ever was allowed rather outrageous, though.
I agree. It WAS outrageous. But, our Constitution gave us the means to remedy that outrage in the Supreme Court. If you or the legislators that are sponsoring the bills of secession listed by your source were HONESTLY trying to resolve the problems you see rather than just taking advantage of the citizens' dissatisfaction for political gain, you would be seeking redress through the Court rather than grandstading cheap, meaningless bills in State legislatures that have barely a snowball's chance in hell of actually going anywhere.
Now you're just throwing names around. I'm not trying to instigate a conspiracy here. In fact, I do consider most of our current "conspiracies" incorrect.
I don't think it is inappropriate to call someone a clown if they paint their face white and glue a big red nose to it. I just call 'em like I see 'em. Face it...the quote from your source was definitely on the whacky side.
Wow, I just love your use of separation periods.
They're called ellipses.
Just because they found it Constitutional doesn't make it Constitutional,
Actually, yes...it means EXACTLY that.
as they found gun control, abortion bans, Japanese internment, the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc. all Constitutional at one point, as well. I've already explained why I think it's unconstitutional. Your turn.
The Court reserves the right to overturn its own decisions. But until they DO, the legal reality of what IS or IS NOT "constitutional" ends at the High Bench. If the SCOTUS says something is Constitutional, then IT IS right up until the point that they say IT IS NOT. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of these questions. They have the authority to reverse themselves. The States, however, do NOT have the right to second guess the pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
I'm not saying they don't have the right,
Considering your liberal use of the word "illegal," I find your backpedaling to be less than convincing.
but it's not "promoting general Welfare" if it will only plunge us into a further debt that we'll be paying off for generations.
That's a matter of opinion on the enacted policies. We don't know if the Bailout is going to accomplish its goal or not, and there is significant disagreement on whether this policy will do better or worse than that of that of previous administrations.
But I have. You're just dancing around the Tenth Amendment.
That could only be true if you were accurately reading and applying what the Tenth Amendment acutally says. Your "paraphrasing" of the Amendment, however, project a LOT of extraneous bullshit onto the legitimate purpose of that Act.
Also, I'd like to point out the Patriot Act, an obvious violation of the right to privacy as enumerated by the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, as well as various Supreme Court cases, like Griswold v. Connecticut and even Roe v. Wade. The Patriot Act doesn't arrest you for having an abortion, sure, but all of the aforementioned items specify the right to privacy which the Patriot Act violates. Movement against it is bi-partisan.
And, its a movement with which I agree...but there are ways to fight these things that don't involve attempting to illegally secede from the United States. There have already been a significant number of sucessful constitutional challenges in the Federal Courts to various provisions of the Patriot Act, and many more that were sunsetted in 2005, making futher challenge unnecesary in regards to many of the worst abuses. The Patriot Act actually serves as a very good example of how The People SHOULD respond when the Federal Government oversteps its bounds.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.