1

"Evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested."

Secession of the red states into a new republic, is the only escape from the mess the current union is in.

2 Don't forget that in addition to the Oppressive Democratic agenda to bankrupt the country, we have the growing threat of a nuclear Iran that Obama won't address.

3 I don't know if we're at the point of revolution and/or secession but I do know that if there are one or two high-profile, egregious incidents of ruling class disdain for the people between now and November there's going to be hell to pay.

4 I'm ready, but I live in the wrong state...Kommunist Hawaii. Then again its a target rich state...

5 There's a malaise out there...

6 I predict the next assassination of a major public figure will be by mortar.

7 Does this mean the R-word is back on the menu?

^{Can't blame a guy for trying...}

8

I feel a disturbance in the force...

Tell that cocksucker Calrissian to get his shit together, ya dig?

9 I'm thinking of making plastic pitchforks for the so-inclined to wield at any public event without scaring the police so much.  Although I suppose the police (and army) will be on our side anyway.

10 Secession of the red states into a new republic, is the only escape from the mess the current union is in.

Secession is unconstitutional.  We're much better off reforming the system from within.

11 This mob, it ain't formed yet . . . . Yet.

Wasn't it like 25% or 30% of the original colonist that were Loyalists?

Funny how that's tracks nicely with the same percentage who strongly approve of the 0bama and what he's doing.

The new Loyalist Party: Time to drive them up to Canada again.

12 Ace, your on fire.

I think he's on to something.  If we don't take back the House, and lose it by ACORN fraud like the last election, I expect lots of SERIOUS trouble. 

Chile?

13

"Secession is unconstitutional.  We're much better off reforming the system from within."

How do you figure? The Constitution gives no powers to the federal government to maintain the union by force or otherwise, which means the 9th and 10th amendments are in full force.

14 That you're on fire! 

Da huh!

15 How do you figure? The Constitution gives no powers to the federal government to maintain the union by force or otherwise, which means the 9th and 10th amendments are in full force.

16 So the so-called "elites" of this country are out of touch, Welcome to the Party Pal!

17 Sock ON!

How do you figure? The Constitution gives no powers to the federal government to maintain the union by force or otherwise, which means the 9th and 10th amendments are in full force.

Didn't work for us.

18
Communists and their false promises still suck, part 503.

19 I'm looking forward to the biggest government purge in the history of America.  It's a shame it won't continue through colleges, universities, and K-12 schools.

20

#15 Jimmuy

Yeah it was, one third pro, a third nuetral, the rest royalist.

Roughly 80% of Americans served at least once under colors during the revoultion though

Hey right now The Sheriff looks like a better TOTUS

21

The Constitution gives no powers to the federal government to maintain the union by force or otherwise, which means the 9th and 10th amendments are in full force.

What is this "Constitution" of which you speak?

22 Hmm. Rick Santorum for president in 2012? He's certainly a smart guy: http://tinyurl.com/2vk99ro

23 Does this mean the R-word is back on the menu?
Repeal Obamacare and the
Rest of the Democrat's Oppressive agenda
Reverse the course towards a Socialist h@ll hole.
Else the Republican party will be
Replaced
Or else it'll be
Revolt and
Revolution.

24 1. We didn't lose the House because of ACORN fraud. Oh, a couple seats, maybe. But we lost the House because we spent too much money. That and the public gets tired of being grown-ups after a while, and gives the Dems another chance to learn why putting them in charge is a bad idea. 2. The "R" word- as bad as things are (and they ARE bad), they aren't nearly as bad as they were in the late '60s and through the 70's. Political violence was commonplace (and almost all on the left!). When was the last time you saw a serious attempt on the life of the President? 1981.

25 I wonder how Blankley thinks the "dangerousness" will manifest itself in his bad news scenario. Ruling out widespread violence, I can almost picture a bunch of Bell, CA's all around the country. People basically surrounding public offices until the officials capitulate on their grotesque salaries, incompetence, other abuses. Maybe Tea Partiers even occupying those offices a la the "sit-ins" of yore? Tony uses some of the "dog whistle" rhetoric, but I'm sure he's sincere. Let's just hope the GOP wins in Nov., and prevails thereafter.

26 Secession is unconstitutional.  We're much better off reforming the system from within.

So is most of what the current crew is doing.  Besides, they control the system, both the formal and informal parts; a more thorough cleansing is likely called for.

The more they tighten their grip...

27 J Curve, feel the wrath of dashed hope.

28 Secession is unconstitutional.  We're much better off reforming the system from within.

That's what the Brits thought about the 13 colonies.  "They can't do that!  It's not legal!"

Bang!  Don't Tread on Me.

29 In 1856, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, in analyzing the causes of his country's revolution, observed, "Evils which are patiently endured when they seem inevitable become intolerable when once the idea of escape from them is suggested."

My political betters, with all the edumacation, will have to 'splain that to me. After wolfing down some shrimp I'm just looking toward November with baited breath.

30 I think it is soon going to be the time when Violent Tea Party Extremists will be labeled seditious traitors for merely quoting the Declaration of Independence--particularly the list of grievances against the British crown. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world... He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them...

31 Thanks for pointing that out.  Good piece. 

32 My prediction:  The 2011 Republican congress will make the sad and pathetic 2005 congress seem like Genghis Khan by comparison.

33 That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — 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.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security

34 He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution...

(Think Mexico.)

35 How do you figure? The Constitution gives no powers to the federal government to maintain the union by force or otherwise, which means the 9th and 10th amendments are in full force.

No where is it enumerated that the states have the right to reject the Constitution in all or in part.  It is asserted as the highest law in the land.  Leaving the Union is a rejection of the Constitution.

36 35: Yeah, you're a little behind on that one.

37

As a conservative tea party Republican, I am not particularly worried about that eventuality. Despite itself, a majority GOP, driven powerfully by the unambiguous vox populi of such an election, almost certainly would go about trying to repeal Obamacare and put serious, current-fiscal-year spending cuts into place -- necessarily including "entitlements." Republicans would try to reduce some taxes and start serious oversight of federal regulatory intrusions into traditional American freedoms -- including a powerful pushback on administration regulatory efforts on climate change, illegal immigration and other left-wing agenda items. With sufficient votes in the Senate, they would block future liberal judicial appointments -- from the trial court to the Supreme Court.

Christi/Blankley 2012

38
The "R" word is happening already.  The parts yet to be determined are:

1.  Will it be allowed to run its course in peace, according to our laws, and as scheduled at the polls?

2.  Should and will the losing side accept the balloting outcomes?

39 Blankley is right.  And note that he calls on our "ancient rights".  He's not talking just about the Constitution.

We are free men,  and have been since Magna Carta.

The king is not above the law.

40 Secession is unconstitutional.

Find me the Constitutional language that says so. 

Aside from that, when one side breaks a contract, the other side is released from any obligations in that same contract.

41 41 No where is it enumerated that the states have the right to reject the Constitution in all or in part. It is asserted as the highest law in the land. Leaving the Union is a rejection of the Constitution.

Fair enough, but what happens when the government itself is no longer acting in accordance with the Constitution?  Doesn't this itself indicate full abrogation of said terms?  In most cases with contracts or treaties, such a dire breach effectively voids the other party's obligations; there's at least a philosophical point to be made in that regards.  (And I suspect, given other writings, that the Founders would agree.)

42

"No where is it enumerated that the states have the right to reject the Constitution in all or in part.  It is asserted as the highest law in the land.  Leaving the Union is a rejection of the Constitution."

I suggest you reread the 9th and 10th amendments.

43 -->No where is it enumerated that the states have the right to reject the Constitution in all or in part. 

It is not enumerated, leaving that power to the States and the People.

-->It is asserted as the highest law in the land.  Leaving the Union is a rejection of the Constitution.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 04:09 PM (FkKjr)

Breaking the Constitution by the feral government is a rejection of the Constitution.  We have more than enough evidence of the dems having destroyed any meaning in the Constitution, going so far as to have them explicitly saying that they don't care what the Constitution says.

44 The question of secession was settled long ago, folks. Drop it.

45 Secession means "withdrawal."

Secession is unconstitutional.  Fine.

What about if we kick some of  the other states out?  What do you call that?  Hmmmm?

46 For a behind-the-scenes look at preference cascades, read The Case for Democracy, by Natan Sharansky.

Or watch Pixar's "A Bug's Life" for the CliffsNotes version.

47 The "revolution" meme went mainstream in the last month.  Between mouthfuls of Obama's cock, it was even heard mumbled from Peggy Noonan's piehole.

We should thank the Founders for this system that allows a bit of revolution every couple of years.

48 The question of secession was settled long ago, folks. Drop it.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at August 11, 2010 04:15 PM (ZJ/un)

The Heavens have spoken.

Okey doke, rob ...

49 Hannity should have hung up on this "alleged friend of the I m a m".....after she refused to answer his first question.....

She seems to subscribe to dinner jacket's views....

50

The question of secession was settled long ago, folks. Drop it.

It was settled by force of arms, not by rule of law. The balance of power and the moral high ground has shifted decisively since then.

51 The question of secession was settled long ago, folks. Drop it.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at August 11, 2010 04:15 PM (ZJ/un)

I really don't expect the Union Army to roll into Oklahoma any time soon.  This circumstance is very, very different.  Secession of say Texas would cause serious problems, but a couple traffic cops in the southbound lanes could handle it.

52 With sufficient votes in the Senate, they would block future liberal judicial appointments -- from the trial court to the Supreme Court. Why can't we just zero fund the entire 9th circuit?

53 cdn4.specificclick

Kill it.  Kill it now.  Send its corpse to the family.

54 Fair enough, but what happens when the government itself is no longer acting in accordance with the Constitution?

Assuming the government is truly tyrannous (ignoring elections, etc) you overthrow it.  Having your state or collection of states leave is the worst way to address the problem.  At best you form a separate country which will be landlocked by the other power, and we have two weaker nations instead of one.  At worst you are re-conquered, and the government which comes afterward is twenty times worse.

At some point Secession is not an option.  Suppose one county in Georgia doesn't want to secede from the Union.  What then?  Does it get to stay?  Suppose one city in that county wants to secede?  Where does it end?

55
Fair enough, but what happens when the government itself is no longer acting in accordance with the Constitution?

That's the core question.  The deeper problem is that the government hasn't been acting in accordance with The Constitution for longer than anyone here has been alive.  That puts us in a gray area.

The immediate problem is that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are pushing with all their might to box us into a part of that gray area that is not tolerable.

In my opinion, we enter crisis at the point that a sizable chunk of people say, "No!"  The popular support for Arizona's SB1070 was the first rumbling.  The Missouri vote on Proposition C was the next one.

Now, think of the Gonzales flag, but instead of a cannon, it will be some symbol representing tax payments with "Come and Take It" written beneath it in bold letters.

Should that preference cascade ever trigger, it's all over.

56 With sufficient votes in the Senate, they would block future liberal judicial appointments -- from the trial court to the Supreme Court.

Blankley is wrong, here.  There's no need to control the Senate in order to block judicial appointments.  No appointment can even get a vote in committee without at least one "Yea" from the minority.  If he wants to say that the GOP will have the brains to start blocking these appointments, that's one thing, but they could have blocked every single appointment that's come up, so far, if they knew what they were doing.  But, a GOP that can't block a nomination that is based on "empathy" (a distinctly anti-American and anti-Western consideration in every sense) or another that has the nominee having been on the wrong side of unanimous SCOTUS decisions (can you get more out of the mainstream than that?) doesn't look like it can be counted on for much of anything.

57

It was settled by force of arms, not by rule of law.

So was the American Revolution. What's your point?

The balance of power and the moral high ground has shifted decisively since then. Posted by: Rebar

No. The balance of power still lies in the Federal Government.

Unless you have 100 million friends, it ain't going to happen.

58 All of our old allies would side with the Ruling Class in any theoretical rebellion.  What country would side with the poor underclass?

59 >>>"...the nation no longer shares a common database of civic reality." Indeed. And it was achieved by design.

60 Looks like that sort of rant is "in" today. Here's another one in the same vein. http://tinyurl.com/2cq7grx The contempt for ordinary Americans displayed by the ruling class is reaching critical mass. ... Individuals who express sincere concerns that the polices and practices of the elites are imperiling the nation’s economy and security are branded as racists and xenophobes by the anointed ... When thousands flooded town-hall meetings to express opposition to Obamacare, they got Obamacare shoved down their throats. When twenty states sued, calling Obamacare’s dictatorial provisions unconstitutional, legal elites scoffed that the Commerce Clause permits the federal government to compel the unenlightened to eat their vegetables. And when 71 percent of Missouri voters rejected the abominable bill, Robert Gibbs proclaimed that the vote meant “nothing.” ... And he's just warming up. Read The Whole Thing.

61 Secession isn't the issue; it's piecemeal nullification of Federal Authority, specifically the regulatory and judicial fiats. Texas doesn't leave the union, she just says we are not enforcing EPA regulation #xxx, we are not cooperating with Federal Authorities in any way. If the Feds try and get heavy handed, then a Republican House yanks the Appropriation Chain. Stasis.

62 The question of secession was settled long ago, folks.

To be completely childish I say "They started it."

We will finish it, period.

63 If the GOP takes control, can we trade NY for Monaco?

64 "If they didn't go all-out for such a basic conservative agenda in 2011 after such an election as is possible, Republican Party leaders would know that across the nation, even 50-year party regulars such as I would walk out and seek a third party to carry out the people's business."

Let's hope the, "Republican Party leaders would know."

65 I suggest you reread the 9th and 10th amendments.

Reread the Supremacy Clause.

66 Remember when FRED FLINTSTONE would be visited by an angel perched on his shoulder and then by a devil perched on his shoulder. Each of them telling Fred what to do. The Left is like the devil. They perch themselves on people's shoulders and offer terrible advice. For instance, they'll get in the ear of a young black man and tell him how much "whitey" is screwing them. They'll tell the young black man ti fight back against the white man.

67

So was the American Revolution. What's your point?

Point is pretty clear, something settled by force of arms can be resettled when the balance shifts.

No. The balance of power still lies in the Federal Government.

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous

40% of the active military comes from Texas alone, count in all the red states that totals well over 50%. In the unlikely event that the blue states contest secession militarily - who's going to fight for them?

68 This time, the United States armed forces would mostly fragment or sit it out. Today's soldiers wouldn't fight Americans to restore the cesspool of Washington DC.

Half the cops would immediately hunker down or join the New-SA with us.

69

It was settled by force of arms, not by rule of law.

So was the American Revolution. What's your point?

Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at August 11, 2010 04:24 PM (oL8lS)

His point, I believe, was that we still had to fight to defend our sovereignty in the War of 1812, even though that had just been "settled" by force of arms.

70 I suggest you reread the 9th and 10th amendments.

Reread the Supremacy Clause.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 04:28 PM (FkKjr)

You have no idea what you're talking about.

71 Secession is unconstitutional.  We're much better off reforming the system from within.

While I don't wish to start another flame war regarding the late unpleasantness of 1861 through 1865, that is simply not true.

In fact, the Supreme Court of the day did not regard it as unconstitutional itself and said so. When Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republican congress was contemplating treason charges for the Confederate leadership they consulted the court.

The court advised them that not only would they hold that there was no treason, but that the war itself by Lincoln was illegal because secession was legal.

The only way that secession was made "illegal" was by force of arms and if not for a few items of significance, could have gone the other way. Which is why you see so many alternate histories written about it.

72 I suggest you reread the 9th and 10th amendments.

Reread the Supremacy Clause.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 04:28 PM (FkKjr)

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I've got to agree with PoP.  The Supremacy clause doesn't really do much when the emperor is butt-naked.

73 61:  And here we have the conundrum.  Suppose 63% wish to do away with this corrupt system.  That leaves us with 37% not so inclined.  That's a lot of potential for long term mischief if you force them to go along.

The solution used in the 1780s won't work now--too many people.  So we do what, exactly, with those who want to exchange all their essential liberties and dignities for a check each month and a 'free' clinic?  Give 'em an auto in to the cleansed Republic, knowing the cycle will simply start all over again?  Allow them limited status, thus causing a whole new set of problems?  Force 'em out like the Tories?  (And you thought the illegal immigrants were hard...)

Past a certain point, you just have to admit it doesn't work and go your separate ways.  There's no other good way to handle it.  Just make sure you have your own covered when you do it.

74 The only way that secession was made "illegal" was by force of arms

True.  Some things lie outside the realm of law, which is when you resort to force to achieve your goals.  I don't know why that's a difficult thing for some folks to fathom.

75 So we do what, exactly, with those who want to exchange all their essential liberties and dignities for a check each month and a 'free' clinic?

Got a backhoe?

76 40% of the active military comes from Texas alone, Uh, no. It just seems that way sometimes. Texas, and other southern states, are overrepresented as a percentage of population, but not anywhere near the level you imply.

77 The country is ready for revolution, but I think a lot of us are waiting for a sign, just to make sure that what we think we are seeing happening is really happening.  I think that sign are the elections.  Any funny business in 2010 (a lot of people already think there was funny business in Co. last night with the absetee ballots) will get everybody on the same page.  And maybe not wait for 2012,I don't know.  But the elections, I think, are the tipping point.  Especially if the market tanks.

78

Breaking the Constitution by the feral government is a rejection of the Constitution.  We have more than enough evidence of the dems having destroyed any meaning in the Constitution, going so far as to have them explicitly saying that they don't care what the Constitution says.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 11, 2010 04:15 PM

The real problem is that an apathetic public currently hampers any attempt to resolve the crisis in a Constitutional way. Come November, they'll be full of outrageous outrage about what "they" in D.C. are doing, yet most will vote to keep their own members of Congress -- whether out-and-out crooks like Rangel, seditious little fuckweasels like Reid or do-nothing squishes like Cao -- in power.

Just as bad, those with the most visibility in conservative circles -- that includes radio yappers like Rash Fatblob and "intellectuals" like the inbred preppies at NRO -- are content to complain, and wouldn't stir themselves, risking their own cushy billets, to save the nation.

Most of us are risk-averse, and taking on the Osama Obama regime is fraught with risk.

It's easier to nag about the small details, like a little $26 billion handout to the Traitor-in-Chief's union pals, the porous border and the rest, than to take a long look at the dangerous, destructive iceberg under the visible tip.

When a true leader, one who puts the nation and the Constitution before personal gain, stands up and volunteers to take the point in a move to sweep corruption and America-hatred out of Washington, I believe many of us would rise and follow them. I would.

But in a time where posting mild criticism on Facebook is considered a sign of "bravery" and "leadership," I don't hold out much hope that such a leader will appear.

Secession and revolution are not the answer. Yet, anyway. The answer is to enforce the laws so casually violated by the Chicago Jesus, his henchmen and 500-plus members of Congress. 100,000 Americans, willing to march in a body on the corruptocrats and make citizen's arrests, could do that.

79

This is how successful third parties happen.

If they didn't go all-out for such a basic conservative agenda in 2011 after such an election as is possible, Republican Party leaders would know that across the nation, even 50-year party regulars such as I would walk out and seek a third party to carry out the people's business.

80 The Frogs got rid of most of the Vichy left over after WWII. We can get rid of a few left over hippies after CWII.

81 40% of the active military comes from Texas alone,

Uh, no. It just seems that way sometimes. Texas, and other southern states, are overrepresented as a percentage of population, but not anywhere near the level you imply.

Posted by: XBradTC at August 11, 2010 04:37 PM (X0Ona)

I was gonna call bullshit on that too, but I figured just letting it sit there and fester like a genital wart would work as well.

82 That was pretty funny coming from Bill Ayers

83 It should be noted that the southern States did, indeed, secede.  They were forced to rejoin the Union, and the federal government also forced the seceding States to put clauses into their State Constitutions forbidding them from seceding, again.  Obviously, to anyone but a total retard, the federal government forced the States to include those provisions in their own Constitutions because there was no such restriction in the federal Constitution.

I do find it amazing that there are people who actually think that the Constitution is a contract that all are permanently bound to, no matter the actions of any of the Constitutional entities.  That's just batshit insane kind of reasoning.

84 If 40% of the service was from Texas, there wouldn't be so much good BBQ left in Texas.

85

61  This.

This secession talk is foolhardy and not the brightest (sorry guys; love ya -- but it's really a bad idea).

It's either the whole bag of marbles or nothing (preferrably peaceful and within the system) -- there would be no settling or compromise that would be beneficial.

86 84 Got a backhoe?

Not that large.  And I shouldn't want one, either.

I hate it when all options are bad.

87
I do find it amazing that there are people who actually think that the Constitution is a contract that all are permanently bound to, no matter the actions of any of the Constitutional entities.  That's just batshit insane kind of reasoning.

Believing that the Constitution can be quit for any reason - I believe last time the spark was Lincoln's election - is batshit insane.  If you can leave for any reason it has no power.

88 When a true leader, one who puts the nation and the Constitution before personal gain, stands up and volunteers to take the point in a move to sweep corruption and America-hatred out of Washington, I believe many of us would rise and follow them. I would.

That would be a revolution.  Who the fuck are you armchair Rambos gearing up to fight, anyway?  The military?  They won't engage.  Sheriff Jim of your county?  He doesn't like this shit either.

Who the fuck are you people prepping to fight?  Who's the enemy?  Answer that question and I'll tell you why you're full of shit.

89

Now that was a good, thought-provoking post, Ace. Kudos. Seriously.

Keep that up, and you'll get a better class of people here ..., you know, like me. 

90 I'm thinking of making plastic pitchforks for the so-inclined to wield at any public event without scaring the police so much.  Although I suppose the police (and army) will be on our side anyway.

Posted by: dfbaskwill

 

Zytel is a good plastic to make them out of.

91

If the worst should happen, then the states will have to rebel against an unconstitutional, rogue federal government, rebel on the side of upholding the Constitution and federal law (as some are doing already) -- if enough do by choice, then there will be pressure put on the ones that don't (through public revolt).  This would bring a certain oath to bear -- and that is probably the road to success.

Outright secession would negate that, imho.

92
The political class and the normal people hold each others' nuts in pliers.  It's been this way for so long, it's what we consider "normal."

The imbalance right now is because the political class is squeezing harder and the normal people are reluctant to squeeze back in kind.

The cascade will trigger when the normal people realize that the political class are squeezing with all of their might.

93 Somebody smart once said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I agree.
This government is using it like toilet paper, and it's not right.

The majesty of the Constitution is that is can be used to set up another government after the current one is deemed salvageable.

The Social Contract between government and the governed takes two sides acting in good faith. Where no good faith exists, there is no contract.

94 The ObamaAyers plan is to get you racist teabaggers all riled up.  Then they can ride in and save the day.

95 welcome to the Free Republic, AoS edition

96 The Social Contract between government and the governed takes two sides acting in good faith. Where no good faith exists, there is no contract.

If I could figure out how to put that in 18 point, I would.

97 But in a time where posting mild criticism on Facebook is considered a sign of "bravery" and "leadership," I don't hold out much hope that such a leader will appear.

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 11, 2010 04:37 PM (Ulu3i)

Indeed.  But that is one of the major reasons why this nation's fate has essentially been sealed.  Sure, there's a (very, very) small chance to fix things as they stand ... but I wouldn't put any money on it.  Irreparable damage is irreparable, and people have let far too much of that happen, already.

98 86 The country is ready for revolution, but I think a lot of us are waiting for a sign, just to make sure that what we think we are seeing happening is really happening.  I think that sign are the elections.  Any funny business in 2010 (a lot of people already think there was funny business in Co. last night with the absetee ballots) will get everybody on the same page.  And maybe not wait for 2012,I don't know.  But the elections, I think, are the tipping point.  Especially if the market tanks.
Posted by: chillin' the most at August 11, 2010 04:37 PM (6IV8T)

Well there's a pretty huge gap between a pre-revolutionary atmosphere and full armed rebellion.

What I'd expect to see instead is what we've seen in Europe - routine violent protests with people killed by the police and politicians forced to travel with bodyguards at all times. And no go areas for federal authorities.

We're a very high trust, inter-connected society so it would only take a sizable minority of non-compliantists to push the system to near collapse.

99 Irreparable damage is irreparable

I can fix it, but it's gonna run ya.....

100 Ten or fifteen million citizens peacefully linking arms and surrounding Washington, DC to physically prevent the Congress from entering the city would do it.

101

That would seem to leave 3 percent for socialists, communists, anarchists, fascists, monarchists, Nazis, ultramontanists, Falangists, klansmen, etc.

Hey, what about us ultramontaine monarchists? I'm pretty sure if you ran a poll along the Gulf Coast (former holdings of the Bourbon Dynasty), you could pull higher ratings for the Pope and Louis XVI's detached skull than for the current administration

102 Forward now! Forward to armed rebellion! Pick up your guns and kil, kill, KILL!

103

Texas is actually 13% of active military, not 40% as I stated earlier:

http://tinyurl.com/2bvqzu4

The point still stands - in the highly unlikely event that the blue states contest the secession of the red states, the balance of force will not favor the blue states.

104 right on time, the Jug Ear Army

105 Well there's a pretty huge gap between a pre-revolutionary atmosphere and full armed rebellion.

This is absolutely correct.

What I'd expect to see instead is what we've seen in Europe - routine violent protests with people killed by the police and politicians forced to travel with bodyguards at all times. And no go areas for federal authorities.

I think you're wrong here, Maet.  We're not Europeans, and that kind of shit won't be tolerated by Americans.  "routine violent protests with people killed by the police" would be met with burning city halls.  Well, not really, because city administration types would shit down their legs and put an immediate stop to it.  Likewise, I don't think our police forces would be into it.  There just isn't the respect for the State in America as there is in Europe, and that's a good thing.

106

Well, I think something is going to happen...if "r" it must be I'd prefer a velvet one, at worst one like 1775.

I don't really want one like 1789, 1917, or 1933 happening (and there is the threat that it could).  That would be very, very bad.

107 If you can leave for any reason it has no power.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 04:43 PM (FkKjr)

Huh?

Not only don't you seem to understand anything about the Constitution, but you don't seem to understand even the basics of contracts.

I gave a reason for States to leave.  It was wholly disingenuous of you to try and answer me with the idiotic strawman of "leave for any reason".  The federal government has broken the Constitution.  Period.  All others are free to leave a broken contract.  That is basic common sense.

States choose to stay bound by the Constitution because they get great benefits from being part of the US, not because they have to.  If you think that the federal government can turn itself into a national government and dictate every single thing to the States and the People, and all are bound to submit to this out-of-control feral entity, then you are plain nuts.

108 If you want to see an uprising, just watch what would happen if millions of people stopped getting their welfare checks and food stamps. That's truly when the shit would hit the fan.

109 I think the USA can stand a little Balkanization. The Balkans had their little slap fight and now they produce some of the finest human trafficking ,arms dealing, drug smuggling, and pornography in the world.

110 OK, time to think a little harder guys, because there's still a huge problem with any of these scenarios being floated.  (Notice, by the way, you still don't know what I'm backing here.  I know how this works, and I'm not that crazy.  Yet.)

Supposing, as a hypothetical, would-be tyrants 'party X' are dislodged, electorally or by coercion.  (Revolutions may take many forms; not all require armed action.)  What, then, for the other legs of our adversaries--the press establishment, the entrenched 'educational' interests, and the unions?  Government is literally half or less of the problem.

Find me a solution that doesn't create endless conflict--or capitulate--and we'll talk.

111

112 With all politeness, you're dreaming.  The military, outside of the national guard, is federal.  In a case such as that you would be giving the federal government the right to declare martial law and call up a draft, and invoke NATO and other allies' aid.

Do you really want to go there?  Do you think they wouldn't?

112 If you want to see an uprising, just watch what would happen if millions of people stopped getting their welfare checks and food stamps. That's truly when the shit would hit the fan.

This.

And this is what will happen if enough people stand-up and say, "screw paying taxes!"  (I am not advocating this, I'm just saying that this is what a rebellion would most likely be)

1.  There won't be a thing D.C. could do about it

2.  The treasury would lose its ability to borrow

3.  The redistributionist transfer payments would stop

4.  The cities would go up in riots

That would be the end of the world as we know it.

113 It was wholly disingenuous of you to try and answer me with the idiotic strawman of "leave for any reason".  The federal government has broken the Constitution.  Period.  All others are free to leave a broken contract.  That is basic common sense.

It's not a strawman.  Last time the south seceded they did it because Lincoln was elected.  Are you saying that was illegal, or are you saying they had the right to leave?  If you are, then you are saying they had the right to leave because they didn't like the president.  That seems pretty close to any reason to me.


States choose to stay bound by the Constitution because they get great benefits from being part of the US, not because they have to.  If you think that the federal government can turn itself into a national government and dictate every single thing to the States and the People, and all are bound to submit to this out-of-control feral entity, then you are plain nuts.

Setting up your own strawman, I see.  I don't advocate that.  I advocate replacing the government and saving the system rather than leaving it.  Leaving it is plain nuts.  The last time it was a disaster and this time whatever came out the other side would be worse than what came in.

114 The Social Contract between government and the governed takes two sides acting in good faith. Where no good faith exists, there is no contract.

If I could figure out how to put that in 18 point, I would.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 11, 2010 04:47 PM

That, Herr M., is why I advocate a peaceful mass descent upon D.C., complete with making citizen's arrests of everyone from Osama Obama to the most junior crokked member of the House.

That's not "armchair Rambo"-ism. I see it as a last attempt to excise the cancer that is wrecking the USA while operating within the existing structure, e.g. the Constitution.

I've been around long enough to have little faith that the '10 elections -- particularly in an era when voter intimidation is ignored, vote fraud is rampant, and unions and foreign sources are allowed to spread their treasonous filth -- can resolve the issues that divide us. Nor do I think they'll even constitute a good start to resolution.

Quite frankly, I also fear the upcoming lame-duck Congress.

If someone knows a better way, I'm ready to hear it.

115 103 The ObamaAyers plan is to get you racist teabaggers all riled up

Yeah, that was pretty much JEA's reasoning behind his #111.

116   118 I think the USA can stand a little Balkanization. The Balkans had their little slap fight and now they produce some of the finest human trafficking ,arms dealing, drug smuggling, and pornography in the world.

Posted by: sifty at August 11, 2010 04:56 PM (w/6fp)

THIS

117

119 I have my ideas on a solution, but I'm not talking.

I believe in peace, love, happiness, and rainbows...double one.

118 1.  There won't be a thing D.C. could do about it

2.  The treasury would lose its ability to borrow

3.  The redistributionist transfer payments would stop

4.  The cities would go up in riots

That would be the end of the world as we know it. a massive improvement.

119 And while a lot of Morons contemplate 'armed" conflict I will also offer this little nugget from one of the many many books I have read regarding that time frame.

Before the war South Carolina was the richest State in the union by far. The per-capita wealth of South Carolina was more than double the next closest State, and the total wealth of South Carolina was larger than the next ten States combined.

After the war and occupation, South Carolina was probably the poorest State in the Union and has not recovered to this day. In fact, the South as a whole did not start to recover financially until the 1960s but then LBJ fixed that for everyone.

But, I personally don't think that if we had 13 or more States who decided to secede and form a more "conservative" union that war would be involved this time. I have been predicting the "balkinization" of the U.S. into multiple parts for a long time.

The North East would become one, the South east would become another with maybe some of the Midwest States added this time, the West coast would become one, and what ever is left over would the last.

120 Last time the south seceded they did it because Lincoln was elected.

You have reached the end of the internet.  Please collect your commemorative mug at the exit.

121

118 [on American Balkanisation] The Balkans had their little slap fight and now they produce some of the finest human trafficking ,arms dealing, drug smuggling, and pornography in the world.

I wasn't aware that Southern California had seceded already...

122
In a case such as that you would be giving the federal government the right to declare martial law and call up a draft, and invoke NATO and other allies' aid.

Should this administration ever declare martial law, it's over as far as I am concerned.  At that point, I will start acting only for myself and for mine.

123 The violence isn't going to start on the Right; it will start in the cities. When the SSI checks stop coming, there will be angry, flash mobs. The police won't drop the hammer, so the lawlessness will grow. The Red States are going to start tying the Feds up in Court on everything that comes out of the Obama administration and the people will get used to a lack of Federal "service". Then they will stop paying taxes, maybe a few states start seizing gas tax receipts, then it starts to get ugly. Article 5 convention talk will get hot.

124 "Secession is unconstitutional."

So lets not call it that.  Kind of like Kennedy calling a blockade a quarantine.

Call it a "BeltwayEctomy."   Toss in a "MassachusettsEctomy" for good measure.

125

133 Maybe not.

Let's all see what happens after Nov. 2 -- sometimes things look really dark before they take a change for the better, no?

126 "...complete with making citizen's arrests of everyone from Osama Obama to the most junior crokked member of the House." And where, pray tell, are you going to bring your "citizen's prisoners". To the Mall for a public flogging?

127

Posted by: MrScribbler at August 11, 2010 05:01 PM (Ulu3i)

Peaceful protest is not "armchair Rambo-ism" and you might be right that that would work.  Can you imagine the look on the Wookie's face when mere commoners come in and start taking little plastic helicopters from the gift shop for themselves?

128 What, then, for the other legs of our adversaries--the press establishment, the entrenched 'educational' interests, and the unions?  Government is literally half or less of the problem.

Find me a solution that doesn't create endless conflict--or capitulate--and we'll talk.
Posted by: DarkLordOfTheIntarWebs at August 11, 2010 04:57 PM

To use the overused "snake" analogy: cut off the head, and the snake dies.

Take away their treasonous little heroes, and people will be too busy rebuilding the country -- and reaping the benefits of the rebuilding -- to give a damn what the media say.

Take away the bottomless pot o' gold from unions, educational interests' and the rest of the leeches, and they'll wither away and die.

Naturally, I absolutely do not advocate beheading anyone. Taking away their power would be a far crueler fate, anyway.

129 127 More a case of reserving judgment and holding my tongue.  (I know friends who work for some very interesting agencies.  Gives you perspective on the illusion of privacy on the Internet; no point being a target if you don't have to.)

I don't like going off half-cocked on a half-baked idea; that's what got us here, no?  We need a good, realistic roadmap out, and that means we have to chart the terrain and assess what we have to work with first.  We should have been doing that all along, but since we're only really waking up now, we need to get on top of it instead of just roaring and charging.

130 134 That's pretty much the way I see it, except maybe not how you've got the ending playing out.

131 And where, pray tell, are you going to bring your "citizen's prisoners".

To Man Mecca in lower Manhattan.  Then we use them in the catapults to chip away at the walls of the Cordoba Commemorative Child Rape and Beheading Centre.

132
One other thing.  Bad stuff that happens here doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Does anyone here think that an asshole like Bloomberg, Daley, Villaraigoso, or Newsome would even hesitate to align with an outside power if SHTF at the federal level and their cities were faced with the very real concern of starvation and mass riots?

133 Do you think they wouldn't?

Posted by: unknown jane

I don't think they would.

First, there are more recent examples of secession - for example, the Soviet Union dissolved due to it's member states leaving it, and besides a couple dozen killed in the first state (Lithuania), it was done peaceably. If Quebec voted itself out of Canada, would they go to war? No.

In the American civil war, the North so overpowered the South that military force seemed an easy option - today that is not the case, nor would the blue states have popular approval to send their sons to die to force the red states into a union they don't want to be in. Even if they wanted too, the blue states are already broke, where will they get the wherewithal to fund a war that would last years? The military option simply does not make sense.

134 139 You're leaving the nests intact.  Those are the places the problem bred and festered before moving into government; if you leave them in place, it will just come back.

To cut off the head of the beast, first  you have to find the head.  Then you have to make sure you're not fighting a hydra...

135 If you want to see an uprising, just watch what would happen if millions of people stopped getting their welfare checks and food stamps. That's truly when the shit would hit the fan.

LOL, that is what I have been saying on this blog for a while. When the federal government finally runs out of other people's money that is how the system will collapse.

At that point it is not a revolution or a civil war. There will be no government and it will be mass anarchy. The government cheese in all the "Detroits" of the country will cease. What ever foodstuffs in those cities there are will be quickly consumed then the rioting and cannibalism will ensue.

That will spread to the suburbs as supermarkets and "big screen TV stores" are looted. At this time neighborhoods will arm themselves and commence killing on a wholesale scale.

The U.S. will go down in a frenzy of mass killings and fire. No city over a population of 30,000 will remain standing. 

136 I think you're wrong here, Maet.  We're not Europeans, and that kind of shit won't be tolerated by Americans.  "routine violent protests with people killed by the police" would be met with burning city halls.  Well, not really, because city administration types would shit down their legs and put an immediate stop to it.  Likewise, I don't think our police forces would be into it.  There just isn't the respect for the State in America as there is in Europe, and that's a good thing.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 11, 2010 04:53 PM (lN56Y)

Well I'm not saying it would become the regular American status quo. I'm saying that even the low grade violence that's tolerated in Europe would be enough to put the US government into crisis mode. Our society really isn't set up for it and most people would regard it as an un-American situation.

137 Southern Cal seceded from reality long ago.

138

You old geezers always talk revolution and sessession when you haven't had your afternoon naps.

Go get into your jammies and get into bed. I'll be coming to give you your meds in 10 minutes ...., and for you, progressoverpeace, an extra dose of Imodium AD.

139 Does anyone here think that an asshole like Bloomberg, Daley, Villaraigoso, or Newsome would even hesitate to align with an outside power

Instant lamp-posting.  No question.  And any country that sent outside forces here would get them all back in bags and have three generations of Americans hating their fucking guts so badly that their countries couldn't sell a piece of ass on a troop ship.  National suicide for a foreign nation to intervene.

140 -->It's not a strawman.  Last time the south seceded they did it because Lincoln was elected.  Are you saying that was illegal, or are you saying they had the right to leave?  If you are, then you are saying they had the right to leave because they didn't like the president.  That seems pretty close to any reason to me.

That was far from "any reason" and the confederate states had every right to secede.  I wrote about this, above, and pointed out that the fedearl government FORCED them to amend their State Constitutions to disallow secession from the Union.  Why did the federal government do that if secession was "federally illegal"?

That said, I presented the reason that States could cite, today, as to why the Constitution has been violated and trashed by the feral government (including the judiciary, which is as bad, if not worse, than the Executive and Legislative).

-->Setting up your own strawman, I see.  I don't advocate that.  I advocate replacing the government and saving the system rather than leaving it. 

A nice sentiment, but you do understand that this might not be possible?  Right?  There is certain damage that is done to complex systems that cannot be undone or fixed.

-->Leaving it is plain nuts.  The last time it was a disaster and this time whatever came out the other side would be worse than what came in.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 05:00 PM (FkKjr)

I disagree.  If anyone cares about the continuation of the American creed (the only truly important part of America) and they realize that the United States can no longer serve as the carrier and defender of that creed, then there is little alternative but to set up a nation that is based on the American creed.  That is what will likely emerge and what is needed. 

The United States has been dragged too far from "America".  You may not like that idea, but you now live in a nation that can watch its Presidential candidates go campaign all around the world (for what reason, who could possibly know) and that refuses to even acknowledge that American sovereignty exists.  The feral government is allying with foreign enemies against American States.  The feral government is encouraging States to boycott other States.  The whole purpose of the federal government existing, domestically, was to stop such inter-state problems.

It's nice that you think a few elections and everythign will be fixed, but I think, if you sit by yourself and look at all that has happened and every bit of American tradition that has been trampled and destroyed, you'll realize that there are many things that will not just "return to normal".

141 I plan to go to Dairy Queen and protect all the Blizzards, especially the Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ones.  Count on me morons.

142 Secession is not the way the go. Dissolution is.

143 Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 11, 2010 05:09 PM

Hell, I don't care where we stash 'em (to answer Lincolntf's question).

Make a deal with the Cubans and plunk 'em on the Isle of Pines or in Gitmo. Let minor-league drug users who got popped for smoking a blunt go home early. Commandeer all the empty houses and buildings in Detroit. Whatevs.

We're only talking about 600-700 people total.

Or we could build a sealed wall around Washington, air-drop food and piles of Monopoly money once in a while, and let them think they still have power.

144 Seems to me, the peaceful way out it, of course, a corrective election that is followed through by the newly elected.

Failing that, the next best step is widespread refusal to pay any federal income taxes.

But, it really comes down to the states being willing to protect their citizens from the federal government. And the states don't want to do that so much now because of all the free money from Uncle Sam.

(But, US just told Texas they're gonna stop sending money over the textbook issue and Texas has already fired back on another front saying they're not going to enforce certain federal laws. Keep an eye on things there, if any state would do something I'd place my money on Texas.)

145 Well I'm not saying it would become the regular American status quo. I'm saying that even the low grade violence that's tolerated in Europe would be enough to put the US government into crisis mode. Our society really isn't set up for it and most people would regard it as an un-American situation.

OK.  Understood better now.

146 The U.S. will go down in a frenzy of mass killings and fire. No city over a population of 30,000 will remain standing. 

Posted by: Vic at August 11, 2010 05:11 PM (/jbAw)

Memo to self: move to smaller city...

147 Or we could build a sealed wall around Washington, air-drop food and piles of Monopoly money once in a while, and let them think they still have power.

Sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

148 I predict that real estate brochures will start listing "intersecting fields of fire" and "100ft kill zone" as selling points for houses in California in the next three years.

149 Maybe we could just vote.

150

140  Well, I'm just a little person, and my opinions and thoughts on the matter don't really, matter.

And you're right about going off half cocked...that's exactly the wrong thing to do.  However, a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum and all points in between are getting very restless and emotional -- going off half cocked is probably going to be the order of the day unless we get lucky.

151 I always wondered why suburbs surrounded the cities.

152 All America needs is a real leader to look into the camera and tell the freeloaders that the ride is over and the ticket price is due.

153 New post in a very similar vein up now.

154 and for you, progressoverpeace, an extra dose of Imodium AD.

Posted by: Nursing Home nurses at August 11, 2010 05:11 PM (sYrWB)

LOL.  I'll be waiting ... without my teeth.  Send me an HPOA nurse, if you could.

155 I'm wouldn't be surprised by a preference cascade against complying with the tax code. Not outright refusal but widespread evasion, Italian style. The confirmation of Geithner pretty much confirmed that tax evasion is not considered a big deal by the ruling elite. The right decides that it's entirely moral to avoid throwing more money down the Washington rathole and the left decides they're not paying if those rich bastards on the right aren't going to pay their fair share.

156 160 Maybe we could just vote.

Posted by: wHodat at August 11, 2010 05:18 PM (+sBB4)

Oh sure, you just had to pull out the hose and start squirting the two dogs just when they started really getting after it.

157 wHodat:  Yeah, I'm kinda hoping that works.  But it never hurts to have robust contingency plans.

And if you get between me and the Heath bar Blizzards, so help me, There.  Will.  Be.  Blood.

^{No, not really}

158 163 Be kinda hard to put 'em in the cities.  Because, y'know, there's stuff already there.

159

LOL.  I'll be waiting ... without my teeth.  Send me an HPOA nurse, if you could.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 11, 2010 05:21 PM (Qp4DT)

That is the same Palin hating troll that was here this morning on the Palin thread.

160

That is the same Palin hating troll that was here this morning on the Palin thread.

Posted by: Vic at August 11, 2010 05:25 PM (/jbAw)

Thanks, Vic.  I must have missed the fun.  I thought the nursing home comment was funny, though.

161 Remember, remember, come this November
The festering heat they have brought
‘Tis no reason why their assault on Americans
Should ever be forgiven, or forgot

All you tyrants who lord over us
You who give us the smack of your rod
Soon now we will rend you to bits
We will give you the Judgment of God!

If each man and woman does what they must
The overreaching tyrants will be turned into dust
Soon now our Lady of Justice will possess them in her breathtaking, hair raising bed
She will tingle each spine as she captures each head!

Soon now they gaze on our goddess of justice
With her shimmering, glimmering blade
As she kisses these tyrants
She will sing them a last serenade

162 Posted by: progressoverpeace at August 11, 2010 05:29 PM

Where's MY HPOA nurse?

P.S.: keep yours the hell away from whiteboards, dude.

163 Secession is about as "illegal" as is suicide - like tell it to the deadmen.

164 That was far from "any reason" and the confederate states had every right to secede.

What's the point of having a Union if you can leave if you don't like the president who won?  As for the amending of the State Constitutions, those states thought they had the right to secede.  It's doubtful they would have suddenly found they were wrong after losing the war.  So putting in amendments to their state constitution was a way to make it impossible to them.  The north never thought it waged an illegal war.

I disagree.  If anyone cares about the continuation of the American creed (the only truly important part of America) and they realize that the United States can no longer serve as the carrier and defender of that creed, then there is little alternative but to set up a nation that is based on the American creed.  That is what will likely emerge and what is needed. 

No, it probably won't.  What will happen is a Confederacy will be set up with a weak central government.  The first time there is a disagreement, one state or multiple states will leave it, since they have the right to secede.  Foreign actors will start to meddle with and influence individual states.  The southwest will probably be gobbled up by Mexico at some point.

165

That is the same Palin hating troll that was here this morning on the Palin thread.

Posted by: Vic at August 11, 2010 05:25 PM (/jbAw)

 

Naw, Vic, you liar, this is the troll that kicked your fat, useless ass around the block this morning.

 

166

What's the point of having a Union

The states are sovereign, they delegated certain powers, as detailed in the Constitution, to the federal government. The federal government is to serve the states, not the states having to bow down to whatever usurpation the federal government arrogates to itself. If the federal governenment breaks the contract of the consitution, any state or collection of states has every right to leave the union - it's the final check and balance built into the nation.

The southwest will probably be gobbled up by Mexico at some point.

Mexico cannot control it's own territory - and just wait and see what happens if the Mexican army sets foot in Texas.

167

(Psssst, munchkin Toby won't admit it, but he's one of my biggest little fans.)

 

168 I suggest that when it becomes inevitable that California will default on its debt, Congress pass a law so that any state that defaults on debt or receives a Federal payment to prevent that default, shall forfeit their statehood and revert to Territory status.  Then the state's legislature will be dissolved, the governor replaced with a  territorial governor appointed by the President.  However, I hope it happens after Teh One is replaced with a conservative. 

169 Mexico cannot control it's own territory - and just wait and see what happens if the Mexican army sets foot in Texas.

Before or after half of Texas secedes from the state over a disagreement?  Or does secession not apply to counties for some arbitrary reason?

170 Bevel, The northern counties of Virginia refused to go along with Secession.  RE Lee failed to bring them to heel.  Hence we have West Virginia.

171

Or does secession not apply to counties for some arbitrary reason?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 06:54 PM

 Article IV, Section 3: “…no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

172 Bevel, The northern counties of Virginia refused to go along with Secession.  RE Lee failed to bring them to heel.  Hence we have West Virginia.

And so the ultimate plan of the secessionists is for the United States to look like medieval Germany.  Sounds like it'll be a terrible mess, full of tyrannous princes and foreign meddling.

 Article IV, Section 3: “…no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

So after the Union is dissolved and you've won the war, you'll trot out Article IV, Section 3?  It won't apply anymore.

173

So after the Union is dissolved and you've won the war, you'll trot out Article IV, Section 3?  It won't apply anymore.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010

No one is talking about dissolving the union: if the red states left the union, the union (United States of America) would still exist, just some states fewer. Another union would form (likely the Republic of America), the red states which would have a new/old Constitution. Two nations, which we already are in all but names. If a county wanted to leave from the blue state union, it would have to follow that Constitution, in a red state theirs.

174 Another union would form (likely the Republic of America), the red states which would have a new/old Constitution.

And what's to stop that country from splitting up again?  There will be disagreements in the future.

Two nations, which we already are in all but names.

This isn't a regional divide.  In large urban areas, the population is blue.  In rural and suburban areas, the population is red.  This is true all across the country, and in our winner take all system, the proportion of rural vs. urban is what determines red or blue.  Breaking things up by states would shunt massive amounts of people who didn't want to be in a different country into a different one.

175

And what's to stop that country from splitting up again?  There will be disagreements in the future.

A federal government that adhered to it's Constitution. It's not up to the states to stay in a union regardless of whatever dictatorial power the central government arrogates to itself, it's up to the federal government to stay within the bounds agreed to.

Here's a question: where do you draw the line? What exactly does the federal government have to do, to justify states leaving the union, if anything?

176 A federal government that adhered to it's Constitution. It's not up to the states to stay in a union regardless of whatever dictatorial power the central government arrogates to itself, it's up to the federal government to stay within the bounds agreed to.

Except the South seceded when the president they didn't want to win won.  That's not a valid reason.  In the future, your yardstick will be different from a state that tries to secede because it lost a vote in the new-congress.

Here's a question: where do you draw the line? What exactly does the federal government have to do, to justify states leaving the union, if anything?

We are one country.  If the Federal government has serious problems (ignoring elections, imposing taxes by executive decree, etc), then the Federal government - all of it- needs to be replaced for everybody.

177

If the Federal government has serious problems (ignoring elections, imposing taxes by executive decree, etc), then the Federal government - all of it- needs to be replaced for everybody.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 07:58 PM

What if the blue states were just fine with "ignoring elections, imposing taxes by executive decree, etc", then no one can leave? Texas and Alaska must necessarily be forced into a socialist nanny state because Massachusetts and California want to be in one and are willing to overlook manifest constitutional violations in order to get that?

178 What if the blue states were just fine with "ignoring elections, imposing taxes by executive decree, etc", then no one can leave? Texas and Alaska must necessarily be forced into a socialist nanny state because Massachusetts and California want to be in one and are willing to overlook manifest constitutional violations in order to get that?

Thinking in terms of states isn't accurate anymore.  Massachusetts and California have lots of people who have problems with this model, just as lots of people in Texas love it. Somewhere around 36% of MA voters voted for McCain in 2008.  Obama gathered 43% of the vote in Texas.  Many states in the union are close to a 50-50 divide.

Speaking of which, what is the proper form for Secession?  Does the state legislature decide?  Referendum?  Governor?  Is it mentioned in the State Constitution anywhere?

179 Except the South seceded when the president they didn't want to win won.  That's not a valid reason.

You need to visit your local public library and check out a number of books related to the history from about 1830 on to 1861. Make sure and get them by different authors so one opinion doesn't overly taint the truth.

Your interpretation of what went on and the South's "reasons" are woefully inadequate and wrong.

That is all I am going to post on this as I am not disposed to argue the point.  

180
You need to visit your local public library and check out a number of books related to the history from about 1830 on to 1861. Make sure and get them by different authors so one opinion doesn't overly taint the truth.

I'm familiar with the historical period and the South's grievances.  I'm also familiar with the event immediately preceding the South's secession.

Your interpretation of what went on and the South's "reasons" are woefully inadequate and wrong.

That is all I am going to post on this as I am not disposed to argue the point.

Then I shall say I am right and leave it at that.

181

Thinking in terms of states isn't accurate anymore.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 .

States were admitted to the union as a whole, states would leave the union in the same way. States were admitted to the union in a territory-wide referendum, they would vote to leave the union in the same way. Just as those who voted against joining the union had to accept the results, those who want to stay in the union would also. The 9th and 10th amendments give the state the power to leave the union and form a new one, just as the Declaration of Independence says:

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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."

The government exists to safeguard our rights, not for us to slavishly obey it, when that government or any government fails in that task, we the people have a right to form a new one. If people from one state want to leave and do just that, there is nothing legally wrong with that, no power granted to the federal government can stop them.

182

@14: "Secession is unconstitutional"

Yes, unless it succeeds; then it is perfectly valid.

Sort of like the exchange from Shogun (paraphrased, don't remember the exact quotes)

Toranaga: You [the English] are rebelling against your liege lord [the Spanish]?  That is unforgivable!

Blackthorn: There are mitigating circumstances...

Toranaga: No! Rebellion against one's liege lord is always wrong.

Blackthorn: But what if we win?

Toranaga: Ah...you have just named the one mitigating cirumstance. 

 

183

@61: "At some point Secession is not an option.  Suppose one county in Georgia doesn't want to secede from the Union.  What then?  Does it get to stay?  Suppose one city in that county wants to secede?  Where does it end?"

So....you support folding West Virginia back into Virigina then, right?

184
Rebar-

I think we are going to argue in circles on this point.  Thinking about states seceding or not doesn't work because this isn't about regions, it's about urban vs. rural.

185

Then I shall say I am right and leave it at that.

 

Don't pat yourself on your back. Since Vicky is always wrong, Winnie The Poo would have prevailed in that argument, too.

186 I think we are going to argue in circles on this point.  Thinking about states seceding or not doesn't work because this isn't about regions, it's about urban vs. rural.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at August 11, 2010 09:20 PM

Simply put, states are sovereign - counties and lower are not. If and when states secede from the union, which I think is inevitable - people will be caught in the "wrong" states. But that's not the fault of the secessionist state, that's the fault of the federal government exceeding it's constitutional mandates to the point of forcing states to that "nuclear option".

Because the reality is - the blue state urban leftists are forcing their socialism down the throats of not just the rural communities within their states, but the union as a whole. Progressives are attacking the very notion of federalism and state sovereignty for exactly that reason.

It's the classic "lifeboat" question - do you let everyone onto the lifeboat and have everyone drown because it's too crowded, or do you cut some people loose so that at least some survive? Secession gives the states that have not voted for the progressive agenda a chance at freedom, if conservatives are caught in blue states is a shame, but at least they have a place to go to. To deny the right to secede is to doom everyone.

187 Hey is this the thread where there's talk of armed parties and chasing down youngsters for food? "long shear of light and then a series of low concussions” "That boy looks hungry"

188 `¡Ä,,¡Ä
(;`･¦Ø･ ¡¡｡･ﾟ･¡Ð)
/¡¡ £ï©¥©c¥Ë¥Ë¥Õ))
¤·©`-£Ê