1
   

On the Theoretical Issue of Secession from the Union

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 05:01 pm
Perhaps you can explain to what extent checks and balances are not operating. That's a more specific charge than you had previously advanced, although still certainly vague enough.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 05:41 pm
Anon,

If you really expect that human beings should be more moral, ethical, or inclined toward angelic perfection than our fathers, great-grandfathers, or the folks in ancient times who had no compuntion against killing every man, woman, child and sheep of a defeated enemy, I have a bridge I'd like you to consider buying. Men are no better today than in the past, and our children will have every weakness we have ourselves.

The U.S. Constitution is not a wreck, or failure. It doesn't guarantee happiness, or even justice. What it does do is provide a framework to constrain the "wicked" nature of men who get a taste of power and become addicted to it. Argueably, the government of this country today is more just and open than in the past. Racial prejudice still exists, but the Jim Crow laws are gone. Big business is better regulated and restrained from imposing its will on the unwilling than it was as late as 1929. Our currency is sound and the nation generally prosperous. The overbearing and intrusive puerient snooping of J.Edgar are long in the past. The Suprem Court remains independant. The balance between Parties in the Congress is relatively evenly divided. Half of the the Presidents since FDR have been Democrats and half have been Republican (unlike the period from Lincoln to FDR, or from Jackson to Lincoln). Sure the system sure seems to be working well to me, and most of the people in the country.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 06:17 pm
Ash,

My organizational skills have gone to ****, I'm still looking for my links ...

Let's see, check and balances ...

Republican Executive
Republican Senate
Republican House of Representatives
Republican Appointed Supreme Court

All of these severely slanted to the right!!

I see a problem there ... I'll bet you don't ...

I'm working at a clients which doesn't allow me to be real chatty, I'll try to be more concise tonight. Thanks for you patience.

Anon
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 06:18 pm
Setanta wrote:
Perhaps you can explain to what extent checks and balances are not operating. That's a more specific charge than you had previously advanced, although still certainly vague enough.


Like I said to Ash, can't be chatty right now, but that's my answer to checks and balances such as it is for now.

Anon
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Mar, 2006 07:11 pm
You are right, I don't see anything to be alarmed about in the current political climate of the country or our government. One Party or the other will always hold a position of some dominence, and that aint bad.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Apr, 2006 06:50 am
Asherman wrote:
You are right, I don't see anything to be alarmed about in the current political climate of the country or our government. One Party or the other will always hold a position of some dominence, and that aint bad.


Although i mostly agree with this statement, the portion whichi have emphasized is something with which i definitely cannot agree. "The great two party system" is a scam, and one which both parties have vigorously pursued since the end of the Civil War. The nation could benefit from a third or fourth party, and the possibility of coalition legislation in the Congress. Nevertheless, i see no evidence in Anon's list that the system is failing to work as advertised.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 09:35 pm
I can't imagine any region or state actually contemplating succession.

However, if there were, historical precedent tells us that it succession is hardly likely to occur without serious resistance.

But...I don't have that much problem with secession as others might.

If the vast (at least 3/4ths) majority of a state's population wished to succeed, I would be inclined to let them do so peacefully.

100 to 300 years from now if there is a United States, I doubt it will consist, exclusively, of the current 50 states we know as United.

The world can survive without the United States as we know it now, and it may prosper that much more with an expanded US.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 06:22 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
If the vast (at least 3/4ths) majority of a state's population wished to succeed, I would be inclined to let them do so peacefully.


I would have thought that much more than 75% of any state's population wish to succeed. I cannot think that anyone who is not mentally disabled would aspire to being mired in poverty.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:33 am
As mentioned above, States can not legally secede from the Union ... its not permitted under the Constitution and the question has been settled for over a hundred years. Its nonsensical anyway, since no State is ever again likely to aspire to independence.

There are no issues on the horizon as divisive as Slavery the way it existed in the mid-19th century. It was supposed that some mythical State might have such a large Hispanic population that they might want to exchange the stars and stripes for the Mexican eagle.

Even if 3/4 of a States population was Hispanic, not bloody likely, all Hispanics would have to choose secession to arrive at your 3/4. If folks wanted to be part of Mexico, they wouldn't be illegally crossing our borders in their thousands, with additional thousands behind them wishing they too lived in sunny California where the streets are paved with gold and any hard-working dishwasher can rise to own his own restaurant and send his sons to Harvard on the road to becoming a wealthy U.S. Senator with his own jet plane to carry Momma and Papa back to old Sierra Serra for visits with duly impressed poor relatives and disgusted Patrons who live at best in shabby gentility. These ain't the sort of folks who reject the American Dream.

Move on.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 01:06 am
Setanta wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
If the vast (at least 3/4ths) majority of a state's population wished to succeed, I would be inclined to let them do so peacefully.


I would have thought that much more than 75% of any state's population wish to succeed. I cannot think that anyone who is not mentally disabled would aspire to being mired in poverty.


Democratic purists might argue 51% is all it should take.

The mentally disabled have been able to gather together in sufficient numbers to elect Liberals. I don't, at all, find it unimaginable that they might come together to advocate succession.

Afterall, they seem poised to give Congress to the Democrats.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 01:10 am
Now, now ... leave the name calling to those on the other side of the aisle. Their ranting and blantant distortions, lies and infamies uttered against the nation, its People and leaders will do them more harm than anything we on the right might say in return. Just bite your lip and let them have all the hangn'n rope they want.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 01:21 am
Asherman wrote:
Now, now ... leave the name calling to those on the other side of the aisle. Their ranting and blantant distortions, lies and infamies uttered against the nation, its People and leaders will do them more harm than anything we on the right might say in return. Just bite your lip and let them have all the hangn'n rope they want.


Not unreasonable advice, but not any I'll take

I won't suffer idiots gladly (or otherwise).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 06:48 am
Asherman, i am frankly surprised at such evidence of partisan snobbery on your part. There are many people "on your side of the aisle" who indulge hysterical and invidious invective--it is not the exclusive province of any single ideology.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Apr, 2006 10:43 am
Set, the only one I have any chance of controlling, is myself. I try, and I flatter myself that I succeed on most occasions, to behave with civility and good manners, that I keep an open mind and avoid non-thinking words. That isn't a hundred percent effective, but then humans should be forgiven some imperfections ... so long as they try to improve themselves.

There are indeed partisan kooks on both sides of the political aisle, as there is in any human herd. Chauvinism is one of the most difficult of all the "weeds" that choke our garden. (Just couldn't resist mixing those.) Even so it seems to me that the volume and degree of outright hatred heard from the Left far exceeds anything from the Right. I consider those holding conservative and Republican views similar to my own as being near the center of the thought and values held by most Americans. If I am wrong, and the Modal grouping IS represented by the extremists we constantly encounter here, then god save America.

I can not, will not believe that Americans have become so cynical, so suspicious of her elected government, so disrespectful of our sons and daughters in the military, as the Left would have us believe. I believe that the Constitution is alive, and that our institutions continue to function as they were intended to. I believe that with few exceptions, those who choose public service do so with the intent to serve and preserve our government and way of life. In recent times it seems we have made public service almost into a crime, and insist upon doing our best to destroy the character of those still willing to run the gauntlet for office.

It takes a strong person to subject themselves to the sort of public pillory that has come to typify national political office. Anything less than perfection will be dragged out and used to destroy the prospective office-holder's character, and in many cases his whole family, even though it has zip to do with qualification for office. Both you and I know that campaigns in the not so distant past were just as nasty and hotly contested by partisan extremists as any today. Modern communications has just made it more difficult to "tune out" the looneys.

If partisan attacks were as violent and constant at the beginning of the Republic, when we were still figuring out exactly how government would work, it makes me much less critical of Adams support of the Sedition Laws. Of course, we learned from them how dangerous it is to try and enforce truth in politics. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2006 04:07 pm
What state among us is sufficiently self-sufficient to go it alone without needing permissions of others for air travel or ports? Texas and California probably. Alaska possibly. But what state could convince a large majority of its population to finance the purchase of United States properties, facilities, resources etc. established inside the state? Can't you just see Washington and Austin negotiating the purchase of NASA? Or Washington and Sacramento agreeing on a fair price for the Treasure Island Naval Base or the naval shipyards at San Francisco? The logistics are mind boggling.

Many Texans nevertheless live with a notion that they are the one state that can legally secede from the union however, and Texans occasionally circulate an e-mail to remind us. Smile
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2006 04:16 pm
When Clinton was president, it was reversed, the hysterical name calling. In my view, it depends who is in charge of the government which side does the wildest hollering.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2006 04:18 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
When Clinton was president, it was reversed, the hysterical name calling. In my view, it depends who is in charge of the government which side does the wildest hollering.



Bingo . . . right wing hysteria matched anything Asherman alleges about the left . . .
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2006 05:34 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
What state among us is sufficiently self-sufficient to go it alone without needing permissions of others for air travel or ports? Texas and California probably. Alaska possibly. But what state could convince a large majority of its population to finance the purchase of United States properties, facilities, resources etc. established inside the state? Can't you just see Washington and Austin negotiating the purchase of NASA? Or Washington and Sacramento agreeing on a fair price for the Treasure Island Naval Base or the naval shipyards at San Francisco? The logistics are mind boggling.

Many Texans nevertheless live with a notion that they are the one state that can legally secede from the union however, and Texans occasionally circulate an e-mail to remind us. Smile


As I remember, Treasure Island is no longer part of the navy, but been turned over to the State. Same may be true for SF Ship yards, as well as Mare Island near Vallejo.

Anon
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2006 08:16 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
What state among us is sufficiently self-sufficient to go it alone without needing permissions of others for air travel or ports? Texas and California probably. Alaska possibly. But what state could convince a large majority of its population to finance the purchase of United States properties, facilities, resources etc. established inside the state? Can't you just see Washington and Austin negotiating the purchase of NASA? Or Washington and Sacramento agreeing on a fair price for the Treasure Island Naval Base or the naval shipyards at San Francisco? The logistics are mind boggling.

Many Texans nevertheless live with a notion that they are the one state that can legally secede from the union however, and Texans occasionally circulate an e-mail to remind us. Smile


As I remember, Treasure Island is no longer part of the navy, but been turned over to the State. Same may be true for SF Ship yards, as well as Mare Island near Vallejo.

Anon


That may be true. It has been a long time since I've visited any of them.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Apr, 2006 08:20 pm
Texas was informed by Mr Lincoln that secession is out of the question. There is a provision that it could divide itself into two seperate states, but I don't know that that would really be allowed. I don't have the background to know all the details.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 03:07:05