Montana to Secede? (Great Falls, Lincoln: tax, live, costs)

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Timberwolf232

Personally I believe the 2'nd amendment was written as, and was intended to be an individual right.
[snip]
Even our governor (who happens to be a democrat) said "not now, not ever" to the idea of supporting the federal ID system.
[snip]
I hope the feds don't attempt to take away the people's right to bear arms anywhere, not just in DC. If they tried, it would be a sad, sad day with a lot of needless violence I'm afraid.

Here is what most people don't realise about the 2nd Amendment:

It wasn't written with the intent that as an armed citizen you could defend yourself from criminals or from foreign invaders, altho either are useful enough. It was written with the intent that Americans could take up arms against our own government in the event that said government became repressive.

Remember that the Founders had just fought a war to free themselves from an abusive government, and the Bill of Rights specifically addresses those abuses that the Colonies fought against. And the Founders recognised that NO government remains free of corruption or abuse forever, thus someday the citizens might need to take it down. THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is actually about.

As to RealID... know why the Danish gov't doesn't keep such records on its citizens? Because during WW2, the first thing the invading Nazis did was pull records from local police stations, which gave them all the info they needed on Danish citizens.

As to the supposed benefits of this or ANY legislation, consider that whoever YOU regard as the "good guys" won't be in office forever. What if someone you regard as the "bad guys" had control over the same laws?? Komrade!! your papers please!!!

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."

-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Kristynwy

Just wanted to interject a point peacefully in support those who brought up the subject of the Civil war back in the day being fought over states rights, not slavery...

My 11th grade American History teacher (at Great Falls H.S.) was big on digging up "dirt" about famous persons... made the subject more interesting, for sure. Anyway, couple things she brought up: 1) Lincoln was lead by the nose by his advisors, who certainly didn't have the country's best interests at heart, and 2) freeing the slaves wasn't done for the slaves' sake; it was done to deliberately cripple the South's economy, to the benefit of the newly powerful Northern industrialists.

As to Montana feeding at the Federal funding teat... how much of that would be necessary if most of those same tax dollars stayed at home in the first place? How many of our tax dollars are wasted by adminstrative costs as they go from Montana to D.C. and back to Montana? wouldn't it be more cost-effective if the money just stayed home? How bad off would we be, really??

As the old song goes... "got along without ya before I met ya, gonna get along without ya now..."

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by GoingHome2TX

They won't. They can't. The only state with the ability to make session possible is Texas. Not because of the way the law may or may not be written, but because of industry. Texas is able to self contain herself, and did for 9 glorious years. (In terms of industry, in terms of maintaining her borders, that I doubt.) Montana has no resources aside from mining and a limited timber market, and tourism. (Her agriculture could be a respectable resource, but its limited to too narrow of a crop base to make it viable to feed a nation.) They don't pay the bills of a self-sufficent nation. .

Erm... that's what trade is about. We grow beef and wheat. You want to eat bread and meat? We'll trade our considerable grain and beef surplus for these other things we need that you've got. Don't want to trade? I'm sure there are hungry industrialists elsewhere in the world.

[Radek]

Originally Posted by GoingHome2TX

Radek, you seemed to miss the point entirely of my previous statement regarding the smoking ban. It had nothing to do with the possible health issue or anything of the such. It had everything to do with idle threats, and even to an extent the very issue of taxation with out representation and states rights. But, being as how that is very likely of venturing off the scope of this topic as well, I say leave it as it be, dead, buried and decaying. But, understand where I am coming from on the main issue at hand.

I see what you're sayin, your issue is in not backing up their promises/threats.

Originally Posted by Reziac

Erm... that's what trade is about. We grow beef and wheat. You want to eat bread and meat? We'll trade our considerable grain and beef surplus for these other things we need that you've got. Don't want to trade? I'm sure there are hungry industrialists elsewhere in the world.

California grows beef. A lot of other places grow wheat.

We don't have a lot of things... http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_...verview_MT.pdf
Where are we going to get our vegetables?
Fruits?
No one will trade with us. We'd have to be self sufficient until we could get declared legitimate by the international community... Even then, we have no seaports. What are we going to do? Airlift cattle?

[rangerider]

Originally Posted by Reziac

My 11th grade American History teacher (at Great Falls H.S.) was big on digging up "dirt" about famous persons... made the subject more interesting, for sure. Anyway, couple things she brought up: 1) Lincoln was lead by the nose by his advisors, who certainly didn't have the country's best interests at heart, and 2) freeing the slaves wasn't done for the slaves' sake; it was done to deliberately cripple the South's economy, to the benefit of the newly powerful Northern industrialists.

As to Montana feeding at the Federal funding teat... how much of that would be necessary if most of those same tax dollars stayed at home in the first place? How many of our tax dollars are wasted by adminstrative costs as they go from Montana to D.C. and back to Montana? wouldn't it be more cost-effective if the money just stayed home? How bad off would we be, really??

As the old song goes... "got along without ya before I met ya, gonna get along without ya now..."

Interesting...but we've sure got a lot of square miles for what population's here. And that's assuming everyone that is here stayed here. And remained solvent.

I'm a little behind on secession protocol here, so I need to ask the more learned members; hypothetically, if a state decides to secede, how exactly would it proceed? Having looked a little at Alaska and Hawaii's launch into statehood, I understand pretty well how that happens. On the other hand, having watched the breakup of the USSR and Germany it seems there's considerably more problems going the other direction. What happens to all the federal property, including national parks and roads? How about the borders, and military establishments, and airspace?

I mean, it seems like the paperwork would be incredible....

[Reziac]

I don't know, having never seen the articles of statehood, or whatever they're called, but I assume it's in the manner of a contract. Normally, if one party breaches the terms of a contract, the contract is rendered null and void for all parties. So... if the feds don't hold up their end of the contract, why should the states be obliged to do so??

But as rangerider says, there's a lot to consider here. It's not as simple as closing the borders and declaring Montana its own sovereign nation. And a single state isn't likely to get very far. Tho if enough states did so simultaneously, it could conceivably be done.

As to the Constitution, originally it stated LIMITS on Federal power, and ANYTHING it did not specifically prohibit was either allowed, or left to the states to decide. It was NOT a list of "all things not compulsory are forbidden" (to quote the old Soviet jape) even tho that is how people (and gov't) now tend to interpret it.

[Radek]

Well, the Feds are going to want to stop it... so we'd likely be in for a war.
But, the border patrol, being a national service would probably pack up and move... The interstates and such would go into disrepair without federal dollars, and Glacier might have to be turned over to the canadians. Yellowstone would cut out a little bit of the state to be left with Wyoming, and our state troopers and state park service folks would have to take over border patrol duties, etc.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Radek

Well, the Feds are going to want to stop it... so we'd likely be in for a war.
But, the border patrol, being a national service would probably pack up and move... The interstates and such would go into disrepair without federal dollars, and Glacier might have to be turned over to the canadians. Yellowstone would cut out a little bit of the state to be left with Wyoming, and our state troopers and state park service folks would have to take over border patrol duties, etc.

I agree it's probably not practical, and the uproar from the feds would be a sight to behold.

But it makes a good civics exercise regardless ... and maybe get y'all thinking about what we really do and don't need from the feds.

I-90 will still be THE major E-W route through the northern tier states, so either people go around the long way, or they pay a toll at the border. Weight fees on trucks might well cover maintenance. This isn't really very different from apportioned weight fees as applied right now.

Our trivial bit of Yellowstone is a tourist gateway; that makes money. Who says we have to give up our border strips of the park?

Same with Glacier. Parks draw tourists. "Come to Montana, the only independent nation in the midwest!" has a ring of romance that will draw 'em. Given the price of gas, the only tourists we'll see are those who can fling money around with abandon, so what we lose in numbers we make up in sheer spending power.

And speaking of tourists... casinos support Nevada. No reason they can't help support Montana too.

Border patrol -- who cares who goes back and forth between Montana and Alberta anyway? Put the border crossing policy back the way it was, a smile and a wave as you went through and nothing more. No real need to protect borders with the surrounding farm states, either. Put a big tax penalty on the hiring of illegal aliens, if they become a problem.

C'mon, folks, this is your new country too ... how do you want it to work?

[loose cannon]

Originally Posted by grizzfan

I'm sure you noticed that since 9/11 we've had to tightened up things we need to know about people in this country. I'm not sure the technology in the RealID can track you much beyond the airline counter, certainly not while driving your car or going to Wal-Mart.

And you and other posters on this thread might be the ones that have observed that UPS and FEDEX can track a package anywhere in the world, but the Fed's don't know where the illegals are.

I hope you have also noticed that we are in a different era than we were in the 50s in Montana. We are not going back until we can rid the world of Islamic Facism and their associated terrorists. Having carried a military ID card various colors of passports and dog tags for 31 years, I'm not the least bit challenged or threatened by RealID.

You've been brainwashed by the Foxnews neo-cons. Myself and others will still fight for you and hopefully you will come around!

[Reziac]

Relevant to the intial topic:

From The Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Agreed to by Congress November 15, 1777; ratified and in force, March 1, 1781.

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

If later states' admission papers say otherwise, isn't that discrimination??