Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If 3/4 of the states voted to disolve our current form of government and "it's" constitution, then there wouldn't be a whole helluva lot you could do. First off I have no idea where you get the mistaken idea that 3/4ths of the states would want to desolve our government, fantasy on your part? As I said try it and see what happens next, ever heard of martial law? The Feds could easily install it and then you would be right where you probably believe the Demos want to take it, a dictatorship (at least in the short term) and You would have given them the incentive and excuse. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
The states have the collective right, constitutionally, to send everyone on the hill home. It's not secession, it's common sense, and the rights of the states to do.
Difference between a walk out and secession, I seriously doubt that the states would do so collectively and I have doubts the Congressmen and Senators would do it is so directed. Common sense says you fix the problems and not walk away form them, that is the cowards way out of a mess. Secession would be an attempt to destroy this nation as it stands and will be dealt with harshly, as I said, go for it, see what happens next.
The states have the very real power, under the constitution, to be rid of the current government we have. The voters do, the states themselves answer to the people and I can assure you most people would oppose secession, violently if need be.
The states could take this action "to save" the United States, not destroy it.
The only ones that aim to destroy the United States now, are the policy makers in Washington.
You do not save a Nation by tearing it apart, maybe in your world, but not in the real one. We put them there and we can remove them, because your side lost that is too bad, try again next election.
The states also, even today, have the right, under the constitution, to reject sweeping government mandates. Laws that are formulated by the Fed can be leagally rejected by any state that wishes to do so.
Show us proof that they retain such a right, did not work in the civil war and especially will not work now. Sounds like you are hoping they do try, I will stick with my fellow Americans and oppose any such movement. You would lose everything, do keep that in mind.
The pot stores in California, for instance, are free from the DEA because they are legal under California law.
And Bush opposed it and stated that the feds would go after people even if the state did not. The Feds overide the States on a regular basis so do not act as if they can and will not.
Organizations like the DEA, ATF, and very possibly even the IRS can be usurped by the rule of the states if they choose to not go along with them.
Good luck to any that try, might be a very bumpy road.
Under the constitution, the Fed may actually not have the authority over Abortion law, Immigration, Guns, and so on and so forth.
More wishful thinking on your part? I believe the Supreme Court might disagree on your slant on the powers of the Federal government can assert.
Casper
More wishful thinking on your part? I believe the Supreme Court might disagree on your slant on the powers of the Federal government can assert.
Casper
California has already one-uped the DEA with their perfectly legal pot shops/sales.
Sounds to me that you should visit your local library, or the library of congress online.
States like Montana and Texas are fiscally responsible. So much so that surpluses in both states are into the billions ...
Texas and Montana are hardly comparable. For Texas, I can see secession as a diverting thought experiment, for Montana, not so much.
The Montana budget surplus is just about 1 billion. Looking over the last 10 fiscal years or so, doing without the Fed funds would leave Montana 2-4 billions in the red, per year, when taking that billion into account. The tax base is less than one million people. The average income is not that high, either, IIRC.
That's without the added cost of setting up as a nation proper with all of the accoutrements that comes with that status. Defense, diplomats, customs, import/export regulations and enforcement, all that good stuff.
Quote:
Actually, the 45 cents on the dollar being paid, usually goes for Fed mandated programs. Kick the Fed out, and Fed funded mandates go away... so the money wouldn't be missed at all
Unless the Fed mandate is to put the money in a field and burn it, it's money injected into the Montana economy.
California has already one-uped the DEA with their perfectly legal pot shops/sales.
Sounds to me that you should visit your local library, or the library of congress online.
Here is a little reading for you to do, enjoy.
The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption State Law versus Federal- Which rules? [THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.] Any federal law does trump any conflicting state law
Issues like debt collector abuse are researched by millions of consumers each and every day. Commonly, there is confusion as to whether the law to consider is a state or federal law and which one will finally rule. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two. If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.
According to FindLaw, State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and congressional enactments and treaties but as well the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court. While States need not specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or necessarily to give courts authority specially, it violates the supremacy clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature.
According to LectLaw, Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. It has long been established that "a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982). Similarly, we have held that "otherwise valid state laws or court orders cannot stand in the way of a federal court's remedial scheme if the action is essential to enforce the scheme."
Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 862 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 1050 (1993). Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only.
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069 (1987). This is critical because "a federal district court's exercise of discretion to enjoin state political bodies raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of its authority." If Congress expressly provides for exclusive federal dominion or if it expressly provides for concurrent federal-state jurisdiction, the task of the Court is simplified, though, of course, there may still be doubtful areas in which interpretation will be necessary.
Where Congress is silent, however, the Court must itself decide whether the effect of the federal legislation is to oust state jurisdiction. Supremacy Clause: Which rules, State or Federal Statutes?http://www.carreonandassociates.com/articles/supremacy-law.htm
It would begin the first practical step toward secession.
We'll skip over the fact that right wingers who recently cloaked themselves in false patriotism are now, rather stupidly and foolishly, demanding secession because a black man won the election and instead we will simply point out that the constitution gives the Federal government sole authority to issue currency.
What would state currency be backed with? Gold? Real estate?
If you're going to start asking difficult questions like that, you certainly aren't going to make it easy for people to start threads such as this one.
Where gold is concerned, how many states outside of Alaska have any significant gold reserves?
If you're going to start asking difficult questions like that, you certainly aren't going to make it easy for people to start threads such as this one.
Where gold is concerned, how many states outside of Alaska have any significant gold reserves?
Excuse me, but this is a legitamite question. What happens if we get Governor Obama Jr. and he spends us into oblivion again? We'll be right back to where we are now
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
