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.
Let me first say, I don't want a revolution, I would like a voluntary and permanent reduction of government. But I get really irritated with the notion that a state isn't allowed to secede from this country, and anyone who advocates such would be calling for the deaths of our fellow Americans. I don't believe many Americans really understand the basics behind the American Revolutionary war, and much of the world history since then.
If there was a revolution, all people would have three options. To join the revolt, to remain neutral, or defend the current government. The government will of course desire to defend itself against its own demise, and will order the people it employs to defend it. This has always been the case, and it happened this way in the American Revolution and the civil war.
Do you believe the Americans who were part of the British military that joined the American revolution and later killed many of their own countrymen were somehow evil people who "threatened and killed federal workers"? The truth is, everyone has to take a side, if the US military is called up to quell an insurrection, and they follow that order, they are effectively taking a side. They made that choice.
When we talk about a revolution, we aren't discussing someone like Timothy McVeigh who bombs a federal institution with the intent to kill as many federal employees as possible. More likely than not, it would be more a political secession movement. No one is advocating the slaughter of federal employees, but if federal troops are called up to quell the uprising, any federal troop or other enforcement personnel(like ATF) who effectively "take a side" are voluntarily putting themselves at risk.
If Texas decides to secede from this country, it is guaranteed that the United States government will march into Austin, with the intent to stop the revolution. That is just how it is going to be.
The question really comes down to, at what point should a state be allowed to secede? We can talk about how it was right for this country to secede from Britain on the pretense that there was "taxation without representation". Which is a great historical argument. But is there any other reasons for secession? In the civil war the south had representation, but did they really feel represented? They wanted to secede and were denied, conquered, and humiliated.
In more modern times we can talk about Yugoslavia. Where us Americans supported the dissolution of Yugoslavia, and blocked the "federal governments(which was overwhelmingly controlled by Serbia)" insistence to hold the country together. Then the US, along with the UN chose how to carve that country up.
Did the individual states of Yugoslavia have "representation"? Of course they did, they just felt they would be better off separated, and we agreed and defended them.
We can look at another country, Canada. In Quebec, which is a French-speaking area that is culturally distinct, there has been a desire for sovereignty for the past 40 years. Are they also not being represented? Of course they are. But the Quebecans don't believe the English-speaking remainder of Canada has its best interests in mind.
In the United States we have states that are very culturally distinct, regardless of common languages. In the state of Utah, which is heavily controlled by the mormons, do they feel that they are being represented by this government? If every single person in the state of Utah voted against the healthcare plan, or welfare, or higher taxes, or environmental legislation, and it gets passed anyway. Do the citizens of Utah really feel represented? Or are they just being bullied by the remainder of this country? If the entire state of California voted against the Iraq War. Does California feel represented when thousands of their men and women are sent overseas to become casualties in a war that should never have happened?
Of course we can sit around and talk about how Bush had control of the country and how he forced his neo-con agenda on all of us Americans, and how the people talking revolution now were silent back then. But that doesn't fix the problem.
When Bush passed his patriot act, no child left behind, created the department of homeland defense, imprisoned people without cause. The conservatives were silent because they knew by complaining about "their guy", all that would happen is increase the speed at which the liberals would regain power. Because in truth, all that happens in this country is a constant swing from right to left and back again. The conservatives don't want a real revolution right now, they merely want the liberals to be called out and to look bad, because they know in a few years, they will be back in power. And all the liberals right now that are talking about how terrible it is that these libertarian groups are calling for a revolution, will again be complaining about how the new Republicans are oppressive dictators abridging personal liberties.
I don't believe in a revolution because I don't want to change the original constitution, but I believe in having options. When the federal government controls the entire country, we have no options. What can the people of Utah do when the federal government supports and funds abortions and forces the people of Utah to accept gay marriage. What do the people of Utah do when they are taxed and/or fined for the new mandatory healthcare system? What options do they have? None.
If Bush and his cronies had gotten their way, they would have passed an amendment to the consitution making marriage only between a man and a woman. So what options would the gay men and women of Massachusetts had if they wanted to seek marriage? None.
The system our constitution created and guaranteed, was a system that allowed each state to control its own destiny. The federal government was merely an institution to protect and defend the sovereignty of our nation, and to create and defend the basic inalienable rights of men. It was not meant to dictate the lives of its inhabitants. The founding fathers would be absolutely ashamed of what this federal controlled nanny-state has become. In fact Thomas Jefferson wanted to break up the "new" states of this country into very small pieces, so they could be more representative of their people, but the larger states were afraid that the small states would have too much power in congress(the senate).
Any man who doesn't believe in the basic tenets of Libertarianism. Is a man who doesn't believe in freedom at all, he believes that his way of life should be forced down the throats of all other men. If nothing else, we should be allowed to vote with our feet. If we really hate gay marriage so much, then we shouldn't live in Boston or Los Angeles. If we want a nanny-state, we should move to California.
The path to hell is paved by good intentions.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-11-2010 at 12:07 AM..
Daniel Webster argued that the compact which established the United States was one made between the national government and The People. If a state would like to secede then that decision should be put to the people, not simply those of the state, to decide. Such an argument is consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).
As a representative democracy, a revolution is nothing more than the revolt of some of the people against the body politic, conducted as a result of a minority attempting to impose its will over the democratic rights of the majority. As a general rules, revolutions do not take place in democratic societies, counter-revolutions however often do. In the U.S. there is no monarchy, no dictatorship, no ruling oligarchy, just the democratic body of the The People.
The States are waking up to the problem of the Federal government. It looks like New Hampshire is taking it a step further. Also look that 38 States have the 10th Amendment in the works.
Daniel Webster argued that the compact which established the United States was one made between the national government and The People. If a state would like to secede then that decision should be put to the people, not simply those of the state, to decide. Such an argument is consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).
As a representative democracy, a revolution is nothing more than the revolt of some of the people against the body politic, conducted as a result of a minority attempting to impose its will over the democratic rights of the majority. As a general rules, revolutions do not take place in democratic societies, counter-revolutions however often do. In the U.S. there is no monarchy, no dictatorship, no ruling oligarchy, just the democratic body of the The People.
Revolutions do take place in democratic societies, and frequently. Democracies are not free from corruption and control of politics through special-interests. Most Americans did not want to secede from Britain.
We shouldn't discuss a judgement by the supreme court four years after the civil war as the basis for the constitutionality of secession. It wasn't as if it was passed unanimously. The vote was 5-3 with one person refusing to vote(probably making it a 5-4 vote).
In fact, that same supreme court later upheld the legality of West Virginia to secede from Virginia, which was never authorized by the Virginia legislature. Yet, the reason secession from the United States is unconstitutional is because the states don't have consent of this countries legislature(and therefore the people). Sound ridiculous? Much of the supreme courts verdicts tend to be extremely politically motivated, then and now. Everyone knew at the time that there was no legal basis to block secession, the problem with secession is that by secession being legal, it would fundamentally destroy the very idea of a nation.
This is what James Buchanan said in his last state of the union address.
"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish."
It isn't that is illegal, it is that we want it to be illegal. The constitution can be interpreted anyway we see fit. In fact FDR became angry because his new deal programs were constantly being judged to be unconstitutional. That he threatened to pass an amendment to change the maximum number of federal judges, so he could pack the courts with liberal judges that would deem his programs as constitutional.
The supreme court is not some infallible organization, is it made up of people just like you and me. And if you wonder why the Republicans were so worried about the whole "empathy" comment by Obama about his supreme court appointees. You can base it on the idea that, if you packed the courts right now with left-wing judges, they will interpret the second amendment as only the rights of militias to own firearms. And then we can really see this whole country of ours fall into chaos.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-11-2010 at 02:38 AM..
The States are waking up to the problem of the Federal government. It looks like New Hampshire is taking it a step further. Also look that 38 States have the 10th Amendment in the works.
I don't believe most Americans even know what the tenth amendment is. Or more importantly, what it means.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So what does the tenth amendment mean? Or more importantly, what definition would our founding fathers give for the 10th amendment? Well lets look a little closer. James Madison is accurately called "the father of our constitution". And Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence. These two very important men wrote the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.
In the Virginian resolution James Madison, the father of the constitution wrote this...
"That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
And in the Kentucky resolution Thomas Jefferson wrote this....
“The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, all remaining powers for their own self-government.”
These two men were the foundation for the understanding that states had rights, given to them by the 10th amendment of our constitution. But in modern society, as well in the civil war crisis, any federal law to be deemed constitutional, all that is required is to stack the supreme court with liberal judges, and bam, anything is constitutional.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-11-2010 at 11:18 AM..
In the United States we have states that are very culturally distinct, regardless of common languages. In the state of Utah, which is heavily controlled by the mormons, do they feel that they are being represented by this government? If every single person in the state of Utah voted against the healthcare plan, or welfare, or higher taxes, or environmental legislation, and it gets passed anyway. Do the citizens of Utah really feel represented? Or are they just being bullied by the remainder of this country? If the entire state of California voted against the Iraq War. Does California feel represented when thousands of their men and women are sent overseas to become casualties in a war that should never have happened?
Speaking for the state of Utah, No. I don't feel bullied or controlled by Mormons. I feel more free here than California, and even Arizona in some respects (I've lived in all three). The only stupid laws here that I disagree with are the liquor laws, and those are being overturned one by one as time goes on.
I see no reason to revolt. Our country is not that bad... yet.
Speaking for the state of Utah, No. I don't feel bullied or controlled by Mormons. I feel more free here than California, and even Arizona in some respects (I've lived in all three). The only stupid laws here that I disagree with are the liquor laws, and those are being overturned one by one as time goes on.
I see no reason to revolt. Our country is not that bad... yet.
You sort of interpreted things in a backwards manner. It isn't that the mormons of Utah are bullying the people, nor should it matter if they were. Because Utah is a state, and if you don't like what Utah is doing, then you can go to another state.
On the contrary, the state of Utah is being bullied by others. The mormons have long had strong community ties, and the church provides much assistance to its members. The church feels like the federal government is the bully, by mandating that Utah must follow all government mandates. Everything from the patriot act, social security, mandatory healthcare through medicare/medicaid(and whatever else we will get soon), the possibility of the citizens of Utah being conscripted to fight some war they disagree with, federal minimum wage laws, affirmative action, environmental mandates, then theres the heavy taxes to pay for all the other government programs.
Of course we can debate if these programs are good or bad, undoubtedly some are very good. But the question isn't if federal government programs are good or not, because there is no clear consensus. The question is, what are the states? Do states have any real rights at all? There are cities within states that are allowed to pass their own laws and collect taxes individually. From an overall standpoint, is there and/or should there be any recognizeable difference between the duties of a state and a county or a city?
If you believe the United States of America is a union that was designed around the idea that the states are not sovereign, and that once they became part of the United States that they are now forced to submit to the general government, then you have no idea on what foundation this country began, and what it still should be.
"The several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government." - Thomas Jefferson
If you do not like how Utah runs its own state, why do you live there? The problem with people like you is, you have this heavy-handed idea that everyone should be like you. And you want to force your ideals on everyone else, yet, you despise when the same is done to you. But you legitimize your own actions on the basis that you believe you are morally just. Do you not believe others also see themselves as morally just?
I say, let states have rights, obviously if a state is doing wrong for their people, and another state is doing right. Then as long as the people are free to move from one state to another, that this will be a self-regulating system of checks and balances. It will become very clear which state is doing better or worse for their people, as people "vote with their feet".
The Mexicans vote with their feet, thats why they come to America. The white Californians are more and more voting with their feet, as there has been an exodus of whites from southern California. Which is a huge part of why California's collapse seems more and more inevitable.
"There has been an exodus of millions of white, native born, third, fourth, fifth generation U.S. citizens from California. The vast majority were white, well educated, upper middle class, registered Republicans and were responsible for filling California tax coffers."
Last edited by Redshadowz; 01-11-2010 at 12:57 PM..
Revolution is only the course of those who try every other option and fail. In a representative democracy that will mean the very minority who wish to impose their will on the silent majority. The will of the majority is served by the represented officials. If the complete will of the people wishes to withdraw then it will. Balancing the will of the majority with the rights of the minority is the point of the checks and balances pursuant in the constitution, and accepting the social contract to stay within the nations boundaries means you must accept the law of the land. People can't decide what laws they wish to follow individually, or even small groups...which is unlimited anarchy.
Revolution is a terrible precedent to set by any group. Once the only way to settle a political dispute is using violence and decimating the opposition force, it will become used every time some one is frustrated they are not getting what they want right now (no matter their majority). You can see major insurrections in Africa to see how well that is going for them, as their population starves in destitution.
Revolution is only the course of those who try every other option and fail. In a representative democracy that will mean the very minority who wish to impose their will on the silent majority. The will of the majority is served by the represented officials. If the complete will of the people wishes to withdraw then it will. Balancing the will of the majority with the rights of the minority is the point of the checks and balances pursuant in the constitution, and accepting the social contract to stay within the nations boundaries means you must accept the law of the land. People can't decide what laws they wish to follow individually, or even small groups...which is unlimited anarchy.
Revolution is a terrible precedent to set by any group. Once the only way to settle a political dispute is using violence and decimating the opposition force, it will become used every time some one is frustrated they are not getting what they want right now (no matter their majority). You can see major insurrections in Africa to see how well that is going for them, as their population starves in destitution.
I understand your concerns, but none of your concerns have an basis on what would happen in the case of a new American Revolution. The revolution would end up replacing the entirety congress with libertarians, and all federal social programs would be repealed as unconstitutional(which they are). And if the states are given back their rights. Then is the minority really trying to impose their will on the people? Of course not. Because the majority of the states still have the power to create their own social programs and other laws in reflection of the inhabitants of their states. California is a great example of how states can have the power to place any laws and social programs they see fit, as long as they have to fund these programs out of their own coffers. Instead of encouraging a system that allows every state to determine whats best for their citizens, we have created a federal behemoth that believes all states should be forced to be like California or Texas(depending on which party is in power), as it expands its control more and more on all the people of the United States.
I am not proposing some radical idea, states rights isn't something that the racist/xenophobic/aversion to paying taxes Republicans thought up just because Obama was elected. States rights were something this country was founded on, because they were terribly afraid that a powerful central government would become corrupted, and its politics hijacked and controlled by small groups of very influential people(special-interests).
This can be seen by the fact that the vast majority of Americans do not support the healthcare bill. So anyone should be able to see that there are obviously many defects in our system.
This country is a republic not a democracy. A democracy is nothing more than mob rule. This country was founded on the idea that the only role of the federal government was to protect the sovereignty of this nation, and to protect the civil liberties of its inhabitants. It is not to help raise your children, to enforce any amount of fairness, to provide everyone with healthcare and a living wage. The only part of our government that was intentionally limited in its scope was the federal government. Which means all laws that are not delegated to the federal government through the constitution are only available to the states themselves.
This system was founded because it was believed that states would be a self-regulating entity. In almost the free-market system of competition. Each state would set the rules for itself, rather than be controlled by Washington DC. But we have decided to move away from that.
If there was another revolution, there is no reason to oppose it. Because it would mean all Americans would become more free than they are today. States like California would not be federally mandated to allow the wire tapping and illegal search and seizure of its citizens or posessions. Nor would the people of Utah be required to pay for a healthcare system they do not want.
Why are people so afraid of a limited federal government? Because then they will no longer be in control of everyone elses lives?
The question you have to ask yourself is, what kind of people become politicians? The types of people that become politicians are not apathetic and neutral individuals. These are people who seek to be in control, to have power over other peoples lives. Why do we enable these politicians to effectively have control of our entire country and everyone in it. These same politicians would like nothing more than to have control of the entire world, through political and economic cercion(remember France? Illegal wars? etc). And people like yourself who believe it is somehow wrong to ever oppose this corrupt system that enables them, is probably because you yourself probably have the same power hungry desire for control that our elected officials have. Which is why you are so interested in politics.
George Washington stepped down after 8 years of being our president, he set the example of someone in power being able to let it go. The only president who has ever tried to hold onto the reigns of power until his death was Franklin D Roosevelt, otherwise known as the liberals demigod. Who led a massive expansion of government, and tried to pass so many acts under his new deal that would be proven unconstitutional.
FDR can thank Hitler, because without WWII, FDR would be remembered as one of the biggest failures in American History. His policies at no time did anything to fix the economy during the great depression. Only America's involvement in WWII brought us out of the great depression.
Daniel Webster argued that the compact which established the United States was one made between the national government and The People. If a state would like to secede then that decision should be put to the people, not simply those of the state, to decide. Such an argument is consistent with the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869).
As a representative democracy, a revolution is nothing more than the revolt of some of the people against the body politic, conducted as a result of a minority attempting to impose its will over the democratic rights of the majority. As a general rules, revolutions do not take place in democratic societies, counter-revolutions however often do. In the U.S. there is no monarchy, no dictatorship, no ruling oligarchy, just the democratic body of the The People.
The 10th Amendment contains no provisions requiring the consent of other states to secede. TX v. White was dicta on the subject of secession, and easily shredded by anyone who has studied our history and read the Constitution.
Democratic countries are not necessarily free. In fact, every democratic country has eventually become tyrannical. Jefferson advocated frequent revolutions to maintain freedom. Others hoped a restrictive constitution would keep the government under control; that hasn't worked.
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.
